title: Dist. 40, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (cum praenotatis)

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (with the preliminary notes)

source_text:
<!-- page 845 -->

### Commentarius in Distinctionem XL.
#### *De impedimento consanguinitatis.*

> *Nunc superest de cognatione aliquid dicere* etc.

### Divisio textus

Supra egit Magister de impedimento, quod venit ex disparitate. In hac parte agit de impedimento, quod venit ex proximitate. Et quoniam proximitas est duplex, scilicet carnalis et spiritualis; ideo primo agit de proximitate sive cognatione carnali. Secundo vero de spirituali, infra distinctione quadragesima secunda: *De parentalium graduum* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima agit de consanguinitate. In secunda de affinitate, infra distinctione quadragesima prima: *Nunc de affinitate videndum est.* — Prima pars habet tres. In prima parte determinat veritatem, ostendens, quod consanguinitas est observanda usque ad septimum gradum. In secunda determinat, quomodo gradus sunt computandi, ibi: *Quomodo autem gradus consanguinitatis* etc. In tertia removet dubitationem, ibi: *His autem occurrit illud* etc.

<!-- page 846 -->

### Tractatio quaestionum

#### Praenotata

> Notae numeratae infra respondent signis in textu Latino superiore et in versione Anglica positis.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis procedendum est primo secundum viam *narrationis*; secundo vero, secundum viam *inquisitionis*.

Quantum ad primum, ut intelligibilia fiant, quae dicuntur in parte ista, praeponenda est triplex definitio et triplex notula sive regula[^p846-1].

Primo igitur videndum est, quid sit *consanguinitas*. *Consanguinitas* autem definitur sic: « Consanguinitas est vinculum personarum ab eodem stipite descendentium, carnali propagatione contractum[^p846-2] ». *Stipes* autem vocatur persona, a qua aliqui duxerunt originem, a qua descendentes sunt consanguinei ad invicem et illi etiam, a quo sunt.

Secundo videndum est, quid sit *linea consanguinitatis*, quae definitur sic: « Linea est ordinata collectio personarum consanguinitate coniunctarum, ab eodem stipite descendentium, diversos gradus continens[^p846-3] ». Unde dicitur *ordinata collectio*, quoniam, sicut ordo est in linea praedicamentali secundum superius et inferius; sic in linea consanguinitatis secundum prius et posterius. Quoniam ordo tripliciter potest accipi, vel ad id quod supra, vel ad id quod infra, vel ad id quod iuxta; ideo tres lineae consueverunt assignari. Quaedam enim est *ascendentium*, quaedam *descendentium*, quaedam *transversalium*. — Secundum lineam *ascendentem* computantur gradus ita, scilicet pater et mater, avus et avia, proavus et proavia, atavus et atavia. — Secundum lineam *descendentem*, filius et filia, nepos et neptis, pronepos et proneptis, abnepos et abneptis. — Secundum lineam *transversalem*, duo fratres, filii duorum fratrum, nepotes duorum fratrum, pronepotes duorum fratrum, et ibi est status.

Tertio videndum est, quid sit *gradus*, qui sic definitur[^p846-4]: « Gradus est habitudo distantium personarum, qua cognoscitur, quota generationis distantia duae personae differunt inter se ». — Et nota, quod ista definitio est secundum iura *canonica*. Nam secundum iura *civilia* gradus accipiuntur secundum numerum personarum collectarum in linea. Unde dicunt legistae, quod frater et soror *duos* gradus faciunt; sed decretista dicit, quod *unum* et primum gradum[^p846-5]. Nec est contradictio, quia unius habitudinis duo sunt extrema; et quia secundum iura canonica gradus est *habitudo*; cum duplicis extremi una sit habitudo, ponitur unus gradus; sed quia duae sunt personae, et quaelibet suum respectum habet ad principium; ideo computantur secundum leges duo gradus.

His visis, notandae sunt hic tres notulae. — Prima est, quod nulli licet contrahere cum aliqua usque ad quartum gradum inclusive; et talis est huiusmodi prohibitio, « quod si quis contra eam praesumserit copulari, nulla longinquitate defendatur annorum, cum diuturnitas temporum non minuat peccatum, sed augeat; et tanto graviora sint crimina, quanto diutius infelicem animam detinent alligatam »; et hoc probatur Extra, de Consanguinitate, *Non oportet*[^p846-6] etc.

Secunda notula est, quod « toto gradu personae descendentes a stipite distant a se invicem, quoto distant a stipite[^p846-7] »; et ideo, si aliquis vult scire, quoto gradu aliqui sibi attineant; cum talis attinentia originem ducat a stipite, oportet, quod ad illam personam recurrat, cui immediatius coniungitur. Exempla manifesta sunt, ut si ab A procedant B et G, et B generet C, et C D, et D E, et E F; similiter G generet H, et H generet I, et I generet K, et K L; si vis scire, quoto gradu distant F et I, oportet utriusque generationem reducere ad A, quia toto gradu differunt ab invicem, quoto a stipite.

Tertia regula est, quod quando personae inaequaliter distant a stipite, utpote quando una in secundo gradu, et altera in quinto, quod linea consanguinitatis et gradus debet computari secundum distantiam magis remoti. Et ista regula confirmatur per illud quod dicitur Extra, de Consanguinitate, in ultima decretali[^p846-8], quae est Gregoriana. — Ratio autem huius est, quod tota ratio proximitatis ortum habet a stipite: ergo nullus proximior est alicui collaterali quam stipiti. Si ergo distat a stipite per quinque gradus, pari ratione distat a collaterali — sive distet per unum gradum, sive per duos distet gradus — in quinto. Quodsi amplius distat, secundum magis distantem oportet computari; et ideo ille qui distat in quinto gradu, potest contrahere cum eo qui distat in secundo.

<!-- page 847 -->

His autem praesuppositis per modum narrationis, per modum inquisitionis circa tria potest hic esse dubitatio.

Primum est, utrum consanguinitas sit aliquod vinculum.

Secundo, dato quod sic, quaeritur, utrum matrimonio praestet impedimentum.

Tertio, dato quod praestet, quaeritur, usque ad quem gradum.

---

english:
<!-- page 845 -->

### Commentary on Distinction XL.
#### *On the impediment of consanguinity.*

> *It now remains to say something concerning kinship,* etc.

### Division of the text

Above the Master treated of the impediment which comes from disparity [of cult]. In this part he treats of the impediment which comes from nearness. And since nearness is twofold, namely carnal and spiritual, therefore he first treats of nearness or carnal kinship; but secondly of the spiritual, below, in the forty-second distinction: *On the degrees of parentage,* etc.

The first part has two [parts]. In the first he treats of consanguinity. In the second, of affinity, below, in the forty-first distinction: *Now affinity must be considered.* — The first part has three. In the first part he determines the truth, showing that consanguinity is to be observed up to the seventh degree. In the second he determines how the degrees are to be reckoned, there: *But how the degrees of consanguinity,* etc. In the third he removes a doubt, there: *But to these there occurs that,* etc.

<!-- page 846 -->

### Treatment of the questions

#### Preliminary notes

Toward the understanding of this part one must proceed first by the way of *narration*; but secondly, by the way of *inquiry*.

As to the first, in order that the things which are said in this part may be made intelligible, a threefold definition and a threefold note or rule must be set out beforehand[^p846-1].

First, therefore, it must be seen what *consanguinity* is. Now *consanguinity* is defined thus: "Consanguinity is the bond of persons descending from the same stock, contracted by carnal propagation[^p846-2]." And *stock* is the name given to the person from whom certain persons have drawn their origin, from whom those descending are blood-relations to one another, and also to him from whom they are.

Secondly, it must be seen what the *line of consanguinity* is, which is defined thus: "A line is an ordered collection of persons joined by consanguinity, descending from the same stock, containing diverse degrees[^p846-3]." Hence it is called an *ordered collection*, because, just as there is order in the predicamental line according to higher and lower, so in the line of consanguinity according to prior and posterior. Since order can be taken in three ways — either with respect to what is above, or to what is below, or to what is beside — therefore three lines have customarily been assigned. For one is of *ascendants*, another of *descendants*, another of *collaterals*. — According to the *ascending* line the degrees are reckoned thus, namely father and mother, grandfather and grandmother, great-grandfather and great-grandmother, great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother. — According to the *descending* line, son and daughter, grandson and granddaughter, great-grandson and great-granddaughter, great-great-grandson and great-great-granddaughter. — According to the *collateral* line, two brothers, the sons of two brothers, the grandsons of two brothers, the great-grandsons of two brothers, and there is the limit.

Thirdly, it must be seen what a *degree* is, which is defined thus[^p846-4]: "A degree is the relation of distant persons, by which it is known by how great a distance of generation two persons differ from each other." — And note that this definition is according to the *canon* laws. For according to the *civil* laws degrees are taken according to the number of persons gathered in the line. Hence the legists say that brother and sister make *two* degrees; but the decretist says that they make *one* and the first degree[^p846-5]. Nor is there a contradiction, because of one relation there are two extremes; and because according to the canon laws a degree is a *relation*, since of a twofold extreme there is one relation, one degree is posited; but because there are two persons, and each has its own respect to the principle, therefore according to the [civil] laws two degrees are reckoned.

These things having been seen, three notes are here to be noted. — The first is that it is lawful for no one to contract [marriage] with any woman up to the fourth degree inclusive; and the prohibition of this kind is such that "if anyone shall have presumed to be joined against it, let him not be defended by any length of years, since length of time does not lessen sin, but increases it; and crimes are the graver the longer they hold the unhappy soul bound"; and this is proved in the *Extra*, *On Consanguinity*, [the decretal] *Non oportet*[^p846-6], etc.

The second note is that "persons descending from a stock stand apart from one another by as great a degree as that by which they stand apart from the stock[^p846-7]"; and therefore, if anyone wishes to know in what degree certain persons are related to one another, since such relatedness draws its origin from the stock, it is necessary that he go back to that person to whom he is more immediately joined. Manifest examples: as if from A there proceed B and G, and B beget C, and C [beget] D, and D E, and E F; similarly, let G beget H, and H beget I, and I beget K, and K L; if you wish to know by how great a degree F and I stand apart, you must trace back the generation of each to A, because they differ from one another by as great a degree as that by which they stand apart from the stock.

The third rule is that when persons stand unequally distant from the stock — as, for instance, when one is in the second degree and the other in the fifth — then the line of consanguinity and the degree ought to be reckoned according to the distance of the more remote. And this rule is confirmed by that which is said in the *Extra*, *On Consanguinity*, in the last decretal[^p846-8], which is Gregory's. — Now the reason for this is that the whole account of nearness has its rise from the stock: therefore no one is nearer to any collateral than to the stock. If, then, he stands apart from the stock by five degrees, by parity of reasoning he stands apart from the collateral — whether that one stand apart by one degree, or stand apart by two degrees — in the fifth. But if he stands apart by more, the reckoning must be made according to the more distant; and therefore he who stands apart in the fifth degree can contract [marriage] with him who stands apart in the second.

<!-- page 847 -->

These things, however, having been presupposed by way of narration, by way of inquiry a doubt can arise here concerning three matters.

The first is whether consanguinity is any bond.

Secondly, granted that it is, it is asked whether it constitutes an impediment to marriage.

Thirdly, granted that it does constitute one, it is asked up to what degree.

---

la: Ita codd. F G I K, quorum lectio ex seqq. probatur; alii codd. et edd. *responsio*.

en: So codices F G I K, whose reading is proved from what follows; other codices and the editions [read] *responsio*.

la: Secundum B. Albert., hic a. 1, haec definitio data est a iurisperitis. Cfr. C. 35. q. 5, ubi in fine exhibetur a Glossa « Declaratio arboris consanguinitatis ». — Glossa in C. *Quod dilectio* (3.), X. de Consanguinitate et affin. (lib. IV. tit. 14.): Stipes appellatur communis parens, a quo plures descenderunt, sicut Isaac fuit stipes Esau et Iacob; et stipes non facit gradum.

en: According to Blessed Albert, here a. 1, this definition was given by the jurists. Cf. Causa 35, q. 5, where at the end the Gloss sets forth the "Declaration of the tree of consanguinity." — The Gloss on the canon *Quod dilectio* (3), X, *On Consanguinity and Affinity* (bk. IV, tit. 14): "Stock" is the name given to the common parent from whom several have descended, as Isaac was the stock of Esau and Jacob; and the stock does not make a degree.

la: Loc. cit. — De linea *praedicamentali* vide tom. II. pag. 48, nota 1. — Edd. omittunt inferius *sic in linea... Quoniam*.

en: In the place cited. — On the *predicamental* line see vol. II, p. 48, note 1. — The editions omit, further down, *sic in linea… Quoniam*.

la: Ex praenotata Declaratione arboris consanguinitatis.

en: From the aforementioned Declaration of the tree of consanguinity.

la: Vide C. *Ad sedem apostolicam* (2.), C. 35. q. 5; Iustinian., D. XXXVIII. de Gradibus et affinibus etc. (tit. 11.) per totum, et III. Institut. imperial. de Gradibus cognationum (tit. 6.), per totum. — Pro *Nam* edd. cum multis codd. *non*.

en: See the canon *Ad sedem apostolicam* (2), Causa 35, q. 5; Justinian, Digest XXXVIII, *On Degrees and Affines* etc. (tit. 11), throughout, and Institutes of the Emperor III, *On the Degrees of Kinship* (tit. 6), throughout. — For *Nam* the editions, with many codices, [read] *non*.

la: Sive *Non debet* (8.), lib. IV. tit. 14, ex quo praedicta verba. — Mox pro *notula* cod. L *regula*.

en: Or *Non debet* (8), bk. IV, tit. 14, from which the aforesaid words come. — Shortly after, for *notula* codex L [reads] *regula*.

la: Regula 1. pro linea collaterali (aequali) in praeallegata Declaratione arboris consang. — Ibid. est etiam seq. (3.) regula. — Aliquanto inferius pro *distant* non pauci codd. *differant*.

en: Rule 1 for the collateral (equal) line in the previously cited Declaration of the tree of consanguinity. — In the same place is also the following (3rd) rule. — Somewhat further down, for *distant* not a few codices [read] *differant*.

la: Incipit *Vir, qui a stipite* (9.), lib. IV. tit. 14. — Aliquanto inferius pro *in quinto* cod. Z *per quinque*.

en: It begins *Vir, qui a stipite* (9), bk. IV, tit. 14. — Somewhat further down, for *in quinto* codex Z [reads] *per quinque*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p845/846/847-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, left split widened to `2120` for pp. 846–847 — the default truncated the left column mid-word), with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, L90204–L90350) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Page span — estimate confirmed, not corrected.** Running heads verified on the bands: p. 845 = `DIST. XL. DIVISIO TEXTUS.`; p. 846 = `846 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; p. 847 = `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I.`. So `printed_pages: [845, 846, 847]` / `pdf_pages: [865, 866, 867]` stand as scaffolded (offset pdf = printed + 20).

**Page-split map of the body.**
- **p. 845** (lower half of the page, below the full-width `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XL.` banner): the ordinal opener, the lemma *Nunc superest de cognatione aliquid dicere*, and the whole DIVISIO TEXTUS (2 paragraphs). **Zero footnote anchors.**
- **p. 846**: TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM → PRAENOTATA, from *Ad intelligentiam huius partis* through *…potest contrahere cum eo qui distat in secundo* (the tail of that last sentence actually runs over onto p. 847 — see below). **All 8 apparatus entries [^p846-1]…[^p846-8] anchor here.**
- **p. 847** (top of the page only): the *ratio* of the third rule finishes in the left column, then the three *dubitationes* (*Primum… Secundo… Tertio*) in the right column. **Zero footnote anchors.**

**Apparatus count: 8** — `[^p846-1]` … `[^p846-8]`, all from the p. 846 footer (L-column footer = notes 1–4, R-column footer = notes 5–8). Numbering restarts each printed page, hence the page-qualified labels.

**Footers handed off (claimed by neither this chunk's body nor its apparatus):**
- **p. 845, notes 1–4 → `vol4/bon-sent-IV-d40-littera.md`.** Verified eyes-on: every p. 845 marker (`…in sexto et septimo gradu ¹`, `Zacharias Papa ²`, `…ipse aperit dicens ³`, and the R-column `⁴ Libr. XI. Regest.…`) sits inside Lombard's Caps. II–IV, *above* the COMMENTARIUS banner. The DIVISIO TEXTUS itself carries no marker at all.
- **p. 847, notes 1–8 → `vol4/bon-sent-IV-d40-a1-q1.md`.** All eight anchor in the *Utrum consanguinitas sit aliquod vinculum* arguments (`superfluo nutrimenti ³`, `…in tertiam et quartam generationem`, `Ego sum Deus… ⁸`, etc.), which begin below the `ARTICULUS UNICUS / QUAESTIO I.` banner. Note `[^p847-1]` ("Vide supra pag. 78, nota 8. — Haec quaestio respicit definitionem consanguinitatis superius datam…") explicitly points back to the definition given in *this* chunk's Praenotata — useful crosswalk when q1 is promoted.

**Boundary at the tail of my range.** Raw L90350 is the bare `ARTIGULUS UNICUS. / De impedimento consanguinitatis.` banner. Per the locked chunking convention (a short ARTICULUS opener folds into that article's q1), the banner is **deliberately not rendered here** — it belongs to `d40-a1-q1` together with `QUAESTIO I.` and the *Utrum…* title, which immediately follow it on p. 847. No body text is dropped at the seam: this chunk closes with *…usque ad quem gradum*, and q1 opens with *Circa primum sic proceditur…*.

**Page-break placement.** The physical p. 846/847 break falls **mid-sentence**, inside the *Tertia regula* paragraph (…*tota ratio proximitatis ortum habet a stipite:* | *ergo nullus proximior est…*). To keep the sentence intact, the `<!-- page 847 -->` marker is set at the next paragraph boundary (before *His autem praesuppositis*). The 845/846 break is a true paragraph boundary.

**Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial side-notes in the printed margin, not body text — confirmed against the bands): p. 846 L-column `Via narrationis.`, `Quid consanguinitas.`, `Stipes.`, `Quid lineae consanguinitatis.`, `Quid gradus.`, `Duplex computatio.`; p. 846 R-column `Notulae tres.`, `Prima.`, `Secunda.`, `Tertia.`, `Ratio.`; p. 847 R-column `Via inquisitionis.` The djvu OCR had spliced several of these into the running text (`yotai tres`, `Prim;`, `Ralio,`, `via inqni-`).

**OCR garbles silently corrected against the bands** (all unambiguous): `C0MMENTARIU8 IN DI8TINCTI0NEM XL.` → `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XL.`; `ARTIGULUS` → `ARTICULUS`; `impedimenlo`/`proxiraitate`/`quadragesiraa`/`Priraa` → `impedimento`/`proximitate`/`quadragesima`/`Prima`; `afifinitate` → `affinitate`; `determinal`/`(ertia`/`ilM:` → `determinat`/`tertia`/`ibi:`; `definilur`/`deflnitur`/`defiuitio` → `definitur`/`definitio`; `vocatnr` → `vocatur`; `pcrsonarum`/`descendenlium` → `personarum`/`descendentium`; `snpra` → `supra`; `consne-verunt` → `consueverunt`; `proneplis` → `proneptis`; `Secundiim flneam Iransversalem` → `Secundum lineam transversalem`; `fifli` → `filii`; `dcfinitur`/`esl liabitudo` → `definitur`/`est habitudo`; `dupiicis` → `duplicis`; `ponitar` → `ponitur`; `aflqua` → `aliqua`; `prohibiflo` → `prohibitio`; `praesumserit` retained (Quaracchi spelling); `diulurnitas`/`calum` → `diuturnitas`/`peccatum`; `ditilius` → `diutius`; `nolala` → `notula`; `sflpite`/`slipite` → `stipite`; `generaflonem` → `generationem`; `inae-qualiter` → `inaequaliter`; `Terlia` → `Tertia`; `remoli` → `remoti`; `esl`/`liabet` → `est`/`habet`; `coilaterali` → `collaterali`; `ampiius` → `amplius`; `vincnlum` → `vinculum`; `qiiaeritur` → `quaeritur`. In the apparatus: `Krf.` → `Erf.` (not used — that note is the littera's); `\i` → `14`; `Inslitut.` → `Institut.`; `Ilis` → `His`.

**Apparatus reading corrected against the band:** the OCR gives note 2 as `Cfr. C. 35. q. 3`; the printed footer reads **`C. 35. q. 5`** (and note 5 independently cites `C. 35. q. 5`, which is where the Gloss's *arbor consanguinitatis* in fact stands). Rendered as `q. 5`.

**`[?]` flags: none.** Every reading in this chunk was resolvable from the 450 dpi bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 847 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De impedimento consanguinitatis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum consanguinitas sit aliquod vinculum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod consanguinitas non sit aliquod vinculum:

1. Quoniam, si consanguinitas est vinculum, hoc non est ob aliud nisi propter propagationem multorum ab uno; sed sicut multi homines ab uno homine, ita multa animalia bruta propagantur ex uno: si ergo ubi talis causa, et talis effectus[^p847-1]; si consanguinitas propter propagationem ex uno ponitur in hominibus, eadem ratione in brutis animalibus. Sed non ponitur in animalibus brutis: ergo etc.

2. Item, consanguinitas est vinculum ratione alicuius maioris convenientiae, aut ergo *substantialis*, aut *accidentalis*. Si *substantialis*; aut secundum formam *specificam*, aut *numeralem*[^p847-2]. Si secundum formam *specificam*; tunc ergo omnes homines sunt consanguinei. Si secundum formam *numeralem*; tunc nullus est consanguineus alterius, cum distinguantur secundum numerum. Si vero dicit convenientiam in *accidente*; cum nati de diversis generibus ut plurimum plus conveniant, quam nati de eadem parentela, tunc magis erunt consanguinei.

3. Item, generatio est de superfluo nutrimenti[^p847-3]; sed superfluitas nullam colligantiam nec vinculum habet cum eo cuius est superfluitas: ergo nec generatus de illa superfluitate aliquod vinculum habet cum eo, a quo generatur: ergo si ille est fons totius vinculi consanguinitatis, videtur, quod illud vinculum nullum sit.

4. Item, si consanguinitas contrahitur propter carnis propagationem; quantum se extendit propagatio, et[^p847-4] vinculum; sed propagatio se extendit usque ad infinitas generationes nec habet terminum per naturam: ergo nec vinculum consanguinitatis.

**Contra:**

1. Ostenditur per iura nova et antiqua, quae consanguinitatem assignant et gradus distinguunt, sicut patet *Extra, de Consanguinitate*[^p847-5] et *Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione quinta, Series consanguinitatis*.

2. Item, hoc probatur per *rationem*: confessio naturae mendax esse non potest; sed per naturam homines magis alligantur propinquis quam extraneis; quod patet, quia magis diligunt eos, et hoc commune est apud omnes[^p847-6]: ergo aliquod vinculum est inter ipsos, quod non est inter alios.

3. Item, «generatio est de substantia generantis» ut vult Damascenus[^p847-7]: ergo cum productio humani generis sit per generationem, videtur, quod filii sint de substantia et de sanguine patris et matris. Sed omnes qui sunt de eodem sanguine, sunt consanguinei: ergo etc.

4. Item, Deus vindicat peccata *patrum in filios usque in tertiam et quartam generationem*, sicut frequenter dicitur in Lege, et habetur Exodi vigesimo[^p847-8]: *Ego sum Deus zelotes* etc.: ergo si non vindicat in alios, sed in istos, aliquo vinculo iunguntur isti ad invicem, quo non iunguntur alii; hoc autem consanguinitatem appellamus: ergo etc.

<!-- page 848 -->

### Conclusio

> *Consanguinitas est aliquod vinculum, fundatum in relatione ad eandem originem et in naturali affectione.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod vinculum consanguinitatis est, quia hoc ipsa natura testatur, et de hoc nemo dubitat, nisi qui caret sensu[^p848-1]. Sed unde veniat, istud dubitationem et controversiam etiam habet.

Aliqui enim dixerunt, vinculum consanguinitatis specialiter esse in genere hominis, non in genere bestiarum, propter veritatem humanae naturae, quae tota fuit in uno, propter quam et originale peccatum in omnes processit uno peccato[^p848-2]; propter hoc etiam, quia substantiam totam trahit filius a patre et a matre. Hinc est, quod quodam speciali vinculo vinciuntur.

Sed si ita esset, quod tota substantia mea et tua in eodem homine secundum veritatem fuisset; quare ego et alius, qui non convenimus nisi in Adam, non essemus fratres propinqui et in primo gradu? Et *iterum*, quia fundamentum istius positionis non est stabile, sicut alibi[^p848-3] melius patet; hinc est, quod alium modum dicendi oportet invenire: quod consanguinitas est ex propagatione carnali proveniens in hominibus; et hoc vinculum duo faciunt, scilicet *relatio ad eandem originem*, et *naturalis affectio*. *Relatio ad eandem originem*, tum sicut ad principium *materiale*, quia de sanguine eiusdem hominis generantur; tum sicut ad principium *effectivum*, quia cum illo semine deciduntur spiritus[^p848-4], et etiam virtus, quae format et assimilat materiam; unde ut plurimum filii assimilantur parentibus, secundum quod illa virtus delata potentior est in operando. — Et quia natura in hominibus potens est *cognoscere* suam originem et originem alterius, et ulterius *perspicax est*, ut non solum assimilationem in forma corporea, sed etiam aliam cognoscat; cum *affectio naturalis* nata sit adhaerere tali, hinc est, quod est ibi *vinculum consanguinitatis*.

Et quoniam *virtus assimilativa* deficit per successionem, et *cognitio* etiam propinquitatis deficit, et *affectio naturalis* deficit; hinc est, quod vinculum consanguinitatis non tantum protenditur, quantum propagatio. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiectum ultimum.

*Rursus*, quia in brutis animalibus non est talis *cognitio* nec *alligatio*, nisi solum quantum ad matrem et fetum sive prolem[^p848-5]; hinc est, quod non est in eis tale vinculum. — Et sic patet primo obiectum, quia non est similis causa, ideo nec similis effectus. — Nec loquimur hic de *affectione* secundum *actum*, sed secundum *naturale inclinativum*, quae[^p848-6] naturaliter inest, etsi non exeat in actum. Et hoc patet, quia aliquis credens, fratrem suum esse extraneum, non magis afficitur quam circa alium; sed statim, comperto quod sit frater, afficitur et affectione trahitur et eidem quodam speciali vinculo alligatur, cum tamen prius esset alligatus.

2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non est vinculum propter convenientiam in substantia nec propter convenientiam in accidente; dicendum, quod consanguinitas non dicit vinculum secundum proprietatem *absolutam*, sed secundum proprietatem *relatam*, utpote secundum processum ab eadem radice et origine, ut patet de duobus fratribus. Unde sicut rami ab eadem radice procedentes faciunt unam arborem, non solum propter assimilationem, sed[^p848-7] propter comparationem ad idem principium; sic intelligendum, quod plures personae ab eodem descendentes faciunt unam lineam consanguinitatis, quae est se habens ad modum arboris.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de superfluo, dicendum, quod duplex est superfluitas: quaedam *impuritatis*, et haec potius habet repugnantiam quam colligantiam; quaedam *residuitatis*, et haec habet convenientiam nec est simpliciter superfluitas, quia, quamvis sit[^p848-8] uni virtuti superflua, utpote nutritivae, tamen alii est necessaria, utpote generativae; et quamvis superfluat ad conservationem individui, est tamen necessaria ad conservationem speciei. Et *praeterea*, probabile est, quod cum ista humiditate nutrimentali aliquid fuit de humiditate radicali[^p848-9] et spiritu, ratione cuius filius intimius attinet patri.

<!-- page 849 -->

english:
<!-- page 847 -->

### Article, the Only One. *On the impediment of consanguinity.*
### Question I. *Whether consanguinity is some bond.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that consanguinity is not some bond:

1. Because, if consanguinity is a bond, this is for no other cause than on account of the propagation of many from one; but just as many men [come] from one man, so many brute animals are propagated from one: if therefore, where such a cause is, such an effect also is[^p847-1]; if consanguinity is posited in men on account of propagation from one, by the same account it is posited in brute animals. But it is not posited in brute animals: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, consanguinity is a bond by reason of some greater agreement, either therefore *substantial* or *accidental*. If *substantial*, then either according to *specific* form or according to *numerical* form[^p847-2]. If according to *specific* form, then all men are blood-relations. If according to *numerical* form, then no one is a blood-relation of another, since they are distinguished according to number. But if it names an agreement in an *accident*: since those born of diverse stocks for the most part agree more than those born of the same parentage, then the former will be more blood-related.

3. Likewise, generation is from the superfluity of nourishment[^p847-3]; but a superfluity has no linkage or bond with that whose superfluity it is: therefore neither does what is generated from that superfluity have any bond with him from whom it is generated: therefore, if he is the source of the whole bond of consanguinity, it seems that that bond is nothing at all.

4. Likewise, if consanguinity is contracted on account of the propagation of the flesh, then as far as propagation extends itself, so far does the bond[^p847-4]; but propagation extends itself even to infinite generations and has no terminus by nature: therefore neither does the bond of consanguinity.

**On the contrary:**

1. It is shown by the laws, new and ancient, which assign consanguinity and distinguish its degrees, as is plain in the *Decretals, On Consanguinity*[^p847-5], and in *Cause thirty-five, question five, "The Series of Consanguinity."*

2. Likewise, this is proved by *reason*: the testimony of nature cannot be a lie; but by nature men are bound more to their near kin than to strangers; which is plain, because they love them more, and this is common among all[^p847-6]: therefore there is some bond among them which is not among others.

3. Likewise, "generation is from the substance of the one generating," as the Damascene holds[^p847-7]: therefore, since the production of the human race is by generation, it seems that sons are of the substance and of the blood of father and mother. But all who are of the same blood are blood-relations: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, God avenges the sins *of the fathers upon the sons unto the third and fourth generation*, as is frequently said in the Law, and is had in Exodus, chapter twenty[^p847-8]: *I am a jealous God*, etc.: therefore, if He does not avenge upon others but upon these, these are joined to one another by some bond by which others are not joined; and this we call consanguinity: therefore, etc.

<!-- page 848 -->

### Conclusion

> *Consanguinity is some bond, founded upon relation to the same origin and upon natural affection.*

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a bond of consanguinity, because nature herself bears witness to this, and no one doubts it except one who lacks sense[^p848-1]. But whence it comes — that has doubt and controversy as well.

For some have said that the bond of consanguinity is specially in the genus of man and not in the genus of beasts, on account of the truth of human nature, which was wholly in one man, on account of which also original sin passed into all by one sin[^p848-2]; and on account of this too, because the son draws his whole substance from father and from mother. Hence it is that they are bound by a certain special bond.

But if it were so, that my whole substance and yours had in truth been in the same man, why then would I and another, who agree in nothing but Adam, not be near brothers and in the first degree? And *again*, because the foundation of this position is not stable, as is better shown elsewhere[^p848-3]; hence it is that another way of speaking must be found: namely, that consanguinity comes about in men from carnal propagation; and two things make this bond, namely *relation to the same origin* and *natural affection*. *Relation to the same origin*, both as to a *material* principle, because they are generated from the blood of the same man; and as to an *effective* principle, because together with that seed there are shed spirits[^p848-4], and also a power which forms and assimilates the matter; whence for the most part sons are made like their parents, according as that transmitted power is more potent in operating. — And because nature in men is able to *know* its own origin and the origin of another, and is further *perspicacious*, so that it may know not only likeness in bodily form but also another [kind of likeness]; since *natural affection* is born to cleave to such a one, hence it is that there is there the *bond of consanguinity*.

And since the *assimilative power* fails through succession, and the *knowledge* also of nearness fails, and *natural affection* fails; hence it is that the bond of consanguinity is not extended as far as propagation is. — And by this the answer to the last objection is plain.

*Again*, because in brute animals there is no such *knowledge* or *binding*, except only as regards the mother and the fetus or offspring[^p848-5]; hence it is that there is no such bond in them. — And thus the first objection is plain, because the cause is not alike, and therefore neither is the effect alike. — Nor do we speak here of *affection* according to *act*, but according to the *natural inclination*, which[^p848-6] is naturally present even if it does not go forth into act. And this is plain, because someone believing his brother to be a stranger is not more affected [toward him] than toward another; but at once, when it has been discovered that he is his brother, he is affected and is drawn by affection and is bound to him by a certain special bond, although he was bound before.

2. To that, then, which is objected — that there is no bond on account of agreement in substance nor on account of agreement in accident — it must be said that consanguinity does not name a bond according to an *absolute* property, but according to a *relative* property, namely according to procession from the same root and origin, as is plain in the case of two brothers. Hence, just as branches proceeding from the same root make one tree, not only on account of their likeness but[^p848-7] on account of their relation to the same principle, so it must be understood that several persons descending from the same [stock] make one line of consanguinity, which stands after the manner of a tree.

3. To that which is objected concerning superfluity, it must be said that superfluity is twofold: one of *impurity*, and this has repugnance rather than linkage; another of *residue*, and this has agreement and is not superfluity simply, because, although it be[^p848-8] superfluous to one power, namely the nutritive, yet it is necessary to another, namely the generative; and although it be superfluous for the conservation of the individual, it is nevertheless necessary for the conservation of the species. And *moreover*, it is probable that together with that nutrimental moisture there was something of the radical moisture[^p848-9] and of spirit, by reason of which the son more intimately pertains to the father.

<!-- page 849 -->

la: Vide supra pag. 78, nota 8. — Haec quaestio respicit definitionem consanguinitatis superius datam: *Consanguinitas est vinculum personarum* etc.

en: See above, p. 78, note 8. — This question looks back to the definition of consanguinity given above: *Consanguinity is a bond of persons*, etc.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 132, nota 9.

en: Cf. above, p. 132, note 9.

la: Secundum Aristot., I. de Generat. animal. c. 18. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 479, nota 5.

en: According to Aristotle, *On the Generation of Animals* I, c. 18. Cf. vol. II, p. 479, note 5.

la: Edd. tantum *se extendit et*.

en: The editions read only *se extendit et*.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 14. — Seq. habetur loc. cit. c. 1.

en: Book IV, tit. 14. — What follows is found in the place cited, c. 1.

la: Ideoque *naturale*; cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 5. et pag. 436, nota 2. — *Maiorem* insinuat Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 2; *minorem* ibid. VIII. c. 12.

en: And therefore *natural*; cf. above, p. 14, note 5, and p. 436, note 2. — Aristotle suggests the *major* premise in *Ethics* I, c. 2; the *minor* in the same work, VIII, c. 12.

la: Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 8.

en: *On the Orthodox Faith*, Book I, c. 8.

la: Vers. 5: *Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, fortis, zelotes, visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios in tertiam* etc. Cfr. Num. 14, 18.

en: Verse 5: *I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third* etc. Cf. Num. 14:18.

la: Respicitur Aristot., I. Topic. c. 9: Non oportet autem omne problema nec non omnem positionem considerare, sed quam dubitabit aliquis eorum qui ratione egent et non poena vel sensu; nam qui dubitant, utrum oporteat deos honorare et parentes diligere, an non, *poena* indigent; qui vero, utrum nix alba, an non, *sensu*.

en: Reference is made to Aristotle, *Topics* I, c. 9: "One ought not to examine every problem, nor indeed every position, but only such a one as would be doubted by someone of those who need argument and not punishment or sense-perception; for those who doubt whether the gods are to be honored and parents to be loved, or not, need *punishment*; but those who doubt whether snow is white, or not, need *sense-perception*."

la: Cfr. Rom. 5, 12. — Cod. G bene *uno peccante*. Superius pro *in uno* cod. bb *in una persona*.

en: Cf. Rom. 5:12. — Codex G rightly reads *uno peccante*. Above, for *in uno*, codex bb reads *in una persona*.

la: Libr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. q. 1. — Inferius post *consanguinitas est* in cod. E secunda manus supplevit *vinculum*.

en: *Sentences*, Book II, d. 30, a. 3, q. 1. — Below, after *consanguinitas est*, a second hand in codex E supplied *vinculum*.

la: Nempe *vitalis* et *spiritualis*; cfr. Alfredi Anglici lib. de Motu cordis, et Costa-Ben-Lucae lib. de Differentia animae et spiritus (ed. Innsbruck 1878.). — Mox pro *materiam* cod. F (bb a secunda manu) *membrum*, codd. N aa *fetum*. Subinde pro *et originem* Vat. *in forma*, et pro *corporea, sed etiam aliam* ipsa substituit *propria, sed etiam in alia* (cod. V *sed per aliam*).

en: Namely the *vital* and the *spiritual* [spirits]; cf. Alfred the Englishman's book *On the Motion of the Heart*, and Costa-ben-Luca's book *On the Difference between Soul and Spirit* (Innsbruck ed., 1878). — Shortly after, for *materiam*, codex F (bb by a second hand) reads *membrum*, codices N aa *fetum*. Then, for *et originem*, the Vatican edition reads *in forma*, and for *corporea, sed etiam aliam* it substitutes *propria, sed etiam in alia* (codex V: *sed per aliam*).

la: Cod. bb addit *et hoc ad tempus, non diu*.

en: Codex bb adds *et hoc ad tempus, non diu* ("and this for a time, not for long").

la: Ita codd. A F G H I K, cod. E *quod*; edd. *quia*. Pro *exeat in actum* plures codd. *esset in actu*, Vat. *insit in actu, vel non exeat in actum*. Subinde post *non magis afficitur* codd. F G supplent *circa ipsum*, Vat. *circa illum* et pro *affectione trahitur* communis codd. lectio habet *affectio trahitur*, cui cod. K (I a secunda manu) addit *in actum*.

en: So codices A F G H I K; codex E reads *quod*; the editions *quia*. For *exeat in actum* several codices read *esset in actu*, the Vatican edition *insit in actu, vel non exeat in actum*. Then, after *non magis afficitur*, codices F G supply *circa ipsum*, the Vatican edition *circa illum*; and for *affectione trahitur* the common reading of the codices has *affectio trahitur*, to which codex K (I by a second hand) adds *in actum*.

la: Cod. aa *sed etiam*.

en: Codex aa reads *sed etiam*.

la: Vat. *quamvis non sit*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *quamvis non sit*.

la: Vide tom. I. pag. 316, nota 12. — Pro *fuit* codd. A E a secunda manu *fluit*.

en: See vol. I, p. 316, note 12. — For *fuit*, codices A E, by a second hand, read *fluit*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quae in hac distinctione de impedimento consanguinitatis determinantur plerumque sumta sunt ex canonibus ecclesiasticis; tamen notandae sunt validae rationes, quibus auctor et S. Thom., inter se consentientes, defendunt leges Ecclesiae.

Circa *praenotata* cfr. hic S. Thom., q. unica a. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 54. a. 1. 2; B. Albert., a. 1-6; Petr. a Tar., a. 2; Richard. a Med., in praenotatis. Alii in mox citt. quaestionibus.

Quaestio 1. et 2. ab aliis una sola absolvitur. Quoad 2. quaestionem antiqui doctores cum Ss. Thoma et Bonav. communiter docent, consanguinitatem non tantum primi gradus lineae rectae, sed etiam 1. gradus lineae lateralis (scil. inter fratrem et sororem) esse iure naturali et divino impedimentum dirimens (cfr. supra d. 39. a. 2. q. 1.). Certum est, Ecclesiam separare matrimonia inter fratrem et sororem in infidelitate contracta, si ambo ad fidem convertuntur. Non pauci tamen doctores dubitant, utrum ista matrimonia iure naturali et divino fuerint per se invalida.

De 1. et 2. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica (ubi etiam de q. 3.). — S. Thom., hic a. 3; Suppl. q. 54. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. 2. — Durand. et Dionys. Carth., de tota dist. hic q. unica.

**II.** De 3. quaestione est notandum, quod a Concilio Lateran. IV. sub Innocentio III. ob rationes graves, ab auctore nostro explicatas impedimentum consanguinitatis restrictum est ad quartum gradum.

De eadem quaestione praeter citatos: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3-6.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The matters determined in this distinction concerning the impediment of consanguinity are for the most part taken from the ecclesiastical canons; nevertheless the strong reasons are to be noted by which our author and St. Thomas, in agreement with one another, defend the laws of the Church.

Concerning the *praenotata* [prefatory notes], cf. here St. Thomas, q. unica a. 1, 2; *Supplement* q. 54, a. 1, 2; Blessed Albert, a. 1–6; Peter of Tarantaise, a. 2; Richard of Middleton, in the praenotata. Others in the questions cited just below.

Question 1 and question 2 are handled by others in a single question. As regards the second question, the ancient doctors, together with Saints Thomas and Bonaventure, commonly teach that consanguinity — not only of the first degree of the direct line, but also of the first degree of the collateral line (that is, between brother and sister) — is a diriment impediment by natural and divine law (cf. above, d. 39, a. 2, q. 1). It is certain that the Church separates marriages contracted between brother and sister in unbelief, if both are converted to the faith. Not a few doctors, however, doubt whether such marriages were of themselves invalid by natural and divine law.

On the first and second questions: Scotus, here q. unica (where also on q. 3). — St. Thomas, here a. 3; *Supplement* q. 54, a. 3. — Blessed Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarantaise, here a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, 2. — Durandus and Dionysius the Carthusian, on the whole distinction, here q. unica.

**II.** On the third question it is to be noted that by the Fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III, for grave reasons — expounded by our author — the impediment of consanguinity was restricted to the fourth degree.

On the same question, besides those already cited: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 1. — Blessed Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarantaise, here a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here q. 3–6.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p847-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p848-*` (regenerated with `python3.11 tools/colcrop.py vol4 848 2120` — the default split at x≈1880 clipped the left column), and `vol4-p849-*`, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR at raw lines L90351–L90577. Per the VOL II OVERRIDE, the PDF bands were treated as authoritative in the cascade-shattered regions (Conclusio, Respondeo, solutions, footers, and the whole scholion, which the OCR mangles badly: `SCHOLIOK`, `dislinclionc`, `delcrminanlLir`, `Tliom.`, `Kichard.`).

**Page-verification.** Printed-page estimate of 847–849 is CONFIRMED against the running heads (`DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 847`; `848 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II. 849`). `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` unchanged (pdf = printed + 20).

**Page-split map.**
- **p. 847** — top of the page carries the tail of the `d40-divisio` chunk (praenotata + *Via inquisitionis* / TRACTATIO listing `Primum est… Secundo… Tertio…`); then `ARTICULUS UNICUS. De impedimento consanguinitatis.` and `QUAESTIO I.` begin mid-left-column. This chunk's body = *Circa primum sic proceditur…* through the fourth *Contra* argument. **Footer notes 1–8 (all of them) anchor in THIS chunk's body** — L-column 1–4, R-column 5–8.
- **p. 848** — Conclusio, Respondeo, and all three solutions; entirely this chunk. **Footer notes 1–9 (all of them) are this chunk's** (L 1–4, R 5–9; note 4 begins in the left footer and runs over into the right footer — it is one entry, reassembled here).
- **p. 849** — the two-column `SCHOLION` block sits at the TOP of the page, above `QUAESTIO II.` (*Utrum consanguinitas matrimonio praestet impedimentum*, raw L90578+ → chunk `d40-a1-q2`). The scholion carries **no footnote anchors**, so this chunk claims **zero** apparatus entries from p. 849.

**Hand-offs.**
- → `d40-divisio`: **no p. 847 footers belong to it.** The praenotata tail and the *Via inquisitionis* listing printed at the top of p. 847 carry no footnote markers; all eight of p. 847's footers anchor in this quaestio. If d40-divisio has claimed any p. 847 note, it should be withdrawn.
- → `d40-a1-q2`: **every footer on p. 849 is q2's** (this chunk takes none from that page). q2's body opens immediately below the scholion.

**Scholion ownership (article-level).** The distinction's single `SCHOLION` block has two sections and is rendered **in full here**, in both languages, as the LAST subsection of both `## Latin` and `## English` (parser requirement — body first, scholion last):
- **§I** — *De 1. et 2. quaestione*: the distinction's matter is drawn chiefly from the ecclesiastical canons; the *Circa praenotata* doctor-list; the note that other doctors resolve q. 1 and q. 2 in a single question; the brother/sister first-degree collateral impediment; and the q1–q2 doctor-list.
- **§II** — *De 3. quaestione*: Lateran IV under Innocent III restricting the impediment of consanguinity to the fourth degree, plus its doctor-list.

Sibling chunks `d40-a1-q2` and `d40-a1-q3` render **no scholion by design** (`has_scholion: false` expected there) — §II is *about* q3 but is *printed* in this block and is therefore rendered here.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed** (not Bonaventure's text): *Fundamenta*, *Via inquisitionis*, *Conclusio 1*, *Dubium de ratione*, *Opinio 1*, *Improbatur*, *Opinio auctoris et conclusio 2*, *De primo*, *De secundo*, *Coroll.*, *Ad 4*, *Ad 1*, *Nota*, *Solutio positionis*, *Duplex superfluitas*.

**Silent OCR corrections** (unambiguous, verified against the bands): `SCHOLIOK`→`SCHOLION`; `dislinclionc`→`distinctione`; `delcrminanlLir`→`determinantur`; `snmta`→`sumta`; `Tliom.`→`Thom.`; `Kichard.`/`Ricliard.`→`Richard.`; `Ecdcsiam`→`Ecclesiam`; `nnliqui`→`antiqui`; `exlendit`→`extendit`; `posi-tionis`, `ahcuius`→`alicuius`; `Ilem`→`Item`; `nerao`→`nemo`; `peccAiSi.`→`peccata`; `intcr`→`inter`; `vincidum`→`vinculum`; `raelius`→`melius`; `carnaM`→`carnali`; `Rekuio`→`Relatio`; `qnia`→`quia`; `adhaerei^e`→`adhaerere`; `colb^ganliam`→`colligantiam`; `pmeterea`→`praeterea`; `nutrimentah`→`nutrimentali`; `coraperlo`→`comperto`; `slalira`→`statim`; `Gausa`→`Causa`; `Fondamenia`/`Fondamenta` (marginal gloss) removed.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Two digits deserve a note but are resolved, not flagged:
- Scholion §I, "sed etiam **1.** gradus lineae lateralis (scil. inter fratrem et sororem)" — the Quaracchi "1" has a slanted top serif that reads as "4" at 450 dpi; *inter fratrem et sororem* is by definition the **first** degree of the collateral line, and the djvu OCR also reads `1.`. Rendered `1.`.
- Scholion §I, "(cfr. supra d. 39. a. 2. q. **1.**)" — same glyph; OCR reads `q. i.` Rendered `q. 1.`
- Apparatus `[^p848-4]`, "(cod. **V** *sed per aliam*)" — the band shows a clear `V`; the djvu OCR read `Y`. Rendered `V` on the band's authority.

**Unmapped sections:** none discovered in this range. The raw range L90351–L90577 maps cleanly onto QUAESTIO I + the SCHOLION; QUAESTIO II opens at L90578, which is `d40-a1-q2`'s territory.

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. 40, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 849 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De cognatione carnali sive consanguinitate.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum consanguinitas matrimonio praestet impedimentum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum consanguinitas matrimonio praebeat impedimentum. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Genesis secundo[^p849-1]: *Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea*; sed nulla persona potest alteri magis alligari, quam ut sit de carne et de ossibus: ergo si propter hoc non est matrimonium Adae impeditum, immo propter hoc est mulier de latere sumta; videtur, quod consanguinitas non impediat, sed expediat.

2. Item, Ecclesiastici decimo tertio[^p849-2]: *Omne animal diligit simile sibi, et volatilia ad sibi similia conveniunt*: ergo quanto aliquae personae magis similes sunt et coniunctae, tanto magis natae sunt invicem convenire et copulari; sed ad matrimonium est copula et coniunctio: ergo consanguinitas magis expedit, quam impediat.

3. Item, firmiori vinculo iunguntur qui natura et voluntate alligantur, quam qui voluntate tantum, et melius invicem cohabitant et conversantur; sed sic est, cum aliqui iunguntur vinculo carnali et foedere matrimoniali: ergo magis deberent homines coniungi propinquis quam extraneis, cum voluntas habeat naturam sibi conformem, et natura voluntatem adiuvet: ergo magis praestat consanguinitas matrimonio solatium et fulcimentum quam impedimentum.

4. Item, si aliquid repugnat matrimonio et impedit, hoc non facit, nisi quia alicui bono matrimonii repugnat et aliquid adimit; sed si consanguinei iungantur, salvantur ibi tria bona matrimonii: fides, proles et Sacramentum: ergo consanguinitas, ut videtur, nullum praestat impedimentum matrimonio.

**Contra:**

1. Genesis secundo[^p849-3]: *Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem* etc.; constat, quod istud non intelligitur de derelictione quantum ad cohabitationem: ergo intelligitur de derelictione quantum ad matrimonii contractionem: ergo pater et mater non sunt legitimae personae ad contrahendum respectu filiae et filii; hoc autem non est ob aliud nisi ob vinculum consanguinitatis: ergo etc.

2. Item, Levitici decimo octavo[^p849-4]: *Ego Dominus Deus vester. Omnis homo ad proximam sanguinis sui non accedet, ut revelet turpitudinem eius*: ergo si contra Domini praeceptum est proximam sanguinis sui cognoscere; cum matrimonium sit ordinatum ad actum illum, nullus cum proxima sua potest contrahere matrimonium: ergo proximitas sanguinis praestat matrimonio impedimentum.

3. Item, quod est contra bonum prolis impedit matrimonium; sed contrahere cum consanguinea est contra bonum prolis: ergo etc. Probatio *minoris*: Gregorius dicit, et habetur in littera[^p849-5]: «Quaedam lex Romana permittit, ut duorum fratrum aut duarum sororum filius et filia sibi matrimonialiter copulentur; sed experimento didicimus, ex tali copula sobolem non posse succrescere».

4. Item, matrimonium est vinculum honestatis, sicut supra[^p849-6] ostensum est; sed naturalis honestas refugit revelare ignominiam et turpitudinem propinqui: si ergo haec turpitudo revelatur in coitu; quicumque cognoscit propinquam, facit contra honestatem naturalem. Si ergo matrimonium honestum est; cum consanguinitas sit contra honestatem, consanguinitas impedit matrimonium.

<!-- page 850 -->

> **Conclusio.** Consanguinitas impedit matrimonium in aliquo propter dictamen legis naturae, in aliquo propter prohibitionem legis divinae, in aliquo propter statutum Ecclesiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod vinculum consanguinitatis impedit matrimonium in aliquo[^p850-1] propter *dictamen legis naturae*, in aliquo vero propter *prohibitionem legis divinae*, in aliquo propter *statutum Ecclesiae*. — Vinculum consanguinitatis, quod est stipitis ad prolem, impedit propter *dictamen naturae*; unde et naturale apud omnes, quod filius non coniungatur matri, et quod filia non coniungatur patri. — Et si quaeratur ratio huius; dicendum, quod hoc est[^p850-2] propter *reverentiam* et *honorem*, qui debet exhiberi patri et matri, et ideo non debent commisceri; vel etiam propter *generationis successionem*, quae debet procedere, non retrocedere; unde non debet proles genita coniungi suo principio, ut gignat. Et hinc est, quod natura dictat, quod alio affectu tractandi sunt *parentes*, alio affectu tractari debent *coniuges*[^p850-3]. Ideo propter dictamen naturae impeditur matrimonium per consanguinitatis primum vinculum, quod est prolis genitae ad suum principium.

Propter prohibitionem *legis divinae* impeditur matrimonium per consanguinitatem usque ad secundum gradum, sicut patet per Levitici decimum octavum capitulum, ubi fit prohibitio usque ad secundum gradum. — Et si quaeratur ratio huius; dicendum, quod hoc est propter *honestatem*; qui enim mulierem cognoscit revelat eius turpitudinem et discooperit ignominiam; et hoc inhonestum est facere propinquae, maxime cum honestas dictet, quod soror non est tractanda ut uxor. Et hinc est, quod in praecepto suo Dominus dicit: *Non discooperies turpitudinem eius*[^p850-4].

Ulterius, propter *statutum Ecclesiae* impeditur matrimonium a secundo gradu et deinceps. — Et si quaeratur ratio huius; dicendum, quod hoc statutum fuit propter *dilectionem dilatandam*. Quia enim homo pronus est ad diligendum sibi propinquum; et matrimonium aggenerat propinquitatem et dilectionis mutuae praestat fomentum: hinc est, quod Ecclesia statuit, ut amor ad extraneos extenderetur, quod matrimonia extra propriam parentelam contraherentur; et ita non solum in secundo, sed etiam deinceps, propter dilatandam caritatem et propter ampliandam honestatem. — Et sic patet, quod consanguinitatis vinculum ob diversas causas habet impedire matrimonium; et hoc concedendum.

**Ad obiecta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Eva et Adam, quod fuerunt os et caro, dicendum, quod quamvis Eva et Adam fuerint os et caro; non tamen sic fuit tunc, quemadmodum nunc est: quoniam nunc eadem est via propagationis et commixtionis, sed Eva non exiit ab Adam per viam generationis, sed per modum supernaturalem, non per coitum, immo de latere; qualis modus producendi peroptime competebat coniugio, tum propter figuram, tum etiam, ut significaretur vinculi matrimonialis aequalitas, quia de latere et adhaerentia[^p850-5]. Unde quia non similiter *modo* alii sibi attinent, ideo modus ille ad consequentiam trahi non potest nec debet.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne animal diligit sibi simile; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de similitudine secundum *speciem*; vel si intelligatur de similitudine secundum *carnis proximitatem*, adhuc habet veritatem, quod diligit. Sed alius est modus affectionis, quo diligenda est *uxor*, alius, quo diligenda est *soror*; et ideo coniunctio affectionis naturalis repugnat copulae matrimoniali: ergo[^p850-6] si copuletur per affectionis vinculum, non sequitur, quod debeat copulari per matrimonium.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod natura firmitatem praestat vinculo voluntatis; dicendum, quod verum est, ubi[^p850-7] affectio voluntaria ad id dirigitur, ad quod inclinat natura; et quoniam natura bene ordinata non inclinat ad coeundum cum sorore, et affectio matrimonialis inclinat ad cognoscendum uxorem: hinc est, quod naturalis affectio non praestat voluntati fulcimentum, sed potius impedimentum.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non repugnat alicui bono matrimonii; dicendum, quod hoc solvi potest *per interemptionem*[^p850-8], quoniam Gregorius dicit, quod «experimento didicit, ex tali copula non posse sobolem succrescere». — Potest tamen et aliter dici, quod impedit maius bonum, quod est vinculum affinitatis, quae, exinde contracta, est occasio mutuae dilectionis.

<!-- page 851 -->

Quod patet: si aliquis accipiat filiam patris sui et exinde generet prolem, idem est socer et pater, et eadem mulier est socrus et mater, et idem filius et gener, eadem nurus et filia, et idem vir et frater, et eadem uxor et soror: ita respectu *necessitatis*[^p851-1], quae poterat esse in octo, sicut in quatuor; similiter respectu prolis. Ut istae alligationes diffunderentur, et caritas mediante vinculo matrimonii mutuo conservaretur; statuit Ecclesia, matrimonium ad remotas personas protendi, non quia in proximis impediretur matrimonium, sed quia perderetur maius bonum. Et sic patet totum[^p851-2].

---

english:
### Article Unique. *On carnal kinship, that is, consanguinity.*
### Question II. *Whether consanguinity poses an impediment to marriage.*

Secondly it is asked whether consanguinity affords an impediment to marriage. And that it does not, seems to be the case.

1. Genesis 2[^p849-1]: *This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh*; but no person can be bound more closely to another than by being of that one's flesh and of that one's bones: therefore, if on this account Adam's marriage was not impeded — nay rather, on this very account was the woman taken from his side — it seems that consanguinity does not impede but rather furthers [marriage].

2. Likewise, Ecclesiasticus 13[^p849-2]: *Every animal loves its like, and birds flock to those like themselves*: therefore, the more like and conjoined any persons are, the more are they born to come together and be joined to one another; but marriage is directed to a joining and a conjunction: therefore consanguinity rather furthers than impedes.

3. Likewise, those who are bound both by nature and by will are joined by a firmer bond than those who are bound by will alone, and they dwell together and converse with one another better; but such is the case when some are joined by a carnal bond and by the marriage covenant: therefore men ought rather to be joined to kin than to strangers, since the will has nature conformed to it, and nature assists the will: therefore consanguinity affords marriage solace and support rather than an impediment.

4. Likewise, if something is repugnant to marriage and impedes it, it does this only because it is repugnant to some good of marriage and takes something away; but if blood-relations are joined, the three goods of marriage are preserved there: fidelity, offspring, and the Sacrament: therefore consanguinity, as it seems, poses no impediment to marriage.

**On the contrary:**

1. Genesis 2[^p849-3]: *For this cause shall a man leave father and mother* etc.; it is agreed that this is not understood of a leaving in respect of cohabitation: therefore it is understood of a leaving in respect of the contracting of marriage: therefore father and mother are not lawful persons for contracting [marriage] with respect to daughter and son; but this is for no other reason than the bond of consanguinity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Leviticus 18[^p849-4]: *I am the Lord your God. No man shall approach to her that is near of kin to him, to uncover her nakedness*: therefore, if it is against the Lord's precept to know one near of one's own blood; since marriage is ordered to that act, no one can contract marriage with one near to him: therefore nearness of blood poses an impediment to marriage.

3. Likewise, what is against the good of offspring impedes marriage; but to contract with a blood-relation is against the good of offspring: therefore etc. Proof of the *minor*: Gregory says, and it is had in the text[^p849-5]: «A certain Roman law permits that the son and the daughter of two brothers, or of two sisters, be joined to one another in marriage; but we have learned by experience that from such a union offspring cannot thrive».

4. Likewise, marriage is a bond of decency, as was shown above[^p849-6]; but natural decency shrinks from uncovering the shame and nakedness of a kinsman: if therefore this nakedness is uncovered in intercourse, then whoever knows a kinswoman acts against natural decency. If therefore marriage is a decent thing, then, since consanguinity is against decency, consanguinity impedes marriage.

> **Conclusion.** Consanguinity impedes marriage in one respect on account of the dictate of the law of nature, in another on account of the prohibition of the divine law, in another on account of the statute of the Church.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the bond of consanguinity impedes marriage in one respect[^p850-1] on account of the *dictate of the law of nature*, in another indeed on account of the *prohibition of the divine law*, in another on account of the *statute of the Church*. — The bond of consanguinity which is that of stock to offspring impedes on account of the *dictate of nature*; whence it is natural among all men that a son not be joined to his mother, and that a daughter not be joined to her father. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this is[^p850-2] on account of the *reverence* and *honor* which ought to be shown to father and mother, and therefore they ought not to mingle; or else on account of *the succession of generation*, which ought to proceed forward, not backward; whence offspring once begotten ought not to be joined to its own principle in order to beget. And hence it is that nature dictates that *parents* are to be treated with one affection, and *spouses* ought to be treated with another affection[^p850-3]. Therefore, on account of the dictate of nature, marriage is impeded through the first bond of consanguinity, which is that of the offspring begotten to its own principle.

On account of the prohibition of the *divine law*, marriage is impeded through consanguinity as far as the second degree, as is plain from the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, where the prohibition is made as far as the second degree. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this is on account of *decency*; for he who knows a woman uncovers her nakedness and lays bare her shame; and it is indecent to do this to a kinswoman, especially since decency dictates that a sister is not to be treated as a wife. And hence it is that in his precept the Lord says: *Thou shalt not uncover her nakedness*[^p850-4].

Further, on account of the *statute of the Church*, marriage is impeded from the second degree onward. — And if the reason for this be sought, it must be said that this statute was made *for the widening of love*. For since man is prone to love the one near to him, and marriage generates nearness besides and affords fuel for mutual love: hence it is that the Church has established that love should be extended to those outside, namely that marriages be contracted outside one's own kindred; and thus not only in the second degree, but also onward, for the widening of charity and for the enlarging of decency. — And so it is plain that the bond of consanguinity has to impede marriage for diverse causes; and this must be conceded.

**To the objections:**

*Ad 1.* To that, then, which is objected concerning Eve and Adam, that they were bone and flesh, it must be said that, although Eve and Adam were bone and flesh, nevertheless it was not then as it now is: for now the way of propagation and commingling is one and the same, but Eve did not come forth from Adam by way of generation, but in a supernatural manner, not by intercourse, but rather from his side; which manner of production was most fitting for wedlock, both on account of the figure, and also that the equality of the marriage bond might be signified, since [she was] from the side and adhering to it[^p850-5]. Whence, because others do not belong to one another *in the same manner now*, therefore that manner cannot and ought not to be drawn into a precedent.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that every animal loves its like, it must be said that this is understood of likeness according to *species*; or if it be understood of likeness according to *nearness of flesh*, it still holds true that it loves. But there is one mode of affection by which a *wife* is to be loved, and another by which a *sister* is to be loved; and therefore the conjunction of natural affection is repugnant to the marital union: therefore[^p850-6], if there be a union through the bond of affection, it does not follow that there ought to be a union through marriage.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that nature affords firmness to the bond of the will, it must be said that this is true where[^p850-7] voluntary affection is directed to that to which nature inclines; and since nature well ordered does not incline to intercourse with a sister, whereas marital affection inclines to knowing a wife: hence it is that natural affection does not afford the will a support, but rather an impediment.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that it is not repugnant to any good of marriage, it must be said that this can be resolved *by way of destruction*[^p850-8], since Gregory says that «he has learned by experience that from such a union offspring cannot thrive». — Yet it can also be said otherwise, that it impedes a greater good, which is the bond of affinity, which, being contracted thereby, is the occasion of mutual love.

Which is plain: if someone should take the daughter of his own father and thereby beget offspring, the same man is both father-in-law and father, and the same woman is both mother-in-law and mother, and the same man is both son and son-in-law, the same woman both daughter-in-law and daughter, and the same man both husband and brother, and the same woman both wife and sister: thus, with respect to the *bond*[^p851-1] which could have existed among eight persons, [it exists] only among four; and likewise with respect to offspring. In order that these bindings might be spread abroad, and that charity might be mutually preserved through the bond of marriage, the Church established that marriage be extended to remote persons — not because marriage would be impeded among those near of kin, but because a greater good would be lost. And thus the whole is plain[^p851-2].

---

la: Vers. 23. — Inferius respicitur Gen. 2, 21. seq.: Tulit unam de costis eius etc.

en: Verse 23. — Below, reference is made to Gen. 2, 21 f.: *He took one of his ribs* etc.

la: Vers. 19. — Seq. locus est ibid. 27, 10. — Inferius ante *matrimonium* cod. K (E I a secunda manu) omittit *ad*.

en: Verse 19. — The following passage is ibid. 27, 10. — Below, before *matrimonium*, cod. K (E I by a second hand) omits *ad*.

la: Vers. 24: Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem etc.

en: Verse 24: *Wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother* etc.

la: Vers. 5. seq. Vulgata habet *Deus vester* tantum in v. 4.

en: Verse 5 f. The Vulgate has *your God* only in v. 4.

la: Hic c. 4. In fine pro *succedere* ex cod. A cum textu originali substituimus *succrescere*, quod etiam infra in solut. ad 4. praeter cod. A exhibent codd. E L V W.

en: Here c. 4. At the end, in place of *succedere*, we have substituted *succrescere* from cod. A together with the original text; the same is also exhibited below, in the solution to the fourth objection, besides cod. A, by codd. E L V W.

la: Dist. 31. a. 1. q. 1. — Inferius pro *quicumque* codd. vel *qui* vel *cum*. Subinde pro *cum consanguinitas* cod. U *cum cognoscere consanguineam*, et post *honestatem* edd. addunt *matrimonii: ergo*.

en: Dist. 31, a. 1, q. 1. — Below, in place of *quicumque*, the codices have either *qui* or *cum*. Thereupon, in place of *cum consanguinitas*, cod. U has *cum cognoscere consanguineam*, and after *honestatem* the editions add *matrimonii: ergo*.

la: In edd. additur *sui gradu*.

en: In the editions *sui gradu* is added.

la: Codd. F G I L V aa subiungunt *tum*, ex quibus codd. F G inferius pro *vel etiam* substituunt *tum etiam*.

en: Codd. F G I L V aa subjoin *tum*, of which codd. F G below substitute *tum etiam* for *vel etiam*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 37. a. 2. q. 2, et III. Sent. d. 29. q. 4. — Inferius pro *vinculum, quod* codd. S T *intellectum, qui*.

en: Cf. above, d. 37, a. 2, q. 2, and III *Sent.* d. 29, q. 4. — Below, in place of *vinculum, quod*, codd. S T have *intellectum, qui*.

la: Ut dicitur Lev. 18, 7. seqq. — Superius pro *qui enim* multi codd. *quia enim*, inter quos codd. F I immediate post pro *cognoscit* substituunt *cognoscens*.

en: As is said in Lev. 18, 7 ff. — Above, in place of *qui enim*, many codices have *quia enim*, among which codd. F I, immediately after, substitute *cognoscens* for *cognoscit*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 1. — De ultima propos. solut. vide supra pag. 825, nota 3. *Modo* stat pro *nunc*.

en: Cf. II *Sent.* d. 18, a. 1, q. 1. — On the last proposition of the solution see above, p. 825, note 3. *Modo* stands for *nunc*.

la: Pro *ergo*, quod codd. communiter omittunt, cod. K (I a secunda manu) *unde*.

en: In place of *ergo*, which the codices commonly omit, cod. K (I by a second hand) has *unde*.

la: Non pauci codd. *nisi*, quorum incongruam lectionem corrigit cod. K (I a secunda manu) legens: *quod verum non est, nisi*.

en: Not a few codices have *nisi*, whose incongruous reading cod. K (I by a second hand) corrects, reading: *quod verum non est, nisi*.

la: Sive per negationem; cfr. tom. I. pag. 87, nota 4. — Inferius pro *quae, exinde* cod. U *quod inde contractum est, quia exinde*, Vat. *quia exinde*. Post *contracta est* codd. F G addunt *et*, in cod. I secunda manus *occasione* substituit pro *occasio*.

en: Or by way of negation; cf. tom. I, p. 87, note 4. — Below, in place of *quae, exinde*, cod. U has *quod inde contractum est, quia exinde*, the Vatican edition *quia exinde*. After *contracta est* codd. F G add *et*; in cod. I a second hand substituted *occasione* for *occasio*.

la: Vat. *affinitatis*. Mox pro *poterat* non pauci codd. *poterant*. — Post *ita* videtur supplendum *est*.

en: The Vatican edition has *affinitatis*. Presently, in place of *poterat*, not a few codices have *poterant*. — After *ita*, *est* seems to need supplying.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{849,850,851}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; p.850 regenerated with a wider left split, `colcrop.py vol4 850 2120`, because the default split truncated the left column). The IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L90578–L90753) was used as the base for clean running prose and for footnote-marker spacing only; the Respondeo, the solutions, and every page footer were cascade-fragmented in the OCR and were re-set from the bands (Vol II Override).

**Page span — estimate CONFIRMED, no correction needed.** Running heads verified eyes-on: p.849 `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II.`; p.850 folio `850` / `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; p.851 `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III. 851`. Offset pdf = printed + 20 holds. `printed_pages` / `pdf_pages` unchanged.

**Page-split map (apparatus, 16 entries).**
- **p.849 — 6 entries** (`p849-1` … `p849-6`): all six anchor in this quaestio's body (Gen. 2, Eccli. 13, Gen. 2, Lev. 18, *in littera*, *supra*). The printed footer block on p.849 begins its numbering at the start of q2's objections, so **q1 and the scholion claim NONE of p.849's numbered footers** — nothing is owed to `d40-a1-q1` here.
- **p.850 — 8 entries** (`p850-1` … `p850-8`): 1–5 in the left-column footer, 6–8 in the right; all anchor in this quaestio's Respondeo and solutions. p.850 is wholly q2's — no sharing.
- **p.851 — 2 entries claimed** (`p851-1`, `p851-2`): `p851-1` anchors at *respectu necessitatis* and `p851-2` at *Et sic patet totum*, both in q2's tail (top of the left column and top of the right column). **Footers `3`–`10` on p.851 are handed off to `d40-a1-q3`** (*Usque ad quem gradum se extendat impedimentum consanguinitatis*, raw L90754+), which opens further down p.851's left column: `3` = *Ilic c. 1.*; `4` = *Libr. IV. tit. 14. c. 8, estque Innocent. III. in Concilio generali Lateran…*; `5` = Luc. 9; `6` = Matth. 24; `7` = Codd. L Y…; `8` = Vers. 6 seq.; `9` = Cfr. supra…; `10` = Vide qua… — q3 must claim all eight.

**Hand-offs received.** None. p.849's footer sequence starts inside this chunk.

**Page breaks.** `<!-- page 850 -->` is placed at the paragraph boundary before the *Conclusio*; in the print, p.850 actually opens mid-sentence inside the fourth *contra* (*…turpitudinem propin- | qui: si ergo…*), and the whole of that objection is kept together on p.849's side of the marker. `<!-- page 851 -->` is placed at the sentence boundary before *Quod patet*; in the print, p.851 opens mid-sentence in the solution to the fourth objection (*…est occasio | mutuae dilectionis*).

**Scholion.** None rendered here, by design: the distinction has a single SCHOLION block (printed in the q1 area, raw L90557, OCR `SCHOLIOK`) whose §I covers q1+q2 and §II covers q3. It is rendered in full by `d40-a1-q1`. `has_scholion: false`. This is exactly what `p851-2` (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) points the reader to.

**`[?]` flags.** None left inline. Two readings were resolved from the 450 dpi band and both were re-checked at 600 dpi in the d.31–d.40 decade polish-blocker (2026-07-13):
- p849-5, codex siglum: the djvu OCR renders it `.'V` / `/V` (i.e. *N*) in both occurrences; the 450 dpi band read **A** in both.
  **RESOLVED (600dpi p.849):** `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-849-r600-0869.png`, right-column footer band (crop x 2400–4959, y 0.72h+520…+940). Both occurrences read **A** unambiguously — *«ex cod. A cum textu originali substituimus succrescere … praeter cod. A exhibent codd. E L V W»*. Rendering stands; no edit needed.
- p849-4, verse number: the band glyph was called ambiguous between `3` and `5`; it was rendered **3** on the (mistaken) reasoning that the note's remark *Vulgata habet Deus vester tantum in v. 4* requires a start before v. 4.
  **RESOLVED (600dpi p.849) — CORRECTION APPLIED:** `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-849-r600-0869.png`, left-column footer band (crop x 180–1100, y 0.72h+1150…+1260). Quaracchi prints **«⁴ Vers. 5. seq.»** — the glyph has the flat top bar + open lower bowl of a `5`, plainly distinct from the double-bowl `3` in the neighbouring `Vers. 23.` / `Gen. 2, 21.`. The rendering has been corrected **3 → 5** in both `**La.**` and `**En.**` of `[^p849-4]`. The reasoning that forced `3` was inverted: Bonaventure cites Lev. 18, 5 ff. (the *«Omnis homo ad proximam sanguinis sui non accedet»* of v. 6), and Quaracchi's remark is precisely a *correction* — the *Deus vester* of the quotation is not found in vv. 5 ff. but only at v. 4. Marker count unchanged (apparatus-body text only).

**Marginalia trimmed.** The printed side-glosses (*Fundamenta*, *Conclusio generalis*, *Conclusio 2/3/4*, *Ratio*, *Sol. oppos.*, *Nota*, *Alia*) are editorial marginalia and are not rendered in the body, per the corpus convention.

**Unmapped sections.** None found. The raw range L90578–L90753 maps cleanly onto QUAESTIO II from its header to *Et sic patet totum*; QUAESTIO III begins immediately after, at L90754, and has its own chunk.