title: Dist. 27, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 683 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum matrimonium ratum sit insolubile.*

Secundo quaeritur de insolubilitate illius matrimonii, quod solum est in coniunctione animorum. Et quod tale matrimonium sit insolubile, ostenditur:

1. Quia determinatum est in iure[^1], quodsi quis per verba de praesenti consentiat in aliquam, et post in aliam consentit et carnaliter cognoscit, quod ad primam revocandus est: ergo primum vinculum fuit insolubile, cum non solvatur per matrimonium consummatum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per definitionem matrimonii praedictam[^2]. *Si sic dicas*, quod ei non convenit; *obiicitur* per Hugonem, qui ita definit matrimonium: « Matrimonium est maris et feminae legitimus consensus, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens ».

3. Item, quod Dominus dixit Matthaei decimo nono[^3]: *Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet*, aut intelligitur quoad coniunctionem *animorum*, aut *corporum*. Quod *animorum*, videtur, quia illa copula est sanctior: ergo si de illa intelligit, videtur, quod quoad illam sit inseparabile.

4. Item, matrimonium significat quantum ad coniunctionem animorum coniunctionem Dei et Ecclesiae[^4]; sed Ecclesia semel Christo desponsata nunquam separatur nec separabitur: ergo nec illud matrimonium.

5. Item, cum vir consentit in mulierem, transfert potestatem sui corporis in potestatem mulieris, quia tunc ei alligatur: ergo si *non habet potestatem sui corporis*[^5], nec intrare religionem nec alii potest se copulare.

**Contra:**
1. Hieronymus[^6] dicit, quod Dominus Ioannem vocavit de nuptiis: ergo solvit eum ab uxore; sed non solvisset, si fuisset ligatus vinculo insolubili: ergo etc.

2. Item, sacri canones ante commixtionem carnalem dant liberam potestatem alteri ingrediendi religionem, et alteri nubendi post eius ingressum, sicut patet per multa, quae habentur in littera[^7]; sed non posset nubere, nisi vinculum esset solutum: ergo etc.

3. Item, anima nunquam in hac vita sic Deo coniungitur, quin possit ab eo separari: ergo nec sponsus coniungitur inseparabiliter sponsae ante copulam carnalem.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, si statim post ingressum in religionem est solutum tale vinculum. Et quod sic, videtur: quia alioquin mulier damnum sustineret, quia esset alligata, et vir non esset alligatus; quod non est conveniens, quia ad paria iudicantur. — Si autem statim solvitur; sed possibile est, ipsum egredi religionem: ergo potest nubere, esto quod uxor alteri nupserit, quod est contra canones[^8]. — Propter hoc quaeritur: quando solvitur, et, quare solvitur per vinculum voti, non per vinculum matrimonii maioris?

### Conclusio
> Matrimonium solummodo ratum est insolubile suo modo, cum tantum per solemne votum castitatis solvi possit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod insolubilitas consequitur matrimonium non tantum *consummatum*, sed etiam *ratum*; et propter hoc etiam ratum est, quia quandam insolubilitatem habet, licet minorem quam matrimonium consummatum; habet tamen sibi competentem, sicut et illud. Sicut enim vinculum matrimonii *consummati* est insolubile, viventibus extremis vita corporali, nec solvitur nisi *morte corporali*[^9]; sic nec matrimonium, in quo est coniunctio mentium et animorum, potest solvi, nisi homo moriatur *spiritualiter* huic mundo sive operi carnis; et hoc fit intrando religionem et emittendo votum castitatis solemne. Ex tunc enim solvitur tale matrimonium, ex quo *spiritualiter moritur*; et hoc probatur per illam decretalem Innocentii, de Conversione coniugatorum, *Ex parte tua*[^10]. —

<!-- page 684 -->

Concedendum est igitur, matrimonium illud esse insolubile suo modo, cum sit Sacramentum, nec separatur ab homine, sed a Deo, cui solemne votum continentiae promittitur.

**1–4.** Et ex hoc patent obiecta praeter ultima.

**5.** Ad illud quod obiicitur de translatione potestatis, dicendum, quod potestas corporis non *simpliciter* transfertur in matrimonio rato, sed *sub conditione* utriusque, scilicet *statu et vita manente*. Unde dico, quodsi uxor peteret sibi statim debitum, non teneretur reddere; nec Ecclesia cogeret, quod statim redderet, sed saltem dat inducias usque ad duos menses[^11], ultra quod tempus tenetur aut mulieri debitum reddere, aut ad vitam aliam se transferre. Tunc ergo est vinculum solutum, cum homo ad vitam aliam est irregressibiliter translatus, et ideo dicitur mortuus.

Et ex hoc patet illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quando scilicet solvitur vinculum, videlicet quando ita ligatur, ut non possit redire ad saeculum; et si uxor instet, necesse habet unum sibi de duobus eligere infra duos menses secundum canones[^12]. Et per hoc patet totum.

---

english:
<!-- page 683 -->

### Question II. *Whether a ratified marriage is indissoluble.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the indissolubility of that marriage which consists only in the union of souls. And that such a marriage is indissoluble is shown:

1. Because it is determined in law[^1] that if someone consents by words of the present tense to one woman, and afterwards consents to another and knows her carnally, he is to be recalled to the first: therefore the first bond was indissoluble, since it is not dissolved by a consummated marriage.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by the aforesaid definition of marriage[^2]. *If you should say* that it does not apply to it, *the objection is raised* through Hugh, who defines marriage thus: « Marriage is the lawful consent of a man and a woman, keeping an undivided common life ».

3. Likewise, [as to] what the Lord said in Matthew, chapter nineteen[^3]: *What God has joined together let no man separate*, this is understood either with respect to the union of *souls* or [that] of *bodies*. That [it is understood] of *souls* seems [right], because that union is holier: therefore if He understands it of that [union], it seems that with respect to it [the marriage] is inseparable.

4. Likewise, marriage signifies, as to the union of souls, the union of God and the Church[^4]; but the Church, once betrothed to Christ, is never separated nor will be separated: therefore neither [is] that marriage [separable].

5. Likewise, when a man consents to a woman, he transfers the power of his own body into the power of the woman, because then he is bound to her: therefore if *he does not have power over his own body*[^5], he can neither enter religion nor join himself to another.

**On the contrary:**
1. Jerome[^6] says that the Lord called John away from his wedding: therefore He loosed him from a wife; but He would not have loosed [him], if he had been bound by an indissoluble bond: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the sacred canons, before carnal intercourse, give free power to the one [party] of entering religion, and to the other of marrying after the other's entry, as is clear from many things which are had in the text[^7]; but she could not marry unless the bond were dissolved: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the soul is never in this life so joined to God that it cannot be separated from Him: therefore neither is the betrothed joined inseparably to the betrothed before carnal union.

In connection with this it is asked whether, immediately after entry into religion, such a bond is dissolved. And that it is so seems [right]: because otherwise the woman would suffer harm, since she would be bound, and the man would not be bound; which is not fitting, since they are judged on equal terms. — But if it is dissolved immediately; yet it is possible for him to leave religion: therefore he can marry, granted that the wife has married another, which is against the canons[^8]. — On account of this it is asked: when is it dissolved, and why is it dissolved by the bond of the vow, and not by the bond of the greater marriage?

### Conclusion
> A merely ratified marriage is indissoluble in its own way, since it can be dissolved only by the solemn vow of chastity.

**I respond:** It must be said that indissolubility follows upon marriage not only [when] *consummated* but also [when] *ratified*; and on this account a [merely] ratified marriage too is [indissoluble], because it has a certain indissolubility, though less than a consummated marriage has; yet it has one befitting it, just as the other does. For just as the bond of a *consummated* marriage is indissoluble while the two parties remain alive in bodily life, and is not dissolved except by *bodily death*[^9]; so neither can a marriage in which there is a union of minds and souls be dissolved, unless a person dies *spiritually* to this world or to the work of the flesh; and this happens by entering religion and by uttering the solemn vow of chastity. For such a marriage is dissolved from the point at which he *dies spiritually*; and this is proved by that decretal of Innocent, On the Conversion of the Married, *Ex parte tua*[^10]. —

<!-- page 684 -->

It must therefore be granted that that marriage is indissoluble in its own way, since it is a Sacrament, and is not separated by man, but by God, to whom the solemn vow of continence is promised.

**1–4.** And from this the objections are answered, except the last.

**5.** To that which is objected concerning the transfer of power, it must be said that the power of the body is not transferred *absolutely* in a ratified marriage, but *under a condition* on both sides, namely *while the state and the life remain*. Hence I say that if the wife were to ask the debt of herself immediately, he would not be bound to render it; nor would the Church compel him to render it at once, but at least grants a delay of up to two months[^11], beyond which time he is bound either to render the debt to the wife, or to betake himself to another [way of] life. Then, therefore, the bond is dissolved, when the person has been irreversibly transferred to another life, and therefore is said to be dead.

And from this is clear that which is asked last, namely when the bond is dissolved: that is, when he is so bound that he cannot return to the world; and if the wife insists, he must choose one of two things for himself within two months according to the canons[^12]. And through this the whole [matter] is clear.

---

la: Per Gregor. IX. in C. *Si inter virum* (31.), X. de Sponsalibus et matrim. (lib. IV. tit. 1.).

en: By Gregory IX in the decretal *Si inter virum* (31), in the *Liber Extra*, On Betrothals and Marriages (bk. IV, tit. 1).

la: Quaest. praeced. fundam. 3, ubi allegatur definitio matrimonii a Magistro, hic in lit. c. 2, data. — Definitio Hugonis habetur II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 4. Cfr. supra pag. 679, nota 8.

en: The preceding question, fundamentum 3, where the definition of marriage given by the Master is cited, [the one] given here in the text, c. 2. — Hugh's definition is found in *On the Sacraments* II, pt. XI, c. 4. Cf. above, p. 679, note 8.

la: Vers. 6. Pro *Quod* edd. cum pluribus codd. *Quos*. — Inferius verbis *animorum copula est sanctior* exprimitur sententia August. supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3. proposita.

en: Verse 6. For *Quod* [What] the editions, with several codices, [read] *Quos* [Whom]. — Lower down, by the words *the union of souls is holier* is expressed the opinion of Augustine set forth above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 3, fundamentum 3.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 6.

en: See above, the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 6.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Corinthians 7, 4. Cf. the text of the Master here, c. 7.

la: Hanc sententiam continet *Prologus in Evang. secundum Ioannem*, qui in antiquioribus edd. Bibliae impressus habetur, et apud Lyranum falso Hieronymo tribuitur: « Hic est Ioannes evangelista... quem de nuptiis volentem nubere vocavit Deus ». Occurrit etiam apud Bedam, Homil. 8. in die natali S. Ioan. evangel. Sed cfr. Baronius, I. ad an. 31. n. 30.

en: This opinion is contained in the *Prologue to the Gospel according to John*, which is printed in the older editions of the Bible and is falsely attributed by [Nicholas of] Lyra to Jerome: « This is John the evangelist... whom God, when he wished to marry, called away from the wedding ». It occurs also in Bede, Homily 8 on the birthday of St. John the Evangelist. But cf. Baronius, vol. I, on the year 31, n. 30.

en: Here, c. 6.

la: Cfr. *Glossa* in C. *Statuimus novitios* (23.), X. de Regularibus etc. (lib. III. tit. 31.), in qua pro confirmatione huius sententiae allegatur C. *Ex publico instrumento* (7.), ibid. de Conversione coniugatorum (tit. 32.). — Mox post *quando* cod. F supplet *vinculum*, cod. bb legit *solvitur matrimonium*.

en: Cf. the *Gloss* on the decretal *Statuimus novitios* (23), in the *Liber Extra*, On Regulars etc. (bk. III, tit. 31), in which, in confirmation of this opinion, the decretal *Ex publico instrumento* (7) is cited, ibid., On the Conversion of the Married (tit. 32). — Just after *quando* [when] cod. F supplies *vinculum* [the bond], cod. bb reads *solvitur matrimonium* [the marriage is dissolved].

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Extra lib. III. tit. 32. c. 14. — Pro *Innocentii*, quod habet Vat., codd. et ed. I *Alexandri*, qui ibid., non in C. *Ex parte tua*, sed in C. *Verum post legitimum* (2.) et C. *Ex publico instrumento* (7.) idem decrevit.

en: *Liber Extra*, bk. III, tit. 32, c. 14. — For *Innocent*, which the Vatican edition has, the codices and edition I [read] *Alexander*, who decreed the same thing there, not in the decretal *Ex parte tua*, but in the decretal *Verum post legitimum* (2) and the decretal *Ex publico instrumento* (7).

la: Colligitur ex C. *Ex publico instrumento* in nota praeced. allegato. — In principio solut. post *potestatis* cod. K addit *corporis*, et pro *quod potestas* cod. F *quod translatio*.

en: Gathered from the decretal *Ex publico instrumento* cited in the preceding note. — At the beginning of the solution, after *potestatis* cod. K adds *corporis*, and for *quod potestas* cod. F [reads] *quod translatio*.

la: Cfr. canon in nota praeced. allegatus. — Cod. T addit *vel castitatem vovere, vel ad uxorem redire*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. the canon cited in the preceding note. — Cod. T adds *or to vow chastity, or to return to the wife*. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.683–684 (PDF pp.703–704; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 73871–73994) as the base for clean *videtur/Contra* prose and footnote-marker spacing. The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered through the Respondeo, the replies, and every footer, so the PDF column-band read is authoritative for those regions per the override.

**Printed-page span corrected (682 → 683–684).** The skeleton frontmatter (and the task brief) listed `printed_pages: [682, 683, 684]`. Page-verification against the bands shows **printed p.682 is entirely a3-q1** (its args 3–4, CONCLUSIO *Matrimonium est vinculum insolubile, extremis manentibus, sed non perpetuum*, RESPONDEO, replies, and the whole article-master SCHOLION spanning both columns — "SCHO"+"HOLION"). QUAESTIO II begins at the **top of p.683** (running head "DIST. XXVII. ART. III. QUAEST. II."; header "QUAESTIO II. / Utrum matrimonium ratum sit insolubile."). So this chunk occupies pp.683–684 only; `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` updated accordingly. `line_start`/`line_end` (73871–73994) were already correct.

**Title corrected.** Skeleton `title_la` was a placeholder ("De insolubilitate matrimonii, quaestio secunda"); the band prints the true quaestio title *Utrum matrimonium ratum sit insolubile*, now in frontmatter.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. Article III's single scholion is printed on p.682 at the end of a3-q1 and addresses both questions (Scholion I "De 1. quaestione…"; Scholion II "Quaestio 2. a Concilio Trident…"); it belongs to the a3-q1 chunk. This chunk's own [^12] ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") and a3-q1's footnote ("Vide scholion ad I. quaest. praecedentis articuli") both confirm the placement.

**Shared-page footer split (p.684).** Printed p.684's footer runs one numeral series 1–7 across the QUAESTIO II tail and the opening of the DUBIA. **Notes 1–2 belong to this question** (markers *duos menses*[^11], *canones*[^12]) → [^11]–[^12]; **notes 3–7 belong to the following DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** (Dub. I: *Cod. L individualis* / Justinian's definition / cross-ref a.1 q.1 & a.2 q.1 / Albert–Thomas–Peter of Tarentaise / *Tua nos duxit*) and are left for that chunk.

**Cross-chunk boundary integrity.** The p.682→683 seam is a clean article-question boundary (a3-q1 + its scholion end on p.682; QUAESTIO II opens fresh on p.683 — no mid-sentence splice). The p.683→684 seam falls inside the Respondeo at "— Conce‑|dendum est igitur"; the two halves are grammatically continuous and the `<!-- page 684 -->` marker is placed at that em-dash. Reply "5." was OCR-garbled to "0." in the raw and read as *5.* from the p.684 L band.

**[?] flags:** none. All codex sigla (F, K, T, bb), canon-law citations (Gregory IX *Si inter virum*, *Statuimus novitios*, *Ex publico instrumento*, *Verum post legitimum*, Innocent/Alexander *Ex parte tua*), and patristic references (Jerome/pseudo-Jerome *Prologus in Ioannem*, Bede Hom. 8, Baronius, Hugh of St. Victor *de Sacramentis*) resolved cleanly against the 450 dpi bands. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF (*malriinonmm*→*matrimonium*, *rcUum*→*ratum*, *Seciindo*→*Secundo*, *insobibile*→*insolubile*, *nou*→*non*, *tabet*→*habet*, *conciasio*→*conclusio*, *soJvitur*→*solvitur*, *7norte*→*morte*, *insolubihlas*→*insolubilitas*, *decrecit*→*decrevit*).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 27, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 684 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de ista definitione: *Matrimonium est viri et mulieris coniunctio maritalis, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens.* Videtur enim, quod ista definitio sit *falsa:* primum, quia non est necesse, coniuges semper simul cohabitare: ergo non est necesse ad hoc, quod sit matrimonium, quod sit ibi individua vitae consuetudo. — Item, videtur esse *superflua,* quia, si est coniunctio maritalis, est indivisibilis[^1]: ergo si hoc clauditur in primo membro, videtur, quod superfluat illud addere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hic definitur matrimonium secundum statum *perfectum* sive consummatum; ista autem definitio: *Matrimonium est maris et feminae coniunctio maritalis,* sufficiens est quantum ad *esse* definiti, et tangitur ibi *genus* et *differentia.* Sed quoniam maritalis coniunctio duo implicat in se, scilicet legitimitatem personarum et indivisionem personarum; ideo ad maiorem eruditionem superadditur aliud, scilicet *inter legitimas personas* etc.; et non est de *esse* definitionis, sed explicatio primi membri[^2]. — Posset tamen dici, quod notetur ibi quadruplex genus causae, scilicet *formalis,* in hoc quod dicitur: coniunctio maritalis; *efficiens,* in hoc quod dicitur: viri et mulieris, quae, in quantum consentiunt, se habent in ratione causae efficientis[^3]; *materialis,* in hoc quod dicitur: inter legitimas personas; *finalis,* in hoc quod dicitur: individuam vitae etc., ubi tangitur bonum Sacramenti, quod est principale bonum matrimonii. — Et per hoc patent obiecta, quia non est *superfluitas* nec *falsitas,* quia non est indivisio quantum ad *coniunctum,* sed quantum ad *Sacramentum*[^4].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si autem verbis explicant quod corde nolunt, si non sit coactio ibi vel dolus* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia, cum impossibile sit, quod aliud exprimatur in ore, quam sit in corde, *sine dolo;* videtur Magister implicare incompossibilia.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *dolus* dupliciter potest esse, scilicet *expressus exterius per sermonem,* vel *solummodo in corde;* sicut *intentio iocandi* in dando baptismum potest esse dupliciter: aut ita, quod tantum sit *in corde,* aut ita, quod aliquo modo exprimatur *in signo exteriori.* Sic *dolus* est *in corde,* quando exterius facit omnino, sicut facit qui simpliciter consentit; et de hoc dolo Magister non intelligit. Alius est, quando *per signum exprimitur,* sicut in decretali quadam, de Sponsalibus[^5], ponitur casus de quodam, qui, cum vocaretur Ioannes, nominavit se Petrum, in consentiendo dicens: ego Petrus, vel aliquid simile; et tunc manifeste deprehenditur dolus *exterius;* et de tali loquitur Magister, non de dolo occulto. Istud autem verbum intelligendum est habere veritatem secundum iudicium
<!-- page 685 -->
in facie Ecclesiae, non secundum veritatem sive in foro conscientiae[^6].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur de Macario, quod *eremi solitudinem elegit;* utrum sponsa eius fuerit soluta ab eo. Et videtur, quod *non,* quia ivit in *eremum:* ergo cum non dederit potestatem suam alii, sed fuerit liberae voluntatis; potuit redire ad saeculum: ergo videtur, quod uxor soluta non erat. — In *contrarium* est: quia ipse non peccabat, ergo uxori nihil subtrahebat: ergo illi licebat transire ad secunda vota.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis eremitae obedientiam non promittant, tamen, quia personae sunt religiosae, votum continentiae annexum habent; et ratione assumtionis habitus et more[^7] intelligitur in ipso solemnizari votum, maxime si est cum sociis, qui voverunt castitatem, et ipse in habitus talis susceptione ad continentiam perpetuam se obligavit.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Volumus maritum illi, etiam si iam tonsuratus est, reddere;* utrum *tonsuratus* debeat in saeculo remanere. Et quod sic, videtur: quia non absolvitur a voto, immo post mortem uxoris non licet contrahere, immo iterum tenetur continere et compellendus est[^8]: ergo videtur, quod non sit absolutus a voto solemni: ergo videtur, quod tenetur ferre habitum. — *Contra* hoc est, quia hoc esset in contumeliam uxoris: ergo si ipsa non debet puniri, patet etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod talis, qui intravit religionem, aut intravit, uxore *nolente* et non consentiente, tamen in saeculo existente et contradicente; et talis non tenetur ad religionem, quia non potuit votum emittere, immo si repetatur, ei reddendus est; tenetur tamen, quantum in se est, continentiam servare; unde cum alia non potest contrahere, quia continentiam, quantum in se est, potuit servare, sed non religionem intrare, quia potuit non exigere, sed tenebatur reddere. — Aut intrat religionem, uxore *volente,* sed tamen in saeculo remanente; et talis solvitur a voto[^9] *non simpliciter,* sed *ad tempus,* nec omnino, sed solum in quantum votum erat in praeiudicium mulieris. Et hoc habetur in quadam decretali, de Conversione coniugatorum, *Ex parte*[^10], ubi scribitur, quod si aliquis vovit castitatem et habitum religionis suscepit, uxore consentiente, sed postmodum, ipsa in saeculo remanente, et ipse remansit; illa autem mortua, ille idem postmodum cum alia contraxit. Et hoc quidem non debuit fieri, unde dicitur, quod separandus est ab illa et compellendus est religionem intrare. Et ratio redditur ibi, «quia, uxore sua manente in saeculo, religionem non potuit profiteri, ea tamen sublata de medio, sine periculo salutis votum, quod fecit, non potuit vitiare[^11]». Et ita patet, quod non tenetur ferre habitum, quamdiu uxor vivit, tum propter scandalum, tum propter uxoris vituperium.

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod ubi *est pollicitatio contrahendi matrimonium, sponsi tantum et sponsae sunt.* Videtur enim sentire, quod non licet sponso transire ad religionem, sponsa nolente, nisi sit sponsio *de futuro;* aliter distinctio sua ad propositum nihil videtur valere. Et hoc falsum videtur, sicut habetur in libro tertio decretalium, de Conversione coniugatorum[^12], ubi dicitur in illa decretali *Verum* etc., quod licet alteri intrare, altero invito, et illi licet ad secunda vota transire. Et ratio ibi redditur: «quia, cum non fuissent una caro simul effecti, satis potest unus ad Deum transire, et alter in saeculo remanere». — Item, quod distinctio ista Magistri non solvat, videtur: quia Macarius et Alexius, uterque consenserat *de praesenti;* aliter enim non fecissent convivia[^13]: ergo licet post contractum matrimonium sponsam dimittere. Et *iterum,* quod liceat nubere, habetur ex praedicta decretali et per rationem. Si enim ista mulier nondum est effecta una caro, et propter hoc potest vir transire: ergo si ipsa puniri non debet, aut vir suus est sibi restituendus, aut ipsa potest cum alio contrahere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod re vera, sicut expresse dicit decretalis illa, licet his qui consenserunt *de praesenti,* ad religionem convolare, et alteri licet nubere; nec est credendum, quod Magister velit oppositum dicere; aliter enim iuri canonico et rationi contrairet, nec in parte ista ei consentiendum
<!-- page 686 -->
esset. Unde distinguunt iurisperiti[^14] matrimonium secundum triplicem differentiam: quoddam enim *initiatum,* quoddam *ratum,* quoddam *consummatum.* Matrimonium initiatur *desponsatione de futuro,* ratificatur in *consensu de praesenti,* consummatur in *copula carnali.* Et ideo praemissae auctoritates intelligi possunt non solum de *sponsa,* verum etiam de *coniuge.* Aliquae tamen auctoritates, quae sequuntur[^15], intelliguntur de ea quae pure est sponsa; et propter hoc distinguit Magister duplicem modum desponsandi. Sunt tamen et alii modi, qui infra[^16] patebunt.

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Cui copulatus ad coniugium ulterius ad sacros ordines non accederet, cum viduam duxerit.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia talis non dividit carnem suam nec uxor divisit: ergo in nullo videtur praeiudicare Sacramento. — Item, talis mulier, si ingrediatur religionem, consecratur ut virgo: si ergo mulieri nullum praeiudicium generatur, videtur, quod nec viro. — *Contrarium* autem videtur dici in littera[^17].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud quod dicit Magister et Pelagius, fuit de rigore iuris, non propter obstaculum, quod fit ex parte Sacramenti directe. Unde secundum nova iura[^18] hodie non tenetur, eo quod neuter carnem suam divisit, et uxorem habuit virginem, quod attenditur ad perfectionem Sacramenti. Et *si tu obiicias* mihi de eo qui contraxit cum aliqua virgine et matrimonium consummavit, et post contraxit cum alia, quam tamen non cognovit, quod bigamus iudicatur; dicendum, quod hoc non est propter *defectum Sacramenti,* sed quia praesumitur contra ipsum de *incontinentia;* sicut diaconus, qui contraxit cum secunda in diaconatu — et intellige: contraxit *de facto,* quia *de iure* non potest, ut habetur vigesima octava distinctione[^19], cum opere subsecuto — punitur tanquam bigamus, cum tamen secundum non fuerit matrimonium.

---

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning this definition: *Matrimony is the marital conjunction of a man and a woman, retaining an undivided manner of life.* For it seems that this definition is *false:* first, because it is not necessary that spouses always cohabit together: therefore it is not necessary, for there to be matrimony, that there be there an undivided manner of life. — Likewise, it seems to be *superfluous,* because, if there is a marital conjunction, it is indivisible[^1]: therefore if this is contained in the first member, it seems superfluous to add that.

**I respond:** It must be said that here matrimony is defined according to the *perfect* or consummated state; but that definition: *Matrimony is the marital conjunction of a male and a female,* is sufficient as regards the *being* of the thing defined, and there are touched upon *genus* and *difference.* But since the marital conjunction implies two things in itself, namely the legitimacy of the persons and the indivision of the persons; therefore for greater instruction there is superadded something else, namely *between legitimate persons,* etc.; and it is not of the *being* of the definition, but an explication of the first member[^2]. — Yet it could be said that there is noted there a fourfold kind of cause, namely the *formal,* in that it is said: marital conjunction; the *efficient,* in that it is said: of a man and a woman, who, insofar as they consent, stand in the account of the efficient cause[^3]; the *material,* in that it is said: between legitimate persons; the *final,* in that it is said: undivided [manner] of life, etc., where the good of the Sacrament is touched upon, which is the principal good of matrimony. — And through this the objections are made clear, because there is neither *superfluity* nor *falsity,* because there is no indivision as regards the *thing conjoined,* but as regards the *Sacrament*[^4].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *But if by words they express what they do not will in the heart, if there be not coercion there or fraud,* etc. For it seems ill said, because, since it is impossible that something other be expressed in the mouth than is in the heart, *without fraud;* the Master seems to imply incompatible things.

**I respond:** It must be said that *fraud* can be twofold, namely *expressed outwardly through speech,* or *only in the heart;* just as *the intention of jesting* in giving baptism can be twofold: either so that it be only *in the heart,* or so that it be in some way expressed *in an outward sign.* Thus *fraud* is *in the heart,* when outwardly he does entirely as one does who simply consents; and of this fraud the Master does not understand [it]. There is another [kind], when *it is expressed through a sign,* as in a certain decretal, on Betrothals[^5], there is set down the case of a certain man who, though he was called John, named himself Peter, in consenting saying: I [am] Peter, or something similar; and then the fraud is manifestly detected *outwardly;* and of such a one the Master speaks, not of hidden fraud. But this word must be understood to have truth according to the judgment
<!-- page 685 -->
in the face of the Church, not according to the truth or in the forum of conscience[^6].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, which is said of Macarius, that *he chose the solitude of the desert;* whether his betrothed was released from him. And it seems that *not,* because he went into the *desert:* therefore since he did not give his power to another, but was of free will; he could return to the world: therefore it seems that the wife was not released. — On the *contrary* it is: because he did not sin, therefore he took away nothing from his wife: therefore it was permitted to her to pass to a second marriage.

**I respond:** It must be said that although hermits do not promise obedience, nevertheless, because they are religious persons, they have the vow of continence annexed; and by reason of the assumption of the habit and by custom[^7] the vow is understood to be solemnized in him, especially if it is with companions who have vowed chastity, and he in the reception of such a habit has bound himself to perpetual continence.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *We wish the husband to be restored to her, even if he is already tonsured;* whether the *tonsured* one ought to remain in the world. And that yes, it seems: because he is not absolved from the vow, indeed after the death of the wife it is not permitted to contract [marriage], indeed he is again bound to be continent and to be compelled[^8]: therefore it seems that he is not absolved from the solemn vow: therefore it seems that he is bound to wear the habit. — *Against* this it is, because this would be to the reproach of the wife: therefore if she ought not to be punished, it is clear, etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that such a one, who entered religion, either entered while the wife was *unwilling* and not consenting, yet [while she was] existing in the world and contradicting; and such a one is not bound to religion, because he could not emit the vow, indeed if he is claimed back, he is to be restored to her; nevertheless he is bound, as far as in him lies, to preserve continence; whence since he cannot contract with another, because continence, as far as in him lies, he could preserve, but not enter religion, because he could not decline to demand [the debt], but was bound to render it. — Or he enters religion while the wife is *willing,* but nevertheless remaining in the world; and such a one is absolved from the vow[^9] *not simply,* but *for a time,* nor entirely, but only insofar as the vow was to the prejudice of the wife. And this is had in a certain decretal, on the Conversion of the married, *Ex parte*[^10], where it is written that if someone vowed chastity and received the habit of religion, with the wife consenting, but afterward, she remaining in the world, he too remained; but she having died, the same man afterward contracted with another. And this indeed ought not to have been done, whence it is said that he is to be separated from her and to be compelled to enter religion. And the reason is given there, «because, while his wife remained in the world, he could not profess religion, yet she being taken away from the midst, without peril of salvation the vow which he made he could not vitiate[^11]». And thus it is clear that he is not bound to wear the habit, as long as the wife lives, both on account of scandal, and on account of the reproach of the wife.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that where there is *a promise of contracting matrimony, they are [only] betrothed man and betrothed woman.* For he seems to hold that it is not permitted to the betrothed man to pass to religion, the betrothed woman being unwilling, unless there be a betrothal *concerning the future;* otherwise his distinction seems to be of no value to the point. And this seems false, as is had in the third book of decretals, on the Conversion of the married[^12], where it is said in that decretal *Verum* etc., that it is permitted to the one to enter, the other being unwilling, and to that one it is permitted to pass to a second marriage. And the reason is given there: «because, since they had not been made one flesh together, one can well enough pass to God, and the other remain in the world». — Likewise, that this distinction of the Master does not resolve [it], it seems: because Macarius and Alexius, each had consented *concerning the present;* for otherwise they would not have held the wedding-feasts[^13]: therefore it is permitted, after matrimony has been contracted, to dismiss the betrothed. And *again,* that it is permitted to marry, is had from the aforesaid decretal and by reason. For if this woman has not yet been made one flesh, and on account of this the man can pass over: therefore if she ought not to be punished, either her husband is to be restored to her, or she can contract with another.

**I respond:** It must be said that in truth, as that decretal expressly says, it is permitted to those who consented *concerning the present* to fly off to religion, and to the other it is permitted to marry; nor is it to be believed that the Master wishes to say the opposite; for otherwise he would run contrary to canon law and to reason, nor in this section is he to be
<!-- page 686 -->
agreed with. Whence the jurists distinguish[^14] matrimony according to a threefold difference: for one [is] *initiated,* one *ratified,* one *consummated.* Matrimony is initiated *by betrothal concerning the future,* ratified in *consent concerning the present,* consummated in *carnal union.* And therefore the aforesaid authorities can be understood not only of the *betrothed woman,* but also of the *wife.* Yet certain authorities which follow[^15] are understood of her who is purely betrothed; and on account of this the Master distinguishes a twofold manner of betrothing. Yet there are also other manners, which will be shown below[^16].

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He who is coupled to marriage should not further approach to sacred orders, when he has married a widow.* For it seems ill said, because such a one does not divide his own flesh nor did the wife divide [hers]: therefore in nothing does he seem to prejudice the Sacrament. — Likewise, such a woman, if she enter religion, is consecrated as a virgin: if therefore no prejudice is generated to the woman, it seems that neither [is there any] to the man. — But the *contrary* seems to be said in the text[^17].

**I respond:** It must be said that what the Master and Pelagius say was of the rigor of the law, not on account of an obstacle which arises on the part of the Sacrament directly. Whence according to the new laws[^18] today he is not bound, because neither divided his own flesh, and he had the wife a virgin, which is attended to for the perfection of the Sacrament. And *if you object* to me concerning him who contracted with some virgin and consummated the matrimony, and afterward contracted with another, whom however he did not know, that he is judged a bigamist; it must be said that this is not on account of a *defect of the Sacrament,* but because he is presumed against as to *incontinence;* just as a deacon who contracted with a second [wife] in the diaconate — and understand: he contracted *in fact,* because *by right* he cannot, as is had in the twenty-eighth distinction[^19], with the deed following — is punished as a bigamist, although the second was nevertheless not a matrimony.

---

la: Cod. L *individualis.*

en: Codex L [reads] *individualis* ("individual").

la: Hinc etiam in definitione matrimonii a Iustiniano (l. Institut. tit. 9. de patria potestate) data omittitur *maritalis:* « Nuptiae autem sive matrimonium est viri et mulieris coniunctio, individuam vitae consuetudinem continens ». Datur a Iustiniano (D. XXIII. de Ritu nuptiarum, tit. 2. lex 1.) etiam haec definitio: Nuptiae sunt coniunctio maris et feminae et consortium omnis vitae, divini et humani iuris communicatio [i. e. secundum S. Thom. loc. inferius cit. consortium vitae communis regulatum per ius divinum et humanum].

en: Hence also in the definition of matrimony given by Justinian (Institutes, tit. 9, on paternal power) *marital* is omitted: «But nuptials, or matrimony, is the conjunction of a man and a woman, containing an undivided manner of life». There is also given by Justinian (Digest XXIII, on the Rite of nuptials, tit. 2, law 1) this definition: Nuptials are the conjunction of a male and a female and the fellowship of a whole life, a sharing of divine and human right [i. e. according to St. Thomas, in the place cited below, a fellowship of common life regulated by divine and human right].

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1.

la: Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 2; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiuncula 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1.

la: Extra lib. IV. tit. I. C. *Tua nos duxit* (26.), ubi quidam, animo decipiendi mulierem, illi dixit: *te Ioannes desponsat,* cum ipse Ioannes non vocaretur, sed finxit, se vocari Ioannem. — Superius post *consentit* cod. aa addit *et tamen non consentit interius.*

en: [Decretals] Extra, book IV, tit. I, chap. *Tua nos duxit* (26), where a certain man, with the intention of deceiving the woman, said to her: *John betroths thee,* although he himself was not called John, but pretended that he was called John. — Above, after *consents,* codex aa adds *and yet does not consent interiorly.*

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 2. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See above, a. 2, q. 2. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vat. *morae.* S. Thom., hic circa lit.: *Eremitae... tamen votum continentiae habent annexum, et ex more secundum determinatum tempus eorum votum solemnizatur.* — Praeter S. Thom. cfr. de hoc dubio Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *morae.* St. Thomas, here on the text: *Hermits... nevertheless have the vow of continence annexed, and by custom, according to a determinate time, their vow is solemnized.* — Besides St. Thomas, cf. on this doubt Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cod. X repetit *continere.* Pro *iterum* cod. M *tunc.*

en: Codex X repeats *continere* ("to be continent"). For *iterum* ("again") codex M [reads] *tunc* ("then").

la: Ita cod. E, cuius lectio confirmatur ex seqq. et ex S. Thom., hic circa lit.: *Quamvis [viri intrantis religionem] fuerit verum votum, suspenditur tamen ad tempus, vivente uxore, in quantum fuit in praeiudicium eius.* Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *ab ea,* cod. aa *a muliere,* alii codd. et edd. *a viro.*

en: Thus codex E, whose reading is confirmed from what follows and from St. Thomas, here on the text: *Although [for the man entering religion] there was a true vow, it is nevertheless suspended for a time, while the wife is living, insofar as it was to her prejudice.* Codex K (I, by a second hand) [reads] *ab ea* ("by her"), codex aa *a muliere* ("by the woman"), other codices and the editions *a viro* ("by the man").

la: Extra, lib. III. tit. 32. c. 9.

en: [Decretals] Extra, book III, tit. 32, c. 9.

la: Textus originalis *violare,* qui etiam substituit *de iure ad religionem nequiverit proficisci* pro *religionem non potuit profiteri.* — Praeter S. Thom., superius allegatum, idem dub. solvit Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.

en: The original text [reads] *violare* ("to violate"), which also substitutes *by right he was unable to set out for religion* for *he could not profess religion.* — Besides St. Thomas, cited above, the same doubt is resolved by Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2, quaestiuncula 2.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Post *consenserat* cod. bb addit *per verba.* Inferius edd. omittunt *et per rationem* (scil. in decretali expressam).

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 6. — After *had consented* codex bb adds *through words.* Below, the editions omit *and by reason* (namely, [the reason] expressed in the decretal).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 670, nota 4.

en: Cf. above, p. 670, note 4.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 9.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 9.

la: Dist. 36. a. 2. q. 3, ubi *quatuor* modi exhibentur, de quibus B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2.

en: Dist. 36, a. 2, q. 3, where *four* manners are exhibited, concerning which [see] Bl. Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2.

la: Hic c. 10, ubi etiam Pelagii verba habentur.

en: Here c. 10, where also the words of Pelagius are had.

la: Cfr. C. *Debitam pastoralis officii* (3.), X. de Bigamis non ordinandis (lib. I. tit. 21.). — Inferius pro *ad perfectionem* edd. *in perfectione.*

en: Cf. chap. *Debitam pastoralis officii* (3), [Decretals] X, on Bigamists not to be ordained (book I, tit. 21). — Below, for *for the perfection* the editions [read] *in the perfection.*

la: Can. *Quando presbyteri aut diaconi* (3.) et C. *Praeterea placuit* (7.), in quibus a diaconis exigitur promissio castitatis servandae. Plures codd. omittunt *ut habetur vigesima octava distinctione,* fortasse non absque ratione, quia quae hic dicuntur plenius inveniuntur in C. *Nuper a nobis* (1.), X. de Bigamis non ordinandis (lib. I. tit. 21.), in quo recurrit distinctio *de iure* et *de facto,* ac dicitur de talibus clericis, quod cum eis « tanquam cum bigamis non liceat dispensari, licet in veritate bigami non existant, non propter Sacramenti defectum, sed propter affectum intentionis cum opere subsecuto ». Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 20; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Canon *Quando presbyteri aut diaconi* (3) and chap. *Praeterea placuit* (7), in which a promise of chastity to be preserved is required of deacons. Many codices omit *as is had in the twenty-eighth distinction,* perhaps not without reason, because the things which are said here are found more fully in chap. *Nuper a nobis* (1), [Decretals] X, on Bigamists not to be ordained (book I, tit. 21), in which the distinction *by right* and *in fact* recurs, and it is said of such clerics that with them «it is not permitted to dispense as with bigamists, although in truth they are not bigamists, not on account of a defect of the Sacrament, but on account of the disposition of the intention with the deed following». Cf. above, d. 23, a. 2, q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 20; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`vol4-p684/685/686-{L,R}-*`, Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion, offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 73995–74278). p.685/686 were regenerated with `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 1780` because the default split (1880) clipped the right column's left edge; the leading characters of each right-column line were recovered by stitching the L-band overlap sliver + the R bands.

**Six dubia, all complete: DUB. I–VI.** DUB. I–II sit at the foot of p.684 (below the a3-q2 tail); DUB. II's Respondeo runs onto p.685; DUB. III–IV fill the p.685 left column, DUB. IV's Respondeo + DUB. V run through the p.685 right column onto p.686; DUB. V's Respondeo tail + DUB. VI (with its Respondeo ending *"cum tamen secundum non fuerit matrimonium"*) occupy p.686. DUB. VI ends cleanly just **before the real DISTINCTIO XXVIII** (its *Cap. I* littera "*Si consensus de futuro etiam iuramento firmatus faciat coniugium*" + Lombard's *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* footer), both of which belong to **d.28, not claimed here**. No page-top running-head bleed intruded into DUB. VI's Respondeo.

**Shared page / footer split.** p.684 is shared with **a3-q2** (its notes **1–2**, keyed to the *potestatis* transfer and *"Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."*, belong to a3-q2). This chunk claims **p.684 notes 3–7, p.685 notes 1–8, p.686 notes 1–6** = **19 entries**, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^19]. The *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* block at the foot of p.686 (its notes 1–2) is d.28's littera apparatus and is excluded.

**Marginalia omitted** (Quaracchi running side-glosses, not body text): *Notandum.* / *Alia solutio.* (p.684), *Ratio.* (p.685), *Triplex matrimonium.* / *Nota* (p.686).

**[?] flag.** [^16] (p.686 note 3): Albert's article number reads **a. 13** in the IA djvu OCR; the 450 dpi band digit is ambiguous between 13 and 15 — rendered **a. 13**, low-confidence, to be resolved at the d.30 600 dpi flag pass.

- **Candidate resolution offered 2026-07-18 (NOT applied).** During the d.28 littera truncation repair, a reader working the shared p.686 bands reported that this chunk's entry 16 `[?]` (B. Albert. *a. 13*) reads **a. 15** unambiguously on the band. Left unedited: the observation was incidental to that agent's task and has not been independently confirmed. **Check at 600 dpi and either apply or formally accept-illegible.**

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. 28

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXVIII

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

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. The littera runs across the foot of p.686 and the whole of p.687. The four plain-numbered notes are the p.687 footer in Quaracchi's own numbering, unaltered; the two page-qualified `p686` notes are the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* block at the foot of p.686, labelled that way so as not to collide.

<!-- page 686 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXVIII.

### Cap. I. *Si consensus de futuro etiam iuramento firmatus faciat coniugium.*

Hic quaeri debet, utrum consensus de futuro, addito etiam iuramento, coniugium efficiat, ut «si quis promittat, vel etiam iuret alicui, se usque ad *tempus placitum* illam ducturam, et illa promittat vel iuret, se illi nupturam; nunquid talis sponsio eos coniuges fecit[^p686-1]? Si mutato proposito, alter vel uterque ad alienam copulam transit; nunquid ob priorem sponsionem iuramento subnixam secundae foederationis pactum scindetur? — Considera, quia longe aliud est *promittere,* et aliud *facere.* Qui promittit nondum facit. Qui ergo promisit, se uxorem ducturum aliquam, nondum eam duxit uxorem; et quae spopondit, se nupturam, nondum nupsit. Quomodo ergo *coniuges* appellari possunt qui nondum contrahunt, sed in futuro se contracturos iurando promittunt? Item, si ex vi iuramenti ad futurum pertinentis mox efficiuntur *coniuges;* cur iurant, in futuro se facturos quod in praesenti efficiunt? Item, si ex quo iurant, mox efficiuntur *coniuges;* tunc hanc rem efficiunt, quam iurant se facturos. Ideo dico, quod coniugium tunc non *fuit,* sed *futurum promittitur.* Si vero ille post uxorem duxit, et illa marito nupsit; coniugium utrinque fuit et non potest dissolvi. Praecedens igitur mendacium vel periurium poenitentia est corrigendum, sed coniugium sequens non est dissolvendum. Non autem sic est, quando iuramentum coniugii *praesentis consensus* attestatione firmatur, quia post talem consensum, si quis alii se copulaverit, etiam si prolem procreaverit, irritum debet fieri, et ipse ad priorem copulam revocari».

Praemissae autem sententiae videtur obviare illud quod leges tradunt: «Si quis, tactis divinis Scripturis, iuraverit mulieri, se eam legitimam uxorem habiturum, vel etiam, si in oratorio tale sacramentum dederit; sit illi legitima uxor, quamvis nulla dos, nulla alia scriptura interposita sit[^p686-2]». — Sed hic ostenditur, quid fieri vel esse debeat, non quid tunc fiat. Non enim per illud iuramentum tunc fit uxor, sed fieri debet, quia iuratum est. — Potest et illo de iuramento hoc dictum[^1] intelligi, ubi de *praesenti* consentiunt ac se invicem suscipiunt. — Praemissae etiam sententiae, qua dictum est, solum consensum facere coniugium, videtur obviare quod Evaristus Papa ait: «Aliter legitimum non fit coniugium, nisi ab his qui super feminam dominationem habere videntur, et a quibus custoditur, uxor petatur et a parentibus sponsetur et legibus dotetur et a sacerdote, ut mos est, benedicatur et a paranymphis custodiatur ac solemniter accipiatur». — Item: «Ita legitima scitote esse connubia, aliter vero praesumta; non coniugia, sed adulteria, vel fornicationes sunt, nisi voluntas propria suffragata fuerit, et vota succurrerint legitima». — Hoc autem non ita intelligendum est, tanquam sine enumeratis non possit esse legitimum coniugium, sed quia sine illis non habet decorem et honestatem debitam.

<!-- page 687 -->

### Cap. II. *De his quae pertinent ad substantiam et decorem Sacramenti.*

In huius enim Sacramenti celebratione, sicut in aliis, quaedam sunt pertinentia ad *substantiam* Sacramenti, ut consensus de praesenti, qui solus sufficit ad contrahendum matrimonium; quaedam vero pertinentia ad *decorem* et *solemnitatem* Sacramenti, ut parentum traditio, sacerdotum benedictio et huiusmodi; sine quibus legitime fit coniugium, quantum ad virtutem, non quantum ad honestatem Sacramenti. Sine his ergo non quasi legitimi coniuges, sed quasi adulteri vel fornicatores conveniunt, ut illi qui clanculo nubunt; et utique fornicatores essent, nisi eis suffragaretur voluntas verbis expressa de praesenti, quae legitimum inter eos facit matrimonium. Nam et consensus occultus de praesenti, per verba expressus, coniugium facit; licet non sit ibi honestus contractus, sed matrimonium non sanxit consensus, qui in occulto fuit[^2]. Si enim alter alterum dimiserit, non cogitur iudicio Ecclesiae redire et commanere quasi cum coniuge, quia non potest probari testibus contractus, qui in occulto est factus. Quodsi ipsi qui in occulto sibi consenserunt, eundem consensum voluntarie in manifesto profiteantur; tunc utique propria voluntas suffragatur, et legitima vota succurrunt ad sanciendum coniugium, quod prius occulte fuerat contractum. Voluntas igitur verbis expressa in occulto ad hoc suffragatur, ut fiat coniugium; manifeste vero expressa suffragatur, ut sanciat et roboret, ac liberum sit Ecclesiae de hoc iudicare, si expedierit.

### Cap. III. *Utrum consensus ille, qui facit matrimonium, sit de carnali copula, an de cohabitatione, an de alio.*

Hic quaeritur, «cum consensus de praesenti matrimonium faciat, cuius rei consensus sit ille, an *carnalis copulae*, an *cohabitationis*, an *utriusque*. Si cohabitationis consensus matrimonium facit, tunc frater cum sorore, pater cum filia potest contrahere matrimonium; si carnalis copulae, tunc inter Mariam et Ioseph non fuit coniugium. Proposuerat enim Maria in virginitate manere, nisi Deus aliter facere iuberet, secundum quod videtur Angelo dixisse: *Quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognosco?* id est, me non cognituram proposui. Neque enim, quia tunc virum non cognoscebat, necesse erat inquiri, quomodo posset habere filium; sed quia se nunquam cognituram proposuerat[^3]». Dicit enim Beda, «quod in virginitate manere disposuerat». «Si igitur contra suum propositum post consensit in carnalem copulam, videtur facta voti rea mente, etsi non opere, violati».

### Cap. IV. *Quare de latere viri formata est mulier.*

Dicamus igitur, quod consensus *cohabitationis*, vel *carnalis copulae* non facit coniugium, sed consensus *coniugalis societatis*, verbis secundum praesens tempus expressus, ut cum vir dicit: ego accipio te in meam, non dominam, non ancillam, sed coniugem. Quia enim non ancilla, vel domina datur, ideo nec de summo nec de imo a principio formata est, sed de latere viri[^4], ob coniugalem societatem. Si de summo fieret, ut de capite, videretur ad dominationem creata; si vero de imo, ut de pedibus, videretur ad servitutem subiicienda; sed quia nec in dominam nec in ancillam assumitur, facta est de medio, id est de latere, quia ad coniugalem societatem assumitur. Cum igitur sic conveniunt, ut dicat vir: accipio te in meam coniugem, et dicat mulier: accipio te in meum virum; his verbis, vel aliis idem significantibus exprimitur consensus non copulae carnalis, vel cohabitationis corporalis, sed coniugalis societatis; ex qua oportet eos cohabitare, nisi forte causa religionis pari voto corporaliter separentur, vel ad tempus, vel usque in finem.

---

english:
<!-- page 686 -->

### DISTINCTION XXVIII.

### Chapter I. *Whether consent regarding the future, even confirmed by an oath, makes a marriage.*

Here it must be asked whether consent regarding the future, with an oath also added, effects a marriage, as «if someone should promise, or even swear to another, that he will take her [as wife] by an *appointed time,* and she should promise or swear that she will marry him; has such a pledge made them spouses[^p686-1]? If, the intention being changed, one or both pass over to another union; will the pact of the second covenant be torn up on account of the earlier pledge supported by an oath? — Consider, because it is one thing to *promise,* and quite another to *do.* He who promises does not yet do. He therefore who has promised that he will take some woman as wife has not yet taken her as wife; and she who has pledged that she will marry has not yet married. How then can those be called *spouses* who do not yet contract, but promise by swearing that they will contract in the future? Likewise, if by force of an oath pertaining to the future they are straightway made *spouses;* why do they swear that they will do in the future what they effect in the present? Likewise, if from the fact that they swear they are straightway made *spouses;* then they effect that very thing which they swear they will do. Therefore I say that there was then no marriage, but that a future one *is promised.* But if he afterward took a wife, and she married a husband; there was a marriage on both sides and it cannot be dissolved. The preceding lie, therefore, or perjury is to be corrected by penance, but the marriage that follows is not to be dissolved. It is not so, however, when the oath of marriage is confirmed by the attestation of *consent regarding the present,* because after such a consent, if anyone joins himself to another, even if he begets offspring, it must be made void, and he himself be recalled to the former union».

But there seems to run counter to the aforesaid opinion that which the laws hand down: «If anyone, having touched the divine Scriptures, swears to a woman that he will have her as his lawful wife, or even if in an oratory he gives such a pledge; let her be his lawful wife, although no dowry, no other writing has been interposed[^p686-2]». — But here it is shown what ought to be done or to be, not what is then done. For it is not by that oath that she then becomes a wife, but it must come about, because it has been sworn. — This too can be understood of that oath[^1], where they consent with regard to the *present* and receive one another in turn. — It seems, moreover, to run counter to that opinion by which it is said that consent alone makes marriage, that Pope Evaristus says: «A marriage is not lawfully made otherwise than when the wife is sought from those who are seen to have dominion over the woman and by whom she is guarded, and is betrothed by her parents and endowed according to the laws, and is blessed by the priest as is the custom, and is guarded by the groomsmen and solemnly received». Likewise: «Know that unions are lawful in this way, but otherwise presumed; they are not marriages, but adulteries or fornications, unless proper will has given its support, and lawful vows have come to their aid». — But this is not to be understood as though, without the things enumerated, there could not be a lawful marriage, but rather that without them it does not have the propriety and honorableness that is due.

<!-- page 687 -->

### Chapter II. *On the things that pertain to the substance and to the propriety of the Sacrament.*

For in the celebration of this Sacrament, as in others, certain things pertain to the *substance* of the Sacrament, as the consent regarding the present, which alone suffices to contract marriage; but certain things pertain to the *propriety* and *solemnity* of the Sacrament, as the handing-over by the parents, the blessing of priests, and the like; without which marriage is lawfully made as regards its force, though not as regards the honorableness of the Sacrament. Without these, then, they come together not as lawful spouses, but as adulterers or fornicators, like those who marry clandestinely; and indeed they would be fornicators, were it not that the will, expressed in words regarding the present, comes to their aid, which makes lawful marriage between them. For even a hidden consent regarding the present, expressed in words, makes marriage; although there is no honorable contract in it, yet the consent that was secret did not ratify the marriage[^2]. For if one abandons the other, he is not compelled by the judgment of the Church to return and dwell together as with a spouse, because the contract, which was made in secret, cannot be proven by witnesses. But if those who consented to one another in secret should freely profess that same consent openly, then indeed their own will gives its support, and lawful vows come to the aid of ratifying the marriage that had before been secretly contracted. The will, therefore, expressed in words in secret gives support to this, that marriage come about; but expressed openly it gives support that it be ratified and strengthened, and that it be free for the Church to judge of this, if it should be expedient.

### Chapter III. *Whether that consent which makes marriage is of carnal union, or of cohabitation, or of something else.*

Here it is asked, «since consent regarding the present makes marriage, of what thing is that consent — of *carnal union*, or of *cohabitation*, or of *both*. If the consent of cohabitation makes marriage, then a brother with his sister, a father with his daughter, could contract marriage; if the consent of carnal union, then between Mary and Joseph there was no marriage. For Mary had resolved to remain in virginity, unless God should command otherwise, according to what she seems to have said to the Angel: *How shall this be, since I do not know a man?* that is, I have resolved that I shall not know one. For it was not because she did not then know a man that it was necessary to ask how she could have a son; but because she had resolved that she would never know one[^3]». For Bede says, «that she had determined to remain in virginity». «If, therefore, contrary to her resolve, she afterward consented to carnal union, she would seem to have become guilty in mind of the violation of her vow, even if not in deed».

### Chapter IV. *Why the woman was formed from the side of the man.*

Let us say, then, that the consent of *cohabitation*, or of *carnal union*, does not make marriage, but the consent of *conjugal society*, expressed in words according to the present time, as when the man says: I take you as mine, not as mistress, not as handmaid, but as spouse. For because she is given neither as handmaid nor as mistress, therefore she was formed from the beginning neither from the top nor from the bottom, but from the side of the man[^4], for the sake of conjugal society. For if she had been made from the top, as from the head, she would seem to have been created for dominion; but if from the bottom, as from the feet, she would seem to have been made subject to servitude; but because she is taken neither as mistress nor as handmaid, she was made from the middle, that is, from the side, because she is taken up into conjugal society. When, therefore, they come together in this way, that the man says: I take you as my spouse, and the woman says: I take you as my husband; by these words, or by others signifying the same thing, is expressed the consent not of carnal union, nor of bodily cohabitation, but of conjugal society; from which it is fitting that they dwell together, unless perhaps, for the sake of religion, by equal vow they be bodily separated, either for a time, or even to the end.

---

la: Plures edd. *facit.* — Hic locus excerptus est ex Hug. II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 5.

en: Many editions [read] *facit* ("makes"). — This passage is excerpted from Hugh, *On the Sacraments* II, p. XI, c. 5.

la: Can. *Si quis divinis* (9.), C. 30. q. 5. — Pro *sit illa* cod. A et edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 *fit illi,* refragante etiam canone.

en: Canon *Si quis divinis* (9), C. 30 q. 5. — For *sit illa* codex A and editions 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 [read] *fit illi,* the canon also being against it.

la: Cfr. d. XXVII. c. 3. — Inferius pro *obviare* codd. A B E et ed. I *contraire,* cod. D *contradicere.* — Seq. locus est C. *Aliter legitimum* (I.), ibid.; secundus ibid. § 1. — De hoc cap. cfr. Hug., loc. cit. c. 6.

en: Cf. d. XXVII, c. 3. — Below, for *obviare* codd. A B E and ed. I read *contraire,* cod. D *contradicere.* — The following passage is canon *Aliter legitimum* (I), ibid.; the second, ibid. § 1. — On this chapter cf. Hugh, loc. cit., c. 6.

la: Codd. *fuerit,* edd. 1, 8 *fit.* Inferius post *commanere* codd. A B E et ed. 1 omittunt *quasi.* Denique in fine codd. B C D E et ed. 1 *liberum fiat* pro *liberum sit.*

en: The manuscripts read *fuerit,* editions 1 and 8 *fit.* Below, after *commanere* codd. A B E and ed. 1 omit *quasi.* Finally, at the end, codd. B C D E and ed. 1 read *liberum fiat* for *liberum sit.*

la: Gratian. super C. *Sufficiat* (2.), C. 27. q. 2. — Locus Scripturae est Luc. 1, 34. Seq. locus est Bedae in Luc. 1, 34; tertius iterum Gratian., loc. cit. § 1.

en: Gratian on canon *Sufficiat* (2), C. 27 q. 2. — The scriptural passage is Luke 1:34. The following passage is Bede on Luke 1:34; the third is again Gratian, loc. cit., § 1.

la: Cfr. Gen. 2, 21, et de hoc cap. Hug., loc. cit. c. 4, et Magister II. Sent. d. XVIII, ubi citati sunt loci Augustini, unde Magister hanc doctrinam sumsit.

en: Cf. Gen. 2:21, and on this chapter Hugh, loc. cit., c. 4, and the Master, II Sent. d. XVIII, where the passages of Augustine are cited whence the Master derived this doctrine. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 74279–74379), cross-verified word-for-word against the 300 dpi PDF page image (`raw/vision/vol4/p-687.png`) and column-band crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p687-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `colcrop.py vol4 687 1880`). The raw OCR for this page is unusually badly scrambled — the two Quaracchi columns are interleaved token-by-token with large whitespace gaps rather than cleanly split, and several words are garbled (`iuramenlo`→iuramento, `flat`→fiat, `oJum`→solum, `Uli`→illi, `Ii-benim fat`→`liberum fiat`, etc.). The PDF page image is fully legible at this resolution and is authoritative for the whole page per the VOL IV/II override; the OCR was used only to confirm word order and footnote-marker positions, which it preserves better than the page layout.

**Apparatus split versus `bon-sent-IV-d27-dubia`.** Printed p.686 carries **two** footer series. The upper block (notes 1–6) is the dubia series and is claimed in full by `d27-dubia` as its continuous entries 14 through 19; it is **not** claimed here. The lower block, headed `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM`, is Lombard's littera series (notes 1–2) and is claimed here under the two page-qualified `p686` labels, anchored at *sponsio eos coniuges fecit* and *nulla alia scriptura interposita sit.* `d27-dubia`'s `## Notes` already declared that block excluded, so **there is no double-claim and nothing dropped** across the seam. p.687's footer (4 notes) is entirely this chunk's, as before. Total apparatus: **6 entries**.

**Incidental finding for `d27-dubia` (not edited here).** That chunk's entry 16 carries a `[?]` on Albert's article number, rendered *a. 13* from the OCR. The 450 dpi band `vol4-p686-L-2.png` reads it unambiguously as **a. 15** (`quibus B. Albert., hic a. 15; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. …`). The coordinator may wish to resolve that flag to *a. 15* rather than carry it to the d.30 600 dpi pass.

**Boundary note (important for `bon-sent-IV-d28-divisio`).** The Distinctio XXVIII littera runs from the foot of p.686 through the whole of p.687; its two footer blocks are p.686's `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` and p.687's 4 notes. The auto-chunked skeleton's `line_end: 74393` was wrong; the true littera/divisio seam is raw line **74379/74380**: line 74380 prints the running head `688 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`, and printed page 688 opens directly with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVIII` / `De consensu defectivo exterius.` / `Hic quaeri debet, utrum consensus de futuro etc.`, followed by `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` — i.e. **page 688 belongs entirely to the divisio chunk**, not to this littera. There is no shared-footer hand-off needed: p.687's footer (4 notes, claimed here in full) belongs entirely to this littera, and p.688 has no littera content and no footer content for this chunk to worry about. The next agent building `bon-sent-IV-d28-divisio` should start at raw line 74380 (pdf/printed page 688 = PDF request `--pages 688`, i.e. printed+20=708) and can disregard any cross-page footer-split concern for this particular seam.

**2026-07-18 truncation repair.** This chunk previously began at raw line 74279 and printed page 687, and so was missing the front of the distinction entirely. The cause is the IA djvu OCR's IN→m/E ligature garble: the real header line at raw **L74209** reads `DISTIECTIO XXVIII.`, so a plain `grep DISTINCTIO` found only the **running-head bleed** at L74279 (`DISTINCTIO XXVIII. 687`, the top of printed p.687) and the chunk was started there. Everything between — the header line, **Cap. I** with its rubric *Si consensus de futuro etiam iuramento firmatus faciat coniugium,* and the whole chapter body down to *«…ad priorem copulam revocari»* and *«…nulla alia scriptura interposita sit»* — sits in the bottom half of printed **p.686** (raw L74209–74278) and had been transcribed by no chunk at all. The preceding `bon-sent-IV-d27-dubia` nominally covered those raw lines but rendered none of them; its `line_end` has been corrected to 74208. Corrected raw range for this chunk: **74209–74379**. Restored from the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p686-{L,R}-{1,2}.png` (no regeneration needed — the L bands are clipped at the gutter, but each left-column line's tail is legible in the overlap sliver at the left edge of the corresponding R band, so the two were stitched line-by-line). The bands correct the OCR at several points, notably *si ex vi **iuramenti** ad futurum pertinentis* (OCR L74244 reads `ex vi iurantis`).

**Second defect repaired: misplaced English paragraph.** The chunk formerly rendered `### DISTINCTIO XXVIII.` inside the `## Latin` block and then, in place of Cap. I's Latin, an **English** paragraph beginning "...what ought to be done or to be…" and ending "…the propriety and honorableness that is due." That was the English of the *tail* of Cap. I, sitting in the wrong language block, and it was the only copy of that translation. It has been **moved**, not deleted: its Latin (*quid fieri vel esse debeat… non habet decorem et honestatem debitam*) now occupies that position in the `## Latin` block, and the English text itself now sits at the matching position in the `## English` block, absorbed into the second Cap. I paragraph whose opening ("But there seems to run counter to the aforesaid opinion…") was newly translated from p.686. It appears exactly once in the file, in the English block only.

**Chapter numbering and the join.** Cap. I **is** printed for this distinction (the earlier note claiming it was not has been withdrawn — it reflected the truncated view of the page, since Cap. I's heading is on p.686, not p.687). The chapter sequence Cap. I → II → III → IV is therefore continuous, and the join is a clean chapter boundary, not a mid-sentence splice: Cap. I ends *"…sed quia sine illis non habet decorem et honestatem debitam."* and the pre-existing text resumes at *"### Cap. II."* / *"In huius enim Sacramenti celebratione…"* — grammatical Latin, and the English joins identically ("…the propriety and honorableness that is due." → "For in the celebration of this Sacrament…"). No cascade-merge signature anywhere in the restored stretch.

**Page-break placement.** Cap. I's second paragraph straddles the 686/687 boundary (p.686 ends at *"— Sed hic ostenditur,"*). The paragraph is kept whole and the p.687 page-break comment is placed at the next true paragraph boundary, the `Cap. II` heading, per the convention of breaking at paragraph boundaries.

**Marginalia trimmed on p.686** (Quaracchi side-glosses, not Lombard's text): *Hugo.* and *Dubium 1.* beside the Cap. I opening, and two further right-margin tags beside the *Non autem sic est* and *Praemissae autem* clauses, clipped to `D` / `Ca` in the band.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Four printed side-glosses (topic tags in the margin, not Lombard's text) were removed from the body per convention: `Gratianus.` (twice, beside the Cap. III opening and beside the "Si igitur contra suum propositum" clause), `Beda.` (beside "Dicit enim Beda"), `De coniugio B. Virginis.` (beside the Mary/Joseph discussion), and `De formatione Evae.` (beside the Cap. IV opening).

**[?] flags.** None. The PDF page image at 300 dpi is fully legible throughout; no genuinely ambiguous readings remain.


title: Dist. 28, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 688 -->

#### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page.

Supra ostendit Magister, consensum esse causam matrimonii. Hic excludit differentias consensuum non efficientium matrimonium; et talis est consensus defectivus. Quoniam autem consensus dupliciter potest deficere, scilicet vel ex aliquo exteriori[^1], vel ex aliquo interiori, ut puta per errorem, vel per coactionem: ideo haec pars habet duas. In prima agit de consensu defectivo exterius. In secunda vero interius, infra distinctione vigesima nona: *Oportet autem, consensum coniugalem liberum esse a coactione.*

Prima pars tres habet secundum triplicem consensum, sive secundum quod consensus potest tripliciter considerari, scilicet quantum ad tempus, sive in quo sive pro quo fit; quantum ad alienum *testimonium*, coram quo fit; et quantum ad *terminum*, in quem dirigitur; sic haec pars tres habet partes. In prima inquirit Magister de consensu de futuro iuramento firmato, utrum faciat matrimonium. In secunda de consensu cum testimonio, ibi: *Praemissae autem sententiae videtur obviare* etc. In tertia quaerit, in quam rem oporteat consentire ad hoc, quod contrahatur matrimonium; utrum in carnalem copulam, an non; et hoc ibi: *Hic quaeritur, cum consensus de praesenti.*

Quaelibet autem istarum partium duas habet. In prima opponit; in secunda solvit. Partes autem in littera manifestae sunt.

#### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis sex quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium.

Secundo, utrum consensus ad tempus.

Tertio, utrum consensus conditionatus.

Quarto, utrum consensus tacitus.

Quinto, utrum consensus occultus.

Sexto, utrum solus consensus in carnalem copulam.

#### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

*De pluribus consensus modis.*

---

english:
<!-- page 688 -->

#### Division of the text.

Above, the Master showed that consent is the cause of matrimony. Here he excludes the differences of those consents which do not bring about matrimony; and such is defective consent. Since, however, consent can be defective in two ways — namely, either from something exterior[^1], or from something interior, as for instance through error, or through coercion — this part therefore has two [sections]. In the first he treats of consent defective from without. In the second, from within, below in the twenty-ninth distinction: *But it is fitting that conjugal consent be free from coercion.*

The first part has three [sections] according to the threefold consent, or according as consent can be considered in three ways: namely, as to the time, whether that in which or for which it is given; as to the outside *testimony*, before whom it is given; and as to the *term*, to which it is directed; thus this part has three sections. In the first the Master inquires concerning consent of the future confirmed by oath, whether it makes matrimony. In the second, concerning consent with testimony, there: *But the foregoing opinion seems to run counter,* etc. In the third he asks to what thing it is necessary to consent in order that matrimony be contracted; whether to carnal copulation or not; and this there: *Here it is asked, when the consent is of the present.*

Each of these parts, moreover, has two [sections]. In the first he raises objections; in the second he resolves them. The parts, moreover, are evident in the text.

#### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction, six things are asked.

First it is asked, whether consent of the future makes matrimony.

Second, whether consent for a time [does].

Third, whether conditional consent [does].

Fourth, whether tacit consent [does].

Fifth, whether hidden consent [does].

Sixth, whether consent alone directed to carnal copulation [does].

#### The sole article.

*On the several modes of consent.*

---

la: In codd. S T additur *scilicet tempore, vel testimonio, vel termino*.

en: In codices S and T there is added: "namely, of time, or of testimony, or of the term."

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column-band PDF read of printed p. 688 (`raw/doctorisseraphic04bona.pdf`, pdf page 708; `tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol4 --pages 688 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol4 688 1880`), cross-checked against the IA djvu raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 74394–74446). The raw OCR badly scrambles this page's two-column layout (left/right column text interleaved line-by-line in the txt dump), so the PDF column-band read is authoritative here per the Vol II/III/IV override; the two sources agree on substance once the OCR is manually de-interleaved, with only letter-level garbles in the OCR (e.g. `Iriplicem`→*triplicem*, `Ubermn`→*liberum*, `A'ero`→*vero*, `liabet`→*habet*).

- **Chunk scope:** DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener (title + subtitle only), all on printed p. 688. Ends immediately before QUAESTIO I (raw line 74447), which belongs to the next chunk `bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q1`.
- **Prior chunk hand-off:** `bon-sent-IV-d28-littera` is itself still an unpromoted skeleton ("[Translation pending]" / "[Notes pending]") — no hand-off note was left there to pick up. Its raw range (74279–74393) ends with the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVIII heading and its one-line incipit ("Hic quaeri debet, utrum consensus de futuro etc."), immediately before this chunk's DIVISIO TEXTUS — boundary confirmed clean, no overlap or gap.
- **Forward hand-off to `bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q1`:** printed p. 688's footer carries **two** Quaracchi footnotes. Footnote 1 (`In codd. S T additur scilicet tempore, vel testimonio, vel termino.`) anchors to `exteriori` in this chunk's DIVISIO TEXTUS paragraph and is captured here. **Footnote 2** (`Vide C. Is qui fidem (30.) et C. Adolescens (32.), X. de Sponsalibus et matrim. (lib. IV. tit. 1.).`, with marginal gloss `Ad oppositum.`) anchors to `subsequatur` in Quaestio I's third argument ("*Item, consensus de futuro facit matrimonium, si carnalis copula subsequatur²*...") — this belongs to `bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q1`'s apparatus, not to this chunk. Whoever promotes `d28-a1-q1` should pick this up rather than re-deriving it.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. The PDF column-band read at 450 dpi was fully legible for the entire chunk; no ambiguous glyphs remained after cross-checking against OCR.


title: Dist. 28, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 688 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium.

1. Hac ratione: sicut se habet praesens ad praesens, ita futurum ad futurum; sed consensus de praesenti facit matrimonium in praesenti: ergo consensus de futuro facit matrimonium de futuro.

2. Item, per simile videtur: sicut qui promittit aliquid in praesenti obligatur in praesenti, sic qui promittit aliquid de futuro obligatur pro illo tempore[^1]; sed sicut promissio est causa obligationis, ita consensus est causa matrimonii: ergo videtur.

3. Item, consensus de futuro facit matrimonium, si carnalis copula subsequatur[^2]; sed carnalis copula non est causa matrimonii, sed ipsum sequitur: ergo prius fuit matrimonium, quam coirent: ergo etc.

4. Item, si consentiat de futuro, et sequatur stuprum, ita ut non cognoscat affectu maritali, sed fornicario, facit matrimonium; sed magis obligat iuramentum quam stuprum: ergo si consentiat cum iuramento, est ei uxor.

**Contra:**

1. Iura[^3] dicunt, quod si quis in aliquam consentiat per verba de futuro et in alteram per verba de praesenti, secunda est uxor: si ergo unius est una uxor, prima non fuit uxor.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia quod futurum est non est[^4]: ergo cum consentit de futuro, nondum consentit: ergo modo non est matrimonium. Quod autem nec in illo futuro, patet: simus in illo futuro et ponatur, quod tunc non consentiat; non est consensus tunc nec prius fuit: ergo non est matrimonium nec fuit.

3. Item, qui semel consentit in aliquam non debet iterum consentire ad hoc, quod fiat matrimonium; sed consensus de futuro, cum dicitur: accipiam te in meam, obligat iterum consentire[^5]: ergo per verba de futuro non est consensus matrimonialis. Quod se obliget, patet, quia se obligat ad accipiendum in uxorem, et non aliter accipit quam per consensum.

<!-- page 689 -->

> **Conclusio.** Consensus non facit matrimonium, nisi exprimatur per verba de praesenti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod consensus non facit matrimonium, nisi exprimatur per verba de praesenti. Si enim exprimatur per verba de futuro, in veritate non est consensus tunc, sed promissio de consentiendo. Unde si dicat quis: ego consentiam in te; tunc quidem non consentit, sed se consensurum promittit. Et quia non est ibi consensus, ideo non est matrimonii contractio; quia vero est promissio, et ideo obligatio; propterea non matrimonium, sed sponsalia debent dici; et haec quidem sponsalia firmata sunt, quando simplici promissioni additur iuramentum. Secundum enim iura[^6] cogendus est vir, ut mulierem accipiat in uxorem, nisi aliquis casus interveniat, qui solvat sponsalia.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod sicut praesens se habet ad praesens etc.; dicendum quod verum est. Unde sicut, si consentit hodie, fit hodie matrimonium; sic, si consentit cras, fit cras. Sed cum nunc dicit de futuro, non consentit, sed consentire promittit; et ideo non fit matrimonium, nec de praesenti nec de futuro, sed solum sponsalia contrahuntur[^7].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui de futuro promittit obligatur ad futurum; dicendum, quod verum est, quia promissio est praesens; unde cum dicit: ego faciam hoc, actu promittit, et ideo[^8] obligatur. Similiter et iste obligatur spondendo; sed non propter hoc fit matrimonium, sicut nec promissio est solutio.

*Ad 3 et 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de carnali copula, dicendum, quod iura[^9] praesumunt, quod ipse consentit, et hoc per signum expressum exterius, quia tanquam uxorem cognoscit; et praesumunt etiam, quod tanquam uxorem cognoscat, «ne reportet commodum de malitia». Unde in veritate si non consentit, sed solum tanquam meretricem cognoscit, matrimonium secundum veritatem non est. Quia tamen coitus ille cum praecedenti sponsione signum est probabile consensus matrimonialis; ideo matrimonium est secundum iudicium Ecclesiae, et consulendum est tali, quod consentiat, si non consensit interius in animo.

english:
### Question I. *Whether consent for the future makes marriage.*

Concerning the first it is proceeded thus, and it is shown that consent for the future makes marriage.

1. By this reasoning: as the present is related to the present, so the future to the future; but consent for the present makes marriage in the present: therefore consent for the future makes marriage for the future.

2. Likewise, it seems by a like case: as one who promises something in the present is obligated in the present, so one who promises something for the future is obligated for that time[^1]; but as a promise is the cause of an obligation, so consent is the cause of marriage: therefore it seems [so].

3. Likewise, consent for the future makes marriage, if carnal intercourse should follow[^2]; but carnal intercourse is not the cause of marriage, but follows upon it: therefore the marriage existed before they came together: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if one should consent for the future, and fornication should follow, such that one does not know [the other] with marital affection but with a fornicator's affection, [this still] makes marriage; but an oath obligates more than fornication [does]: therefore if one should consent together with an oath, she is his wife.

**On the contrary:**

1. The laws[^3] say that if someone consents to one woman by words of the future and to another by words of the present, the second is his wife: if therefore one man has one wife, the first was not his wife.

2. Likewise, it seems by reasoning: because what is future is not [yet][^4]: therefore when he consents for the future, he does not yet consent: therefore there is not now a marriage. But that there is not one in that future [moment] either is plain: let us be in that future [moment], and let it be supposed that then he does not consent; there is no consent then, nor was there before: therefore there is no marriage, nor was there.

3. Likewise, one who has once consented to a certain woman ought not to consent again for this, that marriage may come about; but consent for the future, when it is said: I shall take you as mine, obligates one to consent again[^5]: therefore by words of the future there is no marital consent. That he does obligate himself is plain, because he obligates himself to taking [her] as wife, and he takes her in no other way than through consent.

> **Conclusion.** Consent does not make marriage, unless it is expressed by words of the present.

**I respond:** It must be said that consent does not make marriage unless it is expressed by words of the present. For if it is expressed by words of the future, in truth it is not consent then, but a promise of consenting. Hence if someone should say: I shall consent to you; then indeed he does not consent, but promises that he will consent. And because there is no consent there, therefore there is no contracting of marriage; but because there is a promise, therefore there is an obligation; on that account it is to be called not marriage, but betrothal; and this betrothal indeed is confirmed when an oath is added to the simple promise. For according to the laws[^6] the man is to be compelled to take the woman as wife, unless some circumstance intervenes that dissolves the betrothal.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that as the present is related to the present etc.; it must be said that this is true. Hence just as, if one consents today, marriage comes about today; so, if one consents tomorrow, it comes about tomorrow. But when he now speaks of the future, he does not consent, but promises to consent; and therefore marriage does not come about, neither for the present nor for the future, but only a betrothal is contracted[^7].

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that one who promises for the future is obligated for the future; it must be said that this is true, because a promise is present; hence when he says: I shall do this, he actually promises, and therefore[^8] he is obligated. Likewise this one too is obligated by pledging; but marriage does not thereby come about, just as a promise is not the discharge [of the obligation].

*To 3 and 4.* To that which is objected concerning carnal intercourse, it must be said that the laws[^9] presume that he himself consents, and this through an outward express sign, because he acknowledges her as his wife; and they presume further that he acknowledges her as his wife, "lest he should reap advantage from his own wrongdoing." Hence in truth, if he does not consent, but acknowledges her only as a prostitute, there is no marriage according to the truth. Because, however, that intercourse, together with the preceding pledge, is a probable sign of marital consent; therefore there is marriage according to the judgment of the Church, and such a one is to be counselled to consent, if he did not consent inwardly in his mind.

en: In codd. S T there is added *namely of time, or of testimony, or of a set term*.

la: Vide C. *Is qui fidem* (30.) et C. *Adolescens* (32.), X. de Sponsalibus et matrim. (lib. IV. tit. I.).

en: See c. *Is qui fidem* (30) and c. *Adolescens* (32), Decretals, bk. IV, tit. I, *On Betrothals and Marriage*.

la: In C. *Sicut ex litteris* (22.) et C. *Si inter virum* (31.), X. de Sponsalibus et matrim. (lib. IV. tit. I.).

en: In c. *Sicut ex litteris* (22) and c. *Si inter virum* (31), Decretals, bk. IV, tit. I, *On Betrothals and Marriage*.

la: August., XI. Confess. c. 14. n. 17. et 18: *Futurum nondum est*. — Inferius pro *simus in illo futuro* et edd. *quia*.

en: Augustine, *Confessions* XI, c. 14, n. 17 and 18: *The future does not yet exist*. — Below, for *let us be in that future* the editions [read] *because*.

la: Cod. F addit: *ergo per verba de futuro non est consentire*.

en: Cod. F adds: *therefore by words of the future there is no consenting*.

la: Ut C. *Ex litteris Silvani* (10.), X. de Sponsalibus et matrim. (lib. IV. tit. 1.). Cfr. ibid. C. *Praeterea hi* (2.) et C. *Requisivit a nobis* (17).

en: As c. *Ex litteris Silvani* (10), Decretals, bk. IV, tit. I, *On Betrothals and Marriage*. Cf. ibid. c. *Praeterea hi* (2) and c. *Requisivit a nobis* (17).

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Superius verbis *Sed cum* codd. I K interserunt *tamen*. Subinde pro *sed* cod. Z substituit *eo quod*.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Above, to the words *But when*, codd. I K insert *however*. Further on, for *but* cod. Z substitutes *because*.

la: Cod. T addit *actu*.

en: Cod. T adds *actually*.

la: Ut in ipsis decretalibus supra pag. 688, nota 2, allegatis et in Glossis super ipsas insinuatur. Cfr. ibid. C. *Ad id quod* (21.). — De seq. axiomate (*ne reportet commodum* etc.) cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 11.

en: As is suggested in the very decretals cited above, p. 688, note 2, and in the Glosses upon them. Cf. ibid. c. *Ad id quod* (21). — On the following axiom (*lest he reap advantage* etc.) cf. above, p. 103, note 11.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa 1. quaestionem manifestum est, quod sicut differunt promissio et solutio, sic consensus de futuro et de praesenti, nec non sponsalia et matrimonium. Cfr. supra d. 27. dub. 3, de promissione iurata infra dub. 1. 2. — Plura de sponsalibus habet cum aliis S. Thom. supra d. 27. q. 2. a. 1-3.

De ipsa 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica. — S. Thom., supra d. 27. q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3, et de promissione iurata, hic a. 1; Suppl. q. 45. a. 3, q. 46. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1-4. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

**II.** Circa 2. quaestionem patet, quod cum indissolubilitas matrimonio sit essentialis, consensus ad tempus non est verus nec sufficiens consensus.

De hac 2. quaestione: Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.

**III.** Solutio 3. quaestionis quoad principia est communis; in applicatione ad plures casus oriuntur varia dubia, de quibus agitur in libris scientiae moralis et canonum.

S. Thom., infra d. 29. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 47. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the first question it is manifest that, just as a promise and its discharge differ, so do consent for the future and for the present, and likewise betrothal and marriage. Cf. above, d. 27, dub. 3; on a sworn promise, below, dub. 1, 2. — St. Thomas has more on betrothals, along with others, above, d. 27, q. 2, a. 1–3.

On this first question itself: Scotus, here, the only question. — St. Thomas, above, d. 27, q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3, and on the sworn promise, here, a. 1; *Supplement*, q. 45, a. 3, q. 46, a. 4. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 1, 2. — Peter of Tarantaise, here, q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 1, q. 1–4. — Durandus, here, q. 1. — Denys the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here, the only question.

**II.** Concerning the second question it is plain that, since indissolubility is essential to marriage, consent for a fixed time is not a true nor a sufficient consent.

On this second question: Peter of Tarantaise, here, q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 2, q. 1.

**III.** The solution of the third question, as to its principles, is common [to all]; in its application to several cases various doubts arise, which are treated in the books of moral science and of the canons.

St. Thomas, below, d. 29, a. 3, quaestiuncula 3; *Supplement*, q. 47, a. 5. — Peter of Tarantaise, loc. cit., quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit., q. 2. — Durandus, here, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Raw OCR line range 74447–74586 (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`), verified against the auto-chunked skeleton's own `line_start`/`line_end` frontmatter. Printed pages 688 (partial — from the `QUAESTIO I.` header onward; the earlier part of p.688 is the `COMMENTARIUS`/`DIVISIO TEXTUS`/`TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM`/`ARTICULUS UNICUS` opener, already captured in `bon-sent-IV-d28-divisio.md`) and 689 (full, ending at the bare running-head sliver of p.690 — no Quaestio I body text falls on p.690; `QUAESTIO II.` begins the body of p.690, in the next chunk). PDF pages 708–709 (offset `pdf = printed + 20`). Column split `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 1880` used for both pages; the raw OCR dump cascade-shatters the two columns into an unreadable interleave in this region (confirmed on sight — see the pre-promotion skeleton body, now superseded), so the Latin below was re-set from the column-band PDF reads (L then R, top to bottom) per the Vol II/III/IV override, with the OCR consulted only for footnote-marker confirmation on the clean recto lines.

**Alignment check:** Confirmed via `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` line 74438 ("Primo quaeritur, utrum consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium") that this chunk is genuinely Q1 ("Utrum consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium"), matching the `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` list — no q-swap.

**Apparatus:** 9 entries total, renumbered consecutively from two page-restart series (p.688: 2 entries; p.689: 7 entries). Footnote 9 (p.689) cross-references its own volume's p.688 note 2 ("supra pag. 688, nota 2") — both notes are captured in this same chunk, so no cross-chunk apparatus split was needed here (contrast the divisio chunk's Notes, which record that p.688's *earlier* footnotes, if any, belong to the divisio/articulus opener rather than to this quaestio — checked; the divisio chunk carries no footnotes of its own on p.688, so there is no apparatus hand-off between the two chunks).

**Scholion hand-off (IMPORTANT for `d28-a1-q2` and `d28-a1-q3`):** The single `SCHOLION` printed at the end of this Quaestio I (p.689) is a **master scholion covering three questions** — **I.** on Q1 (the present chunk), **II.** on Q2 ("Utrum consensus ad tempus faciat matrimonium"), and **III.** on the (here-unnamed) "solutio 3. quaestionis" i.e. Q3. This is the same "article-master scholion" pattern already used at d.1-p1-a1 (q3 carries the scholion for q1–q4 there). **When promoting `bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q2.md` and `bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q3.md`, do NOT expect their own Scholion body text** — their scholion sections (II and III above) are already fully translated here; their frontmatter `has_scholion` should be `false` (or reference this file) and their Latin/English bodies should end without a duplicate Scholion, per the "pro quaest. seq." convention noted in CLAUDE.md's Vol II Override item 5.

**`[?]` flags:** None. Both pages read cleanly off the 450 dpi column-band PDF crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p688-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p689-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); no illegible glyphs encountered. "«ne reportet commodum de malitia»" (Ad 3–4) and "iura" citations were legible directly; no guesswork needed.

**Checked `d28-divisio.md`'s own `## Notes`** for any footer hand-off addressed to this chunk: it records only that its own scope ends at raw line 74447 / before `QUAESTIO I.` — no pending hand-off items for this file.

**Hand-off to `d28-a1-q2`:** (1) the Scholion II/III relief noted above; (2) confirm `d28-a1-q2`'s raw line range begins at 74587 (`QUAESTIO 11.` = OCR-garbled `QUAESTIO II.`) and that its body starts with "Secundo quaeritur, utrum consensus ad tempus faciat matrimonium" (confirmed on sight at PDF p.690, `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p690-L-0.png` — already read in this session, so `d28-a1-q2`'s dispatch can skip re-reading that band and start from `p690-L-1`).