title: Dist. 33, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum virginitas sit virtus
Whether virginity is a virtue

source_text:
<!-- page 753 -->

### Articulus II. *De continentia virginali.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de continentia virginali. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de ipsa virginitate quantum ad genus suum. Secundo, de comparatione continentiae virginalis ad matrimonium sive coniugium. Tertio, de virginitate per comparationem ad praemium.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum virginitas sit virtus.*

Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum virginitas sit virtus. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per definitionem virtutis: quia « virtus est bona qualitas mentis[^p753-1] » etc.; et per definitionem Philosophi illud idem.

2. Item, hoc ostenditur per definitionem virginitatis, quam ponit Augustinus[^p753-2] dicens: « Virginitas est in carne corruptibili incorruptionis perpetuae meditatio »: sed meditari incorruptionem perpetuam hoc est maxime arduum et difficile, et tale est virtutis genus: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc iterum videtur *ratione*: quia abstinere a coitu illicito est virtutis; sed difficilius est ab omni coitu abstinere quam ab illicito: ergo si illud est virtutis, multo fortius istud.

4. Item, in virginitate meremur non tantum *auream*, sed etiam *aureolam*[^p753-3]; sed omne meritum consistit mediante *virtute*, vel *dono*, vel *beatitudine*: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Omnis virtus, quae non est in finem, in medietate consistit[^p753-4]; sed virginitas in extremo, quia omnino abstinet: ergo etc.

2. Item, actus omnis virtutis est in praecepto, quia est necessarius[^p753-5] ad salutem; sed actus virginitatis non est in praecepto: ergo virginitas non est virtus.

3. Item, nulla virtute quis male utitur, ut patet; sed virginitate contingit male uti, ut patet de fatuis virginibus, Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^p753-6].

4. Item, omnes virtutes sunt connexae, unde qui habet unam habet omnes[^p753-7]; sed hoc non est de virginitate: ergo etc.

5. Item, nulla virtus expellitur vel amittitur nisi per vitium et peccatum; sed virginitas perditur sine peccato in his quae violenter corrumpuntur: ergo etc. *Si tu dicas* de his, quod non amittunt[^p753-8]; *obiicitur* de his quae transeunt de continentia virginali ad coniugalem, quae virginitatem perdunt sine culpa.

6. Item, omnis virtus perdita recuperatur per poenitentiam, quia et gratia, in qua est omnis virtus; sed virginitas perdita nunquam recuperatur[^p753-9]: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Virginitas, secundum illud quod nominat habitum, est virtus et consistit in medio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod continentia virginalis sive virginitas tria dicit: primum est *abstinentia ab omni coitu illicito*; secundum est *abstinentia ab omni coitu licito*; tertium est *integritas mentis et carnis*. Quantum ad primum dicit *habitum*, quantum ad secundum dicit *virtutis statum*, quantum ad tertium dicit *decorem*; unde virginitas est habitus continentiae *perfectus* et *decorus*. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes probantes, virginitatem virtutem esse, secundum id quod nominat habitum.

*Ad 2–6.* Quae vero obiiciuntur in contrarium, omnia procedunt ratione *status*, vel *decoris*, quantum ad quem *statum* ad extremum tendit. — Ratione etiam status non est in praecepto, ratione cuius status potest perdi per descensum ad inferiorem statum, ratione cuius status non est aliis connexa. — Ratione vero *decoris* contingit, quod perdatur, homine invito; contingit etiam superbe et male uti;
<!-- page 754 -->
contingit etiam, ut amissa non possit recuperari. — Quantum vero ad illud quod est ibi *habitus substrati*, omnes conditiones virtutum in ea reperiuntur.

*Ad 1.* Et sic patent omnia praeter primum, quod obiicit de medietate, quia ita similiter posset opponi de continentia viduali. — Et propterea dicendum, quod quando dicitur, quod virtus consistit in medietate, hoc non est intelligendum[^p754-1] respectu *obiecti* — quia sic nullus esset castus, nisi cognosceret medietatem omnium mulierum de mundo, quia illud est medium inter aliquam et nullam — sed istud intelligitur, ut sic medium teneatur, et virtus sit medium circa delectationes et tristitias[^p754-2]. Nam qui omnino nihil sentit de passionibus carnis, hic *insensibilis* iudicatur, sed hoc habet per naturam; qui vero omnino eis consentit, hic *luxuriosus* est; qui vero excitatur, sed tamen non consentit, talis *virtuosus* est; et hoc omnino bene est in virginibus, quia aliquo modo caro excitat, quamvis non ita, sicut in corruptis. Hoc autem intelligitur, loquendo secundum virtutes *politicas*[^p754-3] et naturam *lapsam*; nam per superabundantem gratiam potest esse, quod non sentiat, et tamen virtutem habeat, ut patet in Christo et eius Matre dulcissima.

english:
### Article II. *On virginal continence.*

Consequently, with respect to the second article, inquiry is made concerning virginal continence. And concerning this, three questions are asked. First, it is asked concerning virginity itself with respect to its genus. Second, concerning the comparison of virginal continence to marriage or wedlock. Third, concerning virginity by comparison to its reward.

### Question I. *Whether virginity is a virtue.*

With respect to the first, then, it is asked whether virginity is a virtue. And that it is, seems [to be shown]:

1. By the definition of virtue: for « virtue is a good quality of the mind[^p753-1] » etc.; and by the definition of the Philosopher, the same thing.

2. Likewise, this is shown by the definition of virginity, which Augustine[^p753-2] gives, saying: « Virginity is, in corruptible flesh, the meditation of perpetual incorruption »: but to meditate on perpetual incorruption is a thing most arduous and difficult, and such is the class of virtue: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, this again seems [to hold] by *reason*: for to abstain from illicit intercourse is [a matter] of virtue; but it is more difficult to abstain from all intercourse than from the illicit: therefore, if that is [a matter] of virtue, much more strongly is this.

4. Likewise, in virginity we merit not only the *aurea*, but also the *aureola*[^p753-3]; but all merit consists by means of a *virtue*, or a *gift*, or a *beatitude*: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Every virtue which is not toward an end consists in a mean[^p753-4]; but virginity [consists] in an extreme, since it abstains altogether: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the act of every virtue is under precept, since it is necessary[^p753-5] for salvation; but the act of virginity is not under precept: therefore virginity is not a virtue.

3. Likewise, no one uses a virtue badly, as is evident; but it happens that virginity is used badly, as is evident from the foolish virgins, Matthew 25[^p753-6].

4. Likewise, all the virtues are connected, whence he who has one has all[^p753-7]; but this is not the case with virginity: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, no virtue is expelled or lost except through vice and sin; but virginity is lost without sin in those things which are violently corrupted: therefore, etc. *If you should say* concerning these, that they do not lose [it][^p753-8]; *the objection is raised* concerning those who pass over from virginal continence to conjugal [continence], who lose their virginity without fault.

6. Likewise, every lost virtue is recovered through penance, since [so is] grace also, in which is every virtue; but virginity once lost is never recovered[^p753-9]: therefore, etc.

> **Conclusion.** Virginity, according to that which it names a habit, is a virtue and consists in a mean.

**I respond:** It must be said that virginal continence, or virginity, says three things: the first is *abstinence from all illicit intercourse*; the second is *abstinence from all licit intercourse*; the third is *integrity of mind and flesh*. With respect to the first it says a *habit*, with respect to the second it says the *state of virtue*, with respect to the third it says *comeliness*; whence virginity is a habit of continence, *perfect* and *comely*. — Therefore the reasons proving that virginity is a virtue, according to that which it names a habit, are to be granted.

*To 2–6.* But the things which are objected to the contrary all proceed by reason of the *state* or of the *comeliness*, with respect to which state it tends toward an extreme. — Also, by reason of the state it is not under precept; by reason of which state it can be lost through descent to a lower state; by reason of which the state is not connected with the others. — But by reason of the *comeliness* it happens that it is lost with the person unwilling; it happens also that one uses it proudly and badly;
<!-- page 754 -->
it happens also that, once lost, it cannot be recovered. — But with respect to that which is there the *underlying habit*, all the conditions of the virtues are found in it.

*To 1.* And thus all [the points] are clear except the first, which objects concerning the mean, since likewise it could be objected concerning widowed continence. — And therefore it must be said that when it is said that virtue consists in a mean, this is not to be understood[^p754-1] with respect to the *object* — for thus no one would be chaste unless he knew the mean of all the women in the world, since that is the mean between some [woman] and none — but this is understood in such a way that the mean be held, and virtue be a mean concerning pleasures and sorrows[^p754-2]. For he who feels nothing at all of the passions of the flesh is judged *insensible*, but this he has by nature; but he who altogether consents to them is *lustful*; but he who is aroused, yet nevertheless does not consent, such a one is *virtuous*; and this is altogether well [the case] in virgins, since in some way the flesh is aroused, though not as in the corrupt. But this is understood as speaking according to the *political* virtues[^p754-3] and *fallen* nature; for through superabundant grace it can be that one does not feel [it], and nevertheless has virtue, as is evident in Christ and in His most sweet Mother.

la: Vide supra pag. 319, nota 4. et pag. 326, nota 4. — De definitione, quam Aristot. (II. Ethic. c. 6.) exhibet, et quam codd. N aa post *illud idem* subiungunt *scilicet virtus est, quae habentem perficit*, cfr. supra pag. 113, nota 4.

en: See above p. 319, note 4, and p. 326, note 4. — On the definition which Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics II, c. 6) gives, and which codices N aa append after *illud idem* ("that same thing"), namely *scilicet virtus est, quae habentem perficit* ("that is, virtue is that which perfects the one having it"), cf. above p. 113, note 4.

la: De Sancta Virginitate, c. 13. n. 12. — In fine arg. pro *genus*, quod plures codd. omittunt, Vat. *obiectum*. Vide supra pag. 318, nota 5. verba Aristot.

en: [Augustine,] On Holy Virginity, c. 13, n. 12. — At the end of the argument, for *genus* ("class"), which many codices omit, the Vatican [edition reads] *obiectum* ("object"). See above p. 318, note 5, the words of Aristotle.

la: Cfr. infra q. 3.

en: Cf. below, q. 3.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 389, nota 3. et tom. II. pag. 671, nota 9. — Pro *medietate* edd. *medio*, quae etiam mox post *virginitas* supplent *consistit*, codd. F Z (E a secunda manu) *est*.

en: Cf. above p. 389, note 3, and vol. II p. 671, note 9. — For *medietate* ("mean") the editions [read] *medio*; and likewise soon after, following *virginitas*, they supply *consistit* ("consists"), [whereas] codices F Z (E by a second hand) [read] *est*.

la: Permulti codd. et ed. 1 *quia sunt necessariae* [virtutes].

en: Very many codices and the first edition [read] *quia sunt necessariae* ("because they [the virtues] are necessary").

la: Vers. 2. seqq. — In *maiori* respicitur definitio virtutis in 1. fundam. allata.

en: Verses 2 ff. — In the major [premise] the definition of virtue adduced in the first fundamentum is regarded.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. et 3.

en: Cf. III Sentences, d. 36, q. 1 and 3.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: See here the text of the Master [Lombard], c. 4.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 338, nota 3. — Pro *quia et* [supple *recuperatur*] edd. *quia ex*.

en: Cf. above p. 338, note 3. — For *quia et* [supply *recuperatur*] the editions [read] *quia ex*.

la: Cod. F addit *de medietate*.

en: Codex F adds *de medietate* ("concerning the mean").

la: Vide Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3. et 6.

en: See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics II, c. 3 and 6.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 901, nota 5. — Pro *excitat* codd. I K (E a secunda manu) *excitatur*.

en: Cf. vol. II p. 901, note 5. — For *excitat* ("it arouses") codices I K (E by a second hand) [read] *excitatur* ("it is aroused"). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Definitio illa S. Augustini (2. fundam.) a S. Thom. (hic q. 3. a. 1; S. II. II. q. 152. a. 1.) speciali quaestione explicatur, ubi distinguit triplicem integritatem, scilicet corporalem tantum, corporalem simul et spiritualem, denique spiritualem tantum, quae ultima idem est cum *habitu* virginitatis secundum locutionem S. Bonaventurae. — Difficultas principalis huius 1. quaestionis consistit in eo, ut explicetur quomodo haec virtus consistat *in medio* secundum determinationem Aristotelis; de quo diffuse tractat S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. et in S. a. 3. et I. II. q. 64. a. 1. ad 3. De 1. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Scot., supra d. 31. q. unica n. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 4; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem Conc. Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 10.) damnavit errorem dicentium, « statum coniugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitatis, vel caelibatus, et non esse melius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut caelibatu quam iungi matrimonio ». De hac 2. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3; S. II. II. q. 152. a. 4. 5. — Petr. a Tar., de hac et seq. q. q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.

**III.** De praemio virginitatis (q. 3.), scilicet de *fructu centesimo* et de *aureola*, alii commentatores Lombardi hic vel tacent vel breviter illud in praecedente quaestione tangunt; plures de eo tractant infra d. 49. Rem tangit Scot. supra d. 1. q. 6. n. 6. Plura de aureolis generatim habent: S. Thom., infra d. 49. q. 5. a. 1-5; Suppl. q. 96. a. 1-12 (de aureola virginitatis etiam hic q. 3. a. 3. ad 3.). — Richard. a Med., infra d. 49. a. 5. q. 1-7. — Dionys. Carth., infra d. 49. q. 8.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That definition of St. Augustine (2nd fundamentum) is explained by St. Thomas (here q. 3, a. 1; Summa II-II q. 152, a. 1) in a special question, where he distinguishes a threefold integrity, namely bodily only, bodily and spiritual together, and finally spiritual only — which last is the same as the *habit* of virginity according to St. Bonaventure's manner of speaking. — The principal difficulty of this first question consists in this, that it be explained how this virtue consists *in a mean* according to Aristotle's determination; on which St. Thomas treats at length in the places cited, a. 2, and in the [Summa] a. 3, and I-II q. 64, a. 1, ad 3. On the first question, besides St. Thomas: Scotus, above d. 31, q. unica, n. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4, q. 1. — On this and the two following questions: Durandus, here q. 4; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** As to the second question, the Council of Trent (Session XXIV, can. 10) condemned the error of those saying « that the conjugal state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in marriage ». On this second question: St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 3; Summa II-II q. 152, a. 4, 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, on this and the following question, q. 4, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4, q. 2.

**III.** On the reward of virginity (q. 3), namely on the *hundredfold fruit* and on the *aureola*, the other commentators on Lombard here either are silent or touch on it briefly in the preceding question; many treat of it below, d. 49. Scotus touches on the matter above, d. 1, q. 6, n. 6. On the aureolae in general many have [treatments]: St. Thomas, below d. 49, q. 5, a. 1–5; Supplement q. 96, a. 1–12 (on the aureola of virginity also here q. 3, a. 3, ad 3). — Richard of Middleton, below d. 49, a. 5, q. 1–7. — Dionysius the Carthusian, below d. 49, q. 8.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi Vol. IV PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{753,754}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; right columns re-cropped at split x=1780 to capture the full inner margin — the default split truncated the right column), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 81029–81161) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutio / footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads verified: p753 "DIST. XXXIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I." (page number OCR-mangled 753→783, corrected from the printed "753" in the R band and the +20 offset); p754 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." This q1 folds in the ARTICULUS II opener ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum…", the *tria quaeruntur* listing) per the locked chunking convention.
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. Articulus II carries a single SCHOLION (printed two-column at the foot of p754, read as one continuous flow L→R). It is rendered in full here with **three numbered sections**: **§I** keyed to q1 (Augustine's definition / the *in medio* difficulty + q1 doctor-list), **§II** keyed to q2 (Trent Sess. XXIV can. 10 + q2 doctor-list), **§III** keyed to q3 (the aureola/hundredfold-fruit reward + q3 doctor-list). Siblings a2-q2 and a2-q3 render **no** scholion (cross-reference only). Scholion text is self-contained; citations are inline, no `[^N]` markers.
- **Apparatus / page-footer split.** 12 entries. **Page 753: notes 1–9**, all anchored in this quaestio's body (obj. 1, 2, 4; *Contra* 1–6). Note 4 spans both footer columns (left col. ends "…tom. II. pag. 671, nota 9."; right col. continues "— Pro *medietate* edd. *medio*…"). **Page 754: notes 1–3 only** are claimed here (body markers at *hoc non est intelligendum*¹, *tristitias*², *politicas*³ — all within this q1's Respondeo tail). Page 754 footer notes **4–9 belong to a2-q2** (QUAESTIO II, *Utrum virginitas praeferatur continentiae coniugali*, which opens on p754 right column) and are **not** rendered here.
- **Footer hand-offs.** *Received:* none — page 753 opens with the ARTICULUS II heading, so a1-q3 (ending line 81028, on p752) holds no body or footers on p753; all nine p753 footers are this chunk's. *Forwarded:* page 754 footers 4–9 → a2-q2, whose body (arg. from *difficile et arduum*⁴, *indulgentia*⁵, *Matthaei decimo tertio*⁶, *non nubunt*⁷, *de Bono coniugali*⁸, *de Bono viduali*⁹) anchors them.
- **Marginal rubrics.** The printed side-notes *Tria in virginitate*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum* (p753 right) and *Notandum* (p754 left) are editorial marginalia, omitted from the body per corpus convention.
- **[?] flags.** None unresolved. The PDF bands resolved every OCR cascade-fragment. (Note p753-6 "Vers. 2. seqq. — In *maiori* respicitur definitio virtutis in 1. fundam. allata" is transcribed verbatim; the editors' terse cross-reference reads as printed and is rendered literally.)


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 754 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum virginitas praeferatur continentiae coniugali.*

Secundo quaeritur de comparatione continentiae virginalis ad matrimonium sive coniugium; et quod virginitas sit melior et perfectior, videtur:

1. Quia « virtus consistit circa difficile et arduum[^p754-4] »: ergo circa magis arduum maior virtus; sed magis arduum est omnino abstinere a coitu quam aliquando tantum: ergo maioris virtutis.

2. Item, opera perfectionis sunt in consilio, imperfectionis vero in indulgentia; sed virginitas est in consilio, matrimonium in indulgentia[^p754-5]: ergo etc.

3. Item, cui debetur fructus maior, illud est maioris virtutis; sed continentiae virginali debetur fructus centesimus, sicut dicitur Matthaei decimo tertio[^p754-6] in Glossa, coniugali trigesimus: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod similius est statui gloriae est perfectius; sed continentia virginalis est similior statui gloriae, quia ibi est incorruptio, ibi non nubunt[^p754-7], unde Hieronymus dicit, quod « Angelis est cognata virginitas »: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Augustinus *de Bono coniugali*[^p754-8]: « Non est impar meritum in Ioanne, qui nullas expertus est nuptias, et in Abraham, qui filios generavit ».

2. Item, Augustinus *de Bono viduali*[^p754-9]: « In continentia coniugali bene utitur homo malo, qui concupiscentiam restringit in connubio »; sed laboriosius est bene uti malo quam bene uti bono: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: si « optimum in aliquo genere melius est optimo alterius generis,
<!-- page 755 -->
ipsum simpliciter est melius altero[^p755-1] »; sed optima fecunditas melior est omni integritate: unde melius est in beata Virgine, quod est mater, quam quod virgo: ergo simpliciter fecunditas melior virginitate. Sed fecunditas est in coniugio: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod ad plura valet et magis facit ad perfectionem gloriae, illud est melius; sed continentia coniugalis non tantum prodest continentibus, sed etiam filiis generatis — facit etiam ad perfectionem numeri electorum — sed virginalis sibi soli prodest et perfectionem electorum non accelerat: ergo etc.

5. Item, terra sterilis est iuste maledicenda; sed virginitas facit ventrem sterilem: ergo merito est maledicenda: non ergo melior.

6. Item, si homo stetisset, non minus perfectas habuisset virtutes; sed tunc non esset virginitas, sed tantum continentia coniugalis: ergo continentia coniugalis est continentia perfectissima: ergo virginitas non superexcellit, immo exceditur.

### Conclusio

> Virginitas praefertur continentiae coniugali tum ratione decoris integritatis, tum ratione status secundum tempus gratiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum est[^p755-2], in virginitate est tria considerare, scilicet *habitum*, *statum* et *decorem integritatis*. Si loquamur quantum ad *habitum*; sic se habent ut excedentia et excessa, quia *ex maiori virtute* potest continere etiam coniugata quam virgo, et e converso. — Si autem loquamur quantum ad *decorem*; sic semper virginitas praefertur continentiae coniugali, quia ibi est corruptio foeda, hic autem est incorruptio sancta. — Si autem quantum ad *statum*, tunc est loqui dupliciter: aut secundum *idem tempus*, aut secundum *diversa*. Si secundum *idem*, dupliciter: aut secundum tempus *Legis* aut secundum tempus *gratiae*. Si secundum tempus *Legis*; status continentiae coniugalis omnino praefertur, et status virginitatis prohibetur, et sterilis maledicitur et in contumelia habetur[^p755-3]. Si secundum statum *gratiae*, ubi non requiritur fecunditas ventris, sed sanctitas et incorruptio et puritas mentis; virginitas praefertur continentiae coniugali. Si autem secundum *diversa* tempora loquamur, utpote si continentiae statum consideremus in tempore Legis et virginitatis in tempore gratiae, sicut unusquisque in suo optimo; sic status statui non praefertur nec *meritum* merito, dum tamen sit caritas aequalis. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus, quod caelibatus Ioannis non praefertur coniugio Abrahae[^p755-4]. — Rationes igitur probantes, quod continentia virginalis est dignior, procedunt ratione statuum relatorum ad tempus gratiae, vel ratione decoris virginitatis.

**Solutio oppositorum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de auctoritate Augustini, dicendum, quod loquitur secundum status diversos, scilicet Legis et gratiae.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod laboriosius est etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, ceteris paribus; sed licet activa[^p755-5] sit laboriosior, non tamen melior, quia alia purior.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod optima fecunditas est melior etc.; dicendum, quod hoc verum esset, si fecunditas illa esset per actum coniugalem, sed non fuit, ideo nihil ad coniugium ex hoc, immo magis ad commendationem virginitatis.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod valet ad plura est melius; dicendum, quod hoc est verum, si aeque intense valeat; sed aliquid intense valet ad unum, quod praevalet remisse valenti ad plura.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod terra sterilis est maledicenda; dicendum, quod verum est, si sterilis est a fructu, quem tempore illo debet producere; sed tempore gratiae non quaeritur fructus ventris, sed mentis, non corporalis, sed spiritualis.

*Ad 6.* Quod ultimo obiicitur loquitur de *habitu*, et hoc verum est, de *statu* autem non est verum; aliquem enim statum patientiae et temperantiae contingit habere nobiliorem et fortiorem post lapsum[^p755-6].

---

english:
<!-- page 754 -->

### Question II. *Whether virginity is preferred to conjugal continence.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the comparison of virginal continence to matrimony or conjugal union; and that virginity is better and more perfect appears thus:

1. Because "virtue consists in what is difficult and arduous"[^p754-4]: therefore greater virtue is about what is more arduous; but it is more arduous to abstain from intercourse altogether than only at times: therefore [it is] of greater virtue.

2. Likewise, the works of perfection are of counsel, but [the works] of imperfection are of concession; but virginity is of counsel, matrimony of concession[^p754-5]: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, that to which a greater fruit is owed is of greater virtue; but to virginal continence is owed the hundredfold fruit, as is said on Matthew thirteen[^p754-6] in the Gloss, [and] to the conjugal the thirtyfold: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, that which is more like the state of glory is more perfect; but virginal continence is more like the state of glory, because there is incorruption there, [and] there "they do not marry"[^p754-7], whence Jerome says that "virginity is akin to the angels": therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*[^p754-8]: "The merit is not unequal in John, who experienced no nuptials, and in Abraham, who begot children."

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Good of Widowhood*[^p754-9]: "In conjugal continence a man makes good use of an evil, who restrains concupiscence within wedlock"; but it is more laborious to make good use of an evil than to make good use of a good: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, it appears *by reason*: if "the best in some genus is better than the best of another genus,
<!-- page 755 -->
this is absolutely better than the other"[^p755-1]; but the best fecundity is better than all integrity: whence it is better in the Blessed Virgin that she is a mother than that she is a virgin: therefore fecundity is absolutely better than virginity. But fecundity is in marriage: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, that which avails for more things and does more toward the perfection of glory is better; but conjugal continence profits not only the continent, but also the children begotten — it does something even toward the perfection of the number of the elect — whereas the virginal profits itself alone and does not hasten the perfection of the elect: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, barren land is justly to be cursed; but virginity makes the womb barren: therefore it is deservedly to be cursed: therefore not better.

6. Likewise, if man had stood [unfallen], he would have had no less perfect virtues; but then there would not be virginity, but only conjugal continence: therefore conjugal continence is the most perfect continence: therefore virginity does not surpass [it], but rather is exceeded.

### Conclusion

> Virginity is preferred to conjugal continence both by reason of the beauty of integrity and by reason of the state according to the time of grace.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched upon[^p755-2], in virginity there are three things to consider, namely *the habit*, *the state*, and *the beauty of integrity*. If we speak as regards *the habit*, then they stand as exceeding and exceeded, because *out of greater virtue* even a married woman can be continent than a virgin, and conversely. — But if we speak as regards *beauty*, then virginity is always preferred to conjugal continence, because in the one there is foul corruption, but in the other holy incorruption. — But if [we speak] as regards *the state*, then it must be spoken of in two ways: either according to *the same time*, or according to *diverse [times]*. If according to *the same*, in two ways: either according to the time of *the Law* or according to the time of *grace*. If according to the time of *the Law*, the state of conjugal continence is altogether preferred, and the state of virginity is prohibited, and the barren woman is cursed and held in reproach[^p755-3]. If according to the state of *grace*, where fecundity of the womb is not required, but holiness and incorruption and purity of mind, virginity is preferred to conjugal continence. But if we speak according to *diverse* times, as for instance if we consider the state of continence in the time of the Law and virginity in the time of grace, as each is at its own best, then state is not preferred to state, nor *merit* to merit, provided that charity be equal. And this is what Augustine says, that the celibacy of John is not preferred to the marriage of Abraham[^p755-4]. — The arguments, therefore, proving that virginal continence is more worthy proceed by reason of the states referred to the time of grace, or by reason of the beauty of virginity.

**Solution of the opposed arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected on the contrary from the authority of Augustine, it must be said that he speaks according to the diverse states, namely of the Law and of grace.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that it is more laborious, etc.: it must be said that it is true, other things being equal; but although the active [life][^p755-5] is more laborious, it is nevertheless not better, because the other is purer.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that the best fecundity is better, etc.: it must be said that this would be true if that fecundity were through a conjugal act, but it was not; therefore [it counts] nothing toward marriage from this, but rather more toward the commendation of virginity.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that what avails for more things is better: it must be said that this is true if it avails equally intensely; but something availing intensely for one thing prevails over what avails slackly for many.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that barren land is to be cursed: it must be said that it is true if it is barren of the fruit which at that time it ought to produce; but in the time of grace the fruit of the womb is not sought, but of the mind, not the bodily but the spiritual.

*To 6.* That which is objected last speaks of *the habit*, and this is true; but of *the state* it is not true; for it happens that one has some state of patience and temperance that is nobler and stronger after the fall[^p755-6].

---

la: Secundum Aristot.; cfr. supra 318, nota 5.

en: According to Aristotle; cf. above [p.] 318, note 5.

la: Vide I. Cor. 7, 6. seqq.

en: See 1 Corinthians 7:6ff.

la: Vers. 23. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum estque secundum Hieron. in hunc loc.: Centesimum fructum virginibus, sexagesimum viduis et continentibus, tricesimum casto matrimonio deputantes.

en: Verse 23. — The Gloss is the *Ordinary [Gloss]* in Strabo and Lyra, and is, according to Jerome on this passage: "assigning the hundredfold fruit to virgins, the sixtyfold to widows and the continent, the thirtyfold to chaste matrimony."

la: Matth. 22, 30: In resurrectione enim neque nubent, neque nubentur etc. — Verba Hieron. habentur in Epist. 9. ad Paulam et Eustoch., de assumtione B. Mariae (inter opera Hieron.), c. 5.

en: Matthew 22:30: "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage," etc. — The words of Jerome are found in Letter 9, to Paula and Eustochium, On the Assumption of the Blessed Mary (among the works of Jerome), c. 5.

la: Cap. 21. n. 26. Post *meritum* Vat. cum textu originali et Magistro, hic in lit. c. 2, addit *continentiae*.

en: Chapter 21, n. 26. After *meritum* the Vatican edition, together with the original text and the Master, here in the text at c. 2, adds *continentiae*.

la: Potius in libr. de Continentia, c. 12. n. 27: Id autem faciens continentia, id est moderans et quodam modo limitans in coniugibus carnis concupiscentiam... bene utitur hominis malo, quem facit et vult perficere bonum etc.

en: Rather in the book On Continence, c. 12, n. 27: "But continence, doing this — that is, moderating and in a certain way limiting the concupiscence of the flesh in spouses... — makes good use of man's evil, which it makes and wills to perfect into a good," etc.

la: Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. — Codd. non consentiunt inter se, hanc Aristot. sententiam referentes; codd. FK (I a secunda manu) pro *in aliquo* et *alterius generis* ac *altero* substituunt *in uno* et *in alio genere* ac *illo*, sicut etiam supra d. 20. p. 1. q. 2. in corp. exhibetur (plures alii codd. cum hac lectione conveniunt, excepto quod pro *in uno* substituunt *in illo*). Aristot. legit: Et si optimum optimo melius, et simpliciter hoc illo melius (cfr. tamen verba, quae his praecedunt).

en: Aristotle, Topics III, c. 2. — The codices do not agree among themselves in reporting this maxim of Aristotle; codices F, K (I by a second hand) substitute for *in aliquo*, *alterius generis*, and *altero* the readings *in uno*, *in alio genere*, and *illo*, as is also shown above at d. 20, p. 1, q. 2, in the body (several other codices agree with this reading, except that for *in uno* they substitute *in illo*). Aristotle reads: "And if the best is better than the best, then absolutely this is better than that" (cf. however the words that precede these).

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Vide infra dub. 1. — Verbo *prohibetur* codd. R S T bb praemittunt *omnino*. Post *praefertur* cod. X addit *statui virginitatis*, substituto subinde *nam ibi* pro *et*.

en: See below, dubium 1. — Before the word *prohibetur* codices R, S, T, bb prefix *omnino*. After *praefertur* codex X adds *statui virginitatis*, thereupon substituting *nam ibi* for *et*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, et infra dub. 4. — Superius post *unusquisque* cod. L supplet *est*, cod. aa *cum sit*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, and below dubium 4. — Above, after *unusquisque*, codex L supplies *est*, codex aa *cum sit*.

la: Supple: *vita*. Cfr. Luc. 10, 39. seqq.

en: Supply: *vita* [life]. Cf. Luke 10:39ff.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 29. a. 3. q. 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. II Sentences, d. 29, a. 3, q. 2. — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p754-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p755-{L,R}-*`; L column regenerated wide at `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2600 3 1.4`, R at split 1880) per the VOL II OVERRIDE — the two-column IA djvu OCR (raw L81162–81275) cascade-shatters the Respondeo, Solutio, and every footer, so the PDF bands are authoritative. Raw OCR used only to cross-check clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing.

**Opener alignment (verified).** Raw opener "Secundo quaeritur de comparatione continentiae virginalis…" aligns correctly with Quaestio II. No auto-chunker q-swap. The italic title on p.754 reads *Utrum virginitas praeferatur continentiae coniugali* (confirmed against the band; running head on p.755 is DIST. XXXIII. ART. II. QUAEST. III. because Quaestio III opens at the foot of p.755).

**Structure.** Four *videtur* (pro) arguments and six *Contra* (objection) arguments; the Respondeo answers via habitus/decor/status, and the *Solutio oppositorum* replies *Ad 1–6* to the six objections. Contra args 1–3 sit on p.754, args 4–6 on p.755. Marginal editorial labels (*Fundamenta*, *Notandum*, *Conclusio 4./5.*, *Solutio oppositorum*, and the running body numerals 1/2/3) are Quaracchi margin glosses; only the meaningful *Conclusio* heading and *Solutio oppositorum* label are carried into the body.

**Footer hand-offs (shared pages).**
- **p.754** is shared with a2-q1 (its Respondeo + Scholion fill the upper columns). Page 754's footer series is 1–9; footers **1–3** anchor in a2-q1's material (¹ *intelligendum* in the solutio; ², ³ in the a2-q1 Aristotelian-mean discussion) and are **NOT claimed here** — they belong to a2-q1 (still skeleton, so it must pick them up on promotion). This chunk claims **4–9** (all anchored in this q's body: arg1 *arduum*⁴, arg2 *indulgentia*⁵, arg3 *decimo tertio*⁶, arg4 *nubunt*⁷, contra1 *coniugali*⁸, contra2 *viduali*⁹).
- **p.755** is shared with a2-q3 (Quaestio III opens at the foot). Page 755's footer series is 1–7; this chunk claims **1–6** (contra3 *altero*¹, Respondeo *tactum est*², solutio *habetur*³/*Abrahae*⁴/*activa*⁵/*post lapsum*⁶). Footer **7** ("Vers. 25: Et ipsi labio…") anchors in a2-q3's fundamentum (*Exodi vigesimo quinto*⁷) and is **left for a2-q3**.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false` — the Art. II scholion is a single block covering all three Art. II questions and lives in a2-q1. The "SCHOLION" text visible at the top of p.754 (Definitio S. Augustini… / Conc. Trident.) belongs to a2-q1 and is intentionally not rendered here.

**Apparatus count:** 12 entries (p.754: 6 — labels p754-4…p754-9; p.755: 6 — labels p755-1…p755-6). Per-page prefixes used because the raw restart would collide on 4/5/6.

**[?] flags:** none. The one editorial oddity — arg 1's quotation *virtus consistit circa difficile et arduum* anchors footer ⁴ ("Secundum Aristot.") rather than the fuller Nic. Eth. citation at footer ² (which a2-q1 owns) — was verified by a tight zoom on the superscript (clearly "4"), so it is recorded as resolved, not flagged.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 755 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum virginitatis praemium sit aureola.*

Tertio quaeritur de virginitate per comparationem ad praemium; et dicitur communiter, quod praemium virginitatis est aureola, et hoc probatur:

<!-- page 756 -->

1. Per *figuram*, Exodi vigesimo quinto[^p755-7] praeceptum est, fieri supra magnam coronam aliam parvam coronulam; et secundum hanc figuram duplex est praemium, ut dicunt magistri: *substantiale*, et hoc dicitur *aurea* ad similitudinem magnae coronae; et *accidentale*, et hoc dicitur *aureola* ad similitudinem parvae. Si ergo coronari debet illa corona anima decora, et maxime Christi sponsa; et talis est virgo: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ostenditur per Scripturam, Apocalypsis duodecimo[^p756-1]: *Mulier amicta sole, et in capite eius corona stellarum duodecim.* Si hoc de beata Virgine recte exponitur, sicut Christus vincentibus communicat thronum, sic beata Virgo perfecte continentibus coronam; et sic etc.

3. Item, corona debetur certanti; sed maxima pugna est in carne: ergo qui ipsam perfecte vincit et notabiliter, debet notabiliter coronari. Sed perfecte vincunt virgines: ergo sunt notabiliter coronandi[^p756-2], ergo aliquam coronam habebunt, quam non coniugati.

**Sed contra:**
1. Omne meritum caritatis est, ergo et praemium: ergo si caritas omnes virtutes movet et omnibus communicat meritum, ergo et praemium: ergo nullum praemium reddendum est virginitati magis quam alii virtuti. *Si dicas*, quod verum est de praemio *substantiali*; *contra*: nullum praemium debetur ei qui caret caritate, nec *substantiale* nec *accidentale*: ergo omne praemium debetur caritati.

2. Item, si virginitati debetur aliquod praemium superadditum, aut hoc est ratione *difficultatis*, aut ratione *perfectionis*. Si *difficultatis*; sed difficilius est suam voluntatem omnino abnegare et pro Christo mendicare quam continentiam servare: ergo multo fortius tali actui debetur aureola. Si ratione *perfectionis*; sed multo perfectius est diligere inimicos: ergo etc.

3. Item, si virginitati debetur praemium speciale, aut ergo ratione incorruptionis *carnis*, aut *mentis*. Si *carnis*; ergo corrupta violenter non haberet aureolam, cuius contrarium habetur per verbum Luciae[^p756-3]: « Si invitam me violaveris, castitas mihi duplicabitur ad coronam ». Si secundum incorruptionem *mentis*; aut quia *nunquam corrupta*, aut quia *reparata*. Si quia *nunquam corrupta*; tunc ergo paucissimis debetur aureola, et etiam non beato Ioanni, quia voluit nubere, sicut dicitur[^p756-4], et tamen eius virginitas multum commendatur. Si quia *reparata*; ergo quantumcumque fuit luxuriatus quis, dummodo perfecte poeniteat, habebit aureolam. Si secundum *utramque*; redit adhuc maius inconveniens, quia nullis aut paucis aureola debetur.

Item, cum virginitati debeatur fructus centesimus[^p756-5] — et constat, quod hoc non est praemium substantiale, sed accidentale — videtur ergo, quod idem sit *aureola* quod *fructus*; sed cum *fructus* conveniat statui viduali, quare non *aureola*? Quaeritur ergo differentia.

### Conclusio.

> Virginitati debetur non tantum praemium substantiale sive aurea propter radicem caritatis, sed etiam fructus centesimus propter perfectionem status, et aureola propter decorem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod triplex praemium legimus in Scriptura, scilicet praemium *aureae*, praemium, quod est *fructus*, et praemium[^p756-6] *aureolae*. Distinguitur autem a diversis hoc diversimode.

Dicunt enim quidam, quod praemium *aureae* debetur radici caritatis, praemium *fructus* debetur ratione refrenationis pronitatis, sed *aureolae* ratione incorruptionis. Quia enim caritas influit in omnes virtutes, ideo *aurea* omni virtuti et actui debetur. Et quoniam vis concupiscibilis quantum ad generationem est corrupta et infecta, ideo in ipsa viget *pronitas*; ideo soli continentiae, quae illam refrenat, praemium *fructus* debetur. Quia vero incorruptio attenditur quantum ad *fidem* contra fermentum erroris et falsitatis, quantum ad *carnem*[^p756-7] contra voluptatem, et quantum ad *constantiam* usque ad mortem; ideo tribus actibus debetur aureola, scilicet *praedicationi*, *continentiae virginali* et ipsi *martyrio*. Unde secundum hos *aurea* est gaudium de Deo, *fructus* gaudium de pronitatis restrictione, sed *aureola* gaudium de incorruptione. — Sed haec positio non videtur conveniens, quoniam *incorruptio* non tantum est in his quibus debetur aureola, sed etiam in *iustitia*, quae *est perpetua et immortalis*[^p756-8], et in *caritate, quae nunquam excidit*; et ideo modus iste sumendi non videtur conveniens.

<!-- page 757 -->

Aliter dicunt alii, quod praemium *aureae* debetur ipsi radici caritatis, sed *fructus* ratione *difficultatis*, et *aureola* ratione *perfectionis*; unde quia difficultas maxima est in continendo omnino, immo quoddam martyrium, et in sustinendo terribilia, quae mortem inducunt[^p757-1]; ideo *fructus* debetur *Martyribus* et *continentibus*. Perfectio vero maxima est in actibus tribus ipsius animae, scilicet rationalis, concupiscibilis et irascibilis; et hoc dupliciter: per conversionem ad *Deum*, et ita debetur eis perfectio *aureae*; et per comparationem ad *bonum inferius*, et ita debetur *aureola*, quae est diminutivum, quia est remuneratio in bono creato; et secundum actum perfectum triplicis potentiae assignatur vel redditur aureola. Nam perfectissimus actus rationalis[^p757-2] per comparationem *ad inferius* est veritatem fidei praedicare, concupiscibilis carnem omnino a coitu refrenare, irascibilis mortem sustinere, et ideo tribus debetur aureola triplex. — Sed haec adhuc positio non videtur omnino conveniens, quia tantae est perfectionis omnia relinquere et se ipsum abnegare, sicut praedicare et omnino continere; et ideo non videtur, quod secundum *perfectionem* vel ratione perfectionis virginitati debeatur aureola.

Aliter igitur dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est et supra[^p757-3], quod in virginitate tria considerantur, scilicet *habitus*, *status* et *decor*; habitui respondet *aurea*, statui *fructus*, sed decori integritatis *aureola*. — Et quod *habitui aurea*, hoc non est dubium. — Quod vero *statui fructus*, hoc patet sic: quia, sicut *fructus* maior et minor, quem ponit Dominus in Evangelio[^p757-4], attenditur secundum nobilitatem terrae, sic *fructus* maior et minor secundum statum. Esto enim, quod tres in tribus statibus contineant, secundum quod melius possunt, adhuc excedit continentia *vidualis coniugalem*, et *virginalis vidualem*. Unde quia in continentia maxime status diversi considerantur et secundum illam distinguuntur; ideo soli continentiae praemium *fructus* aptatur, non quin et aliis[^p757-5] possit aptari, si est diversos *status* assignare. — Quod autem *aureola* respondeat alicui decori exteriori, patet: quia aureolae assignantur his actibus, qui considerant aliquid extrinsecum, ut puta quod est *infra*, ut corpus; vel quod est *iuxta*, ut proximus, quem convertit et ad patriam per bonam doctrinam ducit[^p757-6]. Unde decor quidam erit *Doctoribus* de conversis per ipsos; et quidam etiam decor et gaudium erit *Martyribus* in corpore, qui se pro Christo passionibus exposuerunt; quidam decor *Virginibus* in corpore, quod pro Christo incorruptum servaverunt; et ille decor vel gaudium de illo decore *aureola* recte dicitur. Credo tamen, quod melius *decor aureola* dicatur quam *gaudium*, quia omnes gaudebunt de decore, non tamen omnes habebunt aureolam; sed ut totum ad unum dicatur[^p757-7], melius est dicere, quod utrumque, scilicet *decor cum gaudio* et *gaudium cum decore*. — His visis, patent obiecta.

1. 2. 3. Quod enim obiicitur, quod debetur radici caritatis omne meritum; dicendum, quod verum est de praemio *substantiali*; de *accidentali* non est verum primo et per se, sed[^p757-8] non sine illo; unde est causa *sine qua non*. — Similiter patet, quare virginitati debeatur *aureola*, non ratione perfectionis, sed ratione decoris. Ratione *perfectionis status* debetur fructus centesimus, sed ratione *decoris* aureola.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, ratione cuius incorruptionis debeatur *aureola*; dicendum, quod ad hoc est triplex opinio. Quidam enim dicunt, quod cum meritum consistat in anima, quod *incorruptioni mentis* debeatur aureola; similiter perfectae voluntati sustinendi mortem pro Christo; et hoc confirmant per illud quod dicitur de beato Martino[^p757-9]: « O beata anima, quam etsi gladius persecutoris non abstulit, palmam tamen martyrii non amisit ». — Sed ista positio non videtur conveniens, quia quantumcumque velit aliquis praedicare, nisi exeat in opus, non credo, quod habeat aureolam. Unde illud beati Martini de praemio *essentiali* intelligendum est, quia aequalis fuit Martyribus[^p757-10] propter magnitudinem caritatis.

Alia opinio est, quod debetur *actui exteriori*; unde si aliquis non martyrizetur actu, non habebit aureolam, similiter si auferatur virginitas violenter, perditur aureola. Unde Leo Papa[^p757-11] dicit, quod corruptae per violentiam « se non audeant sacris virginibus comparare », nec etiam anulo desponsantur. Et secundum hos quantumcumque homo praedicet, reportat *praemium*, sed non *aureolam*, nisi aliquem convertat. — Sed durum est dicere, quodsi violetur omnino per violentiam, quod aliquid ibi perdat, dum nullus consensus interveniat, nulla culpa[^p757-12].

<!-- page 758 -->

Et ideo tertio modo dicendum, quod aureola debetur *actui interiori* per comparationem ad decorem exteriorem, et exteriori relato ad interius. Unde si virgo velit corrumpi et non corrumpatur et post poeniteat; quia salvata est incorruptio in carne, ideo aureolam habebit. Item, si nolit corrumpi et corrumpatur; corruptio illa non est iudicanda corruptio decoris virtutis; et ideo manet decor integer, quia decoratio virtutis ab interiori procedit. Et hoc est quod dicitur in littera[^p758-1]: « Non potest corrumpi caro, nisi prius mens corrumpatur », scilicet corruptione, quae obviet virginitati. Unde quod dicitur, quod « se non audeant sacris virginibus comparare »; hoc est propter periculum, quia fortassis in actu illo consenserunt; unde semper est eis timendum.

Ex his potest patere, quando virginitas amittatur. Cum enim ad perfectam virginitatem duo concurrant, scilicet incorruptio mentis et incorruptio carnis: incorruptio mentis est sicut *formale* et complementum; incorruptio carnis est sicut *materiale*. Si ergo *utrumque* pereat, totum perditum est et nunquam recuperari potest. — Si autem amittatur *incorruptio carnis*, salva *incorruptione mentis*; manet quod *formale* et completivum[^p758-2] est virginitatis, ideo meritum et praemium, quamvis etiam illud quod materiale erat, sit perditum; unde perdita est *secundum quid*, manet tamen *simpliciter*; perdita est in conspectu *hominum*, non in conspectu *Dei*. Et hoc est quod dicit Ambrosius, et habetur in littera[^p758-3]. — Si autem perdatur *incorruptio mentis*, salva *incorruptione carnis*, tunc perditur quod *formale* est, et manet quod est *materiale*; et quia illa redit ad suum propositum et habet materiale substratum; redeunte virginitate, virgo iudicanda est, licet non in tanta gloria, in quanta esset, si nunquam consensisset. Et hoc sentire videtur esse magis pium[^p758-4].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the reward of virginity is the aureole.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning virginity by comparison with its reward; and it is commonly said that the reward of virginity is the aureole, and this is proved:

1. By a *figure*: in Exodus, chapter twenty-five[^p755-7], it is commanded that upon the great crown another little crown be made; and according to this figure the reward is twofold, as the masters say: *substantial*, and this is called the *aurea* (golden crown) after the likeness of the great crown; and *accidental*, and this is called the *aureole* after the likeness of the little one. If, then, the comely soul, and above all the spouse of Christ, ought to be crowned with that crown; and such is the virgin: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this is shown through Scripture, Apocalypse chapter twelve[^p756-1]: *A woman clothed with the sun, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.* If this is rightly expounded of the blessed Virgin, then, just as Christ shares his throne with those who conquer, so the blessed Virgin shares a crown with those who are perfectly continent; and so on.

3. Likewise, a crown is due to one who contends; but the greatest struggle is in the flesh: therefore he who conquers it perfectly and notably ought to be notably crowned. But virgins conquer perfectly: therefore they are to be notably crowned[^p756-2], therefore they will have some crown that the married do not.

**On the contrary:**
1. Every merit belongs to charity, therefore also every reward: therefore if charity moves all the virtues and shares its merit with them all, therefore also its reward: therefore no reward is to be rendered to virginity more than to any other virtue. *If you say* that this is true of the *substantial* reward; *on the contrary*: no reward is due to one who lacks charity, neither *substantial* nor *accidental*: therefore every reward is due to charity.

2. Likewise, if some superadded reward is due to virginity, either this is by reason of *difficulty* or by reason of *perfection*. If by reason of *difficulty*: but it is more difficult wholly to deny one's own will and to beg for Christ's sake than to preserve continence: therefore much more strongly is an aureole due to such an act. If by reason of *perfection*: but it is much more perfect to love enemies: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if a special reward is due to virginity, then it is either by reason of incorruption of the *flesh* or of the *mind*. If of the *flesh*: then one corrupted by violence would not have an aureole, the contrary of which is held through the word of Lucy[^p756-3]: « If you violate me against my will, my chastity will be doubled unto a crown ». If according to incorruption of the *mind*: either because *never corrupted* or because *repaired*. If because *never corrupted*: then an aureole is due to very few, and not even to blessed John, because he willed to marry, as is said[^p756-4], and yet his virginity is much commended. If because *repaired*: then however much a person has been lustful, provided he perfectly repents, he will have an aureole. If according to *both*: there arises a still greater incongruity, since to none, or to few, is an aureole due.

Likewise, since the hundredfold fruit is due to virginity[^p756-5] — and it is agreed that this is not a substantial but an accidental reward — it seems therefore that the *aureole* is the same as the *fruit*; but since the *fruit* befits the widowed state, why not also the *aureole*? The difference, therefore, is asked.

### Conclusion.

> To virginity there is due not only the substantial reward or *aurea* on account of the root of charity, but also the hundredfold fruit on account of the perfection of its state, and the aureole on account of its beauty.

**I respond:** It must be said that we read in Scripture of a threefold reward, namely the reward of the *aurea*, the reward that is the *fruit*, and the reward[^p756-6] of the *aureole*. Now this is distinguished by different authors in different ways.

For some say that the reward of the *aurea* is due to the root of charity, the reward of the *fruit* is due by reason of the restraining of proneness [to sin], but the *aureole* by reason of incorruption. For since charity flows into all the virtues, therefore the *aurea* is due to every virtue and act. And since the concupiscible power, as regards generation, is corrupt and infected, therefore in it *proneness* is vigorous; therefore to continence alone, which restrains it, the reward of *fruit* is due. But since incorruption is regarded as to *faith* against the leaven of error and falsity, as to the *flesh*[^p756-7] against pleasure, and as to *constancy* even unto death; therefore an aureole is due to three acts, namely to *preaching*, to *virginal continence*, and to *martyrdom* itself. Hence according to these the *aurea* is joy over God, the *fruit* joy over the restriction of proneness, but the *aureole* joy over incorruption. — But this position does not seem fitting, since *incorruption* is not only in those to whom an aureole is due, but also in *justice*, which *is perpetual and immortal*[^p756-8], and in *charity, which never fails*; and therefore this way of taking it does not seem fitting.

Others say otherwise: that the reward of the *aurea* is due to the root of charity itself, but the *fruit* by reason of *difficulty*, and the *aureole* by reason of *perfection*; hence because the greatest difficulty is in continence altogether — indeed a kind of martyrdom — and in enduring the terrible things that bring on death[^p757-1]; therefore the *fruit* is due to *Martyrs* and to the *continent*. But the greatest perfection is in the three acts of the soul itself, namely the rational, the concupiscible, and the irascible; and this in two ways: by conversion to *God*, and thus there is due to them the perfection of the *aurea*; and by comparison to a *lower good*, and thus the *aureole* is due, which is a diminutive, since it is a reward in a created good; and according to the perfect act of the threefold power an aureole is assigned or rendered. For the most perfect act of the rational power[^p757-2], by comparison *to what is below*, is to preach the truth of faith; of the concupiscible, to restrain the flesh wholly from intercourse; of the irascible, to endure death; and therefore to the three a threefold aureole is due. — But this position too does not seem altogether fitting, since it is of as great a perfection to relinquish all things and to deny oneself as to preach and to be wholly continent; and therefore it does not seem that an aureole is due to virginity according to *perfection* or by reason of perfection.

Otherwise, therefore, it must be said that, as was also said above[^p757-3], in virginity three things are considered, namely *habit*, *state*, and *beauty*; to the habit corresponds the *aurea*, to the state the *fruit*, but to the beauty of integrity the *aureole*. — And that the *aurea* corresponds to the habit is not doubtful. — But that the *fruit* corresponds to the state is shown thus: because, just as the greater and lesser *fruit* which the Lord sets down in the Gospel[^p757-4] is reckoned according to the nobility of the soil, so the greater and lesser *fruit* is reckoned according to the state. For grant that three persons in three states are continent, each as well as he can: still widowed continence exceeds *conjugal*, and *virginal* exceeds *widowed*. Hence because in continence especially the diverse states are considered and are distinguished according to it; therefore the reward of *fruit* is fitted to continence alone — not but that it can be fitted to others also[^p757-5], if diverse *states* are to be assigned. — And that the *aureole* corresponds to some exterior beauty is clear: because aureoles are assigned to those acts which regard something extrinsic, as for instance what is *below*, such as the body; or what is *alongside*, such as the neighbor, whom one converts and leads to the fatherland by good teaching[^p757-6]. Hence there will be a certain beauty for *Doctors* from those converted through them; and there will also be a certain beauty and joy for *Martyrs* in the body, who exposed themselves to sufferings for Christ; a certain beauty for *Virgins* in the body, which they kept incorrupt for Christ; and that beauty, or the joy over that beauty, is rightly called the *aureole*. Yet I believe it is better that the *aureole* be called *beauty* rather than *joy*, because all will rejoice over the beauty, yet not all will have the aureole; but that the whole may be summed up in one[^p757-7], it is better to say that it is both, namely *beauty with joy* and *joy with beauty*. — These things seen, the objections are clear.

1, 2, 3. As to what is objected, that every merit is due to the root of charity; it must be said that this is true of the *substantial* reward; of the *accidental* it is not true primarily and of itself, but[^p757-8] not without it; hence it is a cause *without which not* [a necessary condition]. — Similarly it is clear why an *aureole* is due to virginity, not by reason of perfection, but by reason of beauty. By reason of *perfection of state* the hundredfold fruit is due, but by reason of *beauty* the aureole.

As to what is asked, by reason of which incorruption the *aureole* is due; it must be said that on this there are three opinions. For some say that, since merit consists in the soul, an aureole is due to the *incorruption of the mind*; likewise to a will perfect in enduring death for Christ; and they confirm this by what is said of blessed Martin[^p757-9]: « O blessed soul, which, though the sword of the persecutor did not take it away, yet did not lose the palm of martyrdom ». — But this position does not seem fitting, since however much someone may wish to preach, unless he goes forth into the deed, I do not believe that he has an aureole. Hence that saying about blessed Martin is to be understood of the *essential* reward, since he was equal to the Martyrs[^p757-10] on account of the greatness of his charity.

Another opinion is that it is due to the *exterior act*; hence if someone is not martyred in act, he will not have an aureole; likewise if virginity is taken away by violence, the aureole is lost. Hence Pope Leo[^p757-11] says that those corrupted by violence « should not dare to compare themselves with the sacred virgins », nor are they even espoused with a ring. And according to these, however much a man preaches, he carries off a *reward*, but not an *aureole*, unless he converts someone. — But it is hard to say that if she is wholly violated by force, she should lose anything there, so long as no consent intervenes, [where there is] no fault[^p757-12].

And therefore it must be said in a third way, that the aureole is due to the *interior act* by comparison with exterior beauty, and to the exterior [act] as referred to the interior. Hence if a virgin should will to be corrupted and yet is not corrupted, and afterward repents; because incorruption is preserved in the flesh, therefore she will have the aureole. Likewise, if she should be unwilling to be corrupted and is corrupted; that corruption is not to be judged a corruption of the beauty of virtue; and therefore the beauty remains whole, since the adorning of virtue proceeds from within. And this is what is said in the text[^p758-1]: « The flesh cannot be corrupted unless the mind is first corrupted », namely by a corruption that runs counter to virginity. Hence, as to what is said, that « they should not dare to compare themselves with the sacred virgins »; this is on account of the danger, because perhaps in that act they consented; hence they must always be fearful.

From these things it can be made clear when virginity is lost. For since two things concur to make perfect virginity, namely incorruption of the mind and incorruption of the flesh: incorruption of the mind is as the *formal* [element] and completion; incorruption of the flesh is as the *material* [element]. If, then, *both* perish, the whole is lost and can never be recovered. — But if *incorruption of the flesh* is lost while *incorruption of the mind* is preserved; there remains what is *formal* and completive[^p758-2] of virginity, and therefore its merit and reward, although that which was material be lost; hence it is lost *in a certain respect*, yet remains *without qualification*; it is lost in the sight of *men*, not in the sight of *God*. And this is what Ambrose says, and it is held in the text[^p758-3]. — But if *incorruption of the mind* is lost while *incorruption of the flesh* is preserved, then what is *formal* is lost, and what is *material* remains; and because she returns to her purpose and has the material substrate; virginity returning, she is to be judged a virgin, though not in so great a glory as she would be, had she never consented. And to hold this seems to be the more pious view[^p758-4].

---

la: Vers. 25: *Et ipsi labio [mensae panum propositionis facies] coronam interrasilem... et super illam alteram coronam aureolam.* — Inferius post *duplex* in codd. omittitur *est*, et pro *ut dicunt* cod. U (I a secunda manu) substituit *distinguunt*.

en: Verse 25: *And upon its rim [thou shalt make a golden face of the table of the loaves of proposition] a crown of open work... and above it another little golden crown.* — Below, after *twofold* (*duplex*) the codices omit *is* (*est*), and for *as they say* (*ut dicunt*) cod. U (I, by a second hand) substitutes *they distinguish* (*distinguunt*).

la: Vers. 1. Post *sole* Vulgata addit *et luna sub pedibus eius*. Cfr. Bernard., *Serm. in Dominica infra Octav. Assumt. B. V. Mariae*, n. 3. seqq., ubi hoc de B. Maria exponitur.

en: Apoc. 12, verse 1. After *sun* (*sole*) the Vulgate adds *and the moon under her feet*. Cf. Bernard, *Sermon on the Sunday within the Octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary*, n. 3 ff., where this is expounded of the Blessed Mary.

la: Vat. *coronandae*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *coronandae* (to be crowned, feminine).

la: In Breviar. Romano in festo S. Luciae (13 Dec.), II. Noct. lect. 6: *Si invitam iusseris violari, castitas etc.*

en: In the Roman Breviary, on the feast of St. Lucy (13 December), Second Nocturn, lection 6: *If thou command me to be violated against my will, [my] chastity, etc.*

la: Vide supra pag. 683, nota 6.

en: See above, page 683, note 6.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 754, nota 5. — Inferius pro *viduali* edd. perperam *virginali*.

en: Cf. above, page 754, note 5. — Below, for *widowed* (*viduali*) the editions wrongly [read] *virginal* (*virginali*).

la: Plures codd. addunt *quod est*.

en: Several codices add *which is* (*quod est*).

la: Vat. omittit *contra fermentum erroris et falsitatis* [cfr. Matth. 16, 11. seq.], *quantum ad carnem*. Superius pro *concupiscibilis* non pauci codd. *coniugalis*, cod. X a secunda manu *propagativa*, cod. K *carnalis*.

en: The Vatican edition omits *against the leaven of error and falsity* [cf. Matthew 16, 11 f.], *as to the flesh*. Above, for *concupiscible* (*concupiscibilis*) not a few codices [read] *conjugal* (*coniugalis*), cod. X by a second hand *propagative* (*propagativa*), cod. K *carnal* (*carnalis*).

la: Sap. 1, 15: *Iustitia enim perpetua est et immortalis.* — I. Cor. 13, 8: *Caritas nunquam excidit.* — Paulo ante post *in his* cod. E addit *tribus*.

en: Wisdom 1, 15: *For justice is perpetual and immortal.* — 1 Corinthians 13, 8: *Charity never falls away.* — A little before, after *in these* (*in his*) cod. E adds *three* (*tribus*).

la: Cfr. Aristot., III. *Ethic.* c. 7.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics* III, c. 7.

la: Fere omnes codd. *rationis*, cod. I a secunda manu *rationabilis*. Inferius pro *et ideo* (cod. U addit *his*, cod. X *istis*) codd. M O *et omnibus*.

en: Almost all codices [read] *of reason* (*rationis*), cod. I by a second hand *rational* (*rationabilis*). Below, for *and therefore* (*et ideo*) (cod. U adds *to these*, cod. X *to those*) codd. M O [read] *and to all* (*et omnibus*).

la: Quaest. 1.

en: Question 1 [of this article].

la: Matth. 13, 8. et 23. — Codd. communiter omittunt *sicut et Dominus in Evangelio*.

en: Matthew 13, 8 and 23. — The codices commonly omit *just as the Lord also [sets down] in the Gospel*.

la: In cod. P secunda manus supplevit *virtutibus*.

en: In cod. P a second hand supplied *to the virtues* (*virtutibus*).

la: Quae sunt duo ex quatuor, quae sunt diligenda, ut dicit August., 1. *de Doctr. christ.* c. 23. n. 22. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 28. q. 6. — Superius verbis *his actibus* cod. Y interserit *tribus*.

en: Which are two of the four things that are to be loved, as Augustine says, *On Christian Doctrine* bk. 1, c. 23, n. 22. Cf. III Sent., d. 28, q. 6. — Above, into the words *these acts* (*his actibus*) cod. Y inserts *three* (*tribus*).

la: Codd. QZ *dicam*, plures codd. *dicant* (cod. B *dicat*), quos edd. sequuntur legentes: *sed ut totum unum dicant*. Mox pro *cum gaudio* plures codd. *cum gloria*, et subinde codd. E G L V bb *de decore* pro *cum decore*.

en: Codd. QZ [read] *I may say* (*dicam*), several codices *they may say* (*dicant*) (cod. B *he may say*, *dicat*), which the editions follow, reading: *but that they may say the whole [as] one*. Presently, for *with joy* (*cum gaudio*) several codices [read] *with glory* (*cum gloria*), and thereafter codd. E G L V bb *concerning the beauty* (*de decore*) for *with beauty* (*cum decore*).

la: Pro *sed* cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *licet* non habeatur.

en: For *but* (*sed*) cod. K (I, by a second hand) [reads] *although* (*licet*), [though it is] not [otherwise] found.

la: In Breviar. Romano pro festo S. Martini (11 Nov.), II. Vesp. ad Magnificat. (Habetur etiam in libro Responsali Gregor. Magni pro festo S. Martini, sub rubrica *In Evangelio*). Cfr. II. Sent. d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.

en: In the Roman Breviary for the feast of St. Martin (11 November), at Second Vespers, at the Magnificat. (It is also found in the Responsory book of Gregory the Great for the feast of St. Martin, under the rubric *In the Gospel*.) Cf. II Sent., d. 40, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1.

la: Cod. K (1 a secunda manu) substituto *substantiati* pro *essentiali*, subinde legunt: *quia* [cod. K *qui*] *aequalis fit* [ita etiam codd. H aa, codd. FW *sit*] *Martyribus et Confessoribus*.

en: Cod. K (I, by a second hand), substituting *substantiated* (*substantiati*) for *essential* (*essentiali*), reads thereupon: *because* [cod. K *who*] *he is made equal* [so too codd. H aa; codd. FW *let him be*] *to the Martyrs and Confessors*.

la: *Epist.* 12. (alias 1.) ad episcop. Africanos, c. 8. (et 11.). Cfr. Gratian. C. *Illae autem famulae Dei* (14.), C. 32. q. 5.

en: Leo, *Letter* 12 (elsewhere 1) to the African bishops, c. 8 (and 11). Cf. Gratian, canon *But those handmaids of God* (14), Causa 32, q. 5.

la: Cod. K *nulla est culpa*.

en: Cod. K [reads] *there is no fault* (*nulla est culpa*).

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here [in the text of the Master, i.e. Peter Lombard], c. 4.

la: Cod. U repetit *manet*. Pro *completivum* codd. I K *complementum*.

en: Cod. U repeats *remains* (*manet*). For *completive* (*completivum*) codd. I K [read] *completion* (*complementum*).

la: Hic c. 4. — Inferius pro *et quia illa* codd. E I K O Q *et quia anima* (plures codd. *alia*). Sensus est: illa incorruptio mentis redit simul cum proposito sincero virginitatis. — Subinde post *virginitate* cod. F supplet *mentis*.

en: Here [in the text], c. 4. — Below, for *and because she* (*et quia illa*) codd. E I K O Q [read] *and because the soul* (*et quia anima*) (several codices *other*, *alia*). The sense is: that incorruption of the mind returns together with the sincere purpose of virginity. — Thereafter, after *virginity* (*virginitate*) cod. F supplies *of the mind* (*mentis*).

en: See the scholion on the first question of this article [rendered in chunk a2-q1]. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-image bands (printed pp. 755–758 = pdf pp. 775–778, offset +20), per the VOL II OVERRIDE two-column discipline. The IA djvu OCR (raw L81276–81546) is cascade-shattered in the two-column body/footer regions and was used only as a cross-check. Bands regenerated with `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2120` (L) / `1780` (R); 758 footnote block via a custom bottom-left crop.

**Opener alignment (verified).** Raw "Tertio quaeritur…" (L81281) aligns correctly with QUAESTIO III title (L81278). No q-swap misalignment.

**Page-boundary hand-offs.**
- *Shared page 755 with a2-q2:* QUAESTIO III opens near the foot of p.755 (title + intro "Tertio quaeritur…" + start of fundamentum 1). On p.755 this chunk claims ONLY footnote 7 (the Exodus 25 reference at "vigesimo quinto"), whose text spills into the p.756 left footer ("coronam interrasilem… distinguunt") and is folded into `[^p755-7]`. Footnotes 1–6 on p.755 anchor in a2-q2's body and belong to a2-q2.
- *Shared page 758 with a3-q1:* my Art II body fills p.758's entire left column plus the top of the right column, ending "…magis pium." Then ARTICULUS III (*De repudio*) begins as a full-width header. I claim p.758 footnotes 1–4 (anchored in my body); footnote 5 onward ("…capitulo⁵ praecipit…") anchor in the Art III opener and belong to a3-q1.

**Apparatus count:** 25 entries — p755: 1 (fn 7); p756: 8 (fn 1–8); p757: 12 (fn 1–12); p758: 4 (fn 1–4). Per-page restart forced `[^pNNN-M]` labels to avoid collision.

**Scholion:** none rendered here (has_scholion false) — the Art II scholion lives in a2-q1 and covers all Art II questions; footnote 4 of p.758 ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.") points there.

**Editorial marginalia dropped** (per corpus convention): the printed side-labels *Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Ad quaest. incid.*, *Opinio I/II*, *Non probatur*, *Opinio 3 et auctoris*, *Corollarium de amissione virginitatis*, *Notandum* are editorial glosses, not Bonaventure's text.

**[?] flags:** none. All readings resolved from the PDF bands with high confidence (e.g. "O beata anima" restored from PDF where raw OCR dropped the "O"; Exodus "Vers. 25" from PDF vs. garbled raw "23"; p.757 fn 9 "d. 40" confirmed from band vs. OCR "iO").


title: Dist. 33, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 758 -->

### Articulus III. *De repudio.*

Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de repudio. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum licitum fuerit uxorem repudiare. Secundo, utrum debuerit permitti. Tertio quaeritur de ipsius repudiatae reconciliatione.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum fuerit licitum uxorem repudiare.*

Circa primum, quod fuerit licitum, ostenditur sic.

1. Lex Moysi illicita puniebat, quod ergo non puniebatur in Lege tempore Legis erat licitum; sed repudiatio non puniebatur: ergo etc.

2. Item, licitum est quod nulla lege prohibetur; sed Iudaei non erant astricti alii legi quam sibi a Deo datae: ergo licitum erat omne quod in lege illa non prohibebatur. Sed repudium non prohibebatur in illa: ergo etc.

3. Item, licitum est omne quod divina inspiratione mandatur; sed Moyses, divina inspiratione afflatus, dedit legem secundam, scilicet Deuteronomium, in quo vigesimo quarto capitulo[^p758-5] praecipit, libellum repudii dari: ergo videtur, quod sit licitum.

4. Item, licitum est quod fit rationabili causa; sed rationabilis causa est, ut odiosa societas separaretur, maxime quando surgit ex causa exterius movente: ergo si vir propter deformitatem habebat uxorem exosam, videtur[^p758-6] etc.

5. Item, lex matrimonii perfectior est in nova quam in veteri; sed in nova licitum est ab uxore separari aliqua de causa, ut puta causa fornicationis[^p758-7]: ergo videtur, quod in lege veteri licuit, aliqua de causa fieri repudium.

**Contra:**
1. Nihil est licitum, quod est contra divinam institutionem; sed divortium est contra divinam institutionem, quia Deus coniunxit masculum et feminam[^p758-8]: ergo etc.

2. Item, nihil est licitum, quod est contra ius naturae; sed ius naturae dictat, ut non faciat quis alii quod sibi non vult fieri[^p758-9]: ergo cum vir nollet repudiari ab uxore, non debet repudiare eam.

<!-- page 759 -->

3. Item, nihil licet, in quo est peccatum; sed in divortio est peccatum, quia dicit Chrysostomus[^p759-1], quod «qui secundum Legem dimittit quatuor committit iniquitates, quia apud Deum est homicida» etc.: ergo etc.

4. Item, maior est unio viri et uxoris quam patris et filii, quia dicitur secundo Genesis[^p759-2]: *Relinquet homo patrem et matrem* etc.; sed nulli licet repudiare patrem: ergo etc.

5. Item, auctoritate Domini, Matthaei decimo nono[^p759-3]: *Non licet dimittere uxorem, excepta causa fornicationis*; sed propter illam non erat divortium, immo mulier lapidabatur; nec alia causa fuit: ergo nunquam fuit licitum.

### Conclusio.

> Repudium uxoris nunquam fuit licitum, ut fieret sine culpa, sed tantum sine poena.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, secundum quod Dominus dicit[^p759-4], repudium uxoris nunquam fuit licitum, ut sine culpa fieret; fuit tamen licitum, ut fieret sine poena. Unde *aliquid licere alicui* hoc est duplici de causa: aut quia non obviat *iuris rectitudo*, et sic non fuit repudium licitum; aut quia non obviat *iuris punitio*, et hoc modo licuit uxorem repudiare, quia tunc non obviavit iuris punitio.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**
*Ad 1, 2.* Ex hoc igitur patet quod obiicit, quod non puniebat lex Moysi nec prohibebat. Quamvis enim lex Moysi non prohiberet, quia non decreverat punire; tamen nihilominus lex naturae et dictamen rationis contrarium dicebat[^p759-5].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Moyses mandat; dicendum, quod Moyses aliquid *prohibuit* in repudio, aliquid *mandavit*, aliquid *permisit*: prohibuit uxorem dimittere sine causa; permisit uxorem dimittere ex causa foeditatis; et *praecepit*, libellum dari[^p759-6]; et in datione libelli non erat peccatum, sed in dimissione.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de causa rationabili, dicendum, quod vir et uxor individualiter coniunguntur a Deo; ideo nulla potest esse causa separationis quoad *vinculum*; quoad *debitum* potest esse causa defectus fidei, quia unus non servat alteri fidem; et quia *ista* tunc non fuit causa, ideo nulla fuit rationabilis causa.

*Ad 5.* Ultimum vero patet: quia nulla causa, ut patebit infra[^p759-7], potest esse, quare uxor non possit viro debitum reddere nisi fornicatio, quia, *in quo peccat quis, in hoc et torquetur*; et illa tunc non fuit, nec alia potest esse: et ideo etc.

english:
### Article III. *On repudiation.*

Next, as regards the third article, inquiry is made concerning repudiation. And concerning this three things are asked. First it is asked whether it was licit to repudiate a wife. Secondly, whether it ought to have been permitted. Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the reconciliation of the repudiated woman herself.

### Question I. *Whether it was licit to repudiate a wife.*

As to the first, that it was licit is shown thus.

1. The Law of Moses punished illicit things; therefore what was not punished under the Law, in the time of the Law, was licit; but repudiation was not punished: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, that is licit which is prohibited by no law; but the Jews were not bound to any law other than the one given to them by God: therefore everything was licit that was not prohibited in that law. But repudiation was not prohibited in it: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, everything is licit that is commanded by divine inspiration; but Moses, breathed upon by divine inspiration, gave a second law, namely Deuteronomy, in which, in the twenty-fourth chapter[^p758-5], he commands that a bill of divorce be given: therefore it seems that it is licit.

4. Likewise, that is licit which is done for a reasonable cause; but it is a reasonable cause that a hateful partnership be separated, especially when it arises from an externally moving cause: therefore if a man, on account of her deformity, held his wife hateful, it seems[^p758-6] [licit] etc.

5. Likewise, the law of matrimony is more perfect in the new [dispensation] than in the old; but in the new it is licit to be separated from a wife for some cause, such as the cause of fornication[^p758-7]: therefore it seems that in the old law too it was licit, for some cause, that repudiation be made.

**On the contrary:**
1. Nothing is licit that is against the divine institution; but divorce is against the divine institution, since God joined together male and female[^p758-8]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, nothing is licit that is against the law of nature; but the law of nature dictates that one should not do to another what he does not wish to be done to himself[^p758-9]: therefore, since a man would not wish to be repudiated by his wife, he ought not to repudiate her.

3. Likewise, nothing is licit in which there is sin; but in divorce there is sin, because Chrysostom says[^p759-1] that «he who according to the Law dismisses [his wife] commits four iniquities, since before God he is a homicide» etc.: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the union of husband and wife is greater than that of father and son, because it is said in the second [chapter] of Genesis[^p759-2]: *A man shall leave his father and mother* etc.; but it is licit for no one to repudiate his father: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, on the authority of the Lord, in Matthew the nineteenth[^p759-3]: *It is not licit to dismiss a wife, except for the cause of fornication*; but on account of that there was no divorce, rather the woman was stoned; and there was no other cause: therefore it was never licit.

### Conclusion.

> The repudiation of a wife was never licit so as to be done without fault, but only [so as to be done] without penalty.

**I respond:** It must be said that, according to what the Lord says[^p759-4], the repudiation of a wife was never licit so as to be done without fault; yet it was licit so as to be done without penalty. Hence that *something is licit for someone* is so for a twofold reason: either because *the rectitude of the law* does not stand in the way — and in this sense repudiation was not licit; or because *the punishment of the law* does not stand in the way — and in this manner it was licit to repudiate a wife, since then the punishment of the law did not stand in the way.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**
*To 1, 2.* From this, then, is clear what he objects, namely that the Law of Moses did not punish nor prohibit [it]. For although the Law of Moses did not prohibit it, because it had not decreed to punish it; nevertheless the law of nature and the dictate of reason said the contrary[^p759-5].

*To 3.* As to what is objected, that Moses commands [it]; it must be said that Moses *prohibited* one thing in repudiation, *commanded* another, *permitted* another: he prohibited dismissing a wife without cause; he permitted dismissing a wife for the cause of foulness; and he *commanded* that a bill be given[^p759-6]; and in the giving of the bill there was no sin, but [rather] in the dismissal.

*To 4.* As to what is objected concerning a reasonable cause, it must be said that husband and wife are joined by God individually [i.e. indivisibly]; therefore there can be no cause of separation as regards the *bond*; as regards the *debt* there can be a cause [in] a defect of faith [fidelity], since one does not keep faith with the other; and because *that* was not then a cause, therefore there was no reasonable cause.

*To 5.* And the last is clear: because there can be no cause, as will be shown below[^p759-7], why a wife may not render the debt to her husband except fornication, since *by what things a man sins, by these also he is tormented*; and that [cause] did not then exist, nor can any other: and therefore etc.

la: Vers. 1. Cfr. Malach. 2, 15. seq.

en: [Deuteronomy 24,] verse 1. Cf. Malachi 2, 15 ff.

la: Cfr. Avicenna, *Metaph.* tr. 10. c. 4. — Verbo *surgit* cod. Y praemittit *odium*.

en: Cf. Avicenna, *Metaphysics* tr. 10, c. 4. — To the word *arises* (*surgit*) cod. Y prefixes *hatred* (*odium*).

en: Matthew 5, 32 and 19, 9.

la: Matth. 19, 4. seq. — Vat. addit: *sed quos Deus coniunxit homo separare non debet* (ibid. v. 6.).

en: Matthew 19, 4 ff. — The Vatican edition adds: *but those whom God has joined man ought not to separate* (ibid. v. 6).

en: Tobit 4, 16; Matthew 7, 12 and Luke 6, 31.

la: *Homil.* 12. in Matth. (op. imperfect.) 5, 32: *Qui secundum... homicida; secundam, quia dimisit non fornicantem; tertiam, quia fecit eam adulterari; quartam, quia et accipiens eam fecit adulterium.*

en: *Homily* 12 on Matthew (Opus imperfectum), on 5, 32: *He who according to [the Law dismisses his wife is] a homicide; the second [iniquity], because he dismissed one not fornicating; the third, because he made her commit adultery; the fourth, because he who takes her also commits adultery.*

la: Vers. 24. Cfr. Matth. 19, 5.

en: [Genesis 2,] verse 24. Cf. Matthew 19, 5.

la: Vers. 9: *Dico autem vobis, quia, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur* etc. Cfr. ibid. 5, 32. In seq. propos. respicitur Lev. 20, 10; Deut. 22, 22. et Ioan. 8, 5.

en: [Matthew 19,] verse 9: *But I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery* etc. Cf. ibid. 5, 32. In the following proposition reference is made to Leviticus 20, 10; Deuteronomy 22, 22 and John 8, 5.

la: Matth. 19, 8. seq.

en: Matthew 19, 8 ff.

la: Cfr. August., XIX. *contra Faustum*, c. 26. et 29, et I. *de Serm. Domini in monte*, c. 14. n. 39.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Against Faustus* bk. 19, c. 26 and 29, and *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount* bk. 1, c. 14, n. 39.

la: Vide Deut. 24, 1. — Pro *sine causa* plures codd. *sine culpa*.

en: See Deuteronomy 24, 1. — For *without cause* (*sine causa*) several codices [read] *without fault* (*sine culpa*).

la: Dist. 35. q. 1. seqq. — Seq. locus Scripturae est Sap. 11, 17: *Quia, per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur.* — Ex codd. LOPQY (E a secunda manu) supplevimus *quia nulla causa*, edd. legunt: *quia fornicatio potest esse ratio, quare* etc., omisso subinde *nisi fornicatio*, quae etiam inferius post *tunc* perperam omittunt *non*.

en: Dist. 35, q. 1 ff. — The following scriptural passage is Wisdom 11, 17: *For by what things a man sins, by these also he is tormented.* — From codd. LOPQY (E by a second hand) we have supplied *because no cause* (*quia nulla causa*); the editions read: *because fornication can be the reason why* etc., omitting thereupon *except fornication* (*nisi fornicatio*), which [editions] also below, after *then* (*tunc*), wrongly omit *not* (*non*). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quaestio de libello repudii a Moysi permisso spectat ad quaestionem generalem de divortio et de indissolubilitate matrimonii, de quo vide plura infra d. 35. — Circa principium principale, de quo agitur in 1. quaestione, solutio S. Bonaventurae inter antiquos fuit communior, quam praeter plures Patres, Magistrum et Gulielmos Parisiensem et Antissiod. sustinent Alex. Hal. (S. p. III. q. 46. m. 2. a. 1-6.), qui diffuse et in pluribus quaest. de hoc disputat; Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 3. a. 1.); Thom. de Argentina (hic. q. 3.), et praecipue Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 2, qui etiam fundamentum contrariae opinionis non concedendum esse vult, quod scilicet Deus in V. T. non ostenderit, repudium uxoris esse vitiosum). Huic sententiae ipse S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 2. 3; Suppl. 67. a. 2-7.) magis favet. Relata enim etiam altera opinione asserente, repudium per se malum cum libello illo et dispensatione divina Iudaeis factum esse licitum, de hac secunda sic iudicat: «Quamvis hoc probabiliter dicatur, tamen primum communius sustinetur; ideo ad utrasque rationes respondendum est». Simili modo procedit Richard. a Med. (hic a. 3. q. I. 2.). — Secundae opinioni magis favent B. Albert. (hic a 23-25.) et Durand. (hic q. 3.) et, ut videtur, etiam Scot. (hic q. 3.), qui tamen utramque opinionem probabilem esse declarat. — Suis principiis constans S. Bonav. cum aliis ipsi consentientibus respondet ad 2. quaestionem, quod permissio illa non fuerit nisi privatio *punitionis*, et ad 3. quaestionem, quod *uxori* repudiatae non fuerit permissum nubere alii, vivente viro; quod ipsi licebat secundum aliam opinionem, quae supponit, Deum dispensasse circa indissolubilitatem matrimonii.

De his tribus quaestionibus cum variis materiae divisionibus auctores tractant citt. quaestionibus et articulis.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The question of the bill of divorce permitted by Moses pertains to the general question of divorce and of the indissolubility of matrimony, concerning which see more below at d. 35. — Concerning the principal point, which is treated in the first question, the solution of St. Bonaventure was the more common among the ancients, which — besides many Fathers, the Master, and the Williams, [William] of Paris and [William] of Auxerre — is upheld by Alexander of Hales (Summa, p. III, q. 46, m. 2, a. 1-6), who disputes it at length and in several questions; Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 3, a. 1); Thomas of Strasbourg (here q. 3); and especially Denis the Carthusian (here q. 2, who also holds that the foundation of the contrary opinion is not to be granted, namely that God in the Old Testament did not show the repudiation of a wife to be sinful). St. Thomas himself (here q. 2, a. 2, 3; Supplement 67, a. 2-7) rather favors this view. For, having reported the other opinion as well, which asserts that repudiation — evil in itself — was, with that bill and by divine dispensation, made licit for the Jews, he judges of this second [opinion] thus: «Although this is said with probability, nevertheless the first is more commonly upheld; therefore both sets of reasons are to be answered». Richard of Middleton proceeds in a similar way (here a. 3, q. I, 2). — The second opinion is rather favored by Blessed Albert (here a. 23-25) and Durandus (here q. 3), and, as it seems, also Scotus (here q. 3), who nevertheless declares each opinion to be probable. — Consistent with his own principles, St. Bonaventure, with others agreeing with him, responds to the second question that that permission was nothing but a privation of *punishment*, and to the third question that it was not permitted to a repudiated *wife* to marry another while her husband was living; [a thing] which was licit for her according to the other opinion, which supposes that God dispensed concerning the indissolubility of matrimony.

Concerning these three questions, with various divisions of the material, the authors treat in the cited questions and articles.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-image bands (printed pp. 758–759 = pdf pp. 778–779, offset +20), per the VOL II OVERRIDE two-column discipline. The IA djvu OCR (raw L81547–81688) is cascade-shattered in the two-column body/footer regions and was used only as a cross-check. Left columns regenerated with `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2120`, right columns with `1780`; footnote 5 numeral verified with a targeted bottom-right crop.

**Running heads verified.** p.758 (bare "758" top-left); p.759 running head "DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. I." with "759" — confirms `printed_pages` [758, 759] as scaffolded; no correction needed.

**Opener alignment (verified).** The Article III opener "Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum… Primo quaeritur, utrum licitum fuerit uxorem repudiare. Secundo, utrum debuerit permitti. Tertio quaeritur de… reconciliatione" aligns correctly: Primo → this q1 (*utrum licitum*), Secundo → a3-q2 (*utrum debuerit permitti*), Tertio → a3-q3 (*de reconciliatione*). No q-swap. Per the locked chunking convention, the short Article III opener is folded into a3-q1 (no standalone divisio chunk); QUAESTIO I title at raw L81560.

**Scholion.** Fully rendered here (both languages) as the Article III scholion. It has **one numbered section (§ I)** plus an unnumbered closing sentence ("De his tribus quaestionibus…"). Section I covers **all three Article III questions**: it treats the principium principale of q1, then records that Bonaventure "respondet ad 2. quaestionem… et ad 3. quaestionem…". Siblings a3-q2 and a3-q3 render no scholion. (OCR header garbled "SCHOLIOK"; PDF band reads "SCHOLION".) Placed as the last subsection of both the Latin and English blocks per the parser requirement.

**Page-boundary hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* a2-q3 forwarded p.758 footers 5+ (the Article III opener notes). Claimed here as `[^p758-5]`–`[^p758-9]`, anchored in the Q.I arguments (capitulo⁵, videtur⁶, fornicationis⁷, feminam⁸, fieri⁹). p.758 footers 1–4 anchor in a2-q3's Article II body and belong to a2-q3.
- *Forwarded:* this chunk shares p.759 with a3-q2. QUAESTIO II ("Utrum repudiare uxorem debuerit permitti") begins near the foot of p.759's right region and continues onto p.760; its body and its own footer sequence belong to a3-q2. All p.759 footers 1–7 anchor in **this** chunk's body (Contra 3–5, Respondeo, replies) and are claimed here.

**Apparatus count:** 12 entries — p.758: 5 (fn 5–9); p.759: 7 (fn 1–7). Per-page restart forced `[^pNNN-M]` labels to avoid collision (both pages have fn 5, 6, 7).

**Editorial marginalia dropped** (per corpus convention): the printed side-labels *Ad oppositum* (beside p.758 arg. 1), *Solutio oppositorum* and *Notandum* (×2, beside the p.759 replies) are editorial glosses, not Bonaventure's text. A marginal annotation bleeding after "contra" in Contra 1 (raw "contraFa") was likewise trimmed.

**[?] flags.** **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 759)** — d.31–d.40 decade polish gate, Pass 1 (2026-07-13). `[^p759-7]` (= p. 759 footer note 7), the cross-reference distinction number: read at 600 dpi from `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-759-r600-0779.png`, right-hand footer column (crop `(2250, 6270)–(3350, 6370)`, 3× upscale). The printed note opens **`Dist. 35. q. 1. seqq.`** — the units digit is an unmistakable flat-topped **5**. The IA OCR's `33` is a digit-mangle. The chunk's existing reading (`Dist. 35`) is correct and stands unchanged, and is consistent with the scholion's own cross-reference "vide plura infra d. 35." Flag retired. (The same 600 dpi footer crop independently confirms footnote 6 as `Vide Deut. 24, 1. — Pro sine causa plures codd. sine culpa.` — i.e. the earlier "Vers. 1." reading is correct.)

Footnote 5's numeral (initially ambiguous 1/4 in the band read) was resolved to "Vers. 1." (= Deut 24:1, the bill-of-divorce verse) via a 3× bottom-right crop.