title: Dist. 33, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 760 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum repudiare uxorem debuerit permitti.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum repudiare uxorem debuerit permitti. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia qui non prohibet malum, cum possit, habetur pro consentiente[^1]; sed legislator potuit prohibere et non prohibuit repudium: ergo consensit. Sed consentiens malo peccat: ergo etc.

2. Item, non sunt facienda mala, ut veniant bona[^2]: ergo nec permittenda mala, ne veniant maiora mala: ergo non debuit repudium permittere propter vitandum homicidium.

3. Item, vir et uxor pares sunt quantum ad legem tori[^3]; sed sicut vir potest occidere uxorem, ita uxor odiens virum potest machinari etiam mortem eius: ergo idem periculum et idem ius est ex utraque parte. Sed non permittebatur in Lege, ut uxor repudiaret virum: ergo etc.

4. Item, tempore legis naturae non legimus fuisse permissum repudium, tempore gratiae similiter legimus fuisse prohibitum; quare ergo tempore legis scriptae fuit permissum? — Si dicas, sicut Dominus dicit[^4], *ad duritiam cordis eorum*; contra: quia duri erant, ideo ad eorum duritiam confringendam imposuit legislator onera gravia: ergo si grave est habitare cum uxore exosa, congruebat ergo, non permitti repudium.

**Contra:**
1. In Lege non debuit prohiberi aliquid, quod non debuit puniri, nec puniri debuit, nisi ex quo deberent effici meliores, saltem in opere, quamvis non in caritate; sed si repudium non permitteretur, homines illi, qui proni[^5] erant ad homicidium, laberentur in peius: ergo etc.

2. Item, nulla Sacramenta ita perfecte fuerunt in veteri testamento, sicut in novo: ergo nec Sacramentum coniugii: ergo si perfectio in Sacramento coniugii[^6] consistit in indivisibilitate, non ergo debuit perfecte in lege veteri indivisibilitas imperari.

3. Item, si tanta esset arctitudo inter virum et uxorem, quod nullo modo separari possent; cum fornicatio tunc non puniretur, omnes efficerentur fornicarii, et pauci aut nulli ducerent uxores: ergo si praeceptum fuit tunc, semen legitimum multiplicari, repudium non debuit prohiberi.

### Conclusio.

> Ad mala maiora evitanda repudium uxoris a Moyse debuit permitti, id est non puniri.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod permissio est quadruplex: uno modo per privationem *praeceptionis*, et sic Apostolus[^7] permittit minus bonum, quia non praecipit maius bonum, sicut virginibus nubere permittit; secundo modo per privationem *prohibitionis*, et sic venialia dicuntur permissa, quia non sunt prohibita; tertio modo per privationem *punitionis*, et sic repudiatio uxoris est permissa, quia non punitur in Lege; quarto modo per privationem *cohibitionis*, et sic omnia mala dicuntur a Deo permissa, quia non cohibet. — Prima permissio est propter *boni qualitatem*; secunda est propter *nostram infirmitatem*; tertia propter *vitanda maiora mala*; quarta propter *elicienda maiora bona*. Permisit igitur Moyses, quia non poterat prohibere hoc malum, quin triplex malum inde sequeretur: primum quidem defectus Sacramenti, quia non vellent uxorem ducere; secundo, multiplicatio fornicationis; tertio, homicidium[^8].

1. 2. Ex hoc patent duo prima, quia Moyses non permisit nisi coactus, propter scilicet maius malum vitandum, unde fuit ibi potius *pati* quam *agere*; sed qui facit malum, ut veniat bonum, peccat faciendo: ideo non est simile quod secundo obiiciebatur.

3. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quare non permittitur mulieri, dicendum, quod tempore Legis non iudicabantur ad paria vir cum muliere, tum ratione *conditionis*, quia vir est principium mulieris[^9], tum ratione *praevaricationis*, quia mulier est initium peccati; ideo dictum est ei Genesis tertio: *Sub viri potestate eris.*

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare potius tempore illius Legis fuit permissum? dicendum, quod ad hoc triplex fuit ratio: una, quia non fuit eis omnino revelandum matrimonii mysterium, quia erat tempus umbrae; secunda, quia ipsi erant imperfecti,

<!-- page 761 -->

unde tantum onus nollent recipere; tertia, quia duri, et hoc onus nollent portare et occulte possent abiicere: et ideo non fuit imponendum.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de confractione duritiae, dicendum, quod frangenda erat per poenam, quae non esset occasio maioris mali, qualis fuisset obligatio ad talem inseparabilitatem; et ideo non sic debuit frangi.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the repudiation of a wife ought to have been permitted.*

In the second place it is asked whether the repudiation of a wife ought to have been permitted. And that it ought not, seems [to follow]:

1. Because he who does not prohibit an evil, when he can, is held to be consenting[^1]; but the legislator was able to prohibit and did not prohibit repudiation: therefore he consented. But one consenting to an evil sins: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, evils are not to be done that goods may come[^2]: therefore neither are evils to be permitted, lest greater evils come: therefore he ought not to have permitted repudiation for the sake of avoiding homicide.

3. Likewise, husband and wife are equal as regards the law of the marriage-bed[^3]; but just as a husband can kill his wife, so a wife hating her husband can contrive even his death: therefore there is the same danger and the same right on either side. But it was not permitted in the Law that a wife repudiate her husband: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, in the time of the law of nature we do not read that repudiation was permitted, and in the time of grace likewise we read that it was prohibited; why therefore in the time of the written law was it permitted? — If you should say, as the Lord says[^4], *for the hardness of their heart*; on the contrary: because they were hard, therefore, to break their hardness, the legislator imposed heavy burdens: therefore if it is grievous to dwell with a hated wife, it was fitting therefore that repudiation not be permitted.

**On the contrary:**
1. In the Law nothing ought to have been prohibited which ought not to have been punished, nor ought it to have been punished, except insofar as [men] ought to be made better, at least in deed, though not in charity; but if repudiation were not permitted, those men who were prone[^5] to homicide would fall into worse: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no Sacraments were as perfect in the old testament as in the new: therefore neither [was] the Sacrament of marriage: therefore if the perfection in the Sacrament of marriage[^6] consists in indivisibility, then indivisibility ought not to have been perfectly commanded in the old law.

3. Likewise, if there were so great a closeness between husband and wife that they could in no way be separated; since fornication then would not be punished, all would become fornicators, and few or none would take wives: therefore if it was then commanded that legitimate seed be multiplied, repudiation ought not to have been prohibited.

### Conclusion.

> To avoid greater evils, the repudiation of a wife ought to have been permitted by Moses, that is, not punished.

**I respond:** It must be said that permission is fourfold: in one way through the privation of *precept*, and thus the Apostle[^7] permits the lesser good, because he does not command the greater good, as he permits virgins to marry; in a second way through the privation of *prohibition*, and thus venial [sins] are said to be permitted, because they are not prohibited; in a third way through the privation of *punishment*, and thus the repudiation of a wife is permitted, because it is not punished in the Law; in a fourth way through the privation of *restraint*, and thus all evils are said to be permitted by God, because He does not restrain [them]. — The first permission is on account of *the quality of the good*; the second is on account of *our infirmity*; the third on account of *the avoiding of greater evils*; the fourth on account of *the eliciting of greater goods*. Moses therefore permitted [it] because he could not prohibit this evil without a threefold evil following from it: first indeed a defect of the Sacrament, because they would not wish to take a wife; secondly, a multiplication of fornication; thirdly, homicide[^8].

1. 2. From this the first two [objections] are clear, because Moses did not permit [it] except under compulsion, namely for the sake of avoiding a greater evil, whence there was in it rather *to suffer* than *to act*; but he who does an evil that a good may come, sins in doing [it]: therefore what was objected in the second place is not similar.

3. To that therefore which is objected, why it is not permitted to the woman, it must be said that in the time of the Law man and woman were not judged as equals, both by reason of *condition*, because man is the principle of woman[^9], and by reason of *transgression*, because woman is the beginning of sin; therefore it was said to her in Genesis, chapter three: *You shall be under the power of [your] husband.*

4. To that which is asked, why rather in the time of that Law was it permitted? it must be said that for this there was a threefold reason: one, because the mystery of matrimony was not to be revealed to them entirely, because it was the time of the shadow; the second, because they themselves were imperfect,

whence they would not receive so great a burden; the third, because, [being] hard, they would not bear this burden and could secretly cast it off: and therefore it was not to be imposed.

To that which is objected concerning the breaking of hardness, it must be said that it had to be broken by a penalty which would not be the occasion of a greater evil, such as the obligation to such inseparability would have been; and therefore it ought not to have been broken in that way.

---

la: In Comment. in Rom. 1, 32. olim Ambros. tributo: Assentire autem est, si, cum possit reprehendere, taceat.

en: In the *Commentary on Romans* 1, 32, formerly attributed to Ambrose: "Now to assent is, if, when one can rebuke, one keeps silent."

la: Rom. 3, 8: Et non... faciamus mala, ut veniant bona. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Rom. 3, 8: "And not... let us do evils, that goods may come." Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXII. c. 1. — Inferius pro *etiam mortem* quod habent codd. A E F H S, alii et edd. *in mortem*.

en: See above, the text of the Master, d. XXXII, c. 1. — Below, for *etiam mortem*, which codices A E F H S have, others and the editions [read] *in mortem*.

la: Cod. U *rebelles et proni*. Mox pro *laberentur in peius* codd. I K *peiores fierent*.

en: Codex U [reads] *rebellious and prone*. Presently, for *laberentur in peius*, codices I K [read] *peiores fierent* ["they would become worse"].

la: Nonnulli codd. *perfectio Sacramenti in coniugio*.

en: Several codices [read] *the perfection of the Sacrament in marriage*.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 7-9. et 25. seqq. — De *secundo* modo cfr. II. Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2; de *quarto* modo I. Sent. d. 47. q. 3.

en: Epistle, 1 Cor. 7, 7-9 and 25 ff. — On the *second* mode cf. II Sent., d. 42, a. 2, q. 1, ad 2; on the *fourth* mode, I Sent., d. 47, q. 3.

la: Cfr. Chrysost., Homil. 17. in Matth. 5, 31. n. 4; et Homil. 32. in Matth. (op. imperfect.) 19, 8; Hieron. in Matth. 5, 31. et 19, 8; Ambros., VIII. Expos. in Luc. 16, 18. n. 7. seq. — Pro *fornicationis* cod. K (I a secunda manu) *fornicatorum*.

en: Cf. Chrysostom, Homily 17 on Matthew 5, 31, n. 4; and Homily 32 on Matthew (*opus imperfectum*) 19, 8; Jerome, on Matthew 5, 31 and 19, 8; Ambrose, *Exposition on Luke* VIII, 16, 18, n. 7 f. — For *fornicationis*, codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] *fornicatorum*.

la: Gen. 2, 21. seq. et I. Cor. 11, 8. — Seq. locus est Gen. 3, 16. — Mox pro *mulier* cod. R *a muliere* (Eccli. 25, 33: A muliere initium factum est peccati).

en: Gen. 2, 21 f. and 1 Cor. 11, 8. — The following passage is Gen. 3, 16. — Presently, for *mulier*, codex R [reads] *a muliere* (Ecclus. 25, 33: "From a woman was the beginning of sin").

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.760–761 (PDF pp.780–781; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`, column split regenerated at x=2120 for the clipped left column) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 81689–81776) as the base for clean *videtur/Contra* prose and footnote-marker spacing. This chunk is **Distinction XXXIII, Articulus III, Quaestio II** — *De repudio* (whether the repudiation of a wife ought to have been permitted). The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered through the Respondeo and every footer, so the PDF column-band read is authoritative for those regions per the override.

**Printed-page correction.** The skeleton frontmatter declared `printed_pages: [759, 760]`, but the bands prove QUAESTIO II opens at the **top of printed page 760** (running head "760 — SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." sits directly above the QUAESTIO II heading), and the body tail runs onto **printed page 761** (running head "DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. III.") before QUAESTIO III begins mid-page. Corrected to `printed_pages: [760, 761]` / `pdf_pages: [780, 781]`. This chunk therefore does **not** share printed p.759 with a3-q1; the boundary with a3-q1 is the p.759/760 page break.

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L81693 `Secundo quaeritur, utrum repudiare uxorem debuerit permitti. Et quod non, videtur` follows `QUAESTIO II. / Utrum repudiare uxorem debuerit permitti` (raw L81691 ff.) and matches `title_la`. No q-swap.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.760** (running head "760 — SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): the entire QUAESTIO II — opener + *Ad oppositum* args 1–4 and *Contra* (Fundamenta) args 1–3 in the left column; CONCLUSIO, Respondeo, and replies 1/2, 3, 4 (opening) in the right column. Footer note-series **1–9**: the **left-column footer block** carries nn.1–6 (Ambrosiaster *in Rom.* / Rom. 3,8 + lit. Magistri c.3 / lit. Magistri d.XXXII c.1 + *etiam/in mortem* variant / Matth. 19,8 / cod. U + I K variants / *perfectio Sacramenti* variant); the **right-column footer block** carries nn.7–9 (1 Cor. 7 + II/I Sent. cross-refs / Chrysost.+Hieron.+Ambros. + cod. K variant / Gen. 2,21 + 1 Cor. 11,8 + Gen. 3,16 + cod. R variant). All rendered here as [^1]–[^9].
- **p.761** (running head "DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. III."): only the tail of reply 4 (*unde tantum onus nollent recipere...*) plus the final reply *Ad illud quod obiicitur de confractione duritiae... et ideo non sic debuit frangi*, ending the body just before QUAESTIO III. **No footnote markers fall in this tail**, so this chunk claims no p.761 apparatus.

**Apparatus count = 9** (all on printed p.760; L-footer 6, R-footer 3), each keyed to body markers in both languages. Fewer than the 10-per-page rough norm because QUAESTIO II is a single printed page of body with a compact reply section; the raw footer blocks contain exactly nine numbered notes (verified eyes-on against the p.760 L-2 and R-2 footer bands).

**Scholion: ABSENT.** `has_scholion: false`. The Article III scholion lives in the sibling `bon-sent-IV-d33-a3-q1` (covering all three questions of Art. III); no scholion text appears in this chunk's page range, and none is rendered here.

**Hand-off picked up from `bon-sent-IV-d33-a3-q1`:** none required — a3-q1's body ends before the p.759/760 break; its p.759 footers are its own. This chunk begins fresh at the top of p.760 and claims all of p.760's footers (1–9), which are wholly anchored in its body.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d33-a3-q3`:** QUAESTIO III (*Utrum uxor post repudium debeat viro reconciliari*) opens on printed p.761 (raw L81776 ff.), directly below this chunk's body tail (*...et ideo non sic debuit frangi*). The p.761 body splits cleanly — this chunk's tail is grammatically complete; a3-q3 owns everything from the QUAESTIO III heading onward, **including all of printed p.761's footer note-series**. This chunk claims no p.761 apparatus.

**[?] flags:** none. Codex sigla in [^3] (`A E F H S`) read from the p.760 L-2 footer band, where the IA OCR rendered the "H" as a doubled "II" (standard OCR fusion) — resolved to `H` with confidence; all other sigla (U, I, K, R) and scripture/authority citations (Ambrosiaster, Rom., Matth., 1 Cor., Gen., Ecclus., Chrysost., Hieron., Ambros. *in Luc.*) read cleanly against the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 33, Art. 3, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 761 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum uxor post repudium debeat viro reconciliari.*

Tertio quaeritur de reconciliatione, et quaeritur, utrum uxor post repudium debeat viro reconciliari. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia peccatum fuit uxorem dimittere, ut supra[^p761-2] ostensum est: ergo iustum est ipsam resumere.

2. Item, mulier cum repudiata, si contrahit cum alio, aut *peccat*, aut *non*. Si *non peccat*; ergo cum propter nullum peccatum eius fuerit repudiata, et non debeat infligi poena nisi propter culpam, manifestum est etc. Si *peccat*; ergo manet vinculum cum priori, ergo adhuc est uxor eius; sed Dominus[^p761-3] vult, quod uxor sit cum viro: ergo etc.

3. Item, de omni malo licitum est poenitere; sed poenitentia retractat malum factum: ergo cum repudiare uxorem sit malum, ergo licitum est poenitere, ergo et retractare: ergo et uxorem sibi reconciliare.

4. Item, divisa per divortium potest reconciliari[^p761-4]: ergo et per repudium.

**Contra:**
1. Deuteronomii vigesimo quarto[^p761-5] dicitur, quod non est recipienda post repudium, *ne peccare faciat terram*: ergo qui recipit facit peccare terram, ergo etc.

2. Item, Ieremiae tertio[^p761-6]: *Vulgo dicitur: Si dimiserit vir uxorem, et illa recedens duxerit virum alterum, nunquid revertetur ad eam?* quasi dicat *non*: ergo etc.

3. Item, iste repudiando uxorem, quantum in se est, amisit ius in eam tanquam in uxorem: ergo si recipit, accipit quod non est suum.

4. Item, sententia iudicis secundum legem debet irretractabiliter observari — iusta enim sententia non est retractanda[^p761-7] — sed cum uxor dimittebatur, dato libello repudii, in conspectu Ecclesiae fiebat per sententiam legis repudium: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Licebat, ut post repudium uxor viro reconciliaretur, nisi culpa adulterii intervenerit.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod post repudium aliquid fuit *licitum* et *concessum*, ut ambos, scilicet virum et mulierem, manere innuptos, vel etiam ante nuptias alias invicem reconciliari. — Aliquid fuit *illicitum*, sed *permissum*[^p761-8], ut scilicet vir, uxore repudiata, aliam duceret in uxorem; non enim fuit prohibitum, quia non erat prohibitum plures habere uxores. — Aliquid fuit *illicitum* et *prohibitum*, ut videlicet uxor repudiata, viro vivente, duceret alium. Quia enim nunquam licuit uni uxori habere plures viros; cum primus vir repudiatae vivat, non licet ei habere secundum. Hoc tamen non fuit prohibitum *directe*, sed *oblique* in poenam eius impositum, ut nunquam possit redire ad virum priorem, quia voluntarie se polluit cum secundo; et ideo dicitur Deuteronomii vigesimo quarto[^p761-9] et Ieremiae tertio, quod *polluta et contaminata est mulier illa*, propter adulterium scilicet, quod commisit cum secundo. — Concedendum est igitur, quod licitum fuit, post repudium uxorem viro reconciliari, nisi culpa adulterii interveniat; propter quam puniendam prohibetur, ne ad virum redeat, quia tunc licite fiebat divortium. Unde miro modo, licet occulte, tamen vere ipsa Lex iudicabat, inseparabile esse coniugii Sacramentum; et hoc magis expresse tangit Ieremias tertio[^p761-10].

1. 2. Quod ergo dicit Lex, quod non est recipienda; intelligitur propter adulterium commissum, non quia non sit uxor, sed quia contra matrimonium fecit. Magis autem punitur mulier quam vir rationibus praedictis[^p761-11], quia in Lege inferior erat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullo modo
<!-- page 762 -->
licet, cum perdiderit ius; dicendum, quod non habet ius repetendi, postquam repudiavit. Si tamen uxor velit, de eius voluntate et consensu potest iterum licite fieri.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sententia lata secundum legem non est retractanda; dicendum, quod lex quaedam *praecipit*, quaedam *permittit*. Sententia lata secundum legem *praecipientem* omnino iusta est et retractanda non est; si secundum legem *permittentem*, cum ibi sit aliquid iniustitiae[^p762-1], sine omni peccato revocari potest, immo meritorie et licite[^p762-2].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether a wife after repudiation ought to be reconciled to her husband.*

In the third place inquiry is made concerning reconciliation, and it is asked whether a wife after repudiation ought to be reconciled to her husband. And that she ought, it seems:

1. Because it was a sin to dismiss a wife, as was shown above[^p761-2]: therefore it is just to take her back.

2. Likewise, a woman, when repudiated, if she contracts [marriage] with another, either *sins*, or *does not*. If *she does not sin*; then, since she was repudiated for no sin of hers, and a penalty ought not to be inflicted except for a fault, it is manifest, etc. If *she sins*; then the bond with the former [husband] remains, therefore she is still his wife; but the Lord[^p761-3] wills that a wife be with her husband: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, of every evil it is lawful to repent; but repentance retracts the evil deed: therefore, since to repudiate a wife is an evil, therefore it is lawful to repent, therefore also to retract: therefore also to reconcile the wife to oneself.

4. Likewise, a woman divided by divorce can be reconciled[^p761-4]: therefore also [one repudiated] by repudiation.

**On the contrary:**
1. In Deuteronomy chapter twenty-four[^p761-5] it is said that she is not to be taken back after repudiation, *lest she cause the land to sin*: therefore he who takes her back makes the land to sin, therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in Jeremiah chapter three[^p761-6]: *It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she departing marry another man, shall he return to her again?* as if to say *no*: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this man, by repudiating his wife, as far as in him lies, has lost his right over her as over a wife: therefore if he takes her back, he receives what is not his own.

4. Likewise, the sentence of a judge according to law ought to be observed irretractably — for a just sentence is not to be retracted[^p761-7] — but when a wife was being dismissed, a bill of repudiation having been given, the repudiation was made in the sight of the Church by the sentence of the law: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *It was permitted that after repudiation a wife be reconciled to her husband, unless the fault of adultery had intervened.*

**I respond:** It must be said that after repudiation something was *lawful* and *conceded*, namely that both, that is, the man and the woman, remain unmarried, or even, before [any new] nuptials, be reconciled to one another. — Something was *unlawful*, but *permitted*[^p761-8], namely that a man, his wife having been repudiated, take another as wife; for it was not prohibited, since it was not prohibited to have several wives. — Something was *unlawful* and *prohibited*, namely that a repudiated wife, her husband living, marry another. For since it was never lawful for one wife to have several husbands; since the first husband of the repudiated woman is living, it is not lawful for her to have a second. This, however, was not prohibited *directly*, but imposed *obliquely* as a penalty upon her, that she might never be able to return to the former husband, because she voluntarily defiled herself with the second; and therefore it is said in Deuteronomy chapter twenty-four[^p761-9] and Jeremiah chapter three, that *that woman is polluted and contaminated*, namely on account of the adultery which she committed with the second. — It must therefore be conceded that it was lawful, after repudiation, for a wife to be reconciled to her husband, unless the fault of adultery intervene; for the punishing of which she is prohibited from returning to her husband, because at that time divorce was lawfully made. Hence in a wonderful way, though secretly, yet truly the Law itself judged the Sacrament of marriage to be inseparable; and this Jeremiah touches more expressly in chapter three[^p761-10].

1. 2. As to what the Law says, that she is not to be taken back; it is understood on account of the adultery committed, not because she is not a wife, but because she acted against the marriage. But the woman is punished more than the man for the aforesaid reasons[^p761-11], because in the Law she was inferior.

3. To that which is objected, that in no way
<!-- page 762 -->
is it lawful, since he has lost his right; it must be said that he does not have the right of reclaiming, after he has repudiated [her]. If, however, the wife wishes, by her will and consent it can lawfully be done again.

4. To that which is objected, that a sentence passed according to law is not to be retracted; it must be said that a certain law *commands*, a certain [law] *permits*. A sentence passed according to a *commanding* law is wholly just and is not to be retracted; if according to a *permitting* law, since there is in it something of injustice[^p762-1], it can be revoked without any sin, indeed meritoriously and lawfully[^p762-2].

---

la: Quaest. 1.

en: Question 1 [of this article].

en: Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10ff.

la: Cfr. infra d. 35. q. 5.

en: Cf. below, d. 35, q. 5.

la: Vers. 4. Pro *faciat* Vulgata et edd. *facias.*

en: Verse 4. For *faciat* the Vulgate and the editions [read] *facias.*

la: Vers. 1. Vulgata *et recedens ab eo* pro *et illa recedens.*

en: Verse 1. The Vulgate [reads] *et recedens ab eo* ("and departing from him") for *et illa recedens* ("and she departing").

la: Vide infra d. 35. q. 5. arg. 1. ad oppos.

en: See below, d. 35, q. 5, argument 1 to the contrary.

la: Edd. *Aliquid fuit licitum et permissum.* Cfr. quaest. praeced.

en: The editions [read] *Aliquid fuit licitum et permissum* ("Something was lawful and permitted"). Cf. the preceding question.

la: Vers. 4: *Quia polluta et abominabilis facta est coram Domino.* Ier. 3, 1: *Nunquid non polluta, et contaminata erit mulier illa?* — Superius verbis *ut nunquam* in cod. X secunda manus interseruit *si nubat.*

en: Verse 4: *Because she has been made polluted and abominable before the Lord.* Jer. 3:1: *Shall not that woman be polluted and contaminated?* — Above, at the words *ut nunquam* ("that... never"), in codex X a second hand inserted *si nubat* ("if she should marry").

la: Vers. 1.

en: Verse 1.

la: Vat. addit: *scilicet in solutione tertii argumenti praecedentis quaestionis.*

en: The Vatican [edition] adds: *namely, in the solution of the third argument of the preceding question.*

la: Edd. *iustitiae* et mox *reconciliari* pro *revocari.*

en: The editions [read] *iustitiae* ("of justice"), and shortly after *reconciliari* ("to be reconciled") for *revocari* ("to be revoked").

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 PDF column bands for printed pp. 761–762 (pdf 781–782; offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against raw OCR L81777–81878. Read column-by-column (Left top→bottom, then Right); the Respondeo/Solutio and all footers were taken from the bands per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override.

**Page correction.** Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` corrected from [760, 761]/[780, 781] to **[761, 762]/[781, 782]**. The running head "DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. III." with page number **761** sits directly above the QUAESTIO III header, and the Solutio continues onto p. 762 ("SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.") before DUBIA begins. The auto-chunker's page guess was one low.

**Alignment.** Verified: the opener reads "Tertio quaeritur de reconciliatione... utrum uxor post repudium debeat viro reconciliari" — correctly aligned with this q3 title. No q-swap.

**Page-break placement.** The `<!-- page 762 -->` marker falls inside reply 3 ("...quod nullo modo | licet, cum perdiderit ius..."), at the actual 761→762 column/page seam.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Received / disclaimed:* p. 761 **note 1** ("Vat. perperam omittit *non*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") anchors at "et ideo non¹" in the tail of a3-q2's Solutio (the *de confractione duritiae* reply), which prints at the top of p. 761. It belongs to **a3-q2**, not this chunk, and is NOT rendered here.
- *Forwarded:* p. 762 **notes 3–7** (DUB. I–III: "Vers. 5...", "Col. 1, 10...", "Vide supra pag. 664, nota 3", "Codd. E L Y addunt *virum*", "Cfr. Hieron., Liber hebraic. Quaest. in Gen. 19, 30...") belong to the **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** chunk that begins after this q3 on p. 762. Only p. 762 notes 1–2 (anchored in my reply 4 Solutio) are claimed here.

**Apparatus count:** 12 entries — p. 761: 10 (notes 2–11); p. 762: 2 (notes 1–2). Per-page labels used to avoid the p761-2 / p762-2 numbering collision.

**Scholion:** none rendered here (`has_scholion: false`). The Art. III scholion lives in a3-q1 (note p762-2 above cross-refers to it: "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.").

**[?] flags:** none. All readings resolved cleanly against the bands.

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. 33, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 762 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Maledicta erat sterilis, quae non relinquebat* etc. Aut enim hoc intelligitur quantum ad maledictionem *poenae*, aut *culpae*. Si quantum ad maledictionem *poenae*, adhuc verum est illud, quod sterilitas non dicit naturam, sed defectum et malum, et non culpae, ergo poenae. Si maledictionem *culpae*: ergo esse sterilem erat culpa; quod manifeste falsum est.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod istud intelligitur de maledictione *poenae*, prout poena non tantum dicit defectum naturae, immo etiam amplius, scilicet opprobrium infamiae; tunc enim erat infamis et vilis reputabatur et ignominiosa, quasi *Dominus vulvam eius conclusisset* — exemplum est de Anna primi Regum primo[^p762-3] — unde steriles mulieres, quando non fecundabantur, reputabant, sibi esse ignominiam. Quia ergo tunc omnes viris copulabantur et prolem quaerebant, et si non habebant, ignominiosae erant; ideo omnes steriles maledictae erant, quia fructum ventris non habebant, quem illud tempus requirebat. — Nunc autem quaeritur fructus bonorum operum[^p762-4]; ideo, etsi mulier careat filiis per *virginitatem*, ubi est sterilitas voluntaria, non maledicitur, sed laudatur; si vero careat propter *defectum naturalem*, non maledicitur, sed sustinetur, maxime si non est in ea sterilitas bonorum operum.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius de filiabus Loth, quod *publici muneris gratia privatam culpam praetexit*. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia, si quis furetur, ut det pauperibus, non excusatur a peccato furti: ergo nec illae ab incestu, cum a patre cognitae fuerint. — Item videtur, quod multipliciter peccaverunt: primo, quia patrem inebriaverunt; secundo, quia ambae cum eodem viro; tertio, quia cum patre suo peccaverunt.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis filiae Loth videantur ex pietate motae fuisse, quia non propter delectationem carnis, sed propter conservationem humani generis artem illam cogitaverunt; tamen non excusantur ab incestu: quia scienter contra primam institutionem matrimonii, in qua excipiuntur pater et mater[^p762-5], iacuerunt cum patre; secundo vero, quia super falsam existimationem voluntatem suam fundaverunt; et ideo, etsi ignorantia et naturalis pietas aliquo modo excuset culpam, non tamen a toto, sed a tanto; nec adeo excusat, quin mortaliter peccaverint, licet de patre praesumi possit, quod non peccaverit mortaliter. Et hoc vult Ambrosius dicere, quod intentio illa, qua bonum commune, non voluptatem propriam intendebant, «praetexit privatam culpam». Fuit enim culpa re vera, sed tamen quandam excusationis speciem habuit ex illa intentione, quae videbatur esse pia. Plus tamen habuit de stultitia et de temeritate quam de pietate: primo, quia patrem sanctum[^p762-6] debebant consulere; secundo vero, quia, etsi verum esset, quod totum genus humanum esset consumtum, non tamen debuissent attentare tam horridum factum, nisi interveniret divinum mandatum. — Sed in hoc manifestatum est, quod in nulla muliere confidendum est, quia deceperunt eum cuius castitas gloriosa praedicatur, dum inter tam impios tam sancte et laudabiliter vixit[^p762-7].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *continentiam Ioannes in opere, Abraham in solo habebat habitu*. Videtur enim male dicere: quia aut loquitur de continentia *virginali*, aut *simpliciter*. Si de continentia *simpliciter*; tunc falsum dicit, quia Abraham veram continentiam habebat *in usu*. Si de *virginali*; cum illa sit <!-- page 763 -->«incorruptionis perpetuae meditatio»[^p763-1], illam non habebat, nec *habitu* nec *actu*. — Et iterum, si «plura bona paucioribus meliora sunt», videtur, quod perfectiori modo fuerit continens.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod continentia uno modo dicit privationem *universalem* illius actus; et sic vocat Augustinus[^p763-2] castitatem *caelibum*. Alio modo dicit privationem *immoderantiae* vel intemperantiae respectu illius actus; hoc modo ponit actum cum modestia, et hanc vocat castitatem *nuptiarum*. Per primam vult homo nullo modo coire, per secundam vero vult, quando et quomodo et cum qua debet coire. Prima est nobilior quam secunda. Utramque harum *simul* habere *in usu* est impossibile, sed alteram habere *in usu*, alteram *in habitu*, nullum est inconveniens. Et sic fuit in Abraham, quia continentiam nuptiarum habuit *in usu*, sed alteram *in habitu*, quia facillimum fuisset ei tanquam viro temperantissimo universaliter a muliere abstinere; et hanc voluntatem habebat, quantum erat in se. — Et sic patet, quomodo habuit utramque; patet etiam, quomodo continentiam habuit *in habitu*, non in opere quantum ad omnimodam abstinentiam; patet etiam, quod non est melius habere ambas quam alteram, quia castitas caelibatus continet in se quidquid perfectionis habet altera[^p763-3].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: *Omnes retro Sanctos eiusdem fuisse meriti, cuius nunc Christiani sunt*. Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si eiusdem meriti fuerunt, ergo status Legis aequiparatur statui Evangelii. Quomodo igitur verum est, quod post adventum Salvatoris effusa sit plene gratia Spiritus sancti[^p763-4]?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod relativum *identitatis*[^p763-5] et adverbium *similitudinis* in praesenti auctoritate non dicunt *aequalitatem*, sed magis *proportionem*, ut ita intelligatur: quia, sicut competit legi Evangelii *continere*, ita *nubere* tunc. Tamen hoc excedit illud absolute, et tempus excedit tempus, et status statum, sicut si fiat comparatio pueri ad puerum, et viri ad virum sive ad statum viri; sic in proposito est intelligendum. Unde Sancti non intendunt astruere[^p763-6] aequalitatem, sed ostendere, statum illum esse bonum, quamvis nobis non competat imitari.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *Scriptura nunc eas uxores appellat, nunc concubinas*; quid secundum veritatem fuerint; cum enim non possint simul esse uxores et concubinae, videtur Scriptura falsum dicere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod re vera *concubinae* fuerunt, sicut innuit textus Genesis[^p763-7] de Agar, de qua primo dicitur, quod Sara *dedit eam viro suo in uxorem*; et post dicitur: *Eiice ancillam et filium eius*. Et Augustinus expresse dicit de Civitate Dei decimo sexto, vigesimo quinto et vigesimo octavo capitulo, ubi dicit, quod «obedivit *uxori*, reddendo *ei* debitum». Similiter intelligitur de illis duabus ancillis uxorum Iacob[^p763-8], quarum quaelibet data fuit a domina viro, et vir in eis reddebat debitum uxoribus. Quoniam ergo in matrimonium non erant coniunctae, ideo secundum veritatem non erant *uxores*, sed *concubinae*. Sed quoniam uxorio affectu cognoscebat, et semen computabatur uxoribus, et ita legitimum; hinc est, quod *uxores* dicuntur.

Aliqui inde volunt dicere, quod *verae uxores* fuerunt, tamen dicuntur *concubinae* propter hoc, quod erant ancillae uxorum, et non nascebatur eis semen, sed liberis. — Sed si attendatur figura, quae ibi importabatur, quam notat Augustinus in libro de Baptismo[^p763-9], et verba eius de Civitate Dei decimo sexto; prima positio est verior.

Si vero quaeratur, quae fuerit uxor verior inter Rachelem et Liam; dicendum, quod utraque fuit, quia *servivit in uxorem et in uxorem servavit*, sicut dicitur in Osee[^p763-10]; sed tamen secundum affectum Iacob Rachel verior, et magis habebat dominium sive posse ad Iacob; sed secundum divinam dispositionem Lia, de cuius semine ortus est Christus Dominus[^p763-11], propter quem tota generatio Iacob, immo omnis generatio benedicta est.

<!-- page 764 -->

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non quaeritur electio muneris in successione generis*. Videtur enim hoc esse falsum: cum enim multi matrimonialiter copulentur, et non ob aliud quam propter prolem principaliter: ergo videtur, quod hoc quaeratur. — Item, nonne coniuges prolem desiderant et a Deo quaerunt? Constat, quod immo. — Item, quis modus est iste loquendi: non quaeritur electio muneris? Quod est illud munus?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod omnia bona, quaecumque habemus, dona Dei sunt et munera Dei[^p764-1]. Intelligendum est igitur, quod huiusmodi dona et munera quaerunt homines, cum ea desiderant et cum orant Deum pro eis acquirendis et laborant, ut ea habeant. Possunt igitur haec munera dupliciter inquiri: vel secundum *affectum humanum*, et sic adhuc quaeritur et desideratur et eligitur munus successionis et prolis; vel secundum *promissum evangelicum*. Et quoniam lex evangelica promittit perfectionem in praesenti et gloriam in futuro et dona spiritualia et non carnalia; hinc est, quod bene dicitur: non quaeritur electio muneris etc., supple: secundum intentionem Evangelii.

### Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Isidorus: *Non potest corpus corrumpi, nisi prius corrumpatur animus*. Videtur enim illud manifeste falsum, quia multis virginibus a viris pessimis facta est iniuria, et corruptae sunt violenter. *Si tu intelligas* de corruptione peccati, sicut dicit Magister[^p764-2]; *contra*: omne peccatum est in libero arbitrio: ergo non est in carne vel in corpore.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod istud intelligitur de corruptione, quae redundat in amissionem decoris virginitatis; cum enim sit de magnis bonis[^p764-3], nullo modo potest perimi vel auferri omnino nolenti. Sed ipse opponit de qualicumque corruptione.

### Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sanctius est mori fame quam idolothytis vesci*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia *idolum nihil est in mundo*[^p764-4]. Et iterum: *Nihil est reiiciendum*, sicut dicitur primae ad Timotheum quarto. Et similiter dicitur primae ad Corinthios decimo, quod de omnibus licet vesci.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud intelligendum est de illo qui vescitur idolothytis in reverentiam idoli, vel quando scit, alios propter ignorantiam scandalizari. Verumtamen propter scandalum in articulo necessitatis non est idolothytum dimittendum, sed cum protestatione, quod non facit in reverentiam idoli, est sumendum; et tunc non scandalizat[^p764-5].

---

english:
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: *Cursed was she that was barren, who did not leave* etc. For either this is understood with respect to the curse *of punishment*, or *of fault*. If with respect to the curse *of punishment*, that is still true which [holds] that barrenness does not denote nature, but a defect and an evil, and not [a defect] of fault, therefore of punishment. If [with respect to] the curse *of fault*: then to be barren was a fault; which is manifestly false.

I respond: It must be said that this is understood of the curse *of punishment*, inasmuch as the punishment denotes not only a defect of nature, but even something more, namely the reproach of infamy; for then she was infamous and was reputed vile and ignominious, as though *the Lord had closed up her womb* — the example is that of Anna in the first [book] of Kings, chapter one[^p762-3] — whence barren women, when they were not made fruitful, reckoned it an ignominy for themselves. Since therefore at that time all were joined to husbands and sought offspring, and if they did not have [it] they were held in ignominy; therefore all the barren were cursed, because they did not have the fruit of the womb, which that time required. — But now the fruit of good works is sought[^p762-4]; therefore, even if a woman lacks children through *virginity*, where the barrenness is voluntary, she is not cursed, but praised; but if she lacks [them] on account of a *natural defect*, she is not cursed, but is borne with, especially if there is not in her a barrenness of good works.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which Ambrose says concerning the daughters of Lot, that *for the sake of a public duty she cloaked a private fault*. For it seems he speaks falsely, because, if someone steals in order to give to the poor, he is not excused from the sin of theft: therefore neither are they [excused] from incest, since they were known by their father. — Likewise it seems that they sinned in many ways: first, because they made their father drunk; second, because both [were] with the same man; third, because they sinned with their own father.

I respond: It must be said that although the daughters of Lot may seem to have been moved out of piety, because they devised that scheme not for the delight of the flesh, but for the preservation of the human race; nevertheless they are not excused from incest: because knowingly, against the first institution of matrimony, in which father and mother are excepted[^p762-5], they lay with their father; and secondly, because they founded their will upon a false estimation; and therefore, even if ignorance and natural piety in some way excuse the fault, yet not from the whole, but from so much [of it]; nor does it excuse so far but that they sinned mortally, although concerning the father it may be presumed that he did not sin mortally. And this is what Ambrose means to say, that that intention, by which they intended the common good, not their own pleasure, «cloaks the private fault». For it was in truth a fault, but nevertheless it had a certain appearance of excuse from that intention, which seemed to be pious. Yet it had more of folly and of rashness than of piety: first, because they ought to have consulted their holy father[^p762-6]; and secondly, because, even if it were true that the whole human race had been consumed, they nevertheless ought not to have attempted so horrid a deed, unless a divine command had intervened. — But in this it was made manifest, that no woman is to be trusted, because they deceived him whose chastity is gloriously proclaimed, while among such impious ones he lived so holily and laudably[^p762-7].

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *John had continence in act, Abraham [had it] in habit alone*. For it seems he speaks ill: because either he speaks of *virginal* continence, or *simply*. If of continence *simply*; then he speaks falsely, because Abraham had true continence *in use*. If of *virginal* [continence]; since that is «the meditation of perpetual incorruption»[^p763-1], he did not have it, neither in *habit* nor in *act*. — And again, if «more goods are better than fewer», it seems that he would have been continent in a more perfect way.

I respond: It must be said that continence in one way denotes the *universal* privation of that act; and thus Augustine calls it the chastity *of celibates*[^p763-2]. In another way it denotes the privation *of immoderation* or of intemperance with respect to that act; in this way it posits the act with moderation, and this he calls the chastity *of the married*. By the first a man wills in no way to have intercourse, but by the second he wills [it] when and how and with whom he ought to have intercourse. The first is nobler than the second. To have both of these *at once in use* is impossible, but to have one *in use*, the other *in habit*, is nothing unfitting. And so it was in Abraham, because he had the continence of the married *in use*, but the other *in habit*, because it would have been most easy for him, as a most temperate man, universally to abstain from woman; and he had this will, as far as was in himself. — And thus it is clear how he had both; it is clear also how he had continence *in habit*, not in act as regards total abstinence; it is clear also that it is not better to have both than the other, because the chastity of celibacy contains in itself whatever of perfection the other has[^p763-3].

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which Jerome says: *That all the Saints of former times were of the same merit, of which Christians now are*. For it seems he speaks ill: because, if they were of the same merit, then the state of the Law is made equal to the state of the Gospel. How therefore is it true, that after the coming of the Savior the grace of the Holy Spirit was fully poured out[^p763-4]?

I respond: It must be said that the relative *of identity*[^p763-5] and the adverb *of similitude* in the present authority do not denote *equality*, but rather *proportion*, so that it be understood thus: that, just as it befits the law of the Gospel *to be continent*, so [it befitted] *to marry* then. Yet this exceeds that absolutely, and the time exceeds the time, and the state the state, just as if a comparison be made of a boy to a boy, and of a man to a man or to the state of a man; so in the matter proposed it is to be understood. Whence the Saints do not intend to establish[^p763-6] equality, but to show that that state was good, although it does not befit us to imitate [it].

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *Scripture now calls them wives, now concubines*; [and] what they were according to the truth; for since they cannot at the same time be wives and concubines, Scripture seems to speak falsely.

I respond: It must be said that in very truth they were *concubines*, as the text of Genesis intimates concerning Hagar[^p763-7], of whom first it is said that Sarah *gave her to her husband as a wife*; and afterward it is said: *Cast out the handmaid and her son*. And Augustine expressly says, in the City of God, book sixteen, chapters twenty-five and twenty-eight, where he says that «he obeyed his wife, rendering to her the debt». Likewise it is understood of those two handmaids, the wives of Jacob[^p763-8], each of whom was given by her mistress to the man, and the man rendered to them the debt as to wives. Since therefore they were not joined in matrimony, therefore according to truth they were not *wives*, but *concubines*. But since he knew [them] with marital affection, and the seed was reckoned to the wives, and thus legitimate; hence it is that they are called *wives*.

Some from this wish to say that they were *true wives*, yet are called *concubines* for this reason, that they were the handmaids of the wives, and the seed was not born to them, but to the free women. — But if the figure which was there imported be attended to, which Augustine notes in the book on Baptism[^p763-9], and his words in the City of God, book sixteen; the first position is truer.

But if it be asked which was the truer wife between Rachel and Leah; it must be said that both were [wives], because *he served for a wife and kept [her] for a wife*, as it is said in Hosea[^p763-10]; but nevertheless according to the affection of Jacob, Rachel [was] truer, and had more dominion or power over Jacob; but according to the divine disposition, Leah, from whose seed Christ the Lord arose[^p763-11], on account of whom the whole generation of Jacob, nay, every generation is blessed.

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *The choice of a gift is not sought in the succession of offspring*. For this seems to be false: for since many are joined in matrimony, and for no other reason than principally on account of offspring: therefore it seems that this is sought. — Likewise, do not spouses desire offspring and seek [it] from God? It is agreed that indeed [they do]. — Likewise, what manner of speaking is this: the choice of a gift is not sought? What is that gift?

I respond: It must be said that all goods, whatsoever we have, are gifts of God and bounties of God[^p764-1]. It is therefore to be understood that men seek gifts and bounties of this kind, when they desire them and when they pray to God for acquiring them and labor, that they may have them. These bounties therefore can be sought in two ways: either according to *human affection*, and thus the gift of succession and of offspring is still sought and desired and chosen; or according to the *evangelical promise*. And since the evangelical law promises perfection in the present and glory in the future and spiritual gifts and not carnal [ones]; hence it is that it is well said: the choice of a gift is not sought etc., supply: according to the intention of the Gospel.

### Dub. VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which Isidore says: *The body cannot be corrupted, unless first the mind be corrupted*. For it seems that [this is] manifestly false, because to many virgins injury has been done by most wicked men, and they have been violently corrupted. *If you understand* [it] of the corruption of sin, as the Master says[^p764-2]; *on the contrary*: every sin is in the free will: therefore it is not in the flesh or in the body.

I respond: It must be said that this is understood of the corruption which redounds to the loss of the beauty of virginity; since it is among the great goods[^p764-3], it can in no way be destroyed or taken away from one wholly unwilling. But he himself objects concerning any corruption whatever.

### Dub. VIII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *It is holier to die of hunger than to eat things sacrificed to idols*. For it seems he speaks ill, because *an idol is nothing in the world*[^p764-4]. And again: *Nothing is to be rejected*, as it is said in the first [letter] to Timothy, chapter four. And likewise it is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter ten, that it is lawful to eat of all things.

I respond: It must be said that that is to be understood of him who eats things sacrificed to idols in reverence of the idol, or when he knows that others are scandalized on account of ignorance. Nevertheless, on account of scandal, in the article of necessity the thing sacrificed to idols is not to be given up, but with a protestation that he does not do it in reverence of the idol, it is to be taken; and then he does not scandalize[^p764-5].

---

la: Vers. 5. — Ibid. v. 6. invenitur textus praecedens.

en: Verse 5. — In the same [place], v. 6, the preceding text is found. (1 Kings [1 Samuel] 1, 5–6.)

la: Col. 1, 10: Ut ambuletis digne Deo per omnia placentes, in omni opere bono fructificantes etc. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Colossians 1, 10: That you may walk worthily of God, pleasing in all things, being fruitful in every good work, etc. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.

la: Vide supra pag. 664, nota 3.

en: See above, page 664, note 3.

la: Codd. E L Y addunt *virum*.

en: The codices E, L, Y add *virum* ("a man").

la: Cfr. Hieron., Liber hebraic. Quaest. in Gen. 19, 30; August., XXII. contra Faustum, c. 41. seqq., et Glossam *ordinariam* apud Strabum et Lyranum in Gen. 19, 31. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Alberto, hic a. 8; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. Jerome, Book of Hebrew Questions on Genesis 19, 30; Augustine, Against Faustus XXII, c. 41 ff., and the *Ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra on Genesis 19, 31. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here art. 8; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.

la: Ut dicit August. supra pag. 753, nota 2. allegatus. — Seq. axioma est Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2.

en: As Augustine says, cited above on page 753, note 2. — The following axiom is Aristotle's, Topics III, c. 2.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Infra pro *cum modestia* cod. H *cum moderantia*.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — Below, for *cum modestia* ("with moderation") codex H [reads] *cum moderantia*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, art. 2, q. 2; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.

la: Vide Ioan. 7, 39. et Act. 2, 1. seqq.

en: See John 7, 39, and Acts 2, 1 ff.

la: Scilicet *cuius* et *eiusdem*; cfr. supra pag. 252, nota 5.

en: Namely *cuius* ("of which") and *eiusdem* ("of the same"); cf. above, page 252, note 5.

la: Codd. A M (L a secunda manu) *ostendere*, codd. O R *asserere*. — Vide de hoc dubio supra a. 2. q. 2; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The codices A, M (L by a second hand) [read] *ostendere* ("to show"), the codices O, R *asserere* ("to affirm"). — See on this doubt above, art. 2, q. 2; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.

la: Cap. 16, 3. Vulgata *uxorem* pro *in uxorem*. — Seq. locus ibid. 21, 10, ubi Vulgata post *ancillam* addit *hanc*. Cfr. Gal. 4, 30. — In allegatione August., de Civ. Dei, codd. inter se non conveniunt; plures allegant sic: XV. et XXV. cap. (re vera in lib. XV. c. 3. haec res tangitur); alii sic: XVI. et XXVIII. cap.; confundunt ergo *librum* cum *cap*. Cfr. ibid. c. 34.

en: [Genesis] chapter 16, 3. The Vulgate [reads] *uxorem* for *in uxorem*. — The following passage is in the same [book], 21, 10, where the Vulgate after *ancillam* adds *hanc*. Cf. Galatians 4, 30. — In the citation of Augustine, On the City of God, the codices do not agree among themselves; many cite thus: chapters XV and XXV (though in truth this matter is touched in book XV, c. 3); others thus: chapters XVI and XXVIII; they therefore confound *book* with *chapter*. Cf. the same, c. 34.

la: Gen. 30, 3. seqq.

en: Genesis 30, 3 ff.

la: Libr. I. c. 10. n. 14; c. 15. n. 23. et c. 16. n. 25. Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 2. in corp., ubi *figura* insinuatur. — De XVI. de Civ. Dei vide notam penultimam. — Superius pro *Aliqui inde* codd. A F G I K Y *Aliqui tamen*.

en: Book I, c. 10, n. 14; c. 15, n. 23, and c. 16, n. 25. Cf. above, d. 5, a. 2, q. 2, in the body [of the article], where the *figure* is hinted at. — Concerning book XVI of the City of God, see the penultimate note. — Above, for *Aliqui inde* ("Some from this") the codices A, F, G, I, K, Y [read] *Aliqui tamen* ("Some, however").

la: Cap. 12, 12: Servivit Israel in uxorem etc. Pro *servavit* codd. et edd. perperam *servivit* (Septuaginta *custodivit*). — Superius pro *fuit*, quod nonnulli codd. omittunt, cod. U *vera*.

en: [Hosea] chapter 12, 12: Israel served for a wife, etc. For *servavit* ("kept") the codices and editions wrongly [read] *servivit* ("served") (the Septuagint *custodivit*, "guarded"). — Above, for *fuit* ("was"), which several codices omit, codex U [reads] *vera* ("truly").

la: Matth. 1, 2. in genealogia Christi recensetur Iudas, qui erat filius Liae (Gen. 29, 35.). — De hoc dubio vide supra a. 1. q. 3. in corp.; B. Albert., hic a. 21; S. Thom., et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Matthew 1, 2. In the genealogy of Christ, Judah is reckoned, who was the son of Leah (Genesis 29, 35). — On this doubt see above, a. 1, q. 3, in the body [of the article]; Blessed Albert, here art. 21; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here in commenting on the text.

en: Cf. James 1, 17.

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here, c. 4.

la: Respicitur distinctio bonorum ab August. facta et li. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXVII. c. 3, allegata: *Virtutes... magna bona sunt* etc. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Reference is made to the distinction of goods drawn by Augustine and cited in the Sentences, in the text of the Master, d. XXVII, c. 3: *The virtues... are great goods*, etc. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 8, 4. — Secundus locus est I. Tim. 4, 4; tertius I. Cor. 10, 25: Omne quod in macello vaenit, manducate etc. Cfr. ibid. v. 27. — Superius de verbis *Sanctius est* vide pag. 746, nota 4.

en: [First] Epistle to the Corinthians 8, 4. — The second passage is I Timothy 4, 4; the third, I Corinthians 10, 25: Whatever is sold in the shambles, eat, etc. Cf. the same, v. 27. — Above, concerning the words *Sanctius est* ("It is holier"), see page 746, note 4.

la: Cfr. Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum in I. Cor. 10, 25. seqq., quae est ex Comment. olim Ambrosio tributo. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. Magistri.

en: Cf. the *Ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra on I Corinthians 10, 25 ff., which is from the Commentary formerly attributed to Ambrose. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text of the Master. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{762,763,764}-{L,R}-*`, left column regenerated at split 2280, right at 1780 to defeat clipping), which are authoritative for this two-column cascade-shattered region per the VOL II OVERRIDE. Raw OCR range L81879–82110 consulted for footnote-marker spacing only. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Printed-page correction.** The auto-chunk frontmatter listed `printed_pages: [761, 762, 763, 764]`, but the bands prove **page 761 is entirely Art. III q. 3** (running head `DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. III.`, both columns). The `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` heading and Dub. I open **mid-page on 762** (left column, immediately after a3-q3's reply to obj. 4). Corrected to `[762, 763, 764]` / pdf `[782, 783, 784]`. `line_start/line_end` retained per instructions.

**Dubia count.** Eight dubia, Dub. I–VIII, all present and complete. Layout: p. 762 = Dub. I–II (+ Dub. III opener at right-col bottom); p. 763 (running head `DIST. XXXIII. DUBIA.`) = Dub. III–V; p. 764 = Dub. VI–VIII.

**Seam verification (d.33→d.34).** The final dubium, **Dub. VIII, is complete**: its Respondeo runs in the right column of p. 764 and closes at *«…et tunc non scandalizat»*[^p764-5], immediately followed by `DISTINCTIO XXXIV. Cap. I. De personis legitimis` (the true d.34 littera, raw L82111). The page-top `DISTINCTIO XXXIV` heading sits in the **left** column bottom of p. 764 while Dub. VII–VIII still run in the right column, so the raw OCR splices Dub. VII's opener directly to the d.34 head; this is a two-column bleed, not a truncation. No dubium text was lost at the seam.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *p. 762 (shared with a3-q3):* Quaracchi numbers this page's footnotes 1–7 continuously across both columns. Footnotes **1–2 belong to Art. III q. 3** (its reply to obj. 4, at *iniustitiae¹ … et licite²* in the right column) and are **claimed by the a3-q3 chunk, not here**. This chunk claims **3, 4** (Dub. I) and **5, 6, 7** (Dub. II). Rendered here as `p762-3…p762-7`.
- *p. 763:* footnotes 1–11 are all dubia-body (Dub. III = 1–3, Dub. IV = 4–6, Dub. V = 7–11); all claimed here.
- *p. 764:* footnotes 1–5 are all dubia-body (Dub. VI = 1, Dub. VII = 2–3, Dub. VIII = 4–5); all claimed here.
- Total apparatus entries in this chunk: **21** (5 + 11 + 5).

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The printed side-glosses (`Notandum.`, `Distinctio.`, `Opinio auctoris.`, `De Agar.`, `De ancillis Iacob.`, `Opinio aliorum.`, `Non probatur.`, `Quaest. incid. solvitur.`) were omitted from the body per the CLAUDE.md marginal-gloss rule.

**No scholion** (dubia have none). **No `[?]` flags:** the bands were clean throughout; all readings resolved with confidence.


title: Dist. 34

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXIV

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

source_text:
<!-- page 764 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXIV.

### Cap. I. *De personis legitimis.*

Nunc superest attendere, quae personae sint *legitimae* ad contrahendum matrimonium. *Legitimae* iudicantur personae secundum statuta patrum, quae diversa sunt. Aliae namque fuerunt legitimae *ante* Legem, aliae *sub* Lege, aliae in *tempore gratiae*. Item, in primitiva Ecclesia quaedam erant legitimae, quae modo non sunt. Earum vero, quae modo legitimae sunt, vel illegitimae, quaedam sunt *plene legitimae*, quaedam *omnino illegitimae*, quaedam *mediae*. *Plene legitimae* sunt, quibus non obviat votum continentiae, vel ordo sacer, vel cognatio, vel dispar cultus, vel condicio, vel naturae frigiditas, et si quid est aliud. Penitus vero illegitimae sunt per votum, per ordinem, per cognationem, per disparem cultum. Mediae vero sunt, nec plene legitimae nec omnino illegitimae, per frigiditatem, vel per condicionem. Si enim tales iunguntur ignoranter, commanere possunt, quibusdam accedentibus causis, et eisdem deficientibus, dividi.

### Cap. II. *De frigidis separandis, vel non.*

De his enim, qui causa frigiditatis debitum reddere non possunt, consulit beatus Gregorius, ut permaneant. Sed si mulier causatur dicens: volo esse ma-

<!-- page 765 -->

ter et filios procreare; decernit, ut uterque eorum septima manu propinquorum iuret, quod nunquam carnaliter convenerint; et tunc mulier secundas nuptias contrahat, vir autem, qui frigidae naturae est, absque spe coniugii permaneat. Ait enim sic[^p765-1]: « Interrogasti de his qui matrimonio iuncti sunt et nubere non possunt, si ille aliam, vel illa alium ducere possit; de quibus scriptum est: Vir et mulier, si se coniunxerint, et post dixerit mulier de viro, quod coire non possit cum ea; si potest probari quod dicit per iustum iudicium, accipiat alium; si vero ille acceperit aliam, separentur ». Item: « De his requisisti, qui ob causam frigidae naturae dicunt se non posse invicem operam carni dantes commisceri. Iste vero, si non potest ea uti pro uxore, habeat eam quasi sororem. Quodsi retinaculum coniugale voluerint rescindere; maneant utrique innupti; nam si huic non potuit naturaliter concordare, quomodo alteri conveniet? Si igitur vir aliam uxorem vult accipere; manifesta patet ratio, quia, suggerente diabolo odii fomitem, exosam eam habuerit, et ideo eam dimittere mendacii falsitate molitur. Quodsi mulier causatur et dicit: volo esse mater et filios procreare; uterque eorum septima manu propinquorum, tactis sacrosanctis reliquiis, iureiurando dicat, ut nunquam per commixtionem carnis coniuncti una caro effecti fuissent. Tunc videtur mulier secundas posse contrahere nuptias; *humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis eorum*[^p765-2]. Vir autem, qui frigidae naturae est, maneat sine coniuge. Quodsi et ille aliam acceperit copulam; tunc hi qui iuraverant, periurii crimine rei teneantur, et poenitentia peracta, priora cogantur recipere connubia ». « Hoc servandum est, cum uterque idem fatetur. Sed vir si asserit, se debitum reddidisse uxori, et illa diffitetur; cui potius fides habenda sit, merito quaeritur[^p765-3] ». De hoc ita statutum est: « Si quis accepit uxorem et habuit eam aliquo tempore, et ipsa femina dicit, quod nunquam coisset cum ea, et ille vir dicit, quod sic fecit; in veritate viri consistat, quia *vir est caput mulieris* ». « Hoc de naturali impossibilitate statutum est ».

### Cap. III. *De his qui maleficiis impediti coire nequeunt.*

De maleficii autem impedimento hoc tenendum decernitur, quod « si per sortiarias et maleficas concubitus non sequitur, hortandi sunt quibus ista eveniunt, ut *spiritu contrito* et *humiliato* Deo et sacerdoti de omnibus peccatis confessionem faciant et lacrymis atque eleemosynis, orationibus et ieiuniis Domino satisfaciant; et per exorcismos ac cetera ecclesiasticae disciplinae munimina ministri Ecclesiae tales sanare procurent. Quod si non potuerint, separari valebunt. Sed postquam alias nuptias expetierint, illis viventibus, quibus iunctae fuerint, prioribus, quos reliquerant, etiam si possibilitas concumbendi eis reddita fuerit, reconciliari nequibunt[^p765-4] ». — Quod in fine huius capituli continetur ex rigore magis dictum intelligendum est quam ex canonica aequitate; vel intelligendum est, non posse reconciliari prioribus nisi iudicio Ecclesiae, quo divisio facta fuerat.

### Cap. IV. *De furiosis.*

Furiosi quoque, dum in amentia sunt, matrimonium contrahere non valent. Unde Fabianus[^p765-5]: « Neque furiosus neque furiosa matrimonium contrahere possunt; sed si contractum fuerit, non separentur ». Item Nicolaus: « Hi qui matrimonium sani contraxerunt, et uni ex duobus, vel ambobus amentia vel furor vel aliqua infirmitas accesserit; ob hanc infirmitatem talium coniugia solvi non possunt. Similiter est sciendum de his qui ab adversariis excaecantur, vel membris truncantur, vel a barbaris exsecti fuerint ».

### Cap. V. *De his qui dormiunt cum duabus sororibus.*

De his etiam, qui cum duabus sororibus, vel quae cum duobus fratribus dormiunt, videndum est, quid censeant canones. « Qui dormierit cum duabus sororibus, et una ex illis ante fuerit uxor, neutram ex ipsis habeat; nec ipsi adulteri unquam in coniugio copulentur[^p765-6] ». Item: « Nec propriae uxori licet sibi reddere debitum, quam sibi reddidit illicitam, sororem eius cognoscendo. Nec etiam post mortem uxoris licet ei vel adulterae copulari in coniugium ». Item Zacharias Papa[^p765-7]: « Concubuisti cum sorore uxoris tuae; si fecisti, neutram habeas, et uxor tua, si non fuerit conscia sceleris et continere non vult, nubat in Domino, cui vult. Tu vero et adultera sine spe coniugii maneatis, et dum vivitis, poenitentiam agite ». Quod ait: cui vult nubat; intelligendum est post mortem viri. Unde Gregorius: « Qui uxores suas in adulterio deprehendunt, nec ille nec illa aliam uxorem accipiat, vel alium virum, quamdiu ambo vivunt. Si vero adultera mortua fuerit, vir eius, si vult, nubat, adultera vero nunquam, etsi mortuus fuerit vir eius, sed omnibus diebus vitae suae poenitentiae lamenta persolvat ». — Hic de illo adulterio agitur, quod cum cognato viri, vel cognata uxoris committitur.

<!-- page 766 -->

### Cap. VI. *Quod non est dimittenda uxor pro aliqua macula corporis.*

Illud etiam sciendum est, quod pro aliqua infirmitate vel macula corporali non licet viro uxorem dimittere, et e converso, sed debet alter alteri subsidia providere. Unde Augustinus[^p766-1]: « Si uxorem quis habeat sterilem, sive deformem corpore, vel debilem membris, vel caecam, vel claudam, vel surdam, vel si quid aliud, sive morbis vel laboribus doloribusque confectam, et quidquid, excepta fornicatione, excogitari potest vehementer horribile, pro societate fideque sustineat ».

---

english:
<!-- page 764 -->

### DISTINCTION XXXIV.

### Chapter I. *On legitimate persons.*

It now remains to consider which persons are *legitimate* for contracting matrimony. Persons are judged *legitimate* according to the statutes of the fathers, which are diverse. For some were legitimate *before* the Law, others *under* the Law, others in the *time of grace*. Likewise, in the primitive Church certain persons were legitimate who now are not. But of those who now are legitimate, or illegitimate, some are *fully legitimate*, some *wholly illegitimate*, some *intermediate*. *Fully legitimate* are those against whom there stands no vow of continence, nor sacred order, nor kinship, nor disparity of worship, nor condition, nor coldness of nature, and whatever else there may be. But *wholly illegitimate* are those [barred] by a vow, by [holy] order, by kinship, by disparity of worship. And *intermediate* are those neither fully legitimate nor wholly illegitimate, [barred] by coldness, or by condition. For if such persons are joined in ignorance, they can remain together, and, upon certain causes supervening—and these same failing—be divided.

### Chapter II. *On cold [i.e. impotent] persons, whether they are to be separated or not.*

For concerning those who, by reason of coldness, cannot render the [conjugal] debt, blessed Gregory counsels that they remain [together]. But if the woman pleads, saying: I wish to be a mo-

<!-- page 765 -->

ther and to beget children; he decrees that each of them swear, with the seventh hand of kinsmen, that they never came together carnally; and then let the woman contract a second marriage, but let the man, who is of cold nature, remain without hope of wedlock. For he speaks thus[^p765-1]: « You have asked concerning those who are joined in matrimony and cannot marry, whether he may take another, or she another; concerning whom it is written: A man and a woman, if they have joined themselves, and afterward the woman has said of the man that he cannot have intercourse with her; if what she says can be proved by a just judgment, let her take another; but if he has taken another, let them be separated ». Likewise: « You have inquired concerning those who, by reason of cold nature, say that they cannot have mutual intercourse, giving themselves to the flesh. But let this man, if he cannot use her as a wife, have her as a sister. But if they wish to break the conjugal bond; let both remain unmarried; for if he could not naturally accord with this one, how will he suit another? If therefore the man wishes to take another wife; the reason is manifestly plain, that, the devil suggesting the kindling of hatred, he has held her hateful, and therefore contrives to dismiss her by the falsehood of a lie. But if the woman pleads and says: I wish to be a mother and to beget children; let each of them, with the seventh hand of kinsmen, touching the sacred relics, declare by oath that they had never, joined by the commingling of flesh, been made one flesh. Then the woman seems able to contract a second marriage; *I say this as a human [concession] on account of the weakness of their flesh*[^p765-2]. But let the man, who is of cold nature, remain without a spouse. But if he too has taken another union; then let those who had sworn be held liable for the crime of perjury, and, penance being performed, let them be compelled to resume the former wedlock ». « This is to be observed, when both confess the same thing. But if the man asserts that he has rendered the debt to his wife, and she denies it; which is rather to be believed is deservedly asked[^p765-3] ». Concerning this it has been thus decreed: « If anyone has taken a wife and had her for some time, and the woman herself says that he had never come together with her, and the man says that he did so; let it stand upon the truth of the man, because *the man is the head of the woman* ». « This has been decreed concerning natural impossibility ».

### Chapter III. *On those who, impeded by sorcery, are unable to have intercourse.*

But concerning the impediment of sorcery this is to be held as decreed, that « if through sorceresses and witches intercourse does not follow, those to whom these things happen are to be exhorted, that with *a contrite spirit* and *humbled* they make confession of all their sins to God and to the priest, and satisfy the Lord with tears and alms, with prayers and fasts; and through exorcisms and the other safeguards of ecclesiastical discipline let the ministers of the Church procure to heal such persons. But if they cannot, they may be separated. Yet after they have sought other marriages, while those are living to whom they were joined—the former ones, whom they had left—even if the possibility of intercourse be restored to them, they cannot be reconciled[^p765-4] ». — What is contained at the end of this chapter is to be understood as said rather from rigor than from canonical equity; or it is to be understood that they cannot be reconciled to the former [spouses] except by the judgment of the Church, by which the divorce had been made.

### Chapter IV. *On the insane.*

Madmen also, while they are in insanity, are not able to contract matrimony. Whence Fabian[^p765-5]: « Neither a madman nor a madwoman can contract matrimony; but if it has been contracted, let them not be separated ». Likewise Nicholas: « Those who have contracted matrimony while sane, and to one of the two, or to both, insanity or madness or some infirmity has come; on account of this infirmity the marriages of such persons cannot be dissolved. Likewise it is to be known concerning those who are blinded by adversaries, or have their members mutilated, or have been castrated by barbarians ».

### Chapter V. *On those who sleep with two sisters.*

Concerning those also who sleep with two sisters, or [the women] who sleep with two brothers, it is to be seen what the canons judge. « Whoever has slept with two sisters, and one of them was previously his wife, let him have neither of them; nor let the adulterers themselves ever be joined in wedlock[^p765-6] ». Likewise: « Nor is it lawful for a man to render the debt to his own wife, whom he has made unlawful to himself by knowing her sister. Nor even after the death of the wife is it lawful for him to be joined in marriage either to her or to the adulteress ». Likewise Zacharias the Pope[^p765-7]: « You have lain with the sister of your wife; if you have done so, have neither of them, and let your wife, if she was not conscious of the crime and does not wish to continue [in continence], marry in the Lord, whomever she wishes. But you and the adulteress, remain without hope of wedlock, and while you live, do penance ». As to what he says: let her marry whom she wishes; it is to be understood after the death of the husband. Whence Gregory: « Those who catch their wives in adultery, let neither he nor she take another wife or another husband, so long as both are living. But if the adulteress has died, her husband, if he wishes, may marry; the adulteress, however, never, even if her husband has died, but let her pay the laments of penance all the days of her life ». — Here it treats of that adultery which is committed with a kinsman of the husband, or a kinswoman of the wife.

<!-- page 766 -->

### Chapter VI. *That a wife is not to be dismissed on account of any bodily blemish.*

This too is to be known, that on account of any infirmity or bodily blemish it is not lawful for a man to dismiss his wife, and vice versa, but each ought to provide supports for the other. Whence Augustine[^p766-1]: « If a man has a wife barren, or deformed in body, or weak in limbs, or blind, or lame, or deaf, or [afflicted with] anything else, or worn out by sicknesses or labors and pains, and whatever, fornication excepted, can be devised as exceedingly horrible, let him bear it for the sake of fellowship and fidelity ».

---

la: Can. *Quod autem interrogasti* (1.), C. 33. q. 1; cfr. C. *Accepisti mulierem* (1.), X. de Frigidis et maleficiatis (libr. IV. tit. 15.). Seq. locus est C. *Requisisti de his* (2.), C. 33. q. 1.

en: Canon *Quod autem interrogasti* (1), C. 33, q. 1; cf. the canon *Accepisti mulierem* (1), X [Decretals of Gregory IX], *On the Cold and the Bewitched* (book IV, title 15). The following passage is the canon *Requisisti de his* (2), C. 33, q. 1.

en: Romans 6:19.

la: Gratian. super ult. canonem. Seq. locus est C. *Si quis accepit* (3.), ibid., ubi citatur Eph. 5, 23. Ultima deinde verba sunt Gratiani, ibid.

en: Gratian, upon the last canon. The following passage is the canon *Si quis accepit* (3), in the same place, where Ephesians 5:23 is cited. The final words thereafter are Gratian's, in the same place.

la: Can. *Si per sortiarias* (1.), ibid.

en: Canon *Si per sortiarias* (1), in the same place.

la: Can. *Neque furiosus* (26.), C. 32. q. 7; seq. locus est C. *Hi qui matrimonium* (25.), ibid.

en: Canon *Neque furiosus* (26), C. 32, q. 7; the following passage is the canon *Hi qui matrimonium* (25), in the same place.

la: Can. *Qui dormierit* (30), C. 27. q. 2; seq. locus est Gratian. super eund. can.

en: Canon *Qui dormierit* (30), C. 27, q. 2; the following passage is Gratian upon the same canon.

la: Can. *Concubuisti cum* (23.), C. 32. q. 7; deinde C. *Hi vero qui* (22.), ibid.

en: Canon *Concubuisti cum* (23), C. 32, q. 7; then the canon *Hi vero qui* (22), in the same place.

la: Libr. I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 18, n. 54; C. *Si uxorem* (18.), C. 32. q. 5.

en: [Augustine,] Book I *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount*, c. 18, n. 54; the canon *Si uxorem* (18), C. 32, q. 5. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Quaracchi Vol. IV PDF bands (offset pdf = printed + 20) per the VOL II OVERRIDE discipline; raw OCR L82111–82280 used as base for clean prose and marker spacing. Printed pages verified from running heads: **764** ("DISTINCTIO XXXIV." top-of-page; the littera opens here after d.33's DUB. VII), **765** ("DISTINCTIO XXXIV. 765"), **766** ("766 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). Bands read L-column top→bottom then R-column for each page (L split_x=2120, R split_x=1780).

**Page-range correction.** Skeleton frontmatter said pp. 765–767; corrected to **764–766**. The littera *begins* mid-page on **764** (Cap. I "Nunc superest attendere…" after d.33's last dubium) and *ends* mid-page on **766** at the Augustine quote closing Cap. VI, immediately before "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIV." Page 767 is entirely the divisio/commentary and is **not** part of this chunk. Render covers all six of the Master's chapters (Cap. I–VI).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Page 764 (shared with d.33 DUB. VII):* the littera text on 764 (Cap. I + Cap. II opening) carries **no** footnote markers. All page-764 footers (nn. 1–5: Iac. 1,17; "Hic c. 4"; the August./II Sent. d. XXVII *distinctio bonorum*; I Cor. 8,4 / I Tim. 4,4; Glossa ordinaria on I Cor. 10,23) anchor in d.33's idolothyta dubium and belong to the **d.33 DUB. VII chunk**, not here. This chunk claims none of them.
- *Page 766 (shared with the divisio):* this chunk claims only the littera's Augustine note (n. 1, "Libr. I. de Serm. Domini in monte…"), printed under the first footer rule. The **"NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM"** block (nn. 1–4, incl. the *Ex codd. AELY … naturae pro viri* and *Ed. 1 cognationis / Vat. cogitationis* variants) plus any COMMENTARIUS body notes are the **divisio's** — hand off to the d.34 divisio chunk.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The Quaracchi outer-margin cross-reference glosses keying Lombard's text to Bonaventure's dubia — "Dubium 1", "Dubium 6", "Dubium 7", "Dubium 8", "Dubium 9", and the "canon."/"Canon."/"Aug." tags — were trimmed from the body per the marginal-gloss cleanup rule (they are editorial apparatus, not the Master's text).

**[?] flags.** None outstanding. One column-junction was resolved by eyes-on: Cap. III "…ministri Ecclesiae tales sanare **procurent**. Quod si non potuerint…" — the verb *procurent* wraps from the foot of 765-L into the head of 765-R (raw OCR shows the dangling "procurent."); reading confirmed against the band. Augustine citation "c. 18, n. 54" confirmed on a focused re-crop of the 766 footer.

**Hand-off forward.** Shared last page (766) with the d.34 **divisio** chunk: that chunk owns the COMMENTARIUS lemma ("Nunc superest attendere … etc."), DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, and the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM apparatus beginning on 766 and continuing to 767.


title: Dist. 34, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 766 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIV.
*De matrimonio secundum causam materialem, quae est personarum legitimitas, vel illegitimitas.*

*Nunc superest attendere, quae personae sint legitimae etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de matrimonio quantum ad tria genera causarum. Hic agit quantum ad quartum genus causae, scilicet quantum ad causam materialem, quae quidem est personarum legitimitas, vel illegitimitas. Et dividitur haec pars in duas, quia quaedam personae sunt simpliciter illegitimae respectu matrimonii, quaedam respectu matrimonii perfecti, utpote illae quae alias nupserunt, et iam mortuus est vir, vel defuncta uxor. Ideo Magister primo agit de impedimentis. Secundo circa finem istius tractatus[^1] agit de secundis nuptiis, ibi: *Sciendum est, quod non solum primae vel secundae nuptiae* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima agit de impedimentis, quae non omnino auferunt legitimitatem. In secunda vero de his quae omnino faciunt illegitimas; et hoc dico secundum divisionem Magistri in littera; et incipit secunda pars trigesima septima ante principium[^2]: *Nunc de aliis, quae personas penitus illegitimas* etc., vel ibi: *Sunt igitur quidam ordines.* Prima pars habet duas secundum duo impedimenta, de quibus principaliter agit. Primo enim agit de impotentia coeundi, quae respicit defectum naturae[^3]. Secundo vero de conditione, quae respicit statum legis humanae, infra distinctione trigesima sexta: *Nunc de conditione videamus.* Prima pars habet duas, quia ad impedimentum sequitur divortium. Ideo primo agit de matrimonii impedimento, licet semiplene. Secundo vero de divortio, infra distinctione trigesima quinta: *Hoc etiam notandum est, quod cum Dominus* etc.

Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima determinat huiusmodi impedimenta in generali. In secunda in speciali, ibi: *De his enim, qui causa frigiditatis* etc. Et illa secunda pars subdividitur in duas, quia impedimentum potest venire vel ex parte vis imperatae, scilicet generativae, vel imperantis, ut liberi arbitrii. Ideo primo ponit impedimenta respicientia primam vim. Secundo vero secundam, ibi: *Furiosi quoque, dum in amentia sunt* etc. Et quaelibet harum habet duas secundum subdivisionem impedimenti. Nam impedimentum in vi generativa est impotentia coeundi: et haec est duplex, naturalis scilicet et accidentalis. Similiter impedimentum ex libero arbitrio est aut propter defectum cognitionis in ratione[^4], aut honestatis in voluntate; et sic sunt duo, scilicet furia et criminis enormitas vel incestus. Partes in littera signatae sunt secundum quatuor capitula.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam eorum quae in praesenti distinctione determinantur, secundum tria, quae in ea tanguntur, tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de impedimentis matrimonii in generali.

Secundo, in speciali de impotentia coeundi.

Tertio, de defectu, qui venit ex parte liberi arbitrii.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum matrimonium habeat impedimentum.

Secundo, dato quod habeat plura, quaeritur de numero et sufficientia impedimentorum.

<!-- page 767 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
*De impedimentis matrimonii in generali.*

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXIV.
*On matrimony according to its material cause, which is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of persons.*

*Now it remains to consider which persons are legitimate, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of matrimony as regards three kinds of causes. Here he treats as regards the fourth kind of cause, namely as regards the material cause, which indeed is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of persons. And this part is divided into two, because certain persons are simply illegitimate with respect to matrimony, and certain [others] with respect to perfect matrimony — as, for example, those women who have married before, and now the husband is dead, or the wife deceased. Therefore the Master first treats of impediments. Secondly, toward the end of this treatise[^1] he treats of second marriages, there: *It must be known that not only first or second marriages*, etc.

The first part has two [parts]. In the first he treats of impediments which do not altogether remove legitimacy. In the second, of those which altogether render [persons] illegitimate; and this I say according to the Master's division in the littera; and the second part begins [at] the thirty-seventh [distinction] before its beginning[^2]: *Now concerning others, which [render] persons utterly illegitimate*, etc., or there: *There are therefore certain orders.* The first part has two [parts] according to the two impediments of which he principally treats. For first he treats of the impotence of intercourse, which regards a defect of nature[^3]. Secondly, of the condition, which regards the status of human law, below in the thirty-sixth distinction: *Now let us consider the condition.* The first part has two [parts], because divorce follows upon an impediment. Therefore first he treats of the impediment of matrimony, though half-fully. Secondly, of divorce, below in the thirty-fifth distinction: *This too must be noted, that when the Lord*, etc.

The first part has two parts. In the first he determines impediments of this kind in general. In the second, in particular, there: *For concerning those who, by reason of frigidity*, etc. And that second part is subdivided into two, because an impediment can come either on the part of the commanded power, namely the generative, or of the commanding [power], namely of free will. Therefore first he sets down the impediments regarding the first power. Secondly, [those regarding] the second, there: *The insane also, while they are in madness*, etc. And each of these has two [parts] according to the subdivision of the impediment. For an impediment in the generative power is the impotence of intercourse: and this is twofold, namely natural and accidental. Likewise an impediment from free will is either on account of a defect of knowledge in the reason[^4], or of uprightness in the will; and so there are two, namely madness and the enormity of crime or incest. The parts are marked in the littera according to the four chapters.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of those things which are determined in the present distinction, according to the three [points] which are touched upon in it, three [questions] are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the impediments of matrimony in general.

Secondly, in particular, concerning the impotence of intercourse.

Thirdly, concerning the defect which comes on the part of free will.

Concerning the first, two [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether matrimony has an impediment.

Secondly, granted that it has several, it is asked concerning the number and sufficiency of the impediments.

### ARTICLE I.
*On the impediments of matrimony in general.*

---

la: Dist. XLII. c. 7.

en: Distinction XLII, ch. 7.

la: Scil. ultima propos. d. XXXVI. — Verbis *Sunt igitur quidam ordines* incipit d. XXXVII. — Edd. breviter legunt: *faciunt illegitimitates, infra d. 57: Sunt ergo quidam ordines.*

en: Namely the last proposition of d. XXXVI. — With the words *There are therefore certain orders* d. XXXVII begins. — The editions read briefly: *[which] render illegitimacies, below d. 57* [read: **d. 37**] *: There are therefore certain orders.* (Quaracchi prints "d. 57"; this is a misprint for **d. 37** [= d. XXXVII], the very distinction the note concerns — Book IV has only 50 distinctions. The Latin is transcribed as printed.)

la: Ex codd. AELY substituimus *naturae* pro *viri*; non pauci codd. *fieri*. Mox pro *statum* codd. GLVYZ *statutum*.

en: From codices AELY we substituted *naturae* ("of nature") for *viri* ("of the husband"); not a few codices [read] *fieri*. Presently, in place of *statum* ("status"), codices GLVYZ [read] *statutum* ("statute").

la: Ed. 1 *cognationis in crimine*, Vat. *cogitationis in crimine*. Eaedem edd. inferius, omisso *furia et*, post *vel incestus* (plures codd. *ut incestus*) addunt *et corporis deformitas et horror* ac dein omittunt *Partes in littera signatae sunt secundum quatuor* [scil. quatuor ultima] *capitula*.

en: Edition 1 [reads] *cognationis in crimine* ("of kinship in crime"), the Vatican [edition] *cogitationis in crimine* ("of thought in crime"). The same editions, lower down, omitting *furia et* ("madness and"), after *vel incestus* ("or incest") — many codices [read] *ut incestus* ("as incest") — add *et corporis deformitas et horror* ("and deformity of body and horror"), and then omit *Partes in littera signatae sunt secundum quatuor* [namely, the four last] *capitula* ("The parts are marked in the littera according to the four [last] chapters"). *Nota (sine numero — unnumbered lemma-note printed within the Notae ad Commentarium block, foot of p. 766, keyed to the earlier occurrence of* legitimitatem *in the Divisio):* **La.** Superius pro *legitimitatem* non pauci codd. et edd. *illegitimitatem*. — **En.** Above, in place of *legitimitatem* ("legitimacy"), not a few codices and editions [read] *illegitimitatem* ("illegitimacy"). ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from vol4 PDF bands (colcrop `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p766-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, left column regenerated wide at split_x=2120 to recover the clipped right edge). Raw OCR L82281–82364 used only as a reference cross-check; the cascade-shattered two-column OCR was NOT trusted for reflow.

**Page correction.** The skeleton's `printed_pages: [767]` was wrong. The DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM occupy the bottom two-column commentary block of **printed p. 766** (page number "766" verified top-left; running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). Printed **p. 767** opens fresh with the running head "DIST. XXXIV. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 767" and the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I heading. The ARTICULUS I opener (`ARTICULUS I. — De impedimentis matrimonii in generali.`) sits at the top of p. 767 and is the terminal element of this divisio chunk. Corrected to `printed_pages: [766, 767]`, `pdf_pages: [786, 787]` (offset pdf = printed + 20, verified).

**Chunk scope / hand-offs.**
- *First-page (766) hand-off to the littera chunk:* the Master's text above the COMMENTARIUS heading (Cap. VI, "Quod non est dimittenda uxor pro aliqua macula corporis," the *Dubium 9* margin note, and the closing Augustine quotation "Si uxorem quis habeat sterilem…") belongs to the littera. Its footer note **"¹ Libr. I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 18. n. 54; C. *Si uxorem* (18.), C. 32. q. 5."** is the littera's (it anchors the Augustine citation in the Master's text) and is NOT claimed here.
- *This chunk claims* only the DIVISIO/TRACTATIO-anchored footers, i.e. the four numbered *Notae ad Commentarium* (markers ¹–⁴) plus the one unnumbered lemma-note ("Superius pro legitimitatem…").
- *Last-page (767) hand-off to a1-q1:* the QUAESTIO I heading and body ("Quantum ergo ad primum ostenditur…") and ALL of p. 767's QUAESTIO I body footers belong to `bon-sent-IV-d34-a1-q1`. This chunk claims no footers on p. 767. The TRACTATIO's enumeration ("Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo… utrum matrimonium habeat impedimentum. Secundo… de numero et sufficientia impedimentorum.") aligns correctly with a1-q1 (Q1 = *utrum matrimonium habeat impedimentum*) and a1-q2 (*de numero et sufficientia impedimentorum*).

**[?] flags.**
- `[^2]`, "*infra d. 57*" — **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 766, `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-766-r600-0786.png`, *Notae ad Commentarium* note ² in the left footer column; crop y 0.858–0.884 × x 0.22–0.50, digit enlarged ×10).** Quaracchi **does print "d. 57"**: the italic figure has the flat top bar and single lower bowl of a **5**, not the double bowl of an italic 3. Per house rule the Latin keeps **57** verbatim; the inline `[?]` is removed and the "misprint for d. 37" observation is carried as a translator's bracket in the English. (It is certainly a typographic error: *Sunt ergo quidam ordines* is the d. XXXVII lemma, and Book IV has only 50 distinctions.)
- No scholion (correct: divisio chunks have none; `has_scholion: false`).