title: Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 807 -->

### Articulus II. *De uxoricidio.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de uxoricidio. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum uxorem adulteram occidere sit licitum. Secundo, quod sit gravius peccatum, utrum occidere uxorem, an matrem. Tertio, utrum hoc peccatum simpliciter impediat matrimonium.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum liceat uxorem adulteram interficere.*

Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod licitum sit uxorem adulteram interficere:

1. *Primo* per textum sacrae Scripturae, Exodi vigesimo secundo[^p807-1]: *Maleficos non patieris vivere*; istud est morale, ergo adhuc manet. *Si tu dicas*, istud fuisse iudiciale, et talia evacuata sunt; *contra*: istud est in lege humana[^p807-2], quod adultera est interficienda et adulter; sed tales leges approbat et sustinet Ecclesia: si ergo Ecclesia non debet approbare nisi licitum; videtur, quod viro uxorem adulterantem interficere sit licitum.

2. *Item* hoc probatur per canonem, Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda[^p807-3]: « *Interfectores suarum coniugum sine iudicio, cum non addis adulterarum, quid aliud sunt quam homicidae* »? Ergo si additur *adulterarum*, non videntur esse homicidae.

3. *Item*, viri est uxorem suam corrigere[^p807-4], et secundum quod gravius peccat, gravius debet eam punire: si ergo mulier, quae adulteratur, digna est morte; si vir eam occidat, non videtur, quod incurrat aliquam offensam.

**Contra:** 1. Ioannis octavo[^p807-5]: *Qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in eam lapidem mittat*: noluit ergo Dominus, quod aliquis occideret mulierem in adulterio deprehensam, nisi haberet conscientiam mundam a culpa: ergo non videtur, quod hoc alicui liceat.

2. *Item*, canon dicit Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda[^p807-6], *Inter haec sanctitas vestra*, et infra: « *Sancta Dei Ecclesia mundanis nunquam constringitur legibus, gladium non habet nisi spiritualem* »: ergo etc.

3. *Item*, *ratione* videtur: quia quantum ad culpam fornicationis iudicantur pares; sed nulli mulieri licet occidere virum adulterum: ergo nec alicui viro adulteram mulierem.

> **Conclusio.** *Uxorem propriam adulteram non licet occidere secundum ius divinum et canonicum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod interfector propriae coniugis, si ex certa scientia facit, peccat, quantumcumque illa sit adultera. — Peccat autem non tantum contra *canones*, sed etiam contra *ius civile*: contra *ius civile*, quia eam interficit, praetermisso iuris ordine, nisi forte in actu malo eam inveniat, in quo casu leges humanae concedunt. — Sed contra ius *divinum* et *canonicum* peccat in ipso facto, quoniam non debet ipsam adulteram interficere, sed corrigere, cum Deus peccatori paratus sit parcere in lege gratiae, sicut in exemplo patet mulieris adulterae, Ioannis octavo[^p807-7]. Et quoniam matrimonia et causae matrimoniales tractari debent lege *poli*, et non lege *fori*; ideo non licet hoc facere, quod ius *civile* dictat — quamvis Ecclesia *sustineat* ad terrorem malorum — sed quod indicat *sancta Ecclesia*, uxorem scilicet adulteram non esse occidendam, sed potius dimittendam.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Lege, dicendum, quod illud erat *iudiciale*, et iudicialia non manent, quia illa fuit lex rigoris, haec autem est mansuetudinis. — Ad illud quod obiicitur de lege civili, dicendum, quod quaedam sunt ibi, quae Ecclesia *approbat*, quaedam, quae *sustinet*, et quaedam, quae *revocat*. Et hoc iudicium de occisione fornicariae sive adulterae aut *sustinet* ad aliorum terrorem, aut etiam *retractat*, cum prohibet in supradicto[^p807-8] canone, nullo iudicio interficiendam esse uxorem, quantumcumque in crimine deprehensam.

<!-- page 808 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illo canone: *Interfectores suarum* etc.; dicendum, quod illud dictum est secundum leges humanas; talis enim, ex quo *sine causa* et *praeter iudicium* occidit, secundum leges civiles punitur ut homicida; sed si *per iudicium* et *causam* faciat, non iudicatur homicida secundum leges humanas. Sed secundum *ius canonicum*, etiam secundum quod debent regi matrimonia, et secundum mandatum Ecclesiae, non principum, non licet occidere, immo homicida iudicatur, sicut expresse testatur capitulum sequens de Nicolao[^p808-1].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest corrigere; dicendum, quod verum est; sed correctio tanta et talis debet esse, ut non auferat locum poenitentiae; et ideo, quando excedit limites, ut occidat, iam non est zelus correctionis, sed furor occisionis.

english:
### Article II. *On uxoricide.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning uxoricide. And concerning this, three things are asked. First it is asked, whether it is licit to kill an adulterous wife. Second, which is the graver sin: whether to kill a wife, or a mother. Third, whether this sin simply impedes marriage.

### Question I. *Whether it is licit to kill an adulterous wife.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that it is licit to kill an adulterous wife:

1. *First*, by the text of sacred Scripture, Exodus twenty-two[^p807-1]: *Thou shalt not suffer evildoers to live*; this is moral, therefore it still stands. *If you should say* that this was judicial, and such things have been abrogated; *on the contrary*: it is in human law[^p807-2] that an adulteress is to be killed, and the adulterer too; but the Church approves and upholds such laws: if therefore the Church ought not to approve except what is licit, it seems that for a husband to kill an adulterating wife is licit.

2. *Likewise*, this is proved by the canon, Cause thirty-three, question two[^p807-3]: « *Those who slay their own spouses without judgment — when you do not add "adulterous" — what else are they than homicides* »? Therefore if *adulterous* is added, they do not seem to be homicides.

3. *Likewise*, it belongs to the husband to correct his wife[^p807-4], and according as she sins more gravely, he ought the more gravely to punish her: if therefore the woman who commits adultery is worthy of death, if the husband kill her, it does not seem that he incurs any offense.

**On the contrary:** 1. John eight[^p807-5]: *He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her*: the Lord therefore did not will that anyone should kill a woman caught in adultery, unless he had a conscience clean of fault: therefore it does not seem that this is licit for anyone.

2. *Likewise*, the canon says, Cause thirty-three, question two[^p807-6], *Inter haec sanctitas vestra*, and further below: « *The holy Church of God is never constrained by worldly laws; it has no sword but the spiritual one* »: therefore etc.

3. *Likewise*, it seems so *by reason*: because as to the fault of fornication they are judged equal; but it is licit for no woman to kill an adulterous husband: therefore neither is it licit for any husband to kill an adulterous wife.

> **Conclusion.** *It is not licit to kill one's own adulterous wife, according to divine and canon law.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the slayer of his own spouse, if he does it from certain knowledge, sins, however much she be an adulteress. — But he sins not only against the *canons*, but also against the *civil law*: against the *civil law*, because he kills her with the order of law passed over, unless perhaps he find her in the very evil act, in which case human laws grant it. — But against *divine* and *canon* law he sins in the very deed, since he ought not to kill the adulteress herself, but to correct her, since God is ready to spare the sinner under the law of grace, as is plain in the example of the adulterous woman, John eight[^p807-7]. And since marriages and matrimonial cases ought to be handled by the law of heaven (*poli*), and not by the law of the forum (*fori*); therefore it is not licit to do this which the *civil* law dictates — although the Church *upholds* it for the terror of the wicked — but rather what *holy Church* declares, namely that the adulterous wife is not to be killed, but rather dismissed.

1. To that which is objected concerning the Law, it must be said that it was *judicial*, and judicial precepts do not remain, because that was a law of rigor, whereas this is one of gentleness. — To that which is objected concerning the civil law, it must be said that there are certain things there which the Church *approves*, certain which it *upholds*, and certain which it *revokes*. And this judgment concerning the killing of a fornicatress or adulteress it either *upholds* for the terror of others, or else *retracts*, when it forbids, in the aforesaid[^p807-8] canon, that a wife be killed by any judgment, however much she be caught in the crime.

2. To that which is objected concerning that canon: *Those who slay their own* etc.; it must be said that it was said according to human laws; for such a man, since he kills *without cause* and *apart from judgment*, is punished under the civil laws as a homicide; but if he acts *through judgment* and *cause*, he is not judged a homicide according to human laws. But according to *canon law*, also according to that whereby marriages ought to be governed, and according to the mandate of the Church, not of princes, it is not licit to kill; nay rather he is judged a homicide, as the following chapter concerning Nicholas[^p808-1] expressly attests.

3. To that which is objected, that he can correct her; it must be said that this is true; but the correction ought to be so great and of such a kind that it does not take away the place for repentance; and therefore, when it exceeds the limits, so as to kill, it is no longer the zeal of correction, but the fury of slaying.

la: Vers. 18.

en: Verse 18. (Exodus 22:18.)

la: Iustinian., D. XLVIII. de Adulteriis coercendis (tit. 15.), lex *Patri datur* (20.), et C. IX. ad Legem Iuliam etc. (tit. 9.), lex *Gracchus* (4.).

en: Justinian, *Digest* XLVIII, *On the Punishment of Adulteries* (tit. 15), the law *Patri datur* (20), and *Codex* IX, *On the Julian Law* etc. (tit. 9), the law *Gracchus* (4).

la: Can. 5. Textus originalis, quem sequuntur edd., plura interserit; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Canon 5. The original text, which the editions follow, inserts more; cf. the letter of the Master here, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 35. q. 2. in corp.

en: Cf. above, d. 35, q. 2, in the body.

la: Vers. 7.

en: Verse 7. (John 8:7.)

la: Can. 6.

en: Canon 6.

la: Vers. 7. seqq. — Superius pro *peccatum* ex codd. M O S U substituimus *peccatori*. — Nicolaus III. in C. *Exiit qui seminat* (3.), de Verborum significat. (lib. V. tit. 12.) in VI, in explicanda Regula Fratrum Minorum ait: *Sicut nec ceteris, sic nec ipsis fratribus iure poli [i. e. iure naturali] in extremae necessitatis articulo ad providendum sustentationi naturae via omnibus extrema necessitate detentis concessa praecluditur* etc.

en: Verse 7 ff. — Above, in place of *peccatum* [sin], on the authority of codices M O S U, we have substituted *peccatori* [to the sinner]. — Nicholas III, in the canon *Exiit qui seminat* (3), *On the Signification of Words* (bk. V, tit. 12) in the *Sext*, in expounding the Rule of the Friars Minor, says: *Just as to others, so neither to the friars themselves is there foreclosed, by right of heaven [i.e. by natural right], in the moment of extreme necessity, for providing for the sustenance of nature, the way granted to all who are held by extreme necessity*, etc.

la: In fundam. 2. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Inferius pro *iudicio* edd. cum aliquot codd. *modo*.

en: In the 2nd argument. Cf. the letter of the Master here, c. 2. — Below, in place of *iudicio* [judgment], the editions with some codices [read] *modo* [manner].

la: Scilicet C. *Inter haec sanctitas vestra*, qui est Nicolai, sicut et C. *Interfectores*. — Superius post *matrimonia* Vat. inepte addit *lege matrimonii*.

en: Namely the canon *Inter haec sanctitas vestra*, which is Nicholas's, as also the canon *Interfectores*. — Above, after *matrimonia*, the Vatican [edition] ineptly adds *lege matrimonii*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quaestiones 1. et 2. nullam difficultatem habent; cfr. de utraque quaest. S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 60. a. 1, et de 2. q. ibid. a. 2. ad 2. — B. Albert., de his et seq. q. hic a. 12. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — De his et de 3. q. Durand., hic q. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

**II.** Quoad 3. quaestionem observandum est, secundum rigorem antiquorum canonum poenitentialium cuilibet, qui coniugem occidit, fuisse poenam impositam, ut a quolibet matrimonio contrahendo abstineret (vide lit. Magistri hic c. 2.). Impedimentum *criminis* nostra aetate intelligitur de complicibus et incurritur triplici modo: 1. est crimen *uno patrante* i. e. machinatio mortis et occisio coniugis simul cum adulterio; 2. crimen *utroque patrante* i. e. occisio coniugis, utroque conspirante; 3. adulterium cum mutua promissione matrimonii post mortem coniugis contrahendi. Cfr. infra dub. 3. — De 3. quaestione: Scot., supra d. 36. q. unica. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Questions 1 and 2 present no difficulty; cf. on both questions St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; Suppl. q. 60, a. 1, and on the 2nd question ibid. a. 2, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, on these and the following question here, a. 12, 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1. — On these and on the 3rd question, Durandus, here q. 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

**II.** As to the 3rd question it must be observed that, according to the rigor of the ancient penitential canons, a penalty was imposed on anyone who killed a spouse, that he should abstain from contracting any marriage (see the letter of the Master here, c. 2). The impediment of *crime* is in our age understood of accomplices, and is incurred in a threefold manner: 1. there is crime *with one perpetrating*, i.e. the plotting of death and the slaying of the spouse together with adultery; 2. crime *with both perpetrating*, i.e. the slaying of the spouse, both conspiring; 3. adultery with a mutual promise of contracting marriage after the death of the spouse. Cf. below, dubium 3. — On the 3rd question: Scotus, above, d. 36, q. unica. — St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, in the place cited, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands (offset pdf = printed + 20): p.807 = pdf 827, p.808 = pdf 828. Bands read L→R for both pages via `colcrop.py vol4 807/808` (L at split 2120, R widened to 1650 to capture the right-column left edge). Raw OCR L86406–L86528 consulted only for the shared-page footer text. `line_start`/`line_end` frontmatter kept unchanged for the audit scripts.

**printed_pages corrected 806–807 → 807–808.** The running head on the page the dispatch called "806" reads `806 … SENTENTIARUM` and its body is Art I q3 (holy orders as impediment: *piscopi nunc filios haberent…*), which belongs to a1-q3 (a1-q3 frontmatter = 804–806). ARTICULUS II opens clean at the top of the next recto, whose running head is `DIST. XXXVII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.` and top-right folio `807`. The article + q1 body + Respondeo + solutiones + scholion run 807→808 (verso head `808 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`). So this chunk = pp. 807–808.

**Article II opener folded in** (per the locked chunking convention): the short `Consequenter … tria quaeruntur` opener and the *Secundo/Tertio* question-list are rendered here in q1; siblings a2-q2 and a2-q3 do not repeat them.

**Scholion disposition.** The Art II scholion (printed header `SCHOLION`, OCR-garbled `SCHOLIOK`) is rendered here in full, both languages, as the LAST subsection of both `## Latin` and `## English`. It has **2 numbered sections**: **§I** (questions 1 & 2 — no difficulty, doctor-lists) and **§II** (question 3 — old penitential-canon rigor + the modern threefold *impedimentum criminis* + q3 doctor-list). It covers the whole article's q1–q3. Siblings a2-q2 and a2-q3 render NO scholion.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *First page (807):* no footer picked up from a1-q3 — Art II starts at the very top of 807, so all eight of p.807's footnotes (1–8) anchor in this q1 body and are claimed here.
- *Last page (808):* p.808 restarts numbering. This body carries only marker **1** (*capitulum sequens de Nicolao ¹*), claimed as `[^p808-1]` (a compound note: the Nicholas canon + the *lege matrimonii* Vatican variant on my Respondeo's *matrimonia*). p.808 footnotes **2–8** (5=`Cfr. supra d.27 dub.1`, 6=`Exod.21,15`, 7=`Aristot. VIII Ethic.`, 8=`tom.III p.646`, etc., plus the 2–4 in the q2 videtur) anchor in a2-q2's body and are **forwarded to a2-q2** — do NOT claim them here.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings are clear at these dpi.

**Apparatus count:** 9 entries — p.807: 8 (footnotes 1–8); p.808: 1 (footnote 1).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum gravius sit peccatum occidere uxorem quam matrem

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 808 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum sit gravius peccatum occidere uxorem quam matrem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum gravius peccatum sit occidere uxorem quam matrem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia quod gravius punitur gravius est in offensa; sed peccatum interfectionis uxoris gravius punitur quam peccatum interfectionis matris, sicut patet Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda[^p808-2], *Admonere* etc.

2. Item, quod est magis contra naturam, illud est maius peccatum; sed magis contra naturam est odire et occidere carnem suam quam alienam, quia, ad Ephesios quinto[^p808-3], *nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit;* et uxor est caro viri, sicut ibidem dicitur, quia sunt una caro: ergo videtur gravius peccatum.

3. Item, amor uxoris, sicut patet ex textu, Genesis secundo[^p808-4], superexcedit amorem patris et matris, etiam amor castus; et hoc etiam videtur innui Genesis vigesimo quarto de Isaac, qui *tantum dilexit* Rebeccam, quod *dolorem, qui de matre acciderat, temperaret;* sed quanto magis aliquis inclinatur ad amorem, tanto minus ad laesionem: ergo videtur, quod si occidat uxorem, gravius peccat.

4. Item, qui occidit uxorem facit contra bonum naturae et Sacramenti, cum sint coniuncti ad individuam vitae consuetudinem[^p808-5]; qui autem occidit matrem facit contra alterum tantum: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Licitum est percutere et verberare uxorem in casu; sed nunquam licitum est verberare matrem[^p808-6]: ergo gravior est offensa illata matri quam uxori: ergo etc.

2. Item, tanto gravior est offensa, quanto personae, in quam est, debetur maior reverentia; sed multo maior reverentia debetur matri quam uxori: ergo maior est offensa, quae est in matrem, et sic etc.

3. Item, facilius frangitur amor *socialis* quam *naturalis,* pro eo quod naturalia magis adhaerent; sed amor matris est *naturalis,* amor uxoris *socialis*[^p808-7]: ergo maioris perversitatis et crudelitatis est occidere matrem.

4. Item, gravius est eum offendere, a quo plura beneficia sunt percepta; sed plura beneficia percipiuntur a matre quam ab uxore[^p808-8]: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Gravius peccatum est, in genere loquendo, occidere matrem quam uxorem.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio gravius peccatum est, in genere loquendo, occidere <!-- page 809 -->matrem quam occidere uxorem, tum ratione *personae exterioris,* cui debetur maior reverentia, tum ratione *minoris pronitatis.* Pronior enim est homo iracundus ad verberandam uxorem quam matrem, quoniam, quando propter aliquam causam displicet, mirabile odium et taedium generatur[^p809-1]; et ideo pronior est ad occidendam uxorem quam matrem. Ad occidendam autem matrem nullius natura inclinatur, nisi sit per iniquitatem conversa in crudelitatem super bestias. Et quoniam homo pronior est ad uxoricidium, hinc est, quod quamvis minus sit peccatum, tamen maior poena imponitur, ut per incussionem timoris pronitas restringatur.

1. Et per hoc patet primo obiectum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis est contra naturam, quia una caro; dicendum, quod maior est unio inter filium et matrem, quam inter virum et uxorem secundum *rem,* quamvis in matrimonio sit maior secundum *significationem,* pro eo quod caro matris et filii habent convenientiam in *substantia* et natura, sed caro masculi et feminae secundum *actum commixtionis* et unionis; et ideo ad tempus plus trahitur homo ad uxorem, sed simpliciter plus trahitur ad matrem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus[^p809-2] excedit amorem matris; dicendum, quod verum est *intensive,* tamen quantum ad *radicationem* facilius est, quod vir concitetur in odium uxoris, et e converso, per unam fornicationem, quam mater in odium filii, vel e converso. Tamen hoc non dicitur, quod relinquat matrem quantum ad *affectum,* sed quantum ad coniunctionem sexuum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod facit contra bonum naturae et Sacramenti; dicendum, quod verum est; sed illud praeponderat, scilicet matricidium, adeo[^p809-3] est contra naturam; nunquam enim natura abhorret ita occisionem alicuius, cui commiscetur, sicut eius, in cuius utero fuit totus. Unde quamvis canon dicat Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda[^p809-4], quod occidens uxorem est crudelior omni bestia, quia «partem sui corporis occidit»: intelligendum est, hoc dictum esse per emphaticum modum loquendi, secundum quem modum posset dici, quod mater est totum corpus filii, cum totum ex matre traxerit; et ista est veritas, licet Hugutio super Decreta senserit contrarium; non enim in hoc approbatur eius sententia a modernis doctoribus[^p809-5].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether it is a graver sin to kill one's wife than one's mother.*

Secondly it is asked whether it is a graver sin to kill one's wife than one's mother. And that it is so seems [to be the case]:

1. Because what is more gravely punished is graver in respect of the offense; but the sin of killing a wife is more gravely punished than the sin of killing a mother, as is clear in Cause thirty-three, question two[^p808-2], *Admonere,* etc.

2. Likewise, what is more against nature is the greater sin; but it is more against nature to hate and to kill one's own flesh than another's, because, in Ephesians five[^p808-3], *no one ever hated his own flesh;* and the wife is the flesh of the husband, as is said in the same place, since they are one flesh: therefore it seems the graver sin.

3. Likewise, the love of a wife, as is clear from the text, Genesis two[^p808-4], exceeds the love of father and mother, even chaste love; and this also seems to be intimated in Genesis twenty-four, concerning Isaac, who *so loved* Rebecca that he *tempered the grief which had befallen him over his mother;* but the more anyone is inclined to love, the less [he is inclined] to injury: therefore it seems that, if he kills his wife, he sins more gravely.

4. Likewise, he who kills his wife acts against the good of nature and of the Sacrament, since they are joined into an undivided partnership of life[^p808-5]; but he who kills his mother acts against one only: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is licit to strike and beat a wife in a [certain] case; but it is never licit to beat a mother[^p808-6]: therefore the offense inflicted on a mother is graver than [that on] a wife: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, an offense is graver in proportion as greater reverence is owed to the person against whom it is [committed]; but much greater reverence is owed to a mother than to a wife: therefore the offense which is against a mother is greater, and so on.

3. Likewise, *social* love is more easily broken than *natural* [love], because natural things adhere more; but the love of a mother is *natural,* the love of a wife *social*[^p808-7]: therefore it is of greater perversity and cruelty to kill a mother.

4. Likewise, it is graver to offend one from whom more benefits have been received; but more benefits are received from a mother than from a wife[^p808-8]: therefore, etc.

### Conclusion.

> *A graver sin, generally speaking, is to kill a mother than a wife.*

**Respondeo:** It must be said that without doubt it is a graver sin, generally speaking, to kill a mother than to kill a wife, both by reason of the *external person,* to whom greater reverence is owed, and by reason of the *lesser proneness.* For an angry man is more prone to beat a wife than a mother, since, when for some cause she displeases [him], a wondrous hatred and loathing is generated[^p809-1]; and therefore he is more prone to kill a wife than a mother. But to killing a mother no one's nature is inclined, unless it has been turned by iniquity into a cruelty beyond the beasts. And because man is more prone to wife-killing, hence it is that, although it is a lesser sin, yet a greater penalty is imposed, so that by the striking-in of fear the proneness may be restrained.

1. And by this the first objection is answered.

2. To that which is objected, that it is more against nature because [they are] one flesh; it must be said that the union between son and mother is greater than [that] between husband and wife according to *the thing [itself],* although in matrimony it is greater according to *signification,* because the flesh of mother and son have a correspondence in *substance* and nature, but the flesh of male and female [have it] according to the *act of commingling* and union; and therefore for a time a man is drawn more to a wife, but simply [i.e., without qualification] he is drawn more to a mother.

3. To that which is objected, that [the love of a wife] exceeds more[^p809-2] the love of a mother; it must be said that this is true *intensively,* yet as regards *rootedness* it is easier that a husband be stirred up into hatred of a wife, and conversely, through a single fornication, than a mother into hatred of a son, or conversely. Yet this is not said [to mean] that he leaves his mother as regards *affection,* but as regards the conjunction of the sexes.

4. To that which is objected, that he acts against the good of nature and of the Sacrament; it must be said that this is true; but that which preponderates, namely matricide, is[^p809-3] so [much] against nature; for nature never so abhors the killing of anyone with whom one is joined [in flesh] as of the one in whose womb one was wholly [contained]. Hence, although the canon says, in Cause thirty-three, question two[^p809-4], that one who kills a wife is crueler than every beast, because "he kills a part of his own body": it must be understood that this is said by an emphatic manner of speaking, according to which manner it could be said that the mother is the whole body of the son, since he drew his whole [substance] from the mother; and this is the truth, although Hugutio on the Decreta held the contrary; for in this his opinion is not approved by the modern doctors[^p809-5].

---

la: Can. 8. Cfr. ibid. C *Latorem* (15.).

en: Canon 8. Cf. ibid., the canon *Latorem* (15.). [Gratian, C. 33, q. 2, c. 8, *Admonere.*]

la: Vers. 29. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 31: *Et erunt duo in carne una.* Cfr. v. 28: *Viri debent diligere uxores suas ut corpora sua. Qui suam uxorem diligit seipsum diligit.*

en: Verse 29. — The following passage is ibid., v. 31: *And they shall be two in one flesh.* Cf. v. 28: *Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.*

la: Vers. 24: *Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae.* — Seq. locus ibid. 24, 67: *Et in tantum dilexit eam, ut dolorem, qui ex morte matris eius acciderat, temperaret.*

en: Verse 24: *Wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife.* — The following passage is ibid. 24, 67: *And he so loved her, that he tempered the grief which had befallen him from the death of his mother.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. dub. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 27, dub. 1.

la: Exod. 21, 15: *Qui percusserit patrem suum aut matrem morte moriatur.*

en: Exodus 21, 15: *He that striketh his father or mother shall be put to death.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Ethic. c. 12.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Ethics* VIII, c. 12.

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 646, nota 8. verba Aristot.

en: See vol. III, p. 646, note 8, the words of Aristotle.

la: Cfr. supra d. 36. a. 2. q. 2. in fine. — Superius pro *quoniam,* quod plures codd. omittunt, edd. cum aliquot codd. *maxime,* cod. H *quam maxime.* Inferius voci *natura* cod. aa praemittit *animus nec.*

en: Cf. above, d. 36, a. 2, q. 2, at the end. — Above, for *quoniam,* which many codices omit, the editions with some codices [read] *maxime,* cod. H *quam maxime.* Below, before the word *natura,* cod. aa prefixes *animus nec.*

la: Codd. K M (1 a secunda manu) *quod amor uxoris.* Inferius edd. et plures codd. *convertatur* pro *concitetur.* Subinde pro *Tamen hoc non* edd. *Et hoc quod dicitur,* post *matrem* addito *non dicitur.*

en: Codices K M (the first by a second hand) [read] *quod amor uxoris.* Below, the editions and many codices [read] *convertatur* for *concitetur.* Thereupon, for *Tamen hoc non* the editions [read] *Et hoc quod dicitur,* with *non dicitur* added after *matrem.*

la: Cod. U *quia plus,* cod. M *quia,* edd. *quod adeo,* quae etiam mox pro *nunquam enim* substituunt *ut nunquam.*

en: Cod. U [reads] *quia plus,* cod. M *quia,* the editions *quod adeo,* which also presently substitute *ut nunquam* for *nunquam enim.*

la: Can. *Admonere* te cum lacrymis... fili *Hastulphe;* sed non filius debes dici qui tam crudeliter infelix homicidium perpetrasti. Nam occidisti uxorem tuam, partem corporis tui (8.). — Sententia *Huguitionis* (vel *Hugutionis*) refertur in *Glossa* super hunc canonem ad verbum *Existimes,* et pro ipsa afferuntur duo argg., quae a S. Bonav. primo et secundo loco *ad oppositum* afferuntur. — Circa finem solut. Vat. cum paucis codd. *super decreto* pro *super decreta.*

en: The canon *Admonere:* "[I admonish] you with tears... son *Hastulphus;* but you ought not to be called a son, you who so cruelly perpetrated an unhappy homicide. For you have killed your wife, a part of your own body" (8.). — The opinion of *Huguitio* (or *Hugutio*) is reported in the *Gloss* on this canon at the word *Existimes,* and on its behalf two arguments are adduced, which St. Bonaventure adduces in the first and second place *for the opposite* [side]. — Near the end of the solution the Vatican [edition] with a few codices [reads] *super decreto* for *super decreta.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands (offset pdf = printed + 20): printed pp. 808–809 = pdf pp. 828–829, read L (split 2120) then R (split 1780), body bands then footer bands. Raw OCR L86529–86675 used only for cross-checking marker spacing and for gutter-clipped line-ends. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Opener alignment — VERIFIED.** The raw "Secundo quaeritur, utrum gravius peccatum sit occidere uxorem quam matrem" is at L86529, immediately under the (OCR-garbled) title line L86527 "Ulrum sil gravius peccahmi occidere uxorem quam matrem" (= *Utrum sit gravius peccatum occidere uxorem quam matrem*). Alignment is correct; no q-swap. The chunk closes at L86673 ("...simpliciter plus trahitur ad matrem"), just before the `QUAESTIO III.` header at L86674 (start of a2-q3).

**printed_pages CORRECTED 807–809 → 808–809.** Page 807 is entirely a2-q1 (ARTICULUS II header, the pars divisio, QUAESTIO I title, and q1's whole *videtur* + Respondeo). QUAESTIO II opens at the bottom of p. 808 (L column), after the article-level SCHOLION. So this quaestio occupies pp. 808–809 only. pdf_pages likewise 828–829.

**Column reading order (p. 808).** q1's Respondeo tail (L-top → R-top) → article SCHOLION (full-width header; notes in both columns) → QUAESTIO II header → q2: L column = opener + args 1–3 + arg 4 start ("...ad indi-"); R column (below scholion) = arg 4 continuation ("viduam vitae consuetudinem" onward) + Contra 1–4 + Conclusio + Respondeo start. Respondeo breaks mid-word "occidere ma-|trem" across the 808/809 boundary. On p. 809: L column = Respondeo continuation + replies 1–2; R column = replies 3–4; then QUAESTIO III begins (a2-q3).

**Scholion — NOT rendered here (has_scholion: false).** The Art II SCHOLION on p. 808 (right/left columns: "Quaestiones 1. et 2. nullam difficultatem habent..."; "Impedimentum *criminis* nostra aetate...") is the article-level scholion covering all three Art II questions; per the dispatch it lives in a2-q1. It appears within this quaestio's page range but is deliberately omitted.

**Apparatus split (12 entries).** p. 808 → [^p808-2]…[^p808-8] (7 entries; footnote 1, the *de Nicolao / Interfectores* note, is anchored in a2-q1's Respondeo — "capitulum sequens de Nicolao¹" — and is NOT claimed here). p. 809 → [^p809-1]…[^p809-5] (5 entries; footnotes 6–10 on p. 809 belong to a2-q3, whose markers begin at q3 arg 1 "Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda⁶").

**Footer hand-offs.**
- p. 808 footnote 1 (*Scilicet C Inter haec sanctitas vestra, qui est Nicolai...*) → belongs to **a2-q1** (its Respondeo). Verify a2-q1 claims it.
- p. 809 footnotes 6–10 (*Can. 5...*; *Can. Admonere (8.)... Hastulphi pro Arnulphi...*; *Respicitur Sap. 11, 17...*; *Cap. 4. — Idem dicitur Extra...*; *Cod. U addit quod fecerat.*) → belong to **a2-q3** (pp. 809–810). Not claimed here.

**Running head note (not an error).** The p. 809 running head reads `DIST. XXXVII. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` even though the page opens with q2's Respondeo — Quaracchi's running head names the highest quaestio appearing on the page (q3 begins lower on p. 809). The auto-chunk skeleton's "QUAEST. III" was therefore a faithful OCR read, not a mangle.

**[?] flags.** None. One minor editorial oddity retained verbatim: footnote [^p809-4] prints "*Huguitionis* (vel *Hugutionis*)" — the editor's spelling variant of the canonist Huguccio's name; rendered as-is.

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. 37, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt:
Utrum uxoricidium impediat matrimonium
Whether uxoricide impedes marriage

source_text:
<!-- page 809 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum uxoricidium impediat matrimonium.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum uxoricidium impediat matrimonium. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda[^p809-6]: «Interfectores suarum coniugum ad poenitentiam redigendi sunt, quibus penitus denegatur coniugium».

2. Item, eodem titulo[^p809-7], in poenitentia Arnulfi, qui occiderat uxorem, dicitur: «Uxorem nunquam ducere, concubinam nunquam habere nec adulterium committere audeas».

3. Item, in eo, in quo quis peccat, in eo torquendus est[^p809-8]; sed iste peccavit contra matrimonium, occidendo uxorem: ergo etc.

4. Item, supra, distinctione trigesima quinta dicit Magister in littera[^p809-9], et tractum est de canone expresse, *Extra, de Eo qui duxit in coniugium quam polluit per adulterium*, ubi dicitur, quod matrimonium nullum est et dirimendum est: ergo quod impedit, hoc est propter homicidium mariti, quod perpetravit: ergo si hic vir occidit uxorem, patet etc.

**Contra:**
1. Si quis occideret uxorem alienam, propter homicidium[^p809-10] non efficitur inhabilis ad matrimonium: ergo si plus potest in uxorem propriam, videtur, quod propter eius occisionem a matrimonio non debeat prohiberi.

2. Item, possibile est, quod vir occidat uxorem zelo, quem habet in detestationem adulterii: ergo videtur, quod stet pro matrimonio: ergo non debet puniri privatione matrimonii.

<!-- page 810 -->
3. Item, omne peccatum potest deleri per poenitentiam: si ergo poena ista est ratione peccati, et haec poena potest esse occasio peccati, maxime iuveni, qui habet incentivum libidinis: ergo videtur, quod non possit impediri, saltem poenitentia facta.

4. Item, magis repugnat bono matrimonii adulterium quam homicidium; sed adulterium simpliciter non impedit[^p810-1]: ergo nec uxoricidium.

### Conclusio

> *Coniugicidium impedit matrimonium, et quidem coniunctum cum adulterio, vel cum promissione matrimonii dirimit respectu complicis, sicut et adulterium cum eadem promissione.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod occidere uxorem potest quis tripliciter: aut persequendo culpam, aut persequendo naturam, aut persequendo matrimonium. Persequendo culpam, ut cum in fornicationis crimine deprehendit et adeo detestatur, quod in ultionem criminis mortem infligit. Persequendo naturam, ut si mulier propter defectum aliquem, quem habet in se, non habet gratiam viri; unde vir eam exosam habet et gravem et propter istam detestationem et odii intensionem, furore accenso, ipsam perimit. Persequendo matrimonium, ut quando moechatur cum aliqua, quam vult ducere in uxorem et non potest, nisi uxore mortua; et ideo ipsam interficit. Primum est grave peccatum propter excessum; secundum est gravius et tertium est gravissimum.

In quolibet horum prohibetur a matrimonio contrahendo, sed magis in secundo et maxime in tertio; et in quolibet horum casuum dispensatur ab Ecclesia, et maxime in iuvenibus; sed in primo de facili, in secundo difficilius, in tertio quodam modo sic, et quodam modo non. Respectu enim illius personae, cum qua moechabatur et propter quam habendam in matrimonio occidit coniugem, nunquam cum eo dispensabitur, immo, si iunctus fuerit, simpliciter separatur; sed respectu aliarum propter periculum dispensatur[^p810-2]. Unde quamvis crimen non faciat omnino illegitimum respectu omnium propter periculum fornicationis; facit tamen simpliciter illegitimum respectu alicuius personae determinatae, scilicet homicidium iunctum cum adulterio, vel adulterium cum fidei datione, vel datio fidei cum uxoricidio[^p810-3]. — Et sic concedendum est, quod tale crimen impedit matrimonium aliquo modo taliter, quia impedit, sed non dirimit; alio modo, quod etiam dirimit, sicut tactum est.

**Ad argumenta:**
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod qui occidit uxorem alienam; dicendum, quod non est simile; quia enim offendit matrimonium in se, cum uxorem propriam interficit[^p810-4]; ideo in se debet puniri; non sic, cum interficit alienam.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de zelo, dicendum, quod zelus non excusat a toto, sed a tanto; unde facilius cum eo dispensatur.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest per poenitentiam deleri; dicendum, quod enormitas non ita cito deletur, immo in poenam manet diutius, sicut patet in irregularitate.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod adulterium magis repugnat; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia uxoricidium est contra *substantiam* matrimonii, quia perimit subiectum; sed adulterium est contra *bonum fidei*, sine quo matrimonium esse potest[^p810-5]; et ideo non est simile.

---

english:
<!-- page 809 -->

### Question III. *Whether uxoricide impedes marriage.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether uxoricide impedes marriage. And that it does, it seems.

1. Cause thirty-three, question two[^p809-6]: «The slayers of their own spouses are to be reduced to penance, to whom marriage is utterly denied».

2. Likewise, under the same title[^p809-7], in the penance of Arnulf, who had killed his wife, it is said: «Never dare to take a wife, never to keep a concubine, nor to commit adultery».

3. Likewise, in that in which a man sins, in that he must be tormented[^p809-8]; but this man sinned against marriage, by killing his wife: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, above, in the thirty-fifth distinction the Master says in the text[^p809-9], and it was treated of the canon expressly, *Extra, "Concerning him who took into marriage a woman whom he had defiled by adultery"*, where it is said that the marriage is null and must be dissolved: therefore that which impedes, this is on account of the homicide of the husband, which he perpetrated: therefore if this man killed his wife, it is plain, etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. If someone were to kill another man's wife, on account of the homicide[^p809-10] he is not rendered incapable of marriage: therefore if he has more power over his own wife, it seems that on account of her killing he ought not to be barred from marriage.

2. Likewise, it is possible that a man kill his wife out of zeal, which he has in detestation of adultery: therefore it seems that it stands for marriage: therefore he ought not to be punished by the privation of marriage.

<!-- page 810 -->
3. Likewise, every sin can be blotted out through penance: if therefore this penalty is by reason of the sin, and this penalty can be an occasion of sin, especially for a young man who has the incentive of lust: therefore it seems that he cannot be impeded, at least once penance has been done.

4. Likewise, adultery is more repugnant to the good of marriage than homicide; but adultery simply does not impede[^p810-1]: therefore neither does uxoricide.

### Conclusion

> *Spouse-killing impedes marriage, and indeed, when joined with adultery or with a promise of marriage, it dissolves it with respect to the accomplice, just as adultery too with the same promise.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one can kill his wife in three ways: either by pursuing fault, or by pursuing nature, or by pursuing marriage. By pursuing fault, as when he catches her in the crime of fornication and so detests it that in vengeance of the crime he inflicts death. By pursuing nature, as if a woman, on account of some defect which she has in herself, does not have her husband's favor; whence the husband holds her hateful and burdensome, and on account of that detestation and intensity of hatred, his fury being kindled, he does away with her. By pursuing marriage, as when he commits adultery with some woman whom he wishes to take as wife and cannot, except with his wife dead; and therefore he kills her. The first is a grave sin on account of the excess; the second is graver, and the third is gravest.

In any of these he is prohibited from contracting marriage, but more so in the second and most of all in the third; and in any of these cases dispensation is granted by the Church, and especially in the young; but in the first easily, in the second more difficultly, in the third in a certain way yes and in a certain way no. For with respect to that person with whom he committed adultery and for the sake of having whom in marriage he killed his spouse, dispensation will never be granted with him — nay, if he has been joined [to her], he is simply separated; but with respect to other women dispensation is granted on account of the danger[^p810-2]. Whence, although the crime does not make him wholly illegitimate with respect to all women, on account of the danger of fornication, yet it does make him simply illegitimate with respect to some determinate person — namely, homicide joined with adultery, or adultery with the giving of faith, or the giving of faith together with uxoricide[^p810-3]. — And so it must be conceded that such a crime impedes marriage in one way thus, because it impedes but does not dissolve; in another way, that it even dissolves, as has been touched upon.

**To the arguments:**
1. To that then which is objected, that one who kills another man's wife [is not disqualified]; it must be said that it is not similar; for because he offends against marriage in itself when he kills his own wife[^p810-4], therefore he must be punished in itself; not so, when he kills another's.

2. To that which is objected concerning zeal, it must be said that zeal does not excuse from the whole, but from so much; whence dispensation is more easily granted with him.

3. To that which is objected, that it can be blotted out through penance; it must be said that an enormity is not so quickly blotted out — nay, it remains longer as a penalty, as is plain in the case of irregularity.

4. To that which is objected, that adultery is more repugnant; it must be said that it is false, because uxoricide is against the *substance* of marriage, since it destroys the subject; but adultery is against the *good of faith*, without which marriage can exist[^p810-5]; and therefore it is not similar.

---

la: Can. 5. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Canon 5. See here the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Can. *Admonere* (8.), ubi textus originalis utitur nomine *Hastulphi* pro *Arnulphi* (cfr. supra nota 4.).

en: The canon *Admonere* (8.), where the original text uses the name *Hastulphus* for *Arnulphus* (cf. above, note 4).

la: Respicitur Sap. XI, 17. Cfr. supra pag. 781, nota 8.

en: The reference is to Wisdom XI, 17. Cf. above, p. 781, note 8.

la: Cap. 4. — Idem dicitur Extra, loc. cit. (lib. IV. tit. 7.), C. *Propositum* (I.), C. *Super hoc* (3.) et C. *Significasti* (6.) seq. — Superius pro *et tractum est*, quod habent plures codd. et ed. I, codd. L R T *et tractatum est*, Vat. falso *retractatum est*, codd. M O U X legunt *et tactum est in canone*.

en: Chapter 4. — The same is said in the Decretals, loc. cit. (bk. IV, tit. 7), C. *Propositum* (I.), C. *Super hoc* (3.) and C. *Significasti* (6.) and following. — Above, for *et tractum est* (and it was treated), which several codices and ed. I have, codices L R T [read] *et tractatum est*, the Vatican edition wrongly *retractatum est*, codices M O U X read *et tactum est in canone*.

la: Cod. U addit *quod fecerat*.

en: Codex U adds *quod fecerat* (which he had done).

la: Cod. K supplet *matrimonium*.

en: Codex K supplies *matrimonium*.

la: In C. *Interfectores* (5.), C. 33. q. 2. dicitur: *Quibus* [qui coniuges occidunt] *penitus coniugium denegatur, exceptis adolescentibus*, de quibus est B. Leonis papae XXV. regula decretalium [cfr. ibid. C. *In adolescentia* (14.) et C. *Antiqui* (19.)], immo indulgentia observanda.

en: In the canon *Interfectores* (5.), C. 33 q. 2, it is said: *To whom* [i.e. those who kill their spouses] *marriage is utterly denied, excepting adolescents*, concerning whom there is the decretal rule XXV of blessed Pope Leo [cf. ibid. C. *In adolescentia* (14.) and C. *Antiqui* (19.)]; nay, indulgence is to be observed.

la: Cfr. C. *Propositum* (I.), et C. *Super hoc* (3.) ac C. *Significasti* (6.), seq., X. de Eo qui duxit in matrim. etc. (lib. IV. tit. 7.). — Inferius voci *taliter* cod. aa praemittit *et*.

en: Cf. C. *Propositum* (I.), and C. *Super hoc* (3.) and C. *Significasti* (6.), and following, X (Decretals), "On him who took into marriage," etc. (bk. IV, tit. 7). — Below, to the word *taliter* codex aa prefixes *et*.

la: Vide supra pag. 782, nota 2. — Plures codd. hic et paulo inferius *interfecit*.

en: See above, p. 782, note 2. — Several codices [read] here and a little below *interfecit* (he killed).

la: Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — In fine Vat. addit *hinc et inde*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. above, d. 31, a. 1, q. 3. — At the end the Vatican edition adds *hinc et inde* (on this side and that). — See the scholion to the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p809-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p810-{L,R}-*`, regenerated at split_x=1560 for full right-column capture and 2120 for full left-column capture), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (cascade-shattered two-column OCR → PDF bands authoritative for Respondeo/Solutio/footers). Raw OCR range L86676–86788 consulted for marker spacing only. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Opener alignment — VERIFIED.** Raw L86681 reads "Tertio quaeritur, utrum uxoricidium impediat matrimonium" — correctly aligned to Quaestio III (last question of Art. II). No q-swap.

**Page span.** The quaestio opens partway down page 809's left column (QUAESTIO III heading, after a2-q2's tail) and closes at the end of page 810's right column, immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (raw ~L86789). The `<!-- page 810 -->` break falls before the *ad oppositum* argument 3 ("omne peccatum potest deleri…"). Structure: *videtur* args 1–4 + *ad oppositum* args 1–4 (1–2 on p809, 3–4 on p810), Conclusio, Respondeo, four replies.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial glosses, not Bonaventure's text): "Argumenta.", "Ad oppositum.", "Notandum." (a2-q2's), "Triplex modos coniugicidii.", "Conclusio 1.", "Solutio oppositi." — omitted from the body per the OCR-cleanup rule.

**Apparatus split (cross-chunk footer hand-offs).**
- **Page 809** footer block runs notes 1–10 (numbering restarts per page). Notes **1–5 belong to a2-q2's tail** (markers `generatur¹`, `plus² excedit`, `adeo³`, `quaestione secunda⁴`, `doctoribus⁵` — all in the a2-q2 material at the top of the shared page); a2-q2 should claim them. **This chunk claims only notes 6–10** (markers anchored in q3's body: `quaestione secunda⁶`, `eodem titulo⁷`, `torquendus est⁸`, `in littera⁹`, `propter homicidium¹⁰`).
- **Page 810** footer block runs notes 1–7. **Notes 1–5 are this chunk's** (markers `non impedit¹`, `dispensatur²`, `uxoricidio³`, `interficit⁴`, `esse potest⁵`). **Notes 6–7 belong to the DUBIA** chunk (markers `Leo Papa⁶`, `sine impedimento⁷` in the *Dub. I* body that begins after this quaestio) — forwarded to the dubia chunk, not claimed here.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. This quaestio prints no scholion of its own; note p810-5 confirms it ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." = the Art. II scholion, which lives in a2-q1 and covers all of Art. II).

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved cleanly against the PDF bands. Minor normalization: note p809-8 "Sap. XI, 17" (band prints the chapter in arabic "11"); rendered with Vulgate roman-chapter numbering.


title: Dist. 37, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 810 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each label encodes the printed page and the note's position on that page. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; notes 1–5 of p. 810 belong to the preceding a. 2, q. 3, and are not reproduced here.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit: *Uxorem ducere virginem Ecclesia Romana permittit.* Quare ponit, quod permittit ducere *virginem*? Cum enim nullo voto sint astricti, ita potuerunt ducere viduam, sicut virginem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod clerici ducentes uxores infra minores ordines possunt uxores dupliciter ducere: aut cum spe redeundi ad ministerium et officium clericatus, aut sine spe. Si cum spe; tunc permittitur, quod ducant virgines, et sic loquitur Leo Papa[^p810-6]. Si sine spe; tunc possunt quam volunt ducere; sed si ducant viduam, amplius non possunt ad officium, quod dimiserant, redire; vel si permittatur reditus ad ordines minores, inhibetur promotio ad maiores. Et ideo dicit: *permittitur,* supple: si volunt ad clericatum aliquo tempore redire sine impedimento[^p810-7].

<!-- page 811 -->

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Placuit, episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, subdiaconos etiam ab uxoribus abstinere* etc. Videtur enim mala esse haec constitutio: quia nemo potest uxorem privare iure suo: ergo videtur, quodsi habent uxores, quod non possunt abstinere ab eis, etiam si velint. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis in inferioribus ordinibus, uxore tacente et sciente, promoveatur[^p811-1], utrum debeat, cum reclamaverit, debitum sibi reddi. Et quod sic, videtur, quia votum continentiae non vovit; et iterum, si vir ingrediatur religionem, et ipsa taceat, si reclamet post apud episcopum, redire compellitur[^p811-2]: ergo etc.

Item quaeritur, utrum, mortuo viro, teneatur ad continentiam perpetuam talis mulier, an possit contrahere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur, quod si non habent uxores, nunquam debent contrahere, ex quo ad sacros ordines sunt promoti; si autem habent, non possunt promoveri sine assensu uxorum secundum consuetudinem Romanae Ecclesiae; et verum est, quod requirendus est earum consensus. Quod si uxor taceat, viro suscipiente ordinem, et locum et tempus habet reclamandi; praesumitur consensisse[^p811-3] et amplius reclamare non potest; et ex consensu suo lex continentiae sibi indicitur nec potest requirere virum.

Utrum autem possit contrahere; dicendum, quod, sicut dicitur trigesima secunda distinctione, canone *Seriatim*[^p811-4] etc., non potest, etiam post mortem viri, immo tenetur ad continentiam perpetuam.

Sed qualiter hoc sit intelligendum, inter iurisperitos est controversia. Aliqui enim dicunt, quod mulier consentiens viro, vovere intelligitur; sed votum istud, quia non est solemnizatum, impedit matrimonium contrahendum, sed non dirimit iam contractum. — Alii dicunt, quod solemnizatur in voto viri. — Tertii dicunt, quod secus est in uxore ingressi religionem et clerici: quia uxor clerici tenetur, sed non uxor ingressi, quia dignior est clericatus quam religio, cum bigamus possit esse religiosus, non autem clericus. — Alii dicunt, et hoc videtur probabilius, quod uxor aut ignorat ius illud, quia nec scit nec sibi dicitur, aut novit. Primo modo non obligatur; secundo modo, si novit aut sibi dicitur et consentit, obligatur.

Sed quid in tanta diversitate tenendum est? Sane dici potest, quodsi uxor consentiat viro, quod ordinem sacrum suscipiat, vel quod religionem ingrediatur in conspectu personae, per quam secundum formam Ecclesiae possit fieri divortium, quod ipsa obligatur ad continentiam perpetuam cum viro, qui est eadem caro cum ipsa[^p811-5], nec excusatur per iuris ignorantiam; nec est diversimode iudicandum in clericis et religiosis quantum ad hoc, cum utrobique corpus viri perpetuo Domino dedicetur. Et hoc expresse dicitur distinctione trigesima secunda, canone *Seriatim*[^p811-6] etc.: « Neque permittitur uxor iungi eidem marito suo carnaliter nec unquam nubere, aut in eius vita aut post mortem ». Et ideo satis probabiliter dictum est, quod viro vovente et solemnizante, ipsa vovisse intelligitur; et hoc totum probatur per multa iura, quae dicuntur libro tertio, de Conversione coniugatorum[^p811-7].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quibus penitus denegatur coniugium.* Ex hoc enim videtur, quod cum talibus dispensari non possit. Quaeritur igitur: pro quibus peccatis coniugium denegatur et in quibus dispensatur?

**Respondeo:** Notandum est, quod in septem generibus. Primum est adulterium cum occisione, vel fidei datione; Causa trigesima prima, quaestione prima[^p811-8]. — Secundum est incestus; Causa trigesima secunda, quaestione septima, *Concubuisti.* — Tertium est raptus sponsae alterius; Causa vigesima septima, quaestione secunda, *Statutum.* — Quartum est de eo qui insidians matrimonio filium de sacro fonte levavit, et de hoc habetur Causa trigesima, quaestione prima, *De eo autem.* — Quintum est de eo qui occidit presbyterum; Extra, de Poenitentiis et remissionibus[^p811-9], *Qui presbyterum.* — Sextum de eo qui occidit propriam uxorem; Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda. — Septimum solemniter poenitentes; Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda, *De his antiqui.* — In omnibus dispensatur praeterquam in primo, propter hoc quod respicit personam determinatam[^p811-10].

<!-- page 812 -->

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *Sancta Dei Ecclesia gladium non habet nisi spiritualem.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia Bernardus dicit ad Eugenium[^p812-1], quod habet utrumque gladium: « Et uterque gladius tam spiritualis quam materialis est Ecclesiae »; et hoc probat per illud Lucae vigesimo secundo: *Sunt gladii duo;* et Dominus: *Satis est.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod uterque, ut dicit Bernardus, est Ecclesiae, sed differenter, quia spiritualis extrahendus est *manu* Ecclesiae, sed materialis non *manu*, sed tantum *nutu*[^p812-2]; et per hoc solvitur illud.

---

english:
<!-- page 810 -->

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is doubted about that which he says: *The Roman Church permits the taking of a virgin to wife.* Why does he lay down that it permits the taking of a virgin? For since they are bound by no vow, they could take a widow just as [they could] a virgin.

**I respond:** It must be said that clerics in the minor orders who take wives can take wives in two ways: either with hope of returning to the ministry and office of the clerical state, or without hope. If with hope, then it is permitted that they take virgins, and thus Pope Leo speaks[^p810-6]. If without hope, then they can take whom they will; but if they take a widow, they can no longer return to the office which they had left; or, even if return to the minor orders be permitted, promotion to the major orders is barred. And therefore he says *it permits*—supply: if they wish at some time to return to the clerical state without impediment[^p810-7].

<!-- page 811 -->

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *It has pleased [the Church] that bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons also abstain from wives,* etc. For this constitution seems to be bad: because no one can deprive a wife of her right; therefore it seems that, if they have wives, they cannot abstain from them, even if they should wish. — Likewise, suppose that someone in the lower orders is promoted, his wife being silent and knowing[^p811-1], whether he ought, when she has protested, to render the [conjugal] debt to her. And that he ought, it seems, because he did not vow the vow of continence; and again, if the husband enters religion and she is silent, if she afterward protests before the bishop, he is compelled to return[^p811-2]: therefore, etc.

Likewise it is asked whether, the husband being dead, such a woman is bound to perpetual continence, or whether she can contract [marriage].

**I respond:** It must be said that this is understood thus: that if they do not have wives, they must never contract [marriage], since they have been promoted to sacred orders; but if they do have [them], they cannot be promoted without the assent of the wives, according to the custom of the Roman Church; and it is true that their consent must be sought. But if the wife is silent while the husband receives the order, and she has place and time for protesting, she is presumed to have consented[^p811-3] and can no longer protest; and by her own consent the law of continence is imposed upon her, nor can she require [the debt of] her husband.

But whether she can contract [marriage]—it must be said that, as is stated in the thirty-second distinction, in the canon *Seriatim*[^p811-4], etc., she cannot, even after the death of her husband; rather she is bound to perpetual continence.

But how this is to be understood is a matter of controversy among the jurists. For some say that a woman consenting to her husband is understood to vow; but that vow, because it is not solemnized, impedes a marriage yet to be contracted, but does not dissolve one already contracted. — Others say that it is solemnized in the husband's vow. — A third group say that it is otherwise in the wife of one who has entered religion than in the wife of a cleric: because the wife of a cleric is bound, but not the wife of one who has entered [religion], since the clerical state is worthier than the religious state, seeing that a bigamist can be a religious but not a cleric. — Others say, and this seems more probable, that the wife either is ignorant of that law, because she neither knows it nor is it told her, or she knows it. In the first way she is not bound; in the second way, if she knows it or it is told her and she consents, she is bound.

But what is to be held amid such diversity? It can rightly be said that, if the wife consents to her husband that he receive a sacred order, or that he enter religion, in the presence of the person through whom, according to the form of the Church, a divorce could be made, then she is bound to perpetual continence together with her husband, who is one flesh with her[^p811-5], nor is she excused by ignorance of the law; nor is judgment to be given differently in the case of clerics and of religious as to this point, since in both cases the husband's body is perpetually dedicated to the Lord. And this is expressly stated in the thirty-second distinction, in the canon *Seriatim*[^p811-6], etc.: « Nor is the wife permitted to be joined carnally to her same husband, nor ever to marry, either during his life or after his death ». And therefore it has been said with sufficient probability that, when the husband vows and solemnizes, she is understood to have vowed; and this whole matter is proved by many laws, which are stated in the third book, under *On the Conversion of the Married*[^p811-7].

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *To whom marriage is utterly denied.* For from this it seems that with such persons no dispensation can be given. It is asked, therefore: for what sins is marriage denied, and in which is a dispensation given?

**I respond:** It must be noted that [it is denied] in seven kinds. The first is adultery with killing, or with the pledging of faith; Cause 31, question 1[^p811-8]. — The second is incest; Cause 32, question 7, *Concubuisti.* — The third is the ravishing of another's betrothed; Cause 27, question 2, *Statutum.* — The fourth concerns one who, plotting against a marriage, lifted a son from the sacred font [i.e. stood godfather], and about this it is found in Cause 30, question 1, *De eo autem.* — The fifth concerns one who has killed a priest; Extra, On Penances and Remissions[^p811-9], *Qui presbyterum.* — The sixth concerns one who has killed his own wife; Cause 33, question 2. — The seventh, those doing solemn penance; Cause 33, question 2, *De his antiqui.* — In all a dispensation is given except in the first, on account of the fact that it regards a determinate person[^p811-10].

<!-- page 812 -->

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *the Holy Church of God has no sword but the spiritual.* For it seems false to say this, because Bernard says to Eugene[^p812-1] that she has both swords: « And each sword, the spiritual as well as the material, belongs to the Church »; and he proves this by that passage of Luke twenty-two: *There are two swords;* and the Lord: *It is enough.*

**I respond:** It must be said that both belong to the Church, as Bernard says, but differently, because the spiritual is to be drawn by the *hand* of the Church, but the material not by her *hand*, but only at her *nod*[^p812-2]; and by this that [objection] is resolved.

---

la: In verbis huius dubii; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Paulo ante pro *virgines* plures codd. *virginem.*

en: In the words of this doubt; cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — A little before, for *virgines* [virgins] several codices read *virginem* [a virgin].

la: Scilicet bigamiae. Vide supra d. 28. a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Namely, [the impediment] of bigamy. See above, d. 28, a. 2, q. 3, fundamentum 3. — The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.

la: Cod. U supplet *ad maiores.* Inferius pro *cum reclamaverit* cod. bb *cum ipsa reclamavit*, qui etiam subinde cum codd. F G substituit *reddere* pro *reddi.*

en: Codex U supplements *ad maiores* [to the major orders]. Below, for *cum reclamaverit* [when he has protested] codex bb reads *cum ipsa reclamavit* [when she has protested], which likewise thereafter, with codices F and G, substitutes *reddere* for *reddi.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVII, c. 7, et Comment. dub. 1.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXVII, c. 7, and the Commentary, dub. 1.

la: Regul. iuris, regul. 43: « Qui tacet consentire videtur », lib. V. tit. 12. in VI.

en: Rules of law, rule 43: "He who is silent is held to consent," book V, title 12, in the Sext.

la: Can. 14. Verba canonis habentur infra circa finem solut.

en: Canon 14. The words of the canon are given below, near the end of the solution.

la: Respicitur Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, b. seq. — Superius pro *ordinem sacrum* nonnulli codd. et edd. *ordinem sanctum.*

en: Reference is made to Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19 (division b) and following. — Above, for *ordinem sacrum* [sacred order] some codices and editions read *ordinem sanctum* [holy order].

la: Can. 14: Neque permittitur postea uxor... nec cuiquam nubere in vita; aut post mortem illius.

en: Canon 14: "Nor is the wife afterward permitted... nor to marry anyone, during his life or after his death."

la: Extra, lib. III. tit. 32. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 4.

en: Extra [the Decretals], book III, title 32. — Cf. on this doubt B. Albert, here a. 4.

la: Can. *Si quis vivente* (5.). Cfr. C. *Super hoc* (3.), X. de Eo qui duxit in matrim. etc. (lib. IV. tit. 7.). — Secundum habetur C. 32. q. 7. c. 23; tertium C. 27. q. 2. c. 34; quartum C. 30. q. 1. c. 5. — Superius post *generibus* cod. aa supplet *denegatur.*

en: Canon *Si quis vivente* (5). Cf. C. *Super hoc* (3), X, "On one who married [a woman] while his wife was living," etc. (book IV, title 7). — The second is found in C. 32, q. 7, c. 23; the third, C. 27, q. 2, c. 34; the fourth, C. 30, q. 1, c. 5. — Above, after *generibus* [kinds] codex aa supplements *denegatur* [is denied].

la: Libr. V. tit. 38. c. 2. — Seq. habetur C. Interfectores (5.), C. 33. q. 2. (cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.); ibid. C. De his vero non incongrue (12.) insinuatur ultimum.

en: Book V, title 38, c. 2. — What follows is found in C. *Interfectores* (5), C. 33, q. 2 (cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2); ibid., in C. *De his vero* (12) the last [case] is not unfittingly implied.

la: Vide B. Albert., hic a. 12.

en: See B. Albert, here a. 12.

la: Libr. IV. de Considerat. c. 3. n. 7: « Uterque ergo Ecclesiae, et spiritalis scilicet gladius et materialis ». Quibus verbis praemittit: Alioquin, si nullo modo ad te pertineret et is [materialis], dicentibus Apostolis: Ecce, gladii duo hic, non respondisset Dominus: Satis est [Luc. 22, 38.].

en: Book IV, On Consideration, c. 3, n. 7: "Both, therefore, belong to the Church, namely the spiritual sword and the material." To which words he prefaces: "Otherwise, if it in no way pertained to you—this [material sword] too—then, when the Apostles said, 'Behold, here are two swords,' the Lord would not have answered, 'It is enough'" [Luke 22:38].

la: Bernard., loc. cit.: Quem [gladium materialem] tamen qui tuum negat, non satis mihi videtur attendere verbum Domini dicentis sic: Converte gladium tuum in vaginam [Ioan. 18, 11.]. Tuus ergo et ipse, tuo forsitan nutu, etsi non tua manu, evaginandus. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Bernard, in the same place: "Yet he who denies that this [material sword] is yours seems to me not sufficiently to heed the word of the Lord, who says thus: 'Put your sword back into its sheath' [John 18:11]. Therefore it too is yours, to be drawn perhaps at your nod, though not by your hand." — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF colcrop bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{810,811,812}-{L,R}-*.png`, 450 dpi), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L86789–86936). Offset pdf = printed + 20. Per the CLAUDE.md VOL II OVERRIDE, the PDF bands are authoritative for running prose and footers where the two-column OCR cascade-fragments. Editorial marginal glosses (e.g. *Iudicium auctoris*, *Quaestio duplex*, *De prima septem casus*, *De secunda*, *De gladio Ecclesiae*) were trimmed from the body per project convention.

**Dubia count.** Four dubia, Dub. I–IV. Dub. I on printed p. 810; Dub. II and Dub. III on p. 811; Dub. IV on p. 812. `printed_pages` corrected from [810, 811] to [810, 811, 812] (and `pdf_pages` to [830, 831, 832]): Dub. IV falls under the running head "812 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." — the dispatch estimate of pp. 810–811 ran one page short. `line_start`/`line_end` frontmatter kept as dispatched (raw range is reference-only; the last dubium's body runs to raw L86932).

**Seam verification (d.37 → d.38).** Dub. IV is COMPLETE. Its Respondeo ends "...sed tantum *nutu*; et per hoc solvitur illud." (raw L86932), and `DISTINCTIO XXXVIII` (the d.38 littera, *Cap. I. De votis*) begins at raw L86937. Confirmed on band `vol4-p812-R-0.png`: "solvitur illud." is immediately followed by the DISTINCTIO XXXVIII head. No truncation at the seam; no d.38 material claimed.

**Footer accounting (Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page).**
- **p. 810** carries footers 1–7. Notes **1–5 anchor in the prior chunk a. 2, q. 3** (the *uxoricidium* Respondeo + numbered replies "interficit⁴", "esse potest⁵" — verified on band `vol4-p810-R-1.png`) and are NOT claimed here. Only **notes 6 (Leo Papa) and 7 (*sine impedimento* / *scilicet bigamiae*) anchor in Dub. I** — these are the two forwarded by the a2-q3 hand-off, now claimed in this body.
- **p. 811** carries footers 1–10, ALL claimed here: notes **1–7 anchor in Dub. II** (1 promoveatur, 2 compellitur, 3 consensisse, 4 canone Seriatim, 5 eadem caro, 6 canone Seriatim/canon text, 7 de Conversione coniugatorum); notes **8–10 anchor in Dub. III** (8 first genus, 9 Qui presbyterum, 10 personam determinatam). No d.38 material appears on p. 811 (the p.811-tail hand-off caution did not materialize; the "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" d.38 block is on p. 812, not p. 811).
- **p. 812** carries the Dub. IV footers **1 (Bernard, *De Consideratione* lib. IV c. 3 n. 7) and 2 (Bernard, loc. cit.)** — claimed here. The p. 812 right-column block headed `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` (Hugo a S. Vict., *De Bono viduitatis*, etc.; raw L86992 ff.) belongs to the **d.38 littera** and is NOT claimed (hand-off forward honored).

**[?] flags.**
- ~~`[?]`~~ **p811-8 canon number — RESOLVED (600dpi p.811), 2026-07-13 decade polish-blocker.** The band `vol4-p811-R-2.png` read the opening canon *Si quis vivente* as **(5.)**; the IA djvu OCR read **(3.)**. Re-checked at 600 dpi on `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-811-r600-0831.png`, right-column footer, footnote 8 (crop x 2650–3400, y 0.70h+540…+660): the glyph has the flat top bar and open lower bowl of a **5**, plainly distinct from the double-bowl **3** printed two lines above in `lib. III. tit. 32.` and in `(3.)` later in the same note. Quaracchi prints **Can. *Si quis vivente* (5.)**. The rendering stands; no edit needed. Flag closed.
- No other ambiguous readings; the Dub. I garble "mrfi/,am" (OCR) resolves unambiguously to **viduam** on band `vol4-p810-R-1.png` (context + note 7 *scilicet bigamiae*), so it is corrected silently rather than flagged.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* p. 810 footers 6–7 (Leo Papa / sine impedimento), forwarded by a2-q3 — anchored in Dub. I above.
- *Forwarded:* none for the next chunk. The d.38 littera (`DISTINCTIO XXXVIII`, *Cap. I De votis*) begins at raw L86937; its NOTAE block and body on p. 812 are left entirely to the d.38 littera chunk.


title: Dist. 38

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXVIII

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XXXVIII

source_text:
<!-- page 812 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXVIII.

### Cap. I. *De votis.*

Nunc de voto inspiciamus. Votum est «testificatio quaedam promissionis spontaneae[^p812-1]», quae Deo et de his quae Dei sunt, proprie fieri debet. Sunt tamen et vota stultorum, quae frangenda sunt.

### Cap. II. *De votorum differentia.*

Sciendum vero, quod votorum aliud est *commune*, aliud *singulare*: *commune*, ut illud quod in baptismo omnes faciunt, cum spondent renuntiare diabolo et pompis eius; *singulare*, ut cum aliquis sponte promittit servare virginitatem et continentiam, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Item *singulare* votum aliud est *privatum*, aliud *solemne*; *privatum* est in abscondito factum, *solemne* vero in conspectu Ecclesiae factum; item *privatum* votum si violetur, peccatum est mortale; *solemne* vero violare peccatum est et scandalum. Qui *privatum* faciunt votum continentiae matrimonium contrahere non debent, quia contrahendo mortaliter peccant; si tamen contraxerint, non separentur, quia probari non potest quod occulte actum est. Qui vero *solemniter* vovent, nullatenus coniugium inire queunt; quibus non solum *nubere*, sed et *velle* damnabile est. Unde Augustinus[^p812-2]: «In coniugali vinculo, si pudicitia servatur, damnatio non timetur; sed in viduali continentia et virginali excellentia virtus muneris amplioris expetitur; qua expetita et electa et voto oblata, iam non solum capessere nuptias, sed etiam, si non nubatur, *nubere velle* damnabile est». «Voventibus enim virginitatem vel viduitatem non solum *nubere*, sed etiam *velle* damnabile est». Quod Apostolus[^p812-3] ostendit, Timotheo scribens: *Adolescentiores viduas devita; cum enim luxuriatae fuerint, in Christo nubere volunt*, id est, cum post votum continentiae in deliciis egerint vitam, non dico nubunt, sed nubere volunt in Christo, quasi tunc non sit peccatum; sed *quod sit*, ostendit subdens: *Habentes damnationem*; et *quare*, subdit: *quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt*, etsi non nubendo, tamen volendo; ut voluntatem, quae a proposito cecidit, appareat esse damnatam, sive sequantur nuptiae, sive non. Damnatur enim propositi fraus; damnantur tales, quia continentiae fidem primam irritam fecerunt, id est *votum*, vel in voto violato *fidem*, quam in baptismo professae sunt. Si autem pro voluntate nubendi damnantur, constat, si ream effectui mancipaverint, revocandum id esse in irritum, easque arcendas redire ad propositum. Unde Gregorius[^p812-4]: «Viduas a proposito recedentes viduitatis, super quibus nos consuluisti, credo te nosse a sancto Paulo, nisi convertantur, olim esse damnatas; quas et nos apostolica auctoritate damnandas et a communione fidelium atque a liminibus Ecclesiae arcendas fore censemus, usquequo obediant episcopis suis et ad bonum, quod coeperunt, invite, aut voluntarie revertantur».

«De virginibus autem non velatis, si deviaverint, a praedecessore nostro Innocentio tale decretum habemus: Hae quae necdum sacro velamine tectae, tamen in proposito virginali semper se simulaverunt permanere, licet velatae non fuerint, tamen, si nupserint, aliquo tempore his agenda poenitentia est, quia sponsio earum a Domino tenebatur. Si enim inter homines solet bonae fidei contractus nulla ratione dissolvi; quanto magis ista pollicitatio, quam cum Deo pepigit, solvi sine vindicta non poterit[^p812-5]»? Item: «Si virgines nondum velatae taliter publica poenitentia puniuntur et a coetu fidelium usque ad satisfactionem

<!-- page 813 -->

excluduntur; quanto magis viduae, quae perfectioris aetatis et maturioris consilii existunt et habitum religionis assumserunt, et deinde apostataverunt atque ad *priorem vomitum sunt reversae*, a nobis et ab omnibus fidelibus a liminibus Ecclesiae et a coetu fidelium usque ad satisfactionem sunt eliminandae et carceribus tradendae»? — Ex his apparet, virgines vel viduas voto continentiae astrictas, sive fuerint velatae, sive non, nullatenus coniugium sortiri posse. Quod itidem de omnibus intelligendum est, qui continentiam voverunt. Quod enim ante erat licitum post votum fit illicitum.

Non est hic praetermittendum, quod Innocentius de viduis et puellis decrevit: «Quae Christo spiritualiter nubunt, si postea publice nupserint, non eas admittendas esse ad poenitentiam, nisi hi quibus se iunxerant, de mundo recesserint. Si enim de omnibus haec ratio custoditur, ut quaecumque, vivente viro, alteri nupserit, adultera habeatur, nec ei agendae poenitentiae licentia concedatur, nisi unus de eis fuerit defunctus; quanto magis de illa tenenda est, quae ante se immortali Sponso coniunxerat et post hoc ad humanas nuptias transmigravit[^p813-1]». — Attende, quod non solum *coniugium* talibus negare videtur, sed etiam *locum poenitentiae*. Sed non ita intelligendum est, ut aliquando excludantur a poenitentia, quae digne poenitentiam agere volunt; sed illae non sunt admittendae ad poenitentiam, quae ab incesti copula discedere noluerint; quia post religionis propositum non potest Deo per poenitentiam reconciliari quae ad habitum suae professionis redire neglexerit. Tunc ille cui se coniunxerat, ei defunctus erit, cum ab eius illicitis amplexibus haec penitus recesserit. Cum igitur dicitur, eas non esse admittendas ad poenitentiam, nisi hi quibus se iunxerant, recesserint de mundo; subaudiendum est *eis*. Tunc enim eis viri de mundo recedunt et defunguntur, cum ab eorum concupiscentia istae se alienant; quem sensum subdita similitudo declarat et confirmat.

Cum vir et mulier legitime coniuncti sunt, constat, alterum, altero vivente, ad aliam non posse transire copulam, alioquin adulterium committit; de quo Clemens Papa[^p813-2] ait: «Quid in omnibus peccatis adulterio est gravius? Secundum namque in poenis tenet locum, quem primum illi habent qui aberrant a Deo». Gravissime igitur peccant adulteri, graviter fornicarii, sed cunctis his gravius incestuosi, quos omnes transcendunt contra naturam delinquentes. Unde Augustinus[^p813-3]: «Adulterii malum vincit fornicationem, vincitur autem ab incestu. Peius enim est cum matre quam cum aliena uxore dormire; sed horum omnium pessimum est quod contra naturam fit, ut si vir membro mulieris non ad hoc concesso utatur; hoc exsecrabiliter fit in meretrice, sed exsecrabilius fit in uxore».

### Cap. III. *De illis qui post longam captivitatem redeunt.*

Hic quaeritur de illis feminis, quae putantes viros suos interemptos, vel in captivitate, vel ab iniqua dominatione nunquam liberandos, in aliorum coniugia transierunt; si illi qui putabantur periisse, remeaverint, utrum eis reddi debeant, et an secundi fornicati sint, et ipsae reae adulterii. De hoc Leo Papa[^p813-4] sic ait: «Necesse est, ut legitimarum foedera nuptiarum redintegranda credamus, et remotis his quae hostilitas intulit, cuique id legitime reformetur, quod intulit; procurandumque est, ut recipiat quisque quod proprium est. Nec tamen culpabilis iudicetur et quasi alieni iuris pervasor habeatur qui personam eius mariti, qui iam non esse existimabatur, assumsit. Sic enim multa, quae ad eos, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt, pertinebant, in ius alienum transire potuerunt; et tamen plenae iustitiae est, ut, eisdem reversis, reformentur. Ideoque, si viri post longam captivitatem reversi ita in dilectione suarum coniugum perseverant, ut eas cupiant in suum redire consortium; dimittendum est et inculpabile iudicandum quod necessitas intulit, et restituendum quod fides poscit. Sin autem aliquae mulieres ita virorum posteriorum amore sunt captae, ut malint his cohaerere quam ad legitimum transire consortium, merito sunt notandae, ita ut ecclesiastica communione priventur quae de re excusabili contaminationem criminis elegerunt. Redeant ergo in suum coniugia statum, quia, sicut mulieres, quae ad viros suos reverti noluerint, impiae sunt habendae, ita illae quae redeunt, merito sunt laudandae». — Ex his ostenditur, illos qui taliter iunguntur, ut credant virum interemptum, per ignorantiam aliquam excusationem habere de peccato; et tantum primam copulam esse legitimam, non secundam; veniam tamen habere, si careat opprobrio malae voluntatis. — Sed si quis, relicta in patria sua uxore, in longinquam abiens regionem, aliam ducat uxorem, deinde poenitentia ductus eam dimittere velit, asserens, se aliam habuisse, quae vivit, nec Ecclesia permittat, quae quod ille asserit ignorat; quaeritur, an in hac secunda copula sit coniugium. Sane dici potest, non esse coniugium, et mulierem de crimine excusari per ignorantiam, virum autem adulterium admisisse. Sed ex quo, ad primam redire volens nec valens, cogitur Ecclesiae disciplina hanc tenere, incipit excusari per obedientiam et timorem de hoc, quod poscenti mulieri debitum reddit, a qua ipse nunquam poscere debet. Et sic de aliis huiusmodi sentiendum est[^p813-5].

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXVIII.

### Chap. I. *On vows.*

Now let us examine the vow. A vow is «a certain attestation of a spontaneous promise[^p812-1]», which ought properly to be made to God and concerning those things which are God's. Yet there are also vows of fools, which ought to be broken.

### Chap. II. *On the difference of vows.*

But it must be known that of vows one is *common*, another *singular*: *common*, as that which all make in baptism, when they promise to renounce the devil and his pomps; *singular*, as when someone spontaneously promises to keep virginity and continence, or something of this kind. Likewise a *singular* vow is of one sort *private*, of another *solemn*; *private* is that made in secret, but *solemn* that made in the sight of the Church; likewise if a *private* vow is violated, it is a mortal sin; but to violate a *solemn* one is a sin and a scandal. Those who make a *private* vow of continence ought not to contract matrimony, because in contracting they sin mortally; if however they have contracted, let them not be separated, because what has been done secretly cannot be proved. But those who vow *solemnly* can in no way enter marriage; for whom not only *to marry*, but also *to will* it is damnable. Hence Augustine[^p812-2]: «In the conjugal bond, if chastity is preserved, damnation is not feared; but in widowed continence and virginal excellence the virtue of a greater gift is sought; and once this has been sought and chosen and offered by vow, now not only to take up marriage, but even, if one does not marry, *to will to marry* is damnable». «For to those vowing virginity or widowhood not only to marry, but even *to will* it is damnable». This the Apostle[^p812-3] shows, writing to Timothy: *Avoid the younger widows; for when they have grown wanton, they wish to marry in Christ*, that is, when after a vow of continence they have led their life in delights, I do not say they marry, but they wish to marry in Christ, as though then it were not a sin; but *that it is* [a sin], he shows by adding: *Having damnation*; and *why*, he subjoins: *because they have made void their first faith*, even if not by marrying, yet by willing; so that the will, which has fallen away from its purpose, may appear to be damned, whether marriages follow, or not. For the fraud of the purpose is damned; such women are damned, because they have made void the first faith of continence, that is the *vow*, or, in a violated vow, the *faith* which they professed in baptism. But if they are damned for the will to marry, it is clear that, if they have surrendered the guilty [will] to its effect, it must be recalled into voidness, and that they must be driven back to return to their purpose. Hence Gregory[^p812-4]: «Widows withdrawing from the purpose of widowhood, concerning whom you have consulted us, I believe you know from Saint Paul, unless they be converted, to have been long ago damned; whom we also by apostolic authority judge to be condemned and to be barred from the communion of the faithful and from the thresholds of the Church, until they obey their bishops and return, unwillingly or willingly, to the good which they began».

«But concerning unveiled virgins, if they have gone astray, we have from our predecessor Innocent such a decree: These who, not yet covered by the sacred veil, have nevertheless always pretended to remain in the virginal purpose, although they were not veiled, nevertheless, if they have married, for some time penance must be done by them, because their pledge was held by the Lord. For if among men a contract of good faith is wont to be dissolved by no reason; how much more will this promise, which she struck with God, not be able to be loosed without punishment[^p812-5]»? Likewise: «If virgins not yet veiled are in such wise punished by public penance and

<!-- page 813 -->

excluded from the assembly of the faithful until satisfaction; how much more are the widows, who are of more perfect age and more mature counsel and have taken up the habit of religion, and afterwards have apostatized and *have returned to their former vomit*, to be removed by us and by all the faithful from the thresholds of the Church and from the assembly of the faithful until satisfaction, and to be handed over to prisons»? — From these things it appears that virgins or widows bound by a vow of continence, whether they have been veiled, or not, can in no way obtain marriage. And this is likewise to be understood of all who have vowed continence. For what before was lawful, after the vow becomes unlawful.

It is not here to be passed over, what Innocent decreed concerning widows and maidens: «They who spiritually marry Christ, if afterwards they publicly marry, are not to be admitted to penance, unless those to whom they had joined themselves have departed from the world. For if of all this rule is kept, that whoever, while her husband lives, marries another be held an adulteress, nor be granted her license to do penance, unless one of them has died; how much more is it to be maintained of her, who had joined herself before to the immortal Spouse and after this migrated to human marriage[^p813-1]». — Note, that not only does he seem to deny *marriage* to such women, but also *the place of penance*. But it is not so to be understood, that those who wish worthily to do penance should ever be excluded from penance; but those are not to be admitted to penance, who have been unwilling to depart from the incestuous union; because after the purpose of religion she cannot be reconciled to God through penance who has neglected to return to the habit of her profession. Then he to whom she had joined herself will be dead to her, when she has utterly withdrawn from his unlawful embraces. When therefore it is said that they are not to be admitted to penance, unless those to whom they had joined themselves have departed from the world; *to them* is to be understood. For then the husbands depart from the world to them and die, when these withdraw themselves from their concupiscence; which sense the appended likeness declares and confirms.

When a man and a woman are lawfully joined, it is agreed that the one, while the other lives, cannot pass to another union, otherwise he commits adultery; concerning which Pope Clement[^p813-2] says: «What in all sins is graver than adultery? For it holds the second place in punishments, which first place those hold who stray from God». Most gravely therefore do adulterers sin, gravely fornicators, but more gravely than all these the incestuous, all of whom those transgressing against nature surpass. Hence Augustine[^p813-3]: «The evil of adultery surpasses fornication, but is surpassed by incest. For it is worse to sleep with a mother than with another's wife; but the worst of all these is what is done against nature, as if a man should use a member of a woman not granted for this; this is done execrably with a harlot, but more execrably with a wife».

### Chap. III. *On those who return after a long captivity.*

Here it is asked concerning those women who, thinking their husbands slain, or that they would never be freed, whether in captivity or from an unjust domination, have passed into the marriages of others; if those who were thought to have perished return, whether they ought to be restored to them, and whether the second [husbands] have fornicated, and the women themselves are guilty of adultery. Concerning this Pope Leo[^p813-4] thus says: «It is necessary that we believe the covenants of lawful marriages must be restored, and, those things removed which hostility brought in, that to each be lawfully restored what it brought in; and it must be procured that each receive what is his own. Nor yet let him be judged culpable and held as an invader of another's right, who assumed the person of that husband who was thought no longer to be. For thus many things which pertained to those who were led into captivity could pass into another's right; and yet it belongs to full justice that, when these have returned, they be restored. And therefore, if the husbands, returned after a long captivity, so persevere in love of their wives, that they desire them to return into their fellowship; that which necessity brought in must be dismissed and judged inculpable, and what faith demands must be restored. But if some women are so captivated by love of the later husbands, that they prefer to cleave to these rather than to pass over to the lawful fellowship, they are deservedly to be censured, so that they be deprived of ecclesiastical communion, who out of an excusable matter have chosen the contamination of a crime. Let them therefore return into the state of their [own] marriages, because, just as women who have been unwilling to return to their husbands are to be held impious, so those who return are deservedly to be praised». — From these things it is shown that those who are so joined, as to believe the husband slain, have through ignorance some excuse from sin; and that only the first union is lawful, not the second; yet that they have pardon, if it lack the reproach of an evil will. — But if someone, having left his wife in his own country, going away into a far region, marries another wife, then, led by penance, wishes to dismiss her, asserting that he had had another who lives, and the Church does not permit it, being ignorant of what he asserts; it is asked whether in this second union there is a marriage. It can indeed be said that there is no marriage, and that the woman is excused from the crime through ignorance, but that the man committed adultery. But from the fact that, wishing to return to the first and not being able, he is compelled by the discipline of the Church to keep this one, he begins to be excused through obedience and fear in this, that he renders the debt to the woman demanding it, from whom he himself ought never to demand it. And thus concerning other things of this kind it must be judged[^p813-5].

---

la: Hugo a S. Vict., II. *de Sacram.* p. XII. c. 3. De seqq. cfr. idem ibid.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, part XII, c. 3. For what follows compare the same, ibid.

la: *De Bono viduitatis*, c. 9. n. 12; C. *Nuptiarum bonum* (41.), C. 27. q. 1. § 1; in quo textu ed. 1 et can. apponunt *non* ante *servatur*, refragante Augustini originali. Seq. locus verbotenus est in C. *Voventibus* (2.), C. 17. q. 1.

en: *On the Good of Widowhood*, c. 9, n. 12; the canon *Nuptiarum bonum* (41.), C. 27, q. 1, § 1; in which text edition 1 and the canon add *non* before *servatur*, against Augustine's original. The following passage is word-for-word in the canon *Voventibus* (2.), C. 17, q. 1.

la: Epist. I. *Tim.* 5, 11. 12. (Vulg. ponit comma post *Christo*).

en: First Epistle to *Timothy* 5, 11–12. (The Vulgate places a comma after *Christo*).

la: Can. *Viduas a proposito* (2), C. 27. q. I.

en: The canon *Viduas a proposito* (2), C. 27, q. 1.

la: Ibid. § 1; seq. locus ibid. § 2, ubi respicitur II. *Petr.* 2, 22.

en: Ibid., § 1; the following passage ibid., § 2, where reference is made to 2 *Peter* 2, 22.

la: Can. *Quae Christo* (10.), C. 27. q. 1.

en: The canon *Quae Christo* (10.), C. 27, q. 1.

la: Can. *Quid in omnibus* (16.), C. 32. q. 7. Propositio seq. est apud Gratian. super C. *Quemadmodum non recte* (10.), ibid.

en: The canon *Quid in omnibus* (16.), C. 32, q. 7. The following proposition is found in Gratian upon the canon *Quemadmodum non recte* (10.), ibid.

la: Verbotenus in C. *Adulterii malum* (11.), ibid.; sententia est Augustini ex libro *de Bono coniugali*, c. 8. n. 8; c. 11. n. 12.

en: Word-for-word in the canon *Adulterii malum* (11.), ibid.; the opinion is Augustine's, from the book *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 8, n. 8; c. 11, n. 12.

la: Epist. 159. (alias 129.) ad Nicetam, c. 1; C. *Cum per bellicam* (1.), C. 34. q. 1. et 2.

en: Epistle 159 (alias 129) to Nicetas, c. 1; the canon *Cum per bellicam* (1.), C. 34, q. 1 and 2.

la: Hic casus sumtus est ex Hugone, *Sum. Sent.* tr. 7. c. 9. — De falsa solutione Magistri, postea communiter reprobata, cfr. Comment. infra dub. 12.

en: This case is taken from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 7, c. 9. — On the false solution of the Master, afterwards commonly rejected, compare the Commentary below, dub. 12. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF bands (`colcrop.py vol4 812/813` at split 2120 for the left column, 1780 for the right), following the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override. Raw OCR reference range L86937–87111. Read order per page: left column top→bottom, then right column.

**Page span corrected.** The skeleton frontmatter gave `printed_pages: [813, 814]`. Running-head verification shows the littera actually opens on **p.812** (`DISTINCTIO XXXVIII.` header, `Cap. I. De votis`, raw L86937) and ends on **p.813** with `Et sic de aliis huiusmodi sentiendum est` (Cap. III). Page **814** begins the divisio's `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXVIII` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` — it is *not* part of this littera. Corrected `printed_pages` → `[812, 813]`, `pdf_pages` → `[832, 833]`. `line_start`/`line_end` retained.

**Footer split on p.812 (d.37 hand-off).** Page 812 is shared with the tail of d.37's `DUB. IV` (the two-swords / *gladius* question). That column carries its own two Bonaventure-commentary footnotes (`1 Libr. IV. de Considerat.…`, `2 Bernard., loc. cit.…`) at the bottom of the **left** column; those anchor in the d.37 Dub. IV body (`spiritualem` / `nutu²`) and are **NOT claimed here**. This littera claims only the separate `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block in the **right** column of p.812 (littera notes 1–5) plus the p.813 `NOTAE` block (notes 1–5). No divisio hand-off forward: the littera ends cleanly at the foot of p.813 before the p.814 COMMENTARIUS.

**Apparatus.** 10 entries, per-page split 5 (p.812) + 5 (p.813). Per-page numbering restart preserved via `[^p812-N]` / `[^p813-N]` labels to avoid collision (both pages number 1–5).

**Editorial marginalia dropped.** The printed margins carry source labels (`Hugo.`, `Augustinus.`, `Canon.`, `Leo.`, `Innocentius.`, `Clemens.`) and Bonaventure dubium cross-references (`Dubia 1. 2.`, `Dubium 3.`, `6.`, `9.`, `Dubium 10.`, `11.`, `Casus quidam.`, `Dubium 12.`). These are Quaracchi marginal apparatus, not Lombard's text, and are omitted per the littera-chunk convention (cf. `vol1/bon-sent-I-d8-littera.md`).

**[?] flags.** None. All bands read cleanly at 450 dpi; the `NOTAE` blocks and body were fully legible.