title: Dist. 32, Art. 4, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 739 -->

### Articulus IV. *De tempore, in quo debent nuptiae celebrari.*

Consequenter quantum ad quartum articulum quaeritur de tempore celebrandi nuptias. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. *Primo* quaeritur, utrum in celebrandis nuptiis debeat tempus observari. *Secundo* quaeritur, utrum contractum matrimonium in tempore indebito debeat separari.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum in celebrandis nuptiis debeat tempus observari.*

Circa primum ostenditur, quod tempus debeat observari:

1. *Primo* per illud quod dicitur Ecclesiastis tertio[^p739-8]: *Tempus amplexandi et tempus longe fieri ab amplexibus*: ergo videtur, quod non omni tempore liceat nuptias celebrare.

2. Item, Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione quarta[^p739-9], Nicolaus: «Nec uxorem ducere nec convivia facere in quadragesimali tempore ullo modo convenire posse arbitror».

<!-- page 740 -->

3. Item, secundum omnium mores tempus celebrationis nuptiarum est tempus solemnitatis et gaudii carnalis, quia vehemens est amoris conversio ad haec; sed haec non competit fieri in tempore deputato ad sanctificationem spiritus: ergo etc.

4. Item, plus est nuptias celebrare quam debitum solvere; sed in actu carnali ad hoc, quod fiat recte et honeste, servanda sunt tempora[^p740-1]: ergo multo fortius in contractione matrimonii sive nuptiarum celebratione prima.

**Contra:**

1. Ad Galatas quarto[^p740-2]: *Dies observatis et menses et tempora et annos*; et post: *Timeo, ne absque causa laboraverim in vobis*: ergo videtur, quod illud sit haereticum, tempora observare: ergo videtur, quod quolibet tempore bonum sit nuptias celebrare.

2. Item, in aliorum Sacramentorum perceptione non est determinatio temporum nisi ex sola congruitate, nec servantur communiter temporum determinationes: ergo videtur similiter, quod nec in matrimonio et sponsae traductione.

3. Item, matrimonium est sanctum et bonum, cum sit Sacramentum: ergo in diebus sacris competens est ipsum celebrare.

4. Item, si matrimonium repugnat diebus poenitentiae, non est secundum rationem sui, sed potius ratione abusus: ergo potius deberet in nuptiis prohiberi et interdici abusus quam tempus.

Est igitur quaestio: propter quid tantum ista tria tempora interdicuntur, quae ponuntur in littera[^p740-3]; et magis haec tempora et in hoc Sacramento quam in alio?

> **Conclusio.** Ob duplicem rationem aliquibus temporibus interdictum est publicas solemnitates nuptiarum celebrare.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex est ratio, quare in his tribus temporibus interdictum est, nuptias celebrari, una scilicet *moralis*, alia *figuralis*: moralis quidem, quia in his tribus temporibus anni propter praecipuarum solemnitatum exspectationem, in quibus consueverunt fideles communicare[^p740-4], scilicet Natali Domini, Pascha et Pentecoste, debent se fideles praeparare, ut Dominum suum possint digne et reverenter excipere; et per hoc debent sensum a terrenis aliquatenus elevare. Et quoniam in sponsae traductione et nuptiarum celebratione propter novitatem vehementer animus convertitur ad id quod deorsum est, et ad gaudia vana; ideo ista tria tempora ex rationabili causa sunt interdicta, scilicet tempus Adventus usque ad Octavas Epiphaniae, tempus a Septuagesima usque ad Octavas Paschae, tempus a tertio die ante Ascensionem usque ad Octavas Pentecostes; et quia multae abusiones fiunt, quae his temporibus non conveniunt. — Alia est ratio *figuralis*, scilicet quia in his temporibus sunt dies ieiuniorum; et sicut dicitur Matthaei nono[^p740-5]: *Non debent filii sponsi lugere, quamdiu cum illis est sponsus; cum autem auferetur* etc.: ideo quodam modo in his diebus signatur absentia sponsi, et ideo in talibus diebus non debet fieri sponsi et sponsae coniunctio nec nuptiarum celebratio. Unde non est interdictum, contrahi sponsalia vel matrimonium in his diebus per *simplicem consensum*; sed interdictum est, nuptias celebrari et sponsam in domum viri adduci; et hoc totum congruitatis rationem exigit, pro eo quod est constitutio humana[^p740-6].

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non sunt tempora observanda; dicendum, quod tempora observari est tripliciter: aut enim tempora observantur quantum ad naturam in his quae *subsunt naturae*, ut quantum ad actum seminandi et navigandi; aut tempora servantur in his quae sunt *supra naturam*, sicut sunt ea quae sunt gratiae et liberi arbitrii; aut tempora observantur secundum spiritualem institutionem in *exsecutione spiritualium*, ut dies instituta ad colendum Natale Domini observanda est, ut in ea amplius laudetur Deus. Primum quidem non est peccatum nec tertium, sed secundum; et hoc modo non fit observatio in matrimonio, quia non observatur lunatio neque temporum variatio, nisi secundum quod statutum est ad cultum Dei; unde non est observatio ratione *temporis*, sed magis ratione *cultus divini*[^p740-7].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in aliis non interdicitur tempus; patet responsio, quia hoc Sacramentum habet aliquid speciale tum ratione actus carnalis, tum etiam ratione significationis[^p740-8].

<!-- page 741 -->

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est sanctum et bonum; dicendum, quod verum est; attamen habet annexum aliquid, quod tempus orationis impedit[^p741-1]; et si impedit post primam coniunctionem, quanto magis in prima, ubi est maior ardor et ardentior affectio?

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod abusus deberet interdici; dicendum, quod non solum ratione *abusus*, sed etiam ratione *usus* habet aliquod praestare impedimentum. *Praeterea*, facilius est determinare tempus, et melius observatur, quam si prohiberetur[^p741-2] gaudium superfluum. — Quod ultimo quaeritur iam determinatum est[^p741-3].

---

english:
### Article IV. *On the time in which nuptials ought to be celebrated.*

Consequently, as regards the fourth article, inquiry is made concerning the time of celebrating nuptials. And concerning this two things are asked. *First* it is asked, whether in celebrating nuptials a time ought to be observed. *Second* it is asked, whether a marriage contracted at an undue time ought to be separated.

### Question I. *Whether in celebrating nuptials a time ought to be observed.*

Concerning the first it is shown that a time ought to be observed:

1. *First*, through that which is said in Ecclesiastes 3[^p739-8]: *A time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces*: therefore it seems that it is not licit to celebrate nuptials at every time.

2. Likewise, [in] Causa 33, question 4[^p739-9], Nicholas [says]: «Neither to take a wife nor to hold feasts in the Lenten season do I judge to be able to be fitting in any way».

3. Likewise, according to the customs of all, the time of the celebration of nuptials is a time of festivity and of carnal joy, because the turning of love toward these things is vehement; but these things are not fitting to be done in a time deputed to the sanctification of the spirit: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, to celebrate nuptials is more than to render the debt; but in the carnal act, in order that it be done rightly and honorably, times are to be observed[^p740-1]: therefore much more strongly in the contracting of marriage, or in the first celebration of nuptials.

**On the contrary:**

1. To the Galatians, chapter 4[^p740-2]: *You observe days and months and seasons and years*; and after: *I fear lest I have labored among you without cause*: therefore it seems that this is heretical, to observe times: therefore it seems that at any time it is good to celebrate nuptials.

2. Likewise, in the reception of the other Sacraments there is no determination of times except from fittingness alone, nor are determinations of times commonly observed: therefore it seems likewise that [there is none] either in matrimony and the leading-home of the bride.

3. Likewise, matrimony is holy and good, since it is a Sacrament: therefore on sacred days it is fitting to celebrate it.

4. Likewise, if matrimony is repugnant to days of penance, this is not by reason of itself, but rather by reason of abuse: therefore in nuptials the abuse ought rather to be prohibited and interdicted than the time.

There is therefore a question: on account of what are only these three times interdicted, which are set down in the text[^p740-3]; and [why] these times more, and in this Sacrament rather than in another?

> **Conclusion.** For a twofold reason it is interdicted, at certain times, to celebrate the public solemnities of nuptials.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold reason why in these three seasons it is interdicted for nuptials to be celebrated, namely one *moral*, the other *figural*: the moral indeed, because in these three seasons of the year, on account of the expectation of the chief solemnities in which the faithful are accustomed to communicate[^p740-4], namely at the Nativity of the Lord, Easter, and Pentecost, the faithful ought to prepare themselves, that they may be able worthily and reverently to receive their Lord; and through this they ought in some measure to raise their sense-faculty away from earthly things. And since in the leading-home of the bride and the celebration of nuptials, on account of the novelty, the mind is vehemently turned toward that which is below, and toward vain joys; therefore these three seasons are, from a reasonable cause, interdicted, namely the season of Advent up to the Octave of Epiphany, the season from Septuagesima up to the Octave of Easter, the season from the third day before the Ascension up to the Octave of Pentecost; and because many abuses occur which do not befit these seasons. — The other reason is *figural*, namely because in these seasons are the days of fasting; and as it is said in Matthew 9[^p740-5]: *The sons of the bridegroom ought not to mourn, so long as the bridegroom is with them; but when he shall be taken away* etc.: therefore in a certain manner in these days the absence of the bridegroom is signified, and therefore on such days the joining of bridegroom and bride ought not to take place, nor the celebration of nuptials. Hence it is not interdicted that betrothals or matrimony be contracted on these days through *simple consent*; but it is interdicted that nuptials be celebrated and that the bride be led into the house of the husband; and all this the reason of fittingness demands, inasmuch as it is a human institution[^p740-6].

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that times are not to be observed; it must be said that to observe times is [done] in three ways: for either times are observed as regards nature in those things which *are subject to nature*, as regards the act of sowing and of sailing; or times are observed in those things which are *above nature*, such as are the things that are of grace and of free will; or times are observed according to a spiritual institution in the *carrying-out of spiritual things*, as the day instituted for the worship of the Nativity of the Lord is to be observed, that on it God may be the more praised. The first indeed is not a sin, nor the third, but the second [is]; and in this manner observation does not take place in matrimony, because neither the lunar phase nor the variation of times is observed, except according to what is appointed for the worship of God; hence there is no observation by reason of the *time*, but rather by reason of *divine worship*[^p740-7].

2. To that which is objected, that in the others a time is not interdicted; the response is plain, because this Sacrament has something special both by reason of the carnal act, and also by reason of its signification[^p740-8].

3. To that which is objected, that it is holy and good; it must be said that it is true; nevertheless it has annexed to it something which impedes the time of prayer[^p741-1]; and if it impedes after the first union, how much more in the first [union], where there is greater ardor and more ardent affection?

4. To that which is objected, that the abuse ought to be interdicted; it must be said that not only by reason of *abuse*, but also by reason of *use* it presents some impediment. *Moreover*, it is easier to determine the time, and it is better observed, than if superfluous joy were prohibited[^p741-2]. — As to what is asked last, it has already been determined[^p741-3].

---

la: Vers. 5.

en: [Ecclesiastes 3,] verse 5.

la: Can. 11. Nonnulli codd. cum Magistro, hic in lit. c. 4, *coniugia* pro *convivia.* Finem exhibet textus originalis sic: *tempore convenire posse, nullatenus arbitramur.*

en: Canon 11. Some codices, with the Master, here in the text, ch. 4, [read] *coniugia* ("marriages") for *convivia* ("feasts"). The original text gives the ending thus: *tempore convenire posse, nullatenus arbitramur* ("...can be fitting in [that] season, we by no means judge").

la: Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Vers. 10. — Seq. locus ibid. v. 11: *Timeo vos, ne forte sine causa* etc.

en: [Gal. 4,] verse 10. — The following passage is ibid., v. 11: *I fear for you, lest perhaps without cause* etc.

la: Hic c. 4. — Mox edd. omittunt *haec tempora et.* Subinde post *quam* plures codd. addunt *aliud.*

en: Here, ch. 4. — Presently the editions omit *haec tempora et* ("these times and"). Thereupon, after *quam* ("than"), several codices add *aliud* ("another").

la: Cfr. supra d. 12. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Inferius pro *excipere* cod. L *suscipere,* codd. O U *recipere,* edd. *accipere,* et pro *per hoc* cod. H *propter hoc.*

en: Cf. above, d. 12, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — Below, for *excipere* ("to receive") codex L [reads] *suscipere,* codices O, U *recipere,* the editions *accipere,* and for *per hoc* ("through this") codex H [reads] *propter hoc* ("on account of this").

la: Vers. 15; *Nunquid possunt filii... sponsus? Venient autem dies, cum auferetur* etc.

en: [Matt. 9,] verse 15; *Can the sons... the bridegroom? But days will come, when he shall be taken away* etc.

la: Cfr. *Glossa* super verba: «Hinc etiam in diebus abstinentiae nuptiae celebrari prohibentur», quae Gratian. C. *Non oportet* (8.), C. 33. q. 4, praemittit, et C. *Capellanus tuus* (4.), X. de Feriis (lib. II. tit. 9.), ubi in additamento *Glossae* occurrit hic versus: *Ecclesiae vetitum nec non tempus feriatum / Impediunt fieri, permittunt facta teneri.* — Pro *congruitatis rationem* cod. M *congruitas rationum,* Vat. cum aliquot codd. *congruitatis ratio.*

en: Cf. the *Gloss* upon the words: «Hence also on days of abstinence the celebration of nuptials is prohibited», which Gratian prefixes [to] the chapter *Non oportet* (8.), C. 33, q. 4, and [to] the chapter *Capellanus tuus* (4.), in the *Decretals* (X.), On Feast-days (Book II, tit. 9), where in an addition to the *Gloss* this verse occurs: *A prohibition of the Church, and likewise a festal time, / hinder [it] from taking place, [but] permit deeds [already] done to hold.* — For *congruitatis rationem* codex M [reads] *congruitas rationum,* the Vatican [edition] with some codices *congruitatis ratio.*

la: Vide August., Epist. 55. (alias 119.) c. 7. n. 12. seqq. — Pro *non est* codd. I K *non fit.* Superius post *non fit observatio* codd. R S bb supplent *temporis.*

en: See Augustine, Epistle 55 (alias 119), ch. 7, n. 12 ff. — For *non est* ("there is not") codices I, K [read] *non fit* ("does not take place"). Above, after *non fit observatio* codices R, S, bb supply *temporis* ("of time").

la: Cfr. supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. et q. 2. ad 4. — Pro *speciale* Vat. cum paucis codd. *spirituale et aliquid carnale, unde et hoc decet.*

en: Cf. above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1 and q. 2, ad 4. — For *speciale* ("special") the Vatican [edition] with a few codices [reads] *spirituale et aliquid carnale, unde et hoc decet* ("spiritual and something carnal, whence this too is fitting").

la: Vide supra a. 3. q. 2. et infra dub. 5.

en: See above, a. 3, q. 2, and below, dubium 5.

la: Ita cod. K (I a secunda manu), cod. L (E a secunda manu) *removeretur,* in aliis et edd. *moveretur.* Mox plures codd. *quaerit.*

en: So codex K (I by a second hand), codex L (E by a second hand) [read] *removeretur* ("would be removed"), in the others and the editions *moveretur* ("would be moved"). Presently several codices [read] *quaerit* ("he asks").

en: See the scholion on question I of the preceding article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p739-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `…p740…`, `…p741…`; L bands regenerated at split 2120, R bands at split 1780 because the default gutter split clipped both columns), cross-checked against raw OCR L79546–79706. Bands authoritative per the Vol II/IV override (two-column cascade-shattered OCR). English is a fresh literal translation. The short ARTICULUS IV opener ("Consequenter … duo quaeruntur") is folded into this q1 per the locked chunking convention.

**⚠ Page correction (auto-chunk frontmatter was off by two).** The skeleton frontmatter gave printed pages **737–738** / pdf **757–758**; that is wrong. Running heads verified in the bands and raw OCR place this chunk on **pp. 739–741**: the ARTICULUS IV opener + QUAESTIO I begin at the foot of **p.739** (right column, below a3-q2's tail; head "DIST. XXXII. ART. IV. QUAEST. I. 739"), the videtur/Contra/Conclusio/Respondeo and replies 1–2 fill **p.740** ("740 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."), and replies 3–4 finish at the top of **p.741** ("DIST. XXXII. ART. IV. QUAEST. II. 741") just before the QUAESTIO II header. Corrected `printed_pages` to **[739, 740, 741]**, `pdf_pages` to **[759, 760, 761]** (offset pdf = printed + 20), source to pp. 739–741. `line_start`/`line_end` kept (79546–79706); the "Primo/Secundo quaeritur" alignment is correct.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. Article IV has **no scholion** of its own. No SCHOLION header appears anywhere in this chunk's range; Distinction 32's two scholia (raw L78800 and L79341) both sit *before* Art IV begins (L79546) and belong to Articles I–III. Two footers in this chunk — `[^p739-9]`'s companion note 7 of p.739 (a3-q2's) and this chunk's `[^p741-3]` (*Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.*) — explicitly redirect to the **preceding article's** (Art III) scholion, not to any Art IV scholion. None rendered here. Sibling a4-q2 renders none regardless.

**Page/footer split (13 footers claimed; per-page series preserved via `p###-` labels).**
- Printed **p.739** — this chunk owns footer series **nn. 8, 9** (fn8 *Vers. 5* at *Ecclesiastis tertio*, arg 1; fn9 *Can. 11* at *quaestione quarta*, arg 2). Footers 1–7 of p.739 belong to the preceding chunk **a3-q2** (Art III q2's *reddi/peti* replies).
- Printed **p.740** — this chunk owns the **full footer series nn. 1–8** (fn1 *Cfr. supra a.3 q.2* at *tempora*, arg 4; fn2 *Gal. 4,10* at *Ad Galatas quarto*, Contra 1; fn3 *Hic c.4* at *in littera*, incidental q.; fn4 *Cfr. d.12* at *communicare*, Respondeo; fn5 *Matth. 9,15* at *Matthaei nono*, Respondeo; fn6 *Glossa/Non oportet* at *constitutio humana*, Respondeo; fn7 *August. Epist. 55* at *cultus divini*, Ad 1; fn8 *Cfr. d.26* at *significationis*, Ad 2). All eight anchor in this q1 body.
- Printed **p.741** — this chunk owns footer series **nn. 1, 2, 3** (fn1 *Vide supra a.3 q.2* at *impedit*, Ad 3; fn2 *removeretur/moveretur* at *prohiberetur*, Ad 4; fn3 scholion cross-ref at *determinatum est*, Ad 4). Footers 4–11 of p.741 belong to the following chunk **a4-q2** (QUAESTIO II, the *matrimonium in tempore indebito* question).

**Hand-offs.**
- **Shared first page (p.739) with a3-q2:** a3-q2 owns p.739 footers 1–7 (Art III q2 body); this chunk claims only footers 8–9, anchored in the Art IV opener/q1 args. Nothing of a3-q2 is rendered here.
- **Shared last page (p.741) with a4-q2:** this chunk owns p.741 footers 1–3 (q1's Ad 3–Ad 4 tail); footers 4–11 anchor in QUAESTIO II's body (left/right columns of p.741 bottom, continuing onto p.742) — **forwarded to a4-q2, not rendered here.** This chunk ends cleanly at "…iam determinatum est" immediately before the QUAESTIO II header.

**[?] flags.** None. All thirteen footers and all body markers were verified against the bands. Minor silent OCR corrections applied where context was unambiguous (e.g. *Prirao→Primo*, *qnod→quod*, *nnptias→nuptias*, *conver-sio→conversio*, *lem-pore→tempore*, *raagis→magis*, *serainandi→seminandi*, *lunatio* retained). The marginal editorial side-notes printed on these pages (*Epilogus et iudicium auctoris*, *Ad oppositum*, *Quaestio incidens*, *Ad quaest. incid.*, *Ratio 1.*) are trimmed per the corpus rule.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 32, Art. 4, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 741 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum matrimonium contractum in tempore indebito debeat separari.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum matrimonium contractum in tempore indebito debeat separari. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione quarta*[^p741-4]: « Non oportet a Septuagesima usque ad Octavam Paschae et tribus hebdomadibus ante festum sancti Ioannis et ab adventu Domini usque post Epiphaniam nuptias celebrare; quod si factum fuerit, separentur ».

2. Item, hoc videtur secundum ius antiquum[^p741-5], quod sic dicit: « Copulationem, quam contra ecclesiasticam regulam constat esse contractam, matrimonium non esse censemus ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia in foro ecclesiastico iudicandum est secundum statuta Ecclesiae: ergo si Ecclesia statuit, nuptias talibus temporibus non fieri, debent tales, si fiunt, iudicari pro non factis[^p741-6]: ergo debent separari.

4. Item, aliquis primo contrahit cum aliqua in clanculo et cum alia in manifesto; licet sit uxor *prima* secundum veritatem, tamen iudicatur uxor *secunda* in foro Ecclesiae, quia cum prima non servavit formam Ecclesiae, sicut cum secunda[^p741-7]: ergo si iste qui celebrat nuptias, non servat ecclesiasticam formam; patet, quod secundum iudicium Ecclesiae separandus est.

**Contra:** 1. Nihil est, propter quod debeat separari matrimonium, nisi desit aliquid, quod sit de eius substantia; sed de substantia matrimonii nihil est nisi consensus et persona legitima: si ergo nihil horum deficit in proposito, patet etc.

2. Item, matrimonium non debet separari in poenam, nisi sit criminis enormitas, maxime contra aliquod matrimonii bonum; sed hic nihil est tale: ergo etc.

3. Item, in quadam decretali de Matrimonio contracto contra Ecclesiae interdictum[^p741-8] dicitur: « Non est conveniens, ut ob id solum Sacramentum coniugii dissolvatur ».

4. Item, non prohibetur, matrimonium contrahi, sed nuptias celebrari[^p741-9]; hoc autem accidit matrimonio: ergo nullo modo debent separari propter hoc.

### Conclusio

> Matrimonia tempore indebito contracta non possunt simpliciter separari, sed solum ad tempus in poenam peccati.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod iunctos matrimonialiter triplici modo separat Ecclesia: quosdam simpliciter quantum ad *vinculum*, ostendens, inter eos non fuisse matrimonium; et hoc est propter hoc, quod intervenit aliquod impedimentum, quod est contra *substantiam* matrimonii vel ex parte consensus, vel legitimitatis personarum; et illud dicitur impedire contrahendum et *dirimere* iam contractum[^p741-10]. Quosdam separat simpliciter quantum ad tempus in poenam; et hoc est propter aliquod crimen quod est *contra matrimonii bonum*. Quosdam separat *ad tempus* solum *ad poenitentiam agendum*; et hoc, quando intervenit aliquod impedimentum, quod non est contra matrimonium quantum *ad substantiam* nec quantum *ad bonum*, sed inducit peccatum; et tale est ecclesiasticum interdictum, et de tali separatione intelligitur auctoritas canonis, quam Magister adducit[^p741-11]. Et sic dicendum, quod tales non debent simpliciter separari, sed solum ad tempus in poenam peccati, quia contempserunt mandatum Ecclesiae; et hoc etiam fit ad aliorum terrorem.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur secundo de ec-<!-- page 742 -->clesiastica regula, dicendum, quod Ecclesia dictat[^p742-1], matrimonium debere contrahi sic et sic; et in illa sua institutione quaedam dictat ut *necessaria*, quaedam ut *ad solemnitatem facientia*; et canon dicit de his quae regula ecclesiastica dictat huic Sacramento necessaria.

*Ad 3, 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de foro ecclesiastico, dicendum, quod in foro ecclesiastico nunquam iudicatur matrimonium non esse, nisi quando in facie Ecclesiae deest aliquid, quod est *de substantia* matrimonii; quod tamen non deest secundum veritatem, sicut in matrimonio clandestino, ubi non potest probari consensus; non sic est in proposito. — Et ideo patet illud ultimum[^p742-2].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether a marriage contracted at a forbidden time ought to be separated.*

Secondly it is asked whether a marriage contracted at a forbidden time ought to be separated. And that it should, seems [to be the case].

1. *Cause thirty-three, question four*[^p741-4]: « It is not fitting, from Septuagesima until the Octave of Easter, and for three weeks before the feast of Saint John, and from the Advent of the Lord until after Epiphany, to celebrate nuptials; and if this has been done, let them be separated ».

2. Likewise, this seems [right] according to ancient law[^p741-5], which speaks thus: « A union which is established to have been contracted against the ecclesiastical rule, we judge not to be a marriage ».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] *by reason*: because in the ecclesiastical forum judgment must be made according to the statutes of the Church; therefore if the Church has decreed that nuptials are not to take place at such times, then such [nuptials], if they do take place, ought to be judged as not done[^p741-6]: therefore they ought to be separated.

4. Likewise, someone first contracts with one woman secretly and with another openly; although the first is his wife according to the truth, nevertheless the second is judged to be his wife in the forum of the Church, because with the first he did not observe the form of the Church, as [he did] with the second[^p741-7]: therefore if this man who celebrates nuptials does not observe the ecclesiastical form, it is clear that according to the judgment of the Church he ought to be separated.

**On the contrary:** 1. There is nothing on account of which a marriage ought to be separated, unless something be lacking which is of its substance; but of the substance of marriage there is nothing except consent and a lawful person: if therefore none of these is lacking in the case proposed, it is clear, etc.

2. Likewise, a marriage ought not to be separated as a punishment, unless there be the enormity of a crime, especially against some good of marriage; but here there is nothing of the kind: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in a certain decretal concerning a Marriage contracted against the Church's interdict[^p741-8] it is said: « It is not fitting that on account of this alone the Sacrament of matrimony should be dissolved ».

4. Likewise, it is not marriage that is prohibited from being contracted, but nuptials from being celebrated[^p741-9]; and this [prohibition] pertains to the wedding-feast: therefore they ought in no way to be separated on account of this.

### Conclusion

> Marriages contracted at a forbidden time cannot be separated absolutely, but only for a time as a punishment of sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Church separates those joined in marriage in three ways: some absolutely, as to the *bond*, showing that there was no marriage between them; and this is on account of the fact that some impediment has intervened, which is against the *substance* of marriage, whether on the side of consent or of the lawfulness of the persons; and this [impediment] is said to hinder the contracting and to *dissolve* what is already contracted[^p741-10]. Some she separates absolutely as to time, as a punishment; and this is on account of some crime which is *against the good of marriage*. Some she separates *for a time* only, *for the doing of penance*; and this [happens] when some impediment intervenes which is not against the marriage as to its *substance* nor as to its *good*, but induces sin; and such is the ecclesiastical interdict, and it is of such a separation that the authority of the canon which the Master adduces is understood[^p741-11]. And so it must be said that such [persons] ought not to be separated absolutely, but only for a time as a punishment of sin, because they have despised the command of the Church; and this too is done for the terror of others.

*To 2.* To that, then, which is objected secondly concerning the ecclesiastical rule, it must be said that the Church prescribes[^p742-1] that a marriage ought to be contracted in such and such a way; and in that institution of hers she prescribes some things as *necessary*, some as *making for solemnity*; and the canon speaks of those things which the ecclesiastical rule prescribes as necessary to this Sacrament.

*To 3 and 4.* To that which is objected concerning the ecclesiastical forum, it must be said that in the ecclesiastical forum a marriage is never judged not to exist, except when in the face of the Church something is lacking which is *of the substance* of marriage; which nevertheless is not lacking according to the truth, as in a clandestine marriage, where consent cannot be proved; it is not so in the case proposed. — And thus that last [argument] is clear[^p742-2].

---

la: Can. 10. Fide codd. R S Z bb supplevimus *et ab adventu Domini usque post Epiphaniam,* quod etiam exhibet textus originalis et Magister, hic in lit. c. 4. Pro *Non oportet* plurimi codd. *Non debet.* — Post *Ioannis* cod. bb cum canone addit *Baptistae.*

en: Canon 10. On the faith of codices R, S, Z, bb we have supplied *et ab adventu Domini usque post Epiphaniam* ("and from the Advent of the Lord until after Epiphany"), which the original text and the Master also give, here in the text, ch. 4. For *Non oportet* ("It is not fitting") very many codices [read] *Non debet* ("It ought not"). — After *Ioannis* ("John") codex bb, with the canon, adds *Baptistae* ("the Baptist").

la: Cfr. *Glossa* supra pag. 740, nota 6. allegata.

en: Cf. the *Gloss* cited above, on page 740, note 6.

la: Regul. iuris, regul. 64: « Quae contra ius fiunt debent utique pro infectis haberi », in VI. Cfr. Iustinian., C. I. de Legibus et constitutionibus etc. (tit. 17.), lex *Non dubium est* (5.), ubi eadem regula occurrit.

en: Rule of law, rule 64: « Things which are done against the law must indeed be held as not done », in [the Liber] Sextus. Cf. Justinian, Codex, Book I, On Laws and Constitutions etc. (tit. 17), the law *Non dubium est* (5), where the same rule occurs.

la: Cfr. supra d. 28. q. 5. — Superius pro *uxor prima* et *uxor secunda* plures codd. et ed.; *uxor primae* et *uxor secundae,* a qua lectione Vat. in tantum discedit, quod substituit bis *vir* pro *uxor.*

en: Cf. above, d. 28, q. 5. — Above, for *uxor prima* ("first wife") and *uxor secunda* ("second wife") several codices and an edition [read] *uxor primae* ("wife of the first [man]") and *uxor secundae* ("wife of the second"), a reading from which the Vatican [edition] departs so far as to substitute twice *vir* ("husband") for *uxor* ("wife").

la: Extra lib. IV. tit. 16. C. *Ex litteris Cantuariensis* (2.). — Non pauci codd. hoc arg. omittunt; alii substituunt *de Matrimoniis* pro *de Matrimonio contracto,* ubi Vat. incongrue addit *Ex litteris.*

en: In the *Decretals* (Extra), Book IV, tit. 16, the chapter *Ex litteris Cantuariensis* (2). — Not a few codices omit this argument; others substitute *de Matrimoniis* ("concerning Marriages") for *de Matrimonio contracto* ("concerning a Marriage contracted"), where the Vatican [edition] incongruously adds *Ex litteris.*

la: Cfr. C. *Capellanus tuus* (4.), X. de Feriis (lib. II. tit. 9.).

en: Cf. the chapter *Capellanus tuus* (4), in the *Decretals* (X.), On Feast-days (Book II, tit. 9).

la: Vide infra d. 34. a. 1. q. 2. in corp., ubi etiam de tertio. De secundo cfr. d. 35. q. 1. — Mox post *ad tempus* edd. cum aliquibus codd. addunt *solum.*

en: See below, d. 34, a. 1, q. 2, in the body, where also [there is treatment] of the third [mode]. On the second, cf. d. 35, q. 1. — Presently, after *ad tempus* ("for a time") the editions with some codices add *solum* ("only").

la: Hic in lit. c. 4.

en: Here in the text [of the Master], ch. 4.

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *mandat,* alii codd. hic et in seqq. *dicit.* Mox pro *institutione* codd. *ostensione.*

en: Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] *mandat* ("commands"), the other codices here and in what follows *dicit* ("says"). Presently, for *institutione* ("institution") the codices [read] *ostensione* ("showing").

la: Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed pp. 741–742 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p741-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p742-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against raw OCR L79707–79798. The IA djvu OCR is cascade-shattered (two-column diagonal fragmentation) through the whole Respondeo and both footers, so the PDF bands are authoritative per the VOL II OVERRIDE. Running heads verified: p.741 "DIST. XXXII. ART. IV. QUAEST. II."; p.742 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (even-page verso title).

**Frontmatter correction.** The auto-chunker's frontmatter listed `printed_pages: [738,739,740]` / `pdf_pages: [758,759,760]`, but QUAESTIO II actually opens on printed p.741 and runs onto p.742 (the "742 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." running head falls mid-body in the raw). Corrected to `printed_pages: [741,742]` / `pdf_pages: [761,762]` (offset pdf = printed + 20).

**Opener alignment.** Verified: raw "Secundo quaeritur, utrum matrimonium contractum in tempore indebito debeat separari" (≈L79713) aligns with this q2. No q-swap.

**has_scholion: false.** Article IV has no scholion — the Art. III scholion (in a3-q1 §III) explicitly notes that Art. IV's questions present no difficulty. Confirmed: no SCHOLION block appears in the raw range or on the PDF pages.

**Page-split map of apparatus.**
- p.741 footer nn. 4–11 (8 entries) — anchor in this q2's body (arguments 1–4 across both columns, plus the Respondeo). Picked up per the hand-off from a4-q1, which kept p.741 nn. 1–3.
- p.742 footer nn. 1–2 (2 entries) — anchor in this q2's *solutio oppositorum* (*Ecclesia dictat*¹, *illud ultimum*²), which occupies the top of p.742 before the DUBIA. p.742 footer nn. 3–11 anchor in the DUBIA body (DUB. I–III) and belong to the following DUBIA chunk, not this one.

**Hand-offs.** PICKED UP: p.741 nn. 4–11 from a4-q1. FORWARD: this chunk shares its last page (p.742) with the DUBIA chunk; the DUBIA-body footers (p.742 nn. 3–11) are the dubia's — claimed there, not here.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The printed margin carries the glosses *Triplex separatio.* (beside the Respondeo), *Conclusio.* (beside "Et sic dicendum…"), and *Solutio oppositorum.* (beside "Ad illud ergo…"). These are the Quaracchi editors' running side-notes, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted from the body per the OCR-cleanup convention.

**[?] flags.** **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 741)** — d.31–d.40 decade polish gate, Pass 1 (2026-07-13). `[^p741-6]` (= p. 741 footer note 6), the Justinian title numeral: read at 600 dpi from `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-741-r600-0761.png`, left-hand footer column (crop `(930, 6640)–(1230, 6740)`, 7× upscale on the numeral itself). **Quaracchi prints `(tit. 17.)`** — the leading digit is a plain vertical **1** with the Quaracchi top-left serif (not the open-topped 4), and the second digit is an unmistakable 7. The full printed note reads: `Regul. iuris, regul. 64: « Quae contra ius fiunt debent utique pro infectis haberi », in VI. Cfr. Iustinian., C. 1. de Legibus et constitutionibus etc. (tit. 17.), lex Non dubium est (5.), ubi eadem regula occurrit.` The printed reading is retained as transcribed. Substantive note (translator's, not textual): the lex *Non dubium est* is in fact C. 1.14.5, so Quaracchi's `tit. 17` looks like the edition's own slip — but we transcribe what Quaracchi prints and do not silently emend it. Flag retired.

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. 32, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 742 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: *In hoc enim pares sunt* etc. Videtur enim falsum, quia in hoc Sacramento significatur coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae, Dei et animae, inter quos nulla omnino est paritas: ergo nec viri ad uxorem. — Item, ad Ephesios quinto[^1]: *Mulieres subiectae sint viris suis;* post dicit de viris, quod *diligant eas sicut corpora sua:* ergo cum corpus sit pars inferior, patet etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in matrimonio est considerare *sexus distinctionem* et *conformem coniunctionem* et postremo *mutuam obligationem.* Ratione *duorum* primorum significat Deum et Ecclesiam, quia, sicut mulier eget viro, sic Ecclesia Christo; ratione *coniunctionis* inseparabilis et conformitatis significat illam coniunctionem[^2]; sed ratione *obligationis* non est significatio, quia Deus omnino liber est et nulli omnino obligatur: tamen debet esse inter virum et mulierem obligatio, quia aliter non interveniret inseparabilis unio; et quoniam conformis est unio, ideo conformis est obligatio, et ideo quantum ad hoc *pares* iudicantur, quia conformiter sibi invicem obligantur.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod vir est superior; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur quantum ad illos actus, qui respiciunt sexum virilem specialiter, scilicet quantum ad regimen domus et consimilium[^3].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nam vovenda talia non sunt a coniugatis* etc.; utrum peccet mortaliter qui sic vovet. Et quod sic, videtur: quia qui scienter usurpat alienum peccat mortaliter, etiam si det in eleemosynam: ergo cum talis vovens usurpet alienum[^4], patet etc. — Item, qui vovet quod non licet, vel iurat, hoc ipso periurus est, quia temerarie iurat: ergo cum non liceat viro continere, uxore invita[^5]; videtur, quod si voveat, mortaliter peccat. — Item, si iuraret, quod nunquam mulierem cognosceret, peccaret mortaliter: ergo pari ratione, si voveret.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum quis vovet continentiam, dupliciter potest vovere: aut *intentione fraudandi uxorem,* aut *amore continentiae.* Si *intentione fraudandi uxorem,* sic est iniquum et prohibitum; et tale votum est illicitum. Si continentiae amore vovet sine consensu coniugis, tale votum aliquid habet *temeritatis,* aliquid habet *honestatis.* Vir enim *non habet sui corporis potestatem*[^6] quantum ad debitum *solvendum,* sed sui iuris est quantum ad debitum *petendum;* et ideo primum non potest vovere, sed secundum; et ideo, nisi uxor consentiat, votum est revocandum, quantum est ad debiti *redditionem,* sed stat quantum ad *petitionem*[^7]. Unde si quis deliberate vovit castitatem, tenetur, quantum in se est, continere, ut debitum non petat; si tamen uxor petat, solvere debet; et sic nulli fit praeiudicium, et non offertur Deo alienum[^8], sed proprium.

Et sic patet, quod hoc non est *omnino* alienum, et patet responsio ad obiecta. — Tamen quod obiicit de iuramento, non est simile: quia iuramentum temerarium est simpliciter, cum teneatur facere contrarium. Unde peccat statim, cum sic iurat, non[^9] sic, cum vovet.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si vero quilibet eorum alterum a suo iure absolverit* etc. <!-- page 743 --> Ponatur, quod mulier de consensu viri emittat simplex votum, et postmodum vir poeniteat; utrum teneatur ei debitum reddere. Et videtur, quod *non:* quia suo iuri renuntiavit, unde videtur, quod non habeat ulterius potestatem petendi debitum. — In *oppositum* autem videtur auctoritas Augustini super Numerorum trigesimum[^10], ubi dicitur: *Sin autem contradixerit* etc.; super illud dicit Augustinus, et habetur in littera, quod vir potest retractare votum uxoris, in quod consenserat. Et *praeterea,* vir non est astrictus servare continentiam, quia, uxore mortua, posset ducere aliam: ergo videtur, quod possit debitum petere[^11].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si mulier vovet assensu viri, aut hoc est assensu *privato,* aut assensu, qui est *in conspectu Ecclesiae* sive praelati. Si assensu, qui fit in conspectu *praelati;* sic secundum iuris formam non potest debitum petere, quia renuntiat suo iuri. Si autem in *occulto* consentit, quia proponit continere et intendit simpliciter iuri suo renuntiare; iam mulier in conspectu Dei absoluta est nec tenetur debitum reddere, si hoc ex deliberatione vir concesserit. — Sed quoniam hoc non constat Ecclesiae, compelletur per excommunicationem ab Ecclesia viro debitum reddere.

*Si quaeras,* utrum debeat obedire; dicendum, quod si votum[^12] non emisit, potest sine peccato debitum reddere et tenetur ad mandatum Ecclesiae. Si autem votum emisit, credo, quod vir eam revocare non possit, nec tenetur assentire ei. Nec est simile de voto abstinentiae, pro eo quod quantum ad omnia vir praeest uxori, praeterquam in lege tori[^13]. Verumtamen talem modum vovendi non approbat Ecclesia propter periculum, quod imminet; unde non patitur, quod unus voveat et religionem ingrediatur, nisi alter similiter voveat et talis sit persona, de qua «non possit suspicio oriri[^14]». Si autem aliter fiat, coram Deo tenetur observare.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Licet debitum poscenti sit semper solvendum, non licet tamen quolibet die poscere* etc. Videtur enim falsum, quia, si non licet petere, ergo illicite et iniuste petit; sed iniuste petenti rem non tenetur quis reddere, quia non est ei reddendum nisi ius suum: ergo si non potest semper iuste petere, non ergo semper tenetur debitum solvere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum dicitur *non licet,* intelligendum, non quia privet *iustitiam* et aequitatem, sed quia privat quandam *condecentiam* et honestatem, sicut patet per litteram sequentem[^15]. Esto tamen, quod privet *iustitiam;* adhuc non valet ratio illa, quia iniuste petere est dupliciter: aut quia non habet *ius in re petita,* sicut ille qui petit rem alienam, et tali non oportet reddere. Aliter est petere iniuste, quia, etsi habeat iustitiam, tamen *modum debitum* in petendo non servat, vel potest esse, quod non sit prohibitum *reddere,* sed tamen sit prohibitum aliquando *petere.* Verbi gratia: si praelatus superior iniungat inferiori, ut nihil praecipiat subdito, tamen subdito non dicit, quod ille non obediat; si praelatus inferior praecipit, ille tenetur obedire, quia non est exemptus; attamen ille peccat mortaliter; sic in proposito potest intelligi. Quidquid sit de exemplo inducto, verum est, quod si aliquis ius suum inordinate exigit, tamen ex hoc non dat potestatem alteri retinendi quod debet reddere. Unde sicut Dominus solum prohibuit accedere ad menstruatam, et ideo ista prohibitio non se extendit ad mulierem; ideo tenetur reddere, sed ille petendo peccat. Et sic intelligendum est quod Augustinus dicit super Levitici decimum quintum[^16], quod «necessario utrique indicitur continentia», et uterque in Levitici vigesimo praecipitur interfici, et uterque facit contra bonum prolis, ut Hieronymus dicit. Hoc enim intelligere[^17] est ratione personae *petentis,* quae recte dicitur *accedere* et contra hoc facere, ut ex praedictis patet.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quicumque uxori debitum reddit, vacare non potest orationi.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia dicitur primae ad Thessalonicenses ultimo[^18]: *Sine intermissione orate;* hoc est praeceptum: ergo si non potest orare qui reddit debitum, patet etc. — Item, videtur, illud simpliciter esse falsum, quia nihil impedit orationem sicut peccatum; sed veniale peccatum non impedit; ergo nec actus, in quo nulla est culpa. — <!-- page 744 --> Item, de David[^19] obiicitur, qui fuit devotissimus, et tamen habuit plures uxores et liberos. *Si tu dicas,* illud intelligi de eo tempore, in quo quis coit; similiter posset dicere de tempore, in quo homo dormit.

**Respondeo:** Magister dicit, hoc intelligendum esse de clericis; sed tamen istud non plene satisfacit obiectionibus praedictis. — Et ideo dicitur, quod cum dicitur aliquis *non posse,* negatio potest *potentiam* negare *simpliciter,* vel *facilitatem;* et iste modus saepe est in Scriptura[^20]. Non vult ergo Hieronymus negare *potentiam,* sed *facilitatem;* unde non dicit, quod non possit *orare,* sed dicit, quod non potest *orationi vacare;* quia actus ille multum deiicit mentem spiritualem, sicut dicit Augustinus[^21], nisi sit gratia excellens et specialis, sicut fuit in David. Et ideo aliud est *consilium,* ut cum quis vult se totum orationi dare, debet a tali actu abstinere. — Et sic patet, quod non repugnat orationis praecepto. Tamen de illo quod dicit, quod orandum est sine intermissione; intelligendum est, quod nomine *orationis* omnis bonus actus intelligitur secundum Glossam[^22]. Unde dicit ibi: «Non cessat orare qui non cessat bene facere».

Quod obiicitur, quod peccatum magis gravat; dicendum, quod falsum est de veniali peccato, propter multam foeditatem animae, quae est in illo actu; et frequenter anima multum impeditur per aliquas foeditates vel etiam infirmitates poenales[^23].

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning that which he says: *For in this they are equals* etc. For it seems false, because in this Sacrament is signified the joining of Christ and the Church, of God and the soul, between which there is no equality whatsoever: therefore neither is there [equality] of the husband to the wife. — Likewise, to the Ephesians, chapter five[^1]: *Let wives be subject to their husbands;* afterward he says of husbands, that *they should love them as their own bodies:* therefore, since the body is the inferior part, it is plain, etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that in matrimony there is to be considered *the distinction of the sexes,* and *the conformable joining,* and lastly *the mutual obligation.* By reason of the *two* first it signifies God and the Church, because, just as the woman needs the man, so the Church [needs] Christ; by reason of the inseparable *joining* and of conformity it signifies that joining[^2]; but by reason of *obligation* there is no signification, because God is altogether free and is bound to no one at all: yet there ought to be an obligation between husband and wife, because otherwise the inseparable union would not come about; and since the union is conformable, therefore the obligation is conformable, and therefore in this respect they are judged *equals,* because they are bound to one another conformably.

To that, then, which is objected, that the husband is superior; it must be said that this is understood as regards those acts which look to the male sex especially, namely as regards the governance of the household and the like[^3].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *For such things are not to be vowed by married persons* etc.; whether he who so vows sins mortally. And that he does, it seems: because he who knowingly usurps another's property sins mortally, even if he give it in alms: therefore since such a one vowing usurps another's property[^4], it is plain, etc. — Likewise, he who vows what is not licit, or swears it, by that very fact is a perjurer, because he swears rashly: therefore since it is not licit for a husband to be continent, his wife being unwilling[^5]; it seems that, if he should vow, he sins mortally. — Likewise, if he should swear that he would never know a woman, he would sin mortally: therefore by parity of reasoning, if he should vow it.

**I respond:** It must be said that when someone vows continence, he can vow in two ways: either *with the intention of defrauding his wife,* or *out of love of continence.* If *with the intention of defrauding his wife,* thus it is iniquitous and prohibited; and such a vow is illicit. If out of love of continence he vows without the consent of his spouse, such a vow has something of *rashness,* and something of *honorableness.* For the husband *does not have power over his own body*[^6] as regards the debt to be *rendered,* but he is of his own right as regards the debt to be *asked;* and therefore the first he cannot vow, but the second; and therefore, unless the wife consent, the vow is to be revoked as regards the *rendering* of the debt, but it stands as regards the *asking*[^7]. Whence if someone deliberately has vowed chastity, he is bound, as far as in him lies, to be continent, so that he not ask the debt; if, however, the wife asks, he ought to render it; and thus prejudice is done to no one, and there is not offered to God what is another's[^8], but what is one's own.

And thus it is plain that this is not *altogether* another's, and the response to the objections is plain. — Yet as to what is objected concerning the oath, it is not similar: because a rash oath is simply [illicit], since one is bound to do the contrary. Whence he sins at once, when he so swears, not[^9] so, when he vows.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *But if either of them should absolve the other from his right* etc. <!-- page 743 --> Suppose that a woman with her husband's consent makes a simple vow, and afterward the husband repents; whether he is bound to render her the debt. And it seems that *not:* because she renounced her own right, whence it seems that she no longer has the power of asking the debt. — But to the contrary there seems [to be] the authority of Augustine on Numbers, chapter thirty[^10], where it is said: *But if he should contradict it* etc.; upon that Augustine says, and it is had in the text, that the husband can retract the wife's vow, to which he had consented. And *moreover,* the husband is not bound to keep continence, because, his wife having died, he could take another: therefore it seems that he can ask the debt[^11].

**I respond:** It must be said that if the woman vows with the husband's assent, either this is by assent *in private,* or by assent which is *in the sight of the Church* or of a prelate. If by an assent which is made in the sight of *a prelate;* thus according to the form of law he cannot ask the debt, because he renounces his own right. But if he consents *in secret,* because he purposes to be continent and intends simply to renounce his own right; then the woman in the sight of God is absolved and is not bound to render the debt, if the husband has granted this out of deliberation. — But since this is not established to the Church, she will be compelled by the Church through excommunication to render the debt to the husband.

*If you ask* whether she ought to obey; it must be said that if she has not uttered a vow[^12], she can without sin render the debt and is bound to [obey] the Church's command. But if she has uttered a vow, I believe that the husband cannot revoke her, nor is she bound to consent to him. Nor is it similar in the case of a vow of abstinence, for the reason that as regards all things the husband is preeminent over the wife, except in the law of the marriage-bed[^13]. Nevertheless the Church does not approve such a manner of vowing on account of the danger which threatens; whence it does not permit that one should vow and enter religion, unless the other likewise vow and be such a person, of whom «no suspicion can arise[^14]». But if it be done otherwise, before God one is bound to observe [the vow].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *Although the debt is always to be rendered to the one asking, nevertheless it is not licit to ask on any day whatever* etc. For it seems false, because, if it is not licit to ask, then one asks illicitly and unjustly; but to one asking unjustly one is not bound to render the thing, because nothing is to be rendered to him except his own right: therefore if one cannot always justly ask, therefore one is not always bound to render the debt.

**I respond:** It must be said that when it is said *it is not licit,* it is to be understood not that it deprives [it] of *justice* and equity, but that it deprives [it] of a certain *decency* and honorableness, as is plain through the following text[^15]. Yet grant that it deprive [it] of *justice;* still that argument is not valid, because to ask unjustly is twofold: either because one does not have *a right in the thing asked,* like him who asks another's property, and to such a one it is not necessary to render. Otherwise it is to ask unjustly because, although one has justice, yet one does not keep *the due manner* in asking, or it can be that it is not prohibited to *render,* but nevertheless it is prohibited sometimes to *ask.* For example: if a superior prelate should enjoin an inferior that he command nothing to a subject, yet he does not say to the subject that he should not obey; if the inferior prelate commands, the subject is bound to obey, because he is not exempt; but nevertheless the [inferior prelate] sins mortally; so it can be understood in the case at hand. Whatever be [said] of the example adduced, it is true that if someone exacts his own right inordinately, yet from this he does not give power to another of retaining what he ought to render. Whence just as the Lord only prohibited approaching a menstruous woman, and therefore this prohibition does not extend to the [other] woman; therefore she is bound to render, but he sins in asking. And thus it is to be understood what Augustine says on Leviticus, chapter fifteen[^16], that «continence is necessarily enjoined on both», and both in Leviticus chapter twenty are commanded to be put to death, and both act against the good of offspring, as Jerome says. For to understand this[^17] is by reason of the person *asking,* who is rightly said *to approach* and to act against this, as is plain from what has been said.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *Whoever renders the debt to his wife cannot be free for prayer.* For it seems ill said, because it is said in the first [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, the last [chapter][^18]: *Pray without ceasing;* this is a precept: therefore if he who renders the debt cannot pray, it is plain, etc. — Likewise, it seems that this is simply false, because nothing impedes prayer as does sin; but venial sin does not impede [it]; therefore neither does an act in which there is no fault. — <!-- page 744 --> Likewise, an objection is raised from David[^19], who was most devout, and yet had many wives and children. *If you say* that this is understood of that time in which one has intercourse; likewise one could say [it] of the time in which a man sleeps.

**I respond:** The Master says that this is to be understood of clerics; but nevertheless that does not fully satisfy the aforesaid objections. — And therefore it is said that when someone is said *not to be able,* the negation can deny the *power* *simply,* or the *facility;* and this manner is often [found] in Scripture[^20]. Therefore Jerome does not mean to deny the *power,* but the *facility;* whence he does not say that one cannot *pray,* but he says that one cannot *be free for prayer;* because that act greatly casts down the spiritual mind, as Augustine says[^21], unless there be excellent and special grace, as there was in David. And therefore it is a matter of *counsel* that when someone wishes to give himself wholly to prayer, he ought to abstain from such an act. — And thus it is plain that it is not repugnant to the precept of prayer. Yet concerning that which he says, that one ought to pray without ceasing; it is to be understood that by the name of *prayer* every good act is understood according to the Gloss[^22]. Whence it says there: «He does not cease to pray who does not cease to do good».

As to what is objected, that sin aggravates the more; it must be said that this is false concerning venial sin, on account of the great foulness of the soul which is in that act; and frequently the soul is much impeded through certain foulnesses or also penal infirmities[^23].

---

la: Vers. 22, ubi Vulgata *subditae* pro *subiectae.* — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 28: *Ita et viri debent diligere uxores suas ut corpora sua.*

en: Verse 22, where the Vulgate has *subject* (*subditae*) for *subiectae.* — The following passage is at the same place, v. 28: *So also ought husbands to love their wives as their own bodies.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro *illam* codd. R S bb *meram.*

en: Cf. above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1. — For *illam* codices R S bb read *meram.*

la: Vide de hoc dubio B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 31. a. 29; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.

en: See on this doubt B. Albert, IV Sent., d. 31, a. 29; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 2, little-question 2.

la: Respicitur lit. Magistri, hic c. 2.

en: Reference is made to the Master's text, here c. 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Pro *temerarie* multi codd. *temeritate.*

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2. — For *temerarie* (rashly) many codices read *temeritate* (rashness).

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4. — Pro *solvendum* cod. L *reddendum.*

en: Epistle, 1 Cor. 7, 4. — For *solvendum* codex L reads *reddendum.*

la: Contextu exigente, substituimus *petitionem* i.e. ut debitum non petat, pro *solutionem,* quod codd. et edd. perperam exhibent: *redditio* et *solutio* debiti enim idem significant. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp.

en: As the context requires, we have substituted *petitionem* (the asking), i.e. that he not ask the debt, for *solutionem* (the rendering), which the codices and editions wrongly exhibit: for *redditio* and *solutio* of the debt signify the same thing. Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, in the body.

la: Lev. 10, 1. seq. et 16, 1. dicitur, quod duo filii Aaron interfecti sunt, «offerentes ignem alienum».

en: In Lev. 10, 1 seq. and 16, 1 it is said that the two sons of Aaron were slain, «offering strange fire».

la: Codd. R S T *non tamen.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio supra a. 1. q. 1, ubi in scholio allegati sunt alii auctores tractantes de hac re.

en: Codices R S T read *non tamen.* — Cf. on this doubt above, a. 1, q. 1, where in the scholion other authors treating of this matter are cited.

la: Vers. 16: *Sin autem contradixerit, postquam rescivit, portabit ipse iniquitatem eius.* Sententia August. est hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Verse 16: *But if he should contradict it after he came to know, he himself shall bear her iniquity.* The opinion of Augustine is here [in] the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Codd. B Y *solvere,* cod. L et edd. *reddere.*

en: Codices B Y read *solvere,* codex L and the editions *reddere.*

la: Scilicet continentiae.

en: Namely [a vow] of continence.

la: Cfr. Gratian. super C. *Manifestum est* (11.), C. 33. q. 5, ubi eadem distinctio inter votum *continentiae* et *abstinentiae* eademque solutio habetur. (Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.). — Voci *abstinentiae* codd. R S T praemittunt *continentiae vel.*

en: Cf. Gratian on the canon *Manifestum est* (11.), C. 33, q. 5, where the same distinction between a vow *of continence* and *of abstinence* and the same solution is found. (See here the Master's text, c. 2.). — To the word *abstinentiae* codices R S T prefix *continentiae vel.*

la: Ut dicitur in regula Fratrum Minorum, c. 2. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVII. c. 7. seq. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. et circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.

en: As is said in the Rule of the Friars Minor, c. 2. Cf. above, the Master's text, d. XXVII, c. 7 seq. — The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4 and on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 2.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Edd. legunt: *Dicendum, quod tunc non licet, quando privat iustitiam et aequitatem, condecentiam et honestatem* etc.

en: Here in the Master's text, c. 3. — The editions read: *It must be said that then it is not licit, when it deprives [it] of justice and equity, decency and honorableness* etc.

la: Vers. 19. Codd. allegant c. 18. Pro *Augustinus* substituendum *Hesychius.* Cfr. supra pag. 736, nota 10. — Seq. locus est Lev. 20, 18. Sententiam Hieron. vide supra a. 3. q. 1. arg. 2. de utraque q. pro parte negat. et in corp. — Superius pro *et ideo ista* codd. Q Z bb *tamen ista,* codd. S T *cum ista,* non pauci codd. omittunt *et ideo.*

en: Verse 19. The codices cite c. 18. For *Augustine* one should substitute *Hesychius.* Cf. above, p. 736, note 10. — The following passage is Lev. 20, 18. For the opinion of Jerome see above, a. 3, q. 1, arg. 2 of each question on the negative side, and in the body. — Above, for *et ideo ista* codices Q Z bb read *tamen ista,* codices S T *cum ista,* not a few codices omit *et ideo.*

la: Codd. K L V Z (1 a secunda manu) *intelligendum.* — Vide de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 8.

en: Codices K L V Z (1 by a second hand) read *intelligendum.* — See on this doubt B. Albert, here a. 8.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 4.

en: See below, the Master's text, d. XXXIII, c. 4.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. et 2; II. Sent. d. 43. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1. seq. et 4. — Pro *negatio potest,* quod praebent codd. N O P R S T X, cod. M *ly non,* alii codd. *vel necessario potest,* vel *necessario,* edd. *necessario dicitur,* quae etiam subinde bis *facultatem* pro *facilitatem.*

en: Cf. above, d. 14, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1 and 2; II Sent., d. 43, a. 2, q. 2, ad 1 seq. and 4. — For *negatio potest,* which codices N O P R S T X give, codex M [reads] *ly non,* other codices *vel necessario potest,* or *necessario,* the editions *necessario dicitur,* which also thereupon twice [read] *facultatem* for *facilitatem.*

la: Vide supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: See above, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.

la: In I. Thess. 5, 17. Cfr. supra pag. 368, nota 4.

en: On 1 Thess. 5, 17. Cf. above, p. 368, note 4.

la: Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 2, ubi etiam in scholio alii auctores allegantur, qui de hac re tractant.

en: Cf. above, a. 3, q. 2, where also in the scholion other authors are cited who treat of this matter. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF page bands (printed pp. 742–744 = pdf 762–764; offset pdf = printed + 20), read against raw OCR L79799–L80051. Two-column cascade-shattered OCR → PDF bands authoritative for running prose and footers per the VOL II OVERRIDE. Full-page 0.5-scale renders plus 1.5× footer-strip crops were used; the default and 2120 colcrop splits both clipped the wide left column, so the full-page render was the reliable body source.

**Running heads verified.** p.742 top = "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (verso); p.743 top = "DIST. XXXII. DUBIA. 743" (recto); p.744 top = "744 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Confirms the printed span and the d.32→d.33 boundary.

**Dubia count: 5 (Dub. I–V).** All present and complete.

**Seam verification (LAST CHUNK).** The final dubium, Dub. V, runs from p.743 right column through p.744 and its Respondeo ends "…per aliquas foeditates vel etiam infirmitates poenales[^23]." at the foot of p.744 left→right, immediately before the running-head "DISTINCTIO XXXIII." (raw L80052, the real d.33 littera). Dub. V's answer is complete — nothing is truncated at the d.32→d.33 seam. DISTINCTIO XXXIII and its "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM." footer are NOT part of this chunk.

**Column reflow.** Reading order per page = left column top→bottom, then right column. Dub. II spans p.742 L→R; Dub. III opens at foot of p.742 R and continues on p.743 L; Dub. IV spans p.743 L→R; Dub. V opens at p.743 R, continues p.744 L→R. Page breaks `<!-- page 743 -->` (inside Dub. III) and `<!-- page 744 -->` (inside Dub. V) placed at the reflowed column-turn boundaries.

**Apparatus: 23 entries, per-page split.** p.742 footers 3–11 → [^1]–[^9]; p.743 footers 1–9 → [^10]–[^18]; p.744 footers 1–5 → [^19]–[^23]. Quaracchi restarts numbering each page; a single continuous `[^N]` sequence is used, mapped in the apparatus `>` note.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Received / not claimed:* p.742 footers 1–2 (fn 1 "Cod. K … mandat … institutione … ostensione."; fn 2 "Vide scholion ad 1. praecedentis articuli quaest.") anchor in the preceding **a. 4 q. 2** body ("Ecclesia dictat¹" / "illud ultimum²") and belong to that chunk, not here.
- *Forwarded:* p.744 "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM." with its note 1 (Gratian, super C. *Recurrat nunc*…) and the p.744 right-column notes (Gen. 2, 24; Gen. 4, 19; De Bono coniugali) belong to **DISTINCTIO XXXIII, Cap. I**, not claimed here.

**[?] flags.** None. All body text and 23 footers read cleanly from the bands; the one ambiguous glyph (p.744 fn 1 chapter number) was resolved to "c. 4" by a tight crop.

**Hand-off out.** This is the last chunk of d.32; the next unit is the d.33 littera beginning "DISTINCTIO XXXIII. Cap. I. De diversis legibus coniugii." at raw L80052.


title: Dist. 33

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXIII

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

source_text:
<!-- page 744 -->

### Cap. I. *De diversis legibus coniugii.*

Quaeritur hic de antiquis Patribus, qui plures simul leguntur habuisse uxores vel concubinas, utrum peccaverint. — Ad quod dicimus, quod « pro varietate temporum varia invenitur dispensatio Conditoris[^1] ». Ab exordio enim temporis inter duos tantum, Adam scilicet et Evam, inchoatum est coniugium, Deo per os Adae dicente: *Homo adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una*; et secundum inchoationis modum inter duos tantum per omnem successionem temporum contraheretur, si primi homines in obedientia perstitissent. Post eorum vero copulam filii et filiae eorum matrimonio coniuncti sunt, sed unus uni tantum. Ideo autem fratres sororibus tunc sunt copulati, quia non erant aliae mulieres vel viri, quibus Adae filii vel filiae iungerentur. Primus omnium Lamech duas legitur[^2] simul habuisse uxores; et hoc in eo arguitur, quia pro expletione carnalis voluptatis id fecisse perhibetur. Postea vero, cum iam pene omnes homines falsis diis servirent, paucis in cultu Dei permanentibus; consultum est a Deo, plures in matrimonium copulare sibi, ne illis paucis deficientibus, cultus et notitia Dei deficeret. Unde Abraham, vivente uxore, ad ancillam intravit et ex ea genuit; Iacob etiam liberis et ancillis se copulavit, et filiae Loth patre ebrio usae sunt. « Cum enim ceteris in idololatria relictis, Abraham et filios eius in *peculiarem* sibi *populum* Dominus elegisset; rite multarum fecunditate mulierum populi Dei multiplicatio quaerebatur, quia in successione sanguinis erat successio religionis. Unde etiam in lege *maledicta erat sterilis*, quae non relinquebat semen super terram. Hinc etiam sacerdotibus coniugia decreta sunt, quia in successione familiae successio est officii ». « Non igitur Abraham vel Iacob deliquit, quia praeter uxorem filios ex ancilla quaesivit; nec illorum exemplo praeter coniugale debitum fecunditatem in aliqua licet alicui quaerere, cum illorum coniugia nostrorum aequentur virginitati, et immoderatus usus coniugii nostri temporis turpitudinem fere imitetur fornicationis illius temporis ». De hoc Augustinus[^3] sic ait: « Antiquis iustis non fuit peccatum, quod pluribus feminis utebantur; nec contra naturam hoc faciebant, cum non lasciviendi causa, sed gignendi hoc facerent; neque contra morem, quia eo tempore ea fiebant; nec contra praeceptum, quia nulla lege erat prohibitum ». Idem: « Obiiciuntur Iacob quatuor uxores, quod, quando mos erat, crimen non erat ». « Sic Patriarchae coniugibus excipientibus semen suum miscebantur, non concupiscentia perficiendae voluptatis, sed providentia propagandae successionis; sicut Apostoli auditoribus suis admirantibus doctrinam suam

<!-- page 745 -->

condelectabantur, non aviditate consequendae laudis, sed caritate seminandae veritatis ». Idem alibi: « Antiquis temporibus, cum adhuc salutis nostrae mysterium velaretur, iusti officio propagandi nuptias contrahebant, non victi libidine, sed ducti pietate; qui multo facilius continere possent et vellent. Utebantur tamen coniugibus, et plures uni viro habere licebat, quas castius habebat, quam nunc unam quilibet istorum, in quibus videmus quod secundum veniam concedit Apostolus. Habebant enim eas in opere generandi, non in morbo desiderii ». Item Ambrosius[^4]: « Dixit Sara ad Abraham: *Ecce conclusit me Dominus, ut non pariam. Intra ergo ad ancillam meam, ut filium facias ex ea*; et ita factum est. Considera primum, quod Abraham ante legem Moysi et ante Evangelium fuit. Non ergo in Legem commisit Abraham, sed Legem praevenit. Nondum enim interdictum videbatur ». « Secundo considera, quod non ardore aliquo vagae succensus libidinis, non petulantis formae captus decore, ancillae contubernio coniugalem posthabuit torum, sed studio quaerendae posteritatis et propagandae sobolis. Adhuc post diluvium raritas erat humani generis, erat etiam religionis. Denique et Loth sancti filiae hanc causam quaerendae posteritatis habuerunt, ne genus deficeret humanum; et ideo publici muneris gratia privatam culpam praetexit ». Item Augustinus[^5]: « Iustus, quamvis *cupiat dissolvi et esse cum Christo*, tamen sumit alimentum, non cupiditate vivendi, sed officio consulendi, ut maneat quod necessarium est propter alios. Sic misceri feminis iure nuptiarum officiosum fuit sanctis viris, non libidinosum ». « Quod enim est cibus ad salutem hominis, hoc est concubitus ad salutem humani generis; et utrumque non est sine delectatione carnali, quae tamen modificata et refrenante temperantia in usum naturalem redacta libido esse non potest. Quod autem in sustentando vitam illicitus est cibus, hoc est in quaerenda prole fornicarius vel illicitus concubitus; et quod est in cibo licito immoderatior appetitus, hoc est in coniugibus venialis ille concubitus ».

### Cap. II. *Utrum Ioannis virginitas sit praeferenda castitati Abrahae.*

Quod vero castitas virginalis non praeferatur in merito coniugali castitati *Abrahae*, Augustinus[^6] ostendit inquiens: « Sicut non est impar meritum patientiae in Petro, qui passus est, et in Ioanne, qui passus non est; sic non est impar meritum continentiae in Ioanne, qui nullas expertus est nuptias, et in Abraham, qui filios genuit. Nam illius caelibatus et istius connubium pro temporum distributione Christo militaverunt; sed continentiam Ioannes in opere, Abraham in solo habebat habitu ». « Melior est autem castitas caelibum quam nuptiarum; quarum unam Abraham habebat in usu, ambas in habitu; caste enim coniugaliter vixit. Esse autem castus sine coniugio potuit, sed tunc non oportuit ». Item Hieronymus[^7]: « Quis ignoret, sub alta dispensatione Dei omnes retro Sanctos eiusdem esse meriti, cuius nunc Christiani sunt? Quomodo Abraham ante placuit in coniugio, sic nunc virgines placent in castitate. Servivit ille legi et tempori suo; serviamus et nos legi et tempori nostro, *in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt* ». — Ex his apparet, quod sancti Patres ante Legem sine peccato plures habuerunt uxores vel concubinas. Eas enim nunc *uxores* appellat Scriptura, nunc *concubinas*; Rachel tamen et Lia ambae uxores fuerunt, non concubinae. Si quis opponat, quod fidem tori non servabant illi Patres; dicimus, in hoc servasse fidem tori, quia non aliis, sed propriis uxoribus, vel ancillis miscebantur. — Ecce, quae fuerit consuetudo in hac re ante Legem.

### Cap. III. *Quae erat consuetudo coniugii sub Lege.*

Legis vero tempore interdixit Moyses[^8], carnalem copulam fieri cum matre, cum noverca, cum sorore, cum nepte, cum amita, cum matertera, cum nuru et aliis quibusdam. Permisit autem, divortium fieri, dato libello repudii, in quo vir scribebat causas, pro quibus uxorem repudiabat. Permisit etiam aliam ducere, dato priori libello, quod propter *duritiam cordis* eorum permissum Christus dicit, non ut concederetur dissidium, sed ut tolleretur homicidium. Permisit, fieri mala, ne fierent peiora, et hoc permittendo non Dei iustitiam demonstravit, sed in peccatore minuit culpam.

### Cap. IV. *Cui licebat tunc plures uxores habere, vel non.*

Sed nunquid sub Lege licebat habere plures uxores? Audi, quid scriptum est in Deuteronomio[^9]: *Non habebit uxores plurimas, quae alliciant animam eius*. Super quem locum ait Augustinus: Manifestum est, Salomonem hoc praeceptum transisse; David autem plures habuit nec praeceptum praeteriit. Permissum est enim *plures* regi habere, non *plurimas*, quae alliciant animam, multiplicare; cum tamen additur: *ut non elevetur cor eius*, alienigenas prohibitum esse videtur. Verumtamen multiplicatio uxorum generaliter prohibita est; permissum est autem regi *plures habere*, sed non *multiplicare*. « Veniente autem plenitudinis tem-

<!-- page 746 -->

pore, quo Christi gratia ubique est dilatata, reducta est lex nuptiarum ad priorem honestioremque institutionem, ut unus uni in figura Christi et Ecclesiae iungatur[^10] ». « Nec quaeritur electio muneris in successione generis, sed in perfectione vitae et sinceritate scientiae; et virginitas fecunditati praefertur, et sacerdotibus continentia indicitur ». Melior est autem virginitas mentis quam carnis. Unde Ambrosius[^11]: « Tolerabilius est mentem virginem quam carnem habere; utrumque bonum est, si liceat; si non liceat, saltem non homini casti, sed Deo simus ». « Virgo prostitui potest, adulterari non potest; nec lupanaria infamant castitatem, sed castitas etiam loci abolet infamiam ». Idem: « Non potest caro corrumpi, nisi mens fuerit ante corrupta ». Idem Isidorus[^12]: « Non potest corpus corrumpi, nisi prius animus fuerit corruptus; munda enim a contagione anima, caro non peccat ». — In fine huius capituli aperitur, quomodo verum sit, nisi anima prius fuerit corrupta, corpus non posse corrumpi, scilicet peccato. Illud etiam Augustini[^13] advertendum est: « Sicut, inquit, sanctius est mori fame quam idolothytis vesci; ita sanctius est defungi sine liberis quam ex illicito coitu stirpem quaerere. Undecumque vero nascantur homines, si parentum vitia non sectentur et Deum recte colant, honesti et salvi erunt. Semen enim ex qualicumque homine Dei creatura est; et eo male utenti male erit, non ipsum aliquando malum erit ».

---

english:
### Chap. I. *On the diverse laws of marriage.*

The question is raised here concerning the ancient Fathers, who are read to have had several wives or concubines at the same time, whether they sinned. — To which we say that « according to the variety of times a varied dispensation of the Creator is found[^1] ». For from the beginning of time marriage was begun between two only, namely Adam and Eve, God saying through the mouth of Adam: *A man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh*; and according to the manner of its inception it would have been contracted between two only through every succession of times, if the first human beings had persisted in obedience. But after their coupling their sons and daughters were joined in marriage, yet one to one only. And brothers were then joined to sisters for this reason, that there were no other women or men to whom the sons or daughters of Adam might be joined. Lamech is read to have been the first of all[^2] to have had two wives at the same time; and in this it is charged against him, because he is reported to have done it for the fulfillment of carnal pleasure. But afterward, when now almost all men served false gods, few remaining in the worship of God, it was counseled by God that they should join several [wives] to themselves in marriage, lest, those few failing, the worship and knowledge of God should fail. Whence Abraham, while his wife was living, went in to the handmaid and begot [offspring] from her; Jacob too coupled himself with freeborn women and handmaids, and the daughters of Lot made use of their father when he was drunk. « For when, the rest being left in idolatry, the Lord had chosen Abraham and his sons as a *peculiar people* for himself; rightly, by the fruitfulness of many women, the multiplication of the people of God was sought, because in the succession of blood there was the succession of religion. Whence also under the law *the barren woman was accursed*, who did not leave seed upon the earth. Hence also marriages were decreed for the priests, because in the succession of the family there is the succession of office ». « Not therefore did Abraham or Jacob transgress, because besides a wife he sought sons from a handmaid; nor is it permitted to anyone by their example to seek fruitfulness in any [woman] beyond the conjugal debt, since their marriages are equalled to the virginity of our own [times], and the immoderate use of the marriage of our time nearly imitates the baseness of the fornication of that time ». Concerning this Augustine[^3] thus says: « To the ancient just there was no sin, that they used several women; nor did they do this against nature, since they did it not for the sake of wantonness, but of begetting; nor against custom, because at that time these things were done; nor against a precept, because it was forbidden by no law ». Likewise: « Four wives are objected against Jacob, [but] that which, when it was the custom, was no crime ». « So the Patriarchs mingled with their spouses as they received their seed, not with the concupiscence of completing pleasure, but with the providence of propagating succession; just as the Apostles, while their hearers marveled at their teaching,

took joint delight, not from the eagerness of attaining praise, but from the charity of sowing the truth ». The same [author] elsewhere: « In ancient times, when the mystery of our salvation was still veiled, the just contracted marriages by the duty of propagating, not conquered by lust, but led by piety; who could and would much more easily practise continence. Nevertheless they used spouses, and it was permitted to have several to one man, whom he had more chastely than now any of these has one, in whom we see that the Apostle concedes it by way of indulgence. For they had them in the work of generating, not in the sickness of desire ». Likewise Ambrose[^4]: « Sarah said to Abraham: *Behold, the Lord has shut me up, that I may not bear. Go in therefore to my handmaid, that you may make a son from her*; and so it was done. Consider first, that Abraham was before the law of Moses and before the Gospel. Not therefore did Abraham offend against the Law, but he anticipated the Law. For it did not yet seem forbidden ». « Secondly consider, that not inflamed by any ardor of wandering lust, not captured by the beauty of a wanton form, he set the conjugal bed second to the handmaid's companionship, but from zeal for seeking posterity and propagating offspring. Still after the flood there was a scarcity of the human race, there was also [a scarcity] of religion. Finally the daughters of holy Lot had this cause of seeking posterity, lest the human race should fail; and therefore for the sake of a public office he veiled a private fault ». Likewise Augustine[^5]: « The just man, although he *may desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ*, nevertheless takes nourishment, not from a desire of living, but from the duty of taking counsel, that there may remain what is necessary for the sake of others. So to be mingled with women by the right of marriage was dutiful for holy men, not lustful ». « For what food is to the health of a man, that intercourse is to the health of the human race; and neither is without carnal delight, which nevertheless, moderated and reduced to natural use by restraining temperance, cannot be lust. But what unlawful food is in sustaining life, that unlawful or fornicating intercourse is in seeking offspring; and what an over-immoderate appetite is in lawful food, that venial intercourse is in spouses ».

### Chap. II. *Whether John's virginity is to be preferred to the chastity of Abraham.*

But that virginal chastity is not to be preferred, in merit, to the conjugal chastity of *Abraham*, Augustine[^6] shows, saying: « Just as the merit of patience is not unequal in Peter, who suffered, and in John, who did not suffer; so the merit of continence is not unequal in John, who experienced no marriage, and in Abraham, who begot sons. For the celibacy of the one and the wedlock of the other served Christ according to the distribution of the times; but John had continence in the deed, Abraham in disposition alone ». « But the chastity of the celibate is better than that of the married; of which Abraham had one in use, both in disposition; for he lived chastely in a conjugal manner. He could indeed have been chaste without marriage, but then it was not fitting ». Likewise Jerome[^7]: « Who would not know that, under the lofty dispensation of God, all the former Saints are of the same merit of which Christians now are? As Abraham was formerly pleasing in marriage, so now virgins are pleasing in chastity. He served his own law and time; let us too serve our own law and time, *upon whom the ends of the ages have come* ». — From these things it appears that the holy Fathers before the Law had, without sin, several wives or concubines. For Scripture now calls them *wives*, now *concubines*; Rachel however and Leah were both wives, not concubines. If anyone should object that those Fathers did not keep the fidelity of the bed, we say that in this they kept the fidelity of the bed, because they mingled not with others, but with their own wives or handmaids. — Behold, what the custom was in this matter before the Law.

### Chap. III. *What the custom of marriage was under the Law.*

But in the time of the Law Moses[^8] forbade carnal coupling to take place with a mother, with a stepmother, with a sister, with a granddaughter [or niece], with a paternal aunt, with a maternal aunt, with a daughter-in-law, and with certain others. He permitted, however, a divorce to take place, a bill of repudiation being given, in which the man wrote the causes for which he repudiated his wife. He permitted also [him] to lead another [wife], the prior bill being given, which Christ says was permitted on account of the *hardness of their heart*, not that divorce should be conceded, but that homicide should be removed. He permitted evils to be done, lest worse should be done, and by this permitting he did not demonstrate the justice of God, but in the sinner he diminished the fault.

### Chap. IV. *To whom it was then permitted to have several wives, or not.*

But was it ever permitted under the Law to have several wives? Hear what is written in Deuteronomy[^9]: *He shall not have many wives, who may allure his soul*. Upon which passage Augustine says: It is manifest that Solomon transgressed this precept; David however had several and did not overstep the precept. For it was permitted for a king to have *several*, not to multiply *many* who allure the soul; since nevertheless it is added: *that his heart be not lifted up*, foreign women seem to have been forbidden. Nevertheless the multiplication of wives was generally forbidden; but it was permitted for a king *to have several*, but not *to multiply* [them]. « But when the fullness of the time was come,

in which the grace of Christ was everywhere spread abroad, the law of marriages was brought back to its former and more honorable institution, so that one should be joined to one in a figure of Christ and the Church[^10] ». « Nor is the choice of an office sought in the succession of the race, but in the perfection of life and the sincerity of knowledge; and virginity is preferred to fruitfulness, and continence is enjoined upon priests ». But the virginity of the mind is better than that of the flesh. Whence Ambrose[^11]: « It is more tolerable to have the mind a virgin than the flesh; each is good, if it be permitted; if it be not permitted, let us at least be [virgins] not for a chaste man, but for God ». « A virgin can be prostituted, [but] cannot be made an adulteress; nor do brothels defame chastity, but chastity abolishes even the infamy of the place ». The same [author]: « The flesh cannot be corrupted, unless the mind has first been corrupted ». Likewise Isidore[^12]: « The body cannot be corrupted, unless the spirit has first been corrupted; for the soul being clean from contagion, the flesh does not sin ». — At the end of this chapter it is disclosed how it is true that, unless the soul has first been corrupted, the body cannot be corrupted, namely by sin. That [saying] also of Augustine[^13] must be noted: « Just as, he says, it is holier to die of hunger than to eat things sacrificed to idols; so it is holier to die without children than to seek offspring from illicit intercourse. But from wherever men are born, if they do not follow the vices of their parents and worship God rightly, they will be honorable and saved. For seed from whatever man is a creature of God; and to him who uses it ill it will go ill, [but] the thing itself will not at some time be evil ».

---

la: [NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.] Gratian. super C. *Recurrat nunc* (2.), C. 32. q. 4. Quae sequuntur excerpta sunt ex Hug., Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 5, ubi citatur Gen. 2, 24. — Post *contraheretur* cod. A et edd., excepta I, addunt *coniugium*.

en: Gratian, on the canon *Recurrat nunc* (2.), C. 32, q. 4. What follows is excerpted from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 7, c. 5, where Gen. 2:24 is cited. — After *contraheretur* codex A and the editions, except I, add *coniugium* ("marriage").

la: Gen. 4, 19. — Pro *in matrimonium* plurimae edd. *in matrimonio*. Deinde respiciuntur Gen. 16, 4; 30, 4; 19, 31. — Seq. locus et secundus inveniuntur in Gratian., loc. cit., ubi respicitur Deut. n. 7, 14; Vulgata: *Non erit apud te sterilis utriusque sexus, tam in hominibus quam in gregibus tuis*. — Verba *maledicta sterilis* etc. nullibi inveniuntur in Vulgata, licet saepe a Patribus citentur.

en: Gen. 4:19. — For *in matrimonium* very many editions [read] *in matrimonio*. Then Gen. 16:4; 30:4; 19:31 are alluded to. — The following passage and the second are found in Gratian, at the place cited, where Deut. 7:14 is alluded to; Vulgate: *There shall not be among you one barren of either sex, both in men and in your flocks*. — The words *maledicta sterilis* ("the barren woman was accursed") etc. are nowhere found in the Vulgate, although they are often cited by the Fathers.

la: De Bono coniugali, c. 25. n. 33; seq. locus est eiusdem XXII. contra Faust. c. 47; tertius ibid. c. 48 (duo ultimi sunt in C. *Obiiciuntur Iacob* (7.), ibid.); quartus de Bono coniugali, c. 13. n. 15, ubi respicitur I. Cor. 7, 6.

en: *On the Good of Marriage,* c. 25, n. 33; the following passage is [from] the same [author's] Book XXII *Against Faustus,* c. 47; the third [is] ibid., c. 48 (the two last are in the canon *Obiiciuntur Iacob* (7.), ibid.); the fourth [is from] *On the Good of Marriage,* c. 13, n. 15, where I Cor. 7:6 is alluded to.

la: Libr. I. de Abraham Patriarcha, c. 4. n. 23, ubi citatur Gen. 16, 2.; seq. locus ibid. n. 24; uterque in C. *Dixit Sara* (3.), C. 32. q. 4.

en: Book I, *On Abraham the Patriarch,* c. 4, n. 23, where Gen. 16:2 is cited; the following passage ibid., n. 24; both in the canon *Dixit Sara* (3.), C. 32, q. 4.

la: De Bono coniugali, c. 15. n. 17, ubi respicitur Phil. 1, 23; seq. locus ibid. c. 16. n. 18.

en: *On the Good of Marriage,* c. 15, n. 17, where Phil. 1:23 is alluded to; the following passage ibid., c. 16, n. 18.

la: Ibid. c. 21. n. 26; seq. locus ibid. c. 22. n. 27, ubi ante *coniugaliter* edd. addunt *et*, refragantibus codd., ed. I et originali.

en: Ibid., c. 21, n. 26; the following passage ibid., c. 22, n. 27, where before *coniugaliter* the editions add *et*, against the manuscripts, edition I, and the original.

la: Libr. II. adversus Iovinianum, n. 4; C. *Quis ignorat* (6.), ibid.; in fine respicitur I. Cor. 10, 11, deinde Gen. 30, 1. 9.

en: Book II *Against Jovinian,* n. 4; the canon *Quis ignorat* (6.), ibid.; at the end I Cor. 10:11 is alluded to, then Gen. 30:1, 9.

la: Levit. 18, 6. seqq.; cfr. Hug., Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 5. De libello repudii vide Deut. 24, 1. et Matth. 19, 7.

en: Lev. 18:6ff.; cf. Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 7, c. 5. On the bill of repudiation see Deut. 24:1 and Matt. 19:7.

la: Cap. 17, 17; sententia (non verba) August. est in V. Quaestionum in Pentateuch. q. 27, ubi respiciuntur III. Reg. 11, 1; II. Reg. 5, 13. Pro *elevetur* cum August. et Septuaginta lege: *discedat*, et supple *multiplicare* post *alienigenas*.

en: [Deut.] c. 17, [v.] 17; the sense (not the words) is Augustine's, in [Book] V of the *Questions on the Pentateuch,* q. 27, where III Kings 11:1 and II Kings 5:13 are alluded to. For *elevetur* read, with Augustine and the Septuagint, *discedat* ("that it depart"), and supply *multiplicare* ("to multiply") after *alienigenas* ("foreign women").

la: [NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.] Hug., loc. cit.; respicitur Gal. 4, 4. Seq. locus est apud Gratian. super C. *Recurrat* (2.), ibid.

en: Hugh, at the place cited; Gal. 4:4 is alluded to. The following passage is in Gratian, on the canon *Recurrat* (2.), ibid.

la: Libr. II. de Virginibus, c. 4. n. 24; seq. locus ibid. n. 26; C. *Tolerabilius* (1.), ibid. q. 5. Tertius eiusdem de Lapsu virginis consecratae, c. 4. n. 11; C. *Re vera* (2.), ibid., in quo codd. *caro* incongrue ponunt ante, et edd., excepta I, etiam post *caro* in fine, refragante originali et canone.

en: Book II, *On Virgins,* c. 4, n. 24; the following passage ibid., n. 26; the canon *Tolerabilius* (1.), ibid., q. 5. The third [is] from the same [author's] *On the Lapse of a Consecrated Virgin,* c. 4, n. 11; the canon *Re vera* (2.), ibid., in which the manuscripts place *caro* ("flesh") incongruously before [it], and the editions, except I, also after *caro* at the end, against the original and the canon.

la: Libr. II. de Synonymis, n. 7; C. *Non potest* (8.), ibid.

en: Book II, *On Synonyms,* n. 7; the canon *Non potest* (8.), ibid.

la: De Bono coniugali, c. 16. n. 18; C. *Sicut satius* (8.), C. 32. q. 4; ubi etiam August. et can. bis habent et recte *satius* pro *sanctius*, sed refragantibus nostris codd. et edd.

en: *On the Good of Marriage,* c. 16, n. 18; the canon *Sicut satius* (8.), C. 32, q. 4; where also Augustine and the canon twice have — and rightly — *satius* ("better") for *sanctius* ("holier"), but against our manuscripts and editions.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** The Littera Magistri of Distinctio XXXIII (Master's chapters I–IV: *De diversis legibus coniugii* / *Utrum Ioannis virginitas sit praeferenda castitati Abrahae* / *Quae erat consuetudo coniugii sub Lege* / *Cui licebat tunc plures uxores habere, vel non*), on polygamy, virginity, and divorce among the ancient Fathers. Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol. IV PDF page-bands (`vol4-p{744,745,746}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`, generated with `tools/colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2120` for the L column and `1600` for the R column — vol4's default and even the R=1780 split truncate the wide columns here). The IA djvu OCR (raw L80052–80295) cascade-fragments both columns and every footer on these pages, so the PDF bands are authoritative per the VOL II OVERRIDE; the OCR was used only as a marker-position cross-check. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page-span correction:** The skeleton frontmatter had `printed_pages: [745, 746, 747]`; verified from the running heads (`DISTINCTIO XXXIII` on p. 745, `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV` on p. 746) the littera actually **opens on p. 744** and **ends on p. 746**. Frontmatter corrected to `[744, 745, 746]` / pdf `[764, 765, 766]`. `Cap. I` begins in the lower half of p. 744 (under the centered `DISTINCTIO XXXIII.` heading), after the tail of the d.32 dubia which fills the upper half. The littera runs L-column-then-R-column across pp. 744–746 and ends on p. 746 R at `...non ipsum aliquando malum erit »`, immediately before the centered `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII.` heading. Everything from that heading on (subtitle *Qualiter fidem tori sancti Patres…*, lemma, DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) is Bonaventure's commentary and belongs to the **divisio** chunk.

**Apparatus: 13 entries, per-page split 3 / 6 / 4.**
- **p. 744 (3 entries, [^1]–[^3]):** the NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM notes 1–3, spanning both columns (note 1 opens in the L footer, continues in the R footer; notes 2–3 in the R footer). Anchors `Conditoris[^1]`, `legitur[^2]`, `Augustinus[^3]`. The *upper* footer block on p. 744 (numbered 1–5: *Vide infra lit. Magistri d. XXXIII c. 4*, *Cfr. supra d. 14*, *Vide supra d. 31*, *In I. Thess. 5, 17*, *Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 2*) is the d.32-dubia commentary apparatus and belongs to the d.32-dubia chunk, not here.
- **p. 745 (6 entries, [^4]–[^9]):** the whole page is littera, so all six footers are this chunk's — notes 1–3 in the L footer, 4–6 in the R footer. Anchors `Ambrosius[^4]`, `Augustinus[^5]`, `Augustinus[^6]`, `Hieronymus[^7]`, `Moyses[^8]`, `Deuteronomio[^9]`.
- **p. 746 (4 entries, [^10]–[^13]):** the littera fills the tops of both columns; its footer notes 1–4 (notes 1–3 in the L footer, note 4 in the R footer) are this chunk's. Anchors `iungatur[^10]`, `Ambrosius[^11]`, `Isidorus[^12]`, `Augustini[^13]`. The two notes below the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` heading on p. 746 (1: *Codd. confirmat*; 2: *Edd. opponit…*) are Bonaventure's commentary apparatus and belong to the divisio chunk.

**Hand-off picked up:** As the d.32 dubia flagged, the p. 744 NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM notes (Gratian / Gen. 4, 19 / De Bono coniugali) anchor in this littera opening and are claimed here as [^1]–[^3]. The d.32-dubia chunk retains the p. 744 upper commentary block (notes 1–5).

**Hand-off forwarded:** This chunk shares p. 746 with the **divisio** chunk. The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII` / `DIVISIO` / `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` block on the lower half of p. 746, and the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` footers (Codd. confirmat; Edd. opponit) anchored in it, belong to the divisio, not here. The littera's last footer on p. 746 is [^13] (`Augustini`).

**Marginalia trimmed:** Editorial side-glosses bleeding into the columns were removed from the body per the OCR-cleanup rule — author tags (`Gratianus.`, `Ambrosius.`, `Hieronymus.`, `Augustinus.`, `Isidorus.`, `Hugo.`) and the Bonaventure cross-reference glosses (`Dubium 3./4./5./6.`) that mark which commentary dubium treats each littera passage.

**[?] flags:** none unresolved. The IA OCR garbled p. 746 R's Augustine quote as "sanctius est mentem virginem defungi... sine liberis"; the PDF band reads clearly "ita sanctius est defungi sine liberis quam ex illicito coitu stirpem quaerere" (confirmed by the standard Augustine text), and note [^13] itself remarks that the source reads *satius* for *sanctius* — the printed *sanctius* is retained as Quaracchi prints it (refragantibus nostris codd. et edd.). The p. 746 phrase `Idem Isidorus` is transcribed as printed (rendered "Likewise Isidore").