title: Dist. 33, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 746 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII.
*Qualiter fidem tori sancti Patres veteris testamenti servaverint.*

*Quaeritur hic de antiquis Patribus, qui plures* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, quod vir tenetur uxori servare fidem tori, quam quando non servat, incidit in culpam. Hic intendit inquirere, utrum sancti Patres istam fidem servabant. Habet autem haec pars duas partes. In prima sanctos Patres, qui simul habuerunt plures uxores, excusat a culpa. In secunda dissolvit quasdam dubitationes, ibi: *Si quis opponat, quod fidem tori non servabant* etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima sanctos Patres a culpa excusat. In secunda hoc multiplici auctoritate confirmat, ibi: *De hoc Augustinus sic ait* etc. In tertia eorum continentiam commendat[^1], ibi: *Quod vero castitas virginalis* etc., ubi ostendit, quod paris meriti fuit in eis continentia coniugalis, cuius vel quanti est in nobis continentia virginalis.

*Si quis opponat, quod fidem tori non servabant* etc. Haec est secunda pars, in qua determinat dubia, in qua etiam facit tria. Primo enim quaerit[^2] et determinat, utrum servarent bonum fidei. Secundo quaerit et determinat, utrum servarent mandatum Legis, ibi: *Sed nunquid sub Lege licebat* etc. Tertio determinat, quae virginitas sive integritas sit melior et sanctior, an illa quae est mentis, an illa quae est carnis, ibi: *Melior est autem virginitas mentis quam carnis* etc. — Et sic duo breviter determinat in hac parte, scilicet de continentia coniugali in antiquis Patribus et de virginali in viris evangelicis et spiritualibus, sive etiam mulieribus, et tertio breviter tractat de repudio.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis secundum tria, quae determinat Magister, tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de continentia coniugali in antiquis.

Secundo vero quaeritur de virginali.

Tertio, de repudio.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum contra legem naturae sit habere concubinam.

Secundo, utrum contra legem naturae sit, quod unus homo habeat plures uxores.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Deus debuerit in hoc dispensare, quod licitum esset homini habere concubinas.

<!-- page 747 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
### *De continentia coniugali in antiquis.*

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXIII.
*In what manner the holy Fathers of the Old Testament kept faith of the marriage-bed.*

*It is asked here concerning the ancient Fathers, who [had] several [wives],* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master showed that a man is bound to keep faith of the bed to his wife, and that when he does not keep it, he falls into fault. Here he intends to inquire whether the holy Fathers kept that faith. Now this part has two parts. In the first he excuses from fault the holy Fathers who at the same time had several wives. In the second he resolves certain doubts, there: *If anyone should object that they did not keep faith of the bed* etc.

The first part has three parts. In the first he excuses the holy Fathers from fault. In the second he confirms this by manifold authority, there: *Concerning this Augustine thus says* etc. In the third he commends[^1] their continence, there: *But that virginal chastity* etc., where he shows that in them conjugal continence was of equal merit — [and] of what and how great worth virginal continence is in us.

*If anyone should object that they did not keep faith of the bed* etc. This is the second part, in which he determines the doubts, in which he also does three things. For first he asks[^2] and determines whether they kept the good of fidelity. Second he asks and determines whether they kept the commandment of the Law, there: *But was it not permitted under the Law* etc. Third he determines which virginity or integrity is better and holier, whether that which is of the mind or that which is of the flesh, there: *But virginity of the mind is better than that of the flesh* etc. — And thus he briefly determines two things in this part, namely concerning conjugal continence in the ancient Fathers and concerning virginal [continence] in evangelical and spiritual men, or also women, and thirdly he briefly treats of divorce.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the present distinction, according to the three things which the Master determines, three matters are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning conjugal continence in the ancients.

Second it is asked concerning virginal [continence].

Third, concerning divorce.

Concerning the first, three questions are asked.

First it is asked whether it is against the law of nature to have a concubine.

Second, whether it is against the law of nature that one man have several wives.

Third it is asked whether God ought to have dispensed in this, that it should be lawful for a man to have concubines.

### ARTICLE I.
### *On conjugal continence in the ancients.*

---

la: Codd. *confirmat.*

en: The codices read *confirmat* ("confirms"), against the edition's *commendat* ("commends"); the marker stands at *commendat* in the body.

la: Edd. *opponit,* quae etiam mox pro *servarent* bis *servaverint* et *fidem tori* pro *bonum fidei.*

en: The editions read *opponit* ("objects"); which editions also, shortly after, read *servaverint* (twice) for *servarent*, and *fidem tori* ("faith of the bed") for *bonum fidei* ("the good of fidelity"). ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-bands (`colcrop.py vol4 746 1780` R / `1880` default L, and `vol4 747`), not from the cascade-shattered two-column OCR. Raw reference range L80296–80365. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Printed-page correction.** The skeleton frontmatter carried `printed_pages: [747]`. The bands prove the COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM sit entirely on **printed page 746** (page number "746" visible top-left of the recto); page 747 opens with the running head `DIST. XXXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` immediately followed by the ARTICULUS I header and QUAESTIO I body. Corrected to `printed_pages: [746, 747]`, `pdf_pages: [766, 767]`.

**Chunk scope.** This chunk holds the COMMENTARIUS lemma, the DIVISIO TEXTUS, the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (both the distinction-level three-part listing and the Article I sub-listing of its three questions), and the ARTICULUS I opener header on page 747. No scholion (divisio chunk).

**Hand-offs.**
- *First page (746) — shared with the littera:* the top of page 746 carries the tail of the Master's text (the *Dubium 6* / *Gratianus* / *Ambrosius* margin-keyed quotations ending "...non potest caro corrumpi, nisi mens fuerit ante corrupta... non ipsum aliquando malum erit") plus its four numbered apparatus notes (1 *Hug., loc. cit.*; 2 *Libr. II. de Virginibus*; 3 *Libr. II. de Synonymis*; 4 *De Bono coniugali*). These Master-caps footers belong to the **littera chunk** — NOT claimed here.
- *Last page (747) — shared with a1-q1:* the ARTICULUS I header is included here as the article opener; everything from `QUAESTIO I. Utrum contra legem naturae sit habere concubinam` and the body `Quantum ad primum ostenditur...` onward, together with any page-747 footers, belongs to **bon-sent-IV-d33-a1-q1**.

**Apparatus claimed.** 2 entries — the two *Notae ad Commentarium* on page 746 ([^1] *Codd. confirmat*; [^2] *Edd. opponit...*). Marker positions: [^1] at *commendat* (DIVISIO, part-three lemma); [^2] at *quaerit* (DIVISIO, "Primo enim quaerit et determinat").

**[?] flags.** None. All lemmata legible from the 1.8×/0.8× bands; italic incipits (*Si quis opponat*, *De hoc Augustinus sic ait*, *Quod vero castitas virginalis*, *Sed nunquid sub Lege licebat*, *Melior est autem virginitas mentis quam carnis*) verified against the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 747 -->

### Articulus I. *De continentia coniugali in antiquis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum contra legem naturae sit habere concubinam.*

Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod non sit contra legem naturae *habere concubinam*:

1. Quia non est contra legem naturae habere ancillam et servum; sed ancilla potest homo uti, ut libet: ergo non est contra legem naturae carnaliter eam cognoscere, et sic etc.

2. Item, mulier non coniugata et libera habet potestatem sui corporis; sed qui habet rem aliquam potest illam dare cui vult: ergo et ille qui acquirit licite, licite accipit, quia nulli facit iniuriam: ergo quando de voluntate mulieris procedit, ut cognoscat eam etiam sine pactione coniugali, cum non sit alterius, nec alicui fiat iniuria; videtur etc.

3. Item, Isidorus in quinto libro Etymologiarum[^p747-1]: «Ius naturale est commune omnium nationum»; sed habere concubinam non est contra hoc: ergo etc.

Item, quod possit de iure naturae habere *eam cum uxore*, videtur:

4. Quia *vir non habet sui corporis potestatem, sed mulier*[^p747-2]: ergo, uxore volente suscipere semen de ancilla sua, tenetur vir ancillam cognoscere.

5. Item, ad hoc ipsum facit exemplum de Abraham, qui ad petitionem Sarae cognovit Agar[^p747-3]; ubi etiam dicit Augustinus, quod hoc fecit Sara «eo iure, quo *non habet vir sui corporis potestatem*»; sed hoc est secundum ius naturae: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Secundum omnes leges[^p747-4] filii, qui de concubinis sunt, vituperabiles sunt, et contumelia est eis sic nasci; sed non est vituperium, nisi praecedat inordinatio: ergo si secundum dictamen naturae est contumelia in filiis, qui sic nascuntur; videtur, quod in tali actu sit deordinatio, et sic etc.

2. Item, recta ratio dictat, quod filius debet succedere patri, ergo poena est filio, quando non habet hereditatem paternam; sed secundum omnium mores[^p747-5] est, quod nati de concubinis non succedunt in hereditate paterna: ergo cum similiter recta ratio dictet, quod non est poena iusta nisi propter deordinationem culpae; cum non fuerit in eo culpa post generationem, fuit culpa in generando.

3. Item, recta ratio dictat, quod vir et mulier in actu illo uniuntur et fiunt una caro[^p747-6], et quod actus ille est aequalitatis, quoniam similis in specie et natura; sed unio ad aequalitatem non est nisi uxoris et viri, aliter non sunt aequales: ergo recta ratio sive dictamen naturale refugit coitum cum concubina.

4. Item, recta ratio dictat, quod parentes ambo debent filium educare, et quod proles[^p747-7] postmodum in senectute debet educare parentes, et aequaliter eos educare tenetur et semper: ergo cum iudicet, virum et mulierem debere coniungi propter prolis generationem, quia ad hoc data est vis generativa; iudicatur, eos ex hoc simul convenire ad prolis educationem, et rursus ad prolis recipiendum obsequium et honorem usque in finem: ergo iudicat, quod non recte conveniunt, nisi aequaliter et inseparabiliter conveniant in actu illo. Sed si sic; tunc vir et uxor solum debent convenire: ergo etc.

Item, quod non debeat habere *concubinam cum uxore*, videtur:

5. Quia uxor non potest convenire cum alio viro, quin committat adulterium, quod est contra ius naturale: ergo nec vir cum aliqua alia muliere quam cum uxore.

6. Item, ius naturale dictat, quod homo quod sibi vult fieri faciat alii, et non faciat alii quod sibi non vult fieri[^p747-8]; sed maritus secundum rectam rationem abominatur et odit, quod alius suam cognoscat uxorem: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Habere concubinam, licet non sit contra ius naturae propriissime sumtum, est tamen contra ius communiter et proprie sumtum; ideo non solum est malum, quia prohibitum, sed prohibitum, quia malum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ius naturale tripliciter dicitur, scilicet communiter, proprie et magis proprie; et secundum hoc tripliciter definitur ab Isidoro.

<!-- page 748 -->

Uno modo sic: «Ius naturale est quod in Lege et Evangelio continetur»; sic definitur in principio Decreti[^p748-1]. Si sic accipiatur *ius naturale*; sic habere concubinam est contra ius naturale, quia est contra Legem et Evangelium; sed contra legem Moysi *implicite*: quia non praecipit expresse, fornicatorem interfici, nisi in casu, sicut patet Deuteronomii vigesimo secundo[^p748-2]; tamen implicite clauditur ibi: *Non moechaberis*, ubi prohibetur omnis coitus non matrimonialis. Contra legem evangelicam est *expresse*; nam dicit, fornicarios non habere partem in regno Dei, primae ad Corinthios sexto[^p748-3], et in septimo dicit, quod *habeat unusquisque suam propter fornicationem*. — Ratio autem huius praeceptionis est Sacramentum matrimonii, quod est institutum a Deo in *significationem* et in *curationem*: in *significationem* ante lapsum, sed in *curationem* post lapsum. Quia enim corrupta est illa vis et deordinata, ut dictum est supra[^p748-4], adeo quod non exit in actum, quin regnum animae pervertatur; non potest fieri post lapsum sine peccato, nisi excusetur per matrimonium; ideo taliter cognoscere concubinam est peccatum, quantum est de se, et contra Legem et Evangelium, et ita contra ius naturale *communiter* dictum.

Secundo modo dicitur *proprie*, et sic definitur in principio Decretorum[^p748-5]: «Ius naturale est quod est commune omnium nationum»; et hoc ius est, quod dictat ratio recta. Contra illud adhuc est cognoscere sive habere concubinam. — Et hoc patet: quia ius naturale dictat, quod conveniant vir et mulier in tali actu ad generationem prolis, quae utrique succedat, et cui communiter praesint, et illa utrique aequaliter subsit. Et quoniam actus ille est consimilis in specie et ad generandum consimilem in specie; dictat natura, ut conveniant in quadam aequalitate; sed hoc est, cum pater coniungitur illi, ut sit uxor et materfamilias. Et ideo recta ratio dictat, quod non conveniat ut concubinae; sed ista in multis est obfuscata per libidinem, sed tamen salva manet in his qui non depravant iudicium per mala opera[^p748-6].

Tertio modo dicitur ius naturale *propriissime*, quod «natura docuit omnia animalia[^p748-7]»; et hoc modo non est *contra* naturam, nec tamen omnino *secundum* naturam, et hoc, quia quaedam animalia bruta sunt — licet non omnia — quae coniunguntur in *individuam* copulam, ut sunt turtures; et quoniam, sicut vult Philosophus[^p748-8], omnes virtutes, quae sunt in animalibus dispersae, in homine colliguntur, sicut arma omnium animalium in manu hominis; quamvis non omnia alia animalia habeant instinctum, tamen natura hominis habet: unde ad hoc inclinatur recta natura hominis, ut, si adhaeret mulieri, sic adhaereat, ut pro ipsa patrem et matrem deserat[^p748-9], et sic accipiat in copulam individuam.

Secundum haec igitur patet, quod fornicari vel habere concubinam non solum est malum, quia prohibitum, sed prohibitum, quia malum. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod potest uti re sua etc.; dicendum, quod quae ad talem usum accipitur, ad aequalitatem accipitur; et si ordinate accipitur, oportet, quod aequalis fiat. Et ideo nunquam recte utitur nec ancilla nec libera, nisi cum ea tanquam cum uxore contrahat.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nulli facit iniuriam, quia illa se ei committit; dicendum, quod facit iniuriam *Deo*, contra cuius statutum facit; facit etiam iniuriam *sibi*, pro eo quod se deordinando *in corpus suum peccat*[^p748-10]; nam vir facit sibi iniuriam, quamvis ipsa velit, quia ut phrenetica vult malum suum. Si enim aliqua vellet, ut se occideret, vel abuteretur contra naturam, quis auderet dicere, hoc non esse malum?

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ius naturale est commune; dicendum, quod quoddam[^p748-11] est apertum, quoddam magis occultum; et secundum quod plus apertum, est communius, secundum quod minus, est minus commune; et quoniam istud magis est occultum, ideo minus commune; tamen lex matrimonii apud omnes reperitur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mulier habet potestatem corporis viri; dicendum, quod etsi cetera bona sint *communia*, hoc tamen bonum debet

<!-- page 749 -->

esse *privatum*. Unde[^p749-1] nulli alii potest uxorem suam communicare nec potestatem exigere in alio, sed solum in corpore suo; sic nec mulier de viro.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Sara, dicendum, quod Abraham nunquam obtemperasset nec obtemperare debuisset, nisi divina dispensatio intervenisset. Unde illud quod dicit Augustinus, non fuit *tota causa excusans*, sed *signum* fuit[^p749-2].

english:
### Article I. *On conjugal continence among the ancients.*
### Question I. *Whether it is against the law of nature to have a concubine.*

As to the first point it is shown that to *have a concubine* is not against the law of nature:

1. Because it is not against the law of nature to have a maidservant and a manservant; but a man may use a maidservant as he pleases: therefore it is not against the law of nature to know her carnally, and so on.

2. Likewise, a woman not married and free has power over her own body; but one who has some thing may give it to whom he wills: therefore he too who acquires it lawfully, lawfully receives it, since he does injury to no one: therefore when it proceeds from the woman's will that he should know her even without a conjugal compact, since she belongs to no other, nor is injury done to anyone; it seems [so], and so on.

3. Likewise, Isidore in the fifth book of the *Etymologies*[^p747-1]: «The natural law is common to all nations»; but to have a concubine is not against this: therefore, and so on.

Likewise, that one may by the law of nature have *her together with a wife*, it seems:

4. Because *the man does not have power over his own body, but the woman does*[^p747-2]: therefore, the wife being willing to receive seed from her maidservant, the man is bound to know the maidservant.

5. Likewise, to this very point the example of Abraham makes, who at Sarah's request knew Hagar[^p747-3]; where Augustine also says that Sarah did this «by that right, by which *the man does not have power over his own body*»; but this is according to the law of nature: therefore, and so on.

**On the contrary:** 1. According to all laws[^p747-4] the sons who are of concubines are blameworthy, and it is a reproach to them to be born thus; but there is no reproach unless some disorder precede: therefore if, according to the dictate of nature, there is reproach in the sons who are born thus; it seems that in such an act there is disorder, and so on.

2. Likewise, right reason dictates that a son ought to succeed his father, therefore it is a penalty to a son when he does not have the paternal inheritance; but according to the customs of all[^p747-5] it is the case that those born of concubines do not succeed to the paternal inheritance: therefore, since right reason likewise dictates that there is no just penalty except on account of the disorder of a fault; since there was no fault in him after generation, there was fault in the generating.

3. Likewise, right reason dictates that the man and the woman in that act are united and become one flesh[^p747-6], and that that act is one of equality, since it is like in species and nature; but union unto equality belongs only to wife and husband, otherwise they are not equal: therefore right reason or the natural dictate shrinks from intercourse with a concubine.

4. Likewise, right reason dictates that both parents ought to raise the child, and that the offspring[^p747-7] afterward in old age ought to raise the parents, and is bound to raise them equally and always: therefore since it judges that man and woman ought to be joined for the generation of offspring, because for this the generative power was given; it is judged that from this they come together for the raising of offspring, and again for receiving from the offspring service and honor unto the end: therefore it judges that they do not rightly come together unless they come together equally and inseparably in that act. But if so; then only the husband and wife ought to come together: therefore, and so on.

Likewise, that one ought not to have *a concubine together with a wife*, it seems:

5. Because a wife cannot come together with another man without committing adultery, which is against the natural law: therefore neither may the husband [come together] with any other woman than with his wife.

6. Likewise, the natural law dictates that a man should do to another what he wishes to be done to himself, and not do to another what he does not wish to be done to himself[^p747-8]; but a husband according to right reason abominates and hates that another should know his wife: therefore, and so on.

### Conclusion.

> *To have a concubine, although it is not against the law of nature taken most properly, is nevertheless against the law taken commonly and properly; therefore it is not only evil because forbidden, but forbidden because evil.*

**I respond:** It must be said that natural law is spoken of in three ways, namely commonly, properly, and more properly; and according to this it is defined in three ways by Isidore.

<!-- page 748 -->

In one way thus: «The natural law is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel»; so it is defined at the beginning of the *Decretum*[^p748-1]. If *natural law* be taken in this way; then to have a concubine is against natural law, because it is against the Law and the Gospel; but against the law of Moses *implicitly*: for it does not expressly command the fornicator to be slain, except in a [certain] case, as is clear from Deuteronomy the twenty-second[^p748-2]; yet it is implicitly enclosed there: *Thou shalt not commit adultery*, where every non-matrimonial intercourse is forbidden. Against the evangelical law it is [forbidden] *expressly*; for it says that fornicators do not have a part in the kingdom of God, in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the sixth [chapter][^p748-3], and in the seventh it says that *each one should have his own [wife] on account of fornication*. — Now the reason of this precept is the Sacrament of matrimony, which was instituted by God for *signification* and for *healing*: for *signification* before the fall, but for *healing* after the fall. For since that power is corrupted and disordered, as was said above[^p748-4], to such a degree that it does not go forth into act without the kingdom of the soul being overturned; it cannot come about after the fall without sin, unless it be excused through matrimony; therefore to know a concubine in such a way is a sin, as far as it is of itself, and against the Law and the Gospel, and so against natural law taken *commonly*.

In the second way it is called [natural law] *properly*, and so it is defined at the beginning of the *Decretals*[^p748-5]: «The natural law is that which is common to all nations»; and this is the law which right reason dictates. Against this too is it to know or to have a concubine. — And this is clear: because natural law dictates that man and woman should come together in such an act for the generation of offspring, which should succeed to both, and over which they should preside in common, and which should be subject to both equally. And since that act is alike in species and [is] for begetting one alike in species; nature dictates that they come together in a certain equality; but this is the case when the father is joined to her that she may be wife and mother of a family. And therefore right reason dictates that it is not fitting [that they come together] as with a concubine; but this [dictate] in many is obscured through lust, yet nevertheless it remains intact in those who do not deprave their judgment through evil works[^p748-6].

In the third way natural law is called [it] *most properly*, [namely] that which «nature has taught all animals[^p748-7]»; and in this way it is not *against* nature, nor yet altogether *according to* nature, and this because certain animals are brute — though not all — which are joined in an *undivided* coupling, as are turtledoves; and since, as the Philosopher holds[^p748-8], all the powers which are dispersed among the animals are gathered together in man, as the weapons of all animals are in the hand of man; although not all other animals have the instinct, yet the nature of man has it: hence to this the right nature of man is inclined, that, if he cleaves to a woman, he should so cleave that for her sake he leaves father and mother[^p748-9], and so takes [her] into an undivided coupling.

According to these things, therefore, it is clear that to fornicate or to have a concubine is not only evil because forbidden, but forbidden because evil. — Hence the reasons [adduced] for this are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that one may use his own thing, etc.; it must be said that she who is taken for such a use is taken unto equality; and if she is taken in an ordered way, it is required that she become an equal. And therefore one never rightly uses either a maidservant or a free woman, unless he contract with her as with a wife.

2. To that which is objected, that he does injury to no one, since she commits herself to him; it must be said that he does injury to *God*, against whose statute he acts; he does injury also to *himself*, in that by disordering himself *he sins against his own body*[^p748-10]; for the man does injury to himself, although she is willing, because like one frenzied she wills her own evil. For if some woman should will that she be killed, or be abused against nature, who would dare to say that this is not evil?

3. To that which is objected, that natural law is common; it must be said that one [part][^p748-11] is open, another more hidden; and according as [it is] more open, it is more common, according as [it is] less [open], it is less common; and since this [precept] is more hidden, therefore [it is] less common; yet the law of matrimony is found among all.

4. To that which is objected, that the woman has power over the man's body; it must be said that although the other goods be *common*, this good nevertheless ought to be

<!-- page 749 -->

*private*. Hence[^p749-1] he can share his wife with no other nor exact the [conjugal] power over another, but only over his own body; so neither the woman over the man's.

5. To that which is objected concerning Sarah, it must be said that Abraham would never have complied, nor ought he to have complied, unless divine dispensation had intervened. Hence that which Augustine says was not the *whole excusing cause*, but was a *sign*[^p749-2].

la: Cap. 4. n. 1. — Mox pro *hoc* plurimi codd. et edd. *huiusmodi.*

en: [Isidore, *Etymologies* bk. V,] c. 4, n. 1. — Presently, for *hoc*, very many codices and editions [read] *huiusmodi* ("of this kind").

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4.

en: [Paul,] First Letter to the Corinthians 7:4.

la: Gen. 16, 1. seqq. — Sententia August., in qua allegatur I. Cor. 7, 4, habetur XVI. de Civ. Dei, c. 25.

en: Genesis 16:1 ff. — The opinion of Augustine, in which 1 Cor. 7:4 is cited, is found in [book] XVI of *The City of God*, c. 25.

la: Cfr. C. *Liberi dicti* (15.), C. 32. q. 4.

en: Cf. the canon *Liberi dicti* (15.), Causa 32, q. 4 [of Gratian's *Decretum*].

la: Vide C. *Dicat aliquis* (9.), C. 32. q. 4, et Iustinian., C. V. de Naturalibus Liberis (tit. 27.), lex *Humanitatis* (8.) Authent. *Licet patri.*

en: See the canon *Dicat aliquis* (9.), Causa 32, q. 4, and Justinian, Codex bk. V, *On Natural Children* (tit. 27.), the law *Humanitatis* (8.), Authentica *Licet patri.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 496, nota 6.

en: Cf. above, p. 496, note 6.

la: Edd. pro *proles* ponunt *plus est* et post *senectute* addunt *filius.*

en: The editions, for *proles*, put *plus est*, and after *senectute* add *filius.*

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

la: Introduct. d. 1, ubi Gratian. sententiam Isidori, V. Etymolog. c. 2, his verbis complectitur.

en: [*Decretum*,] Introduction, d. 1, where Gratian embraces Isidore's opinion (*Etymologies* bk. V, c. 2) in these words.

la: Vers. 23. seqq. — Seq. locus est Exod. 20, 14. Cfr. Deut. 5, 18.

en: [Deut. 22,] vv. 23 ff. — The following passage is Exodus 20:14. Cf. Deut. 5:18.

la: Vers. 9. seq.: *Neque fornicarii... regnum Dei possidebunt.* — Seq. textus est ibid. 7, 2, ubi Vulgata post *suam* addit *uxorem.* — Post *fornicationem* in Vat. additur *vitandam.*

en: [1 Cor. 6,] vv. 9 f.: *Nor shall fornicators... possess the kingdom of God.* — The following text is ibid. 7:2, where the Vulgate after *suam* adds *uxorem.* — After *fornicationem* the Vatican [edition] adds *vitandam.*

en: [Above,] Distinction 31, a. 2, q. 1.

la: In C. *Ius naturale* (7.), d. 1, sumta ex Isidor., V. Etymolog. c. 4. n. 1.

en: In the canon *Ius naturale* (7.), d. 1, taken from Isidore, *Etymologies* bk. V, c. 4, n. 1.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 901, nota 3, ubi diximus, hanc definitionem Isidoro attributam inveniri apud Iustinianum; cfr. D. 1. de Iustitia et iure lege *Iuri* (1.) (tit. 1.), § *Huius.*

en: See vol. II, p. 901, note 3, where we said that this definition, attributed to Isidore, is found in Justinian; cf. Digest bk. 1, *On Justice and Law*, the law *Iuri* (1.) (tit. 1.), § *Huius.*

la: Libr. IV. de Partib. animal. c. 10, ubi contra Anaxagoram ostendit, hominem non ideo prudentissimum animalium esse, quia unus omnium manus obtineat, sed e contrario, quoniam prudentissimus omnium sit, ideo manus recepisse; « qui enim prudentissimus est, recte plurimis uti instrumentis potest; manus autem esse videtur non unum instrumentum sed multa... Cetera enim animalia unum auxilium habent, idque nullo pacto possunt permutare... neque arma mutare, quae semel acceperint... at homini multa habere auxilia licet eaque subinde mutare, arma etiam, quae velit et ubi velit, capere potest; manus enim et unguis est et ungula et cornu et hasta et ensis et quodvis aliud genus armorum aut instrumentorum » etc.

en: [Aristotle,] bk. IV *On the Parts of Animals*, c. 10, where against Anaxagoras he shows that man is not the most prudent of animals because he alone of all has hands, but on the contrary, because he is the most prudent of all, therefore he received hands; «for he who is most prudent can rightly use very many instruments; but the hand seems to be not one instrument but many... For the other animals have one aid, and can in no way exchange it... nor change the weapons which they once received... but to man it is granted to have many aids and to change them from time to time; he can also take up weapons which he wills and where he wills; for the hand is both nail and claw and horn and spear and sword and any other kind of weapon or instrument» etc.

la: Respicitur Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, 5. — Pro seq. propos. valent verba August., I. de Lib. Arb. c. 3. n. 6: *Non sane ideo [adulterium] malum est, quia vetatur Lege, sed ideo vetatur Lege, quia malum est.*

en: Reference is to Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5. — For the following proposition the words of Augustine avail, [book] I *On Free Choice*, c. 3, n. 6: *Adultery is surely not evil because it is forbidden by the Law, but is forbidden by the Law because it is evil.*

la: Epist. I. Cor. 6, 18. — Superius pro *se committit*, quibus verbis ex codd. M O T U X interseruimus *ei*, edd. *voluit*, et *quia contra ius* pro *contra cuius.*

en: First Letter to the Corinthians 6:18. — Above, for *se committit* — words into which, from codices M O T U X, we inserted *ei* — the editions [read] *voluit*, and *quia contra ius* for *contra cuius.*

la: Edd. addunt *magis.*

en: The editions add *magis.*

la: Supple cum cod. bb *vir.* Infra pro *de viro* codd. R S T *in viro.*

en: Supply, with codex bb, *vir.* Below, for *de viro*, codices R S T [read] *in viro.*

la: Cfr. infra q. 3. et dub. 5.

en: Cf. below, q. 3 and dub. 5. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Accedere ad mulierem *non iunctam matrimonio* ipso *iure naturali* graviter esse prohibitum, probatur et constanti doctorum catholicorum doctrina et reprobatione contrariae opinionis facta ab Innocentio XI. 2 Martii 1779 (prop. 48.); cfr. prop. 7. Clementis V. cum Concilio Viennensi contra errores Beguardorum. — Eadem triplex divisio legis naturae recepta est a S. Thom. (hic a. 1. ad 4; Suppl. q. 65. a. 1. ad 4.). — In reddenda ratione, quare hoc *semper* sit peccatum grave, Richard. a Med. non approbat eam quam ponit S. Thomas, atque aliam affert.
De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 35. m. 4, p. II. q. 147. m. 2. — Scot., III. Sent. d. 15. q. unica n. 18. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 3; S. c. Gent. III. c. 122. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 1.

**II.** In modo loquendi de polygamia (q. 2.) est quaedam differentia inter doctores; quidam enim cum S. Bonav. dicunt, eam esse contra *legem naturae*, alii vero cum Scoto hoc negant, alii denique media via incedunt, docentes cum S. Thoma et etiam ad veram mentem S. Bonaventurae, ipsam quodam modo esse contra naturam, et quodam modo non. Sed attente consideratis eorundem principiis et explicationibus, re ipsa vix dissentiunt. Ipsum Conc. Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 2.) definivit: Christianis plures simul habere uxores, *lege divina* esse prohibitum.
De 2. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 1. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 1; S. c. Gent. III. c. 124. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.

**III.** Quoad 3. quaestionem fuerunt qui dixerint, polygamiam etiam in *veteri testamento* nunquam fuisse licitam; sed communissime antiqui et recentes doctores catholici cum iure canonico (cfr. infra pag. 752, nota 7.) tenent, vi *dispensationis divinae* Patriarchas sine peccato usos esse polygamia. Notabilis est doctrina nostri auctoris, qua affert plures congruentiae rationes talis dispensationis. — Quod autem idem hic innuit et infra dub. 5. clare docet, Agar et ancillas Iacob non fuisse «secundum veritatem *uxores*, sed tantum *concubinas*», plerisque antiquis non probatur. Docent enim, easdem fuisse legitimas *uxores* quoad *torum*, sed non quoad *dignitatem*. Unde S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3.) docet, ipsas habuisse aliquid de ratione *uxoris*, scilicet quatenus matrimonium refertur ad suum principalem finem, qui est bonum prolis; aliquid vero de ratione *concubinae*, scilicet quoad finem secundarium, qui est dispensatio familiae. Simul idem docet, contra primum finem non esse aliquam dispensationem. Etiam B. Albert. (hic 5.) dicit: «Nunquam licuit ancillam, vel alienam cognoscere, sed ancillam ductam in matrimonio ex instinctu Spiritus S.; et ita fecerunt Patriarchae».
De 3. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 1. n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. 2; Suppl. q. 65. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That to approach a woman *not joined [to oneself] in matrimony* by the very *natural law* is gravely forbidden, is proved also by the constant teaching of the catholic doctors and by the reprobation of the contrary opinion made by Innocent XI, 2 March 1779 (prop. 48.); cf. prop. 7 of Clement V with the Council of Vienne against the errors of the Beghards. — The same threefold division of the law of nature is received by St. Thomas (here a. 1. ad 4; Suppl. q. 65. a. 1. ad 4.). — In rendering the reason why this is *always* a grave sin, Richard of Middleton does not approve the one which St. Thomas sets down, and adduces another.
On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. III. q. 35. m. 4, p. II. q. 147. m. 2. — Scotus, III. Sent. d. 15. q. unica n. 18. — St. Thomas, in the places cited a. 3; S. c. Gent. III. c. 122. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Denys the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions here q. 1.

**II.** In the manner of speaking about polygamy (q. 2.) there is a certain difference among the doctors; for some with St. Bonaventure say that it is against the *law of nature*, others however with Scotus deny this, others finally proceed by a middle way, teaching with St. Thomas and also according to the true mind of St. Bonaventure that it is in a certain way against nature, and in a certain way not. But when their principles and explanations are attentively considered, in reality they scarcely disagree. The Council of Trent itself (Sess. XXIV. can. 2.) defined: that for Christians to have several wives at once is forbidden *by divine law*.
On the 2nd question: Scotus, here q. 1. — St. Thomas, in the places cited a. 1; S. c. Gent. III. c. 124. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question here q. 1.

**III.** As to the 3rd question, there have been those who said that polygamy even in the *Old Testament* was never lawful; but most commonly the ancient and recent catholic doctors, together with the canon law (cf. below p. 752, note 7.), hold that by *divine dispensation* the Patriarchs used polygamy without sin. Notable is the teaching of our author, who adduces several reasons of congruity for such a dispensation. — But that which he here intimates and below in dub. 5 clearly teaches — that Hagar and the handmaids of Jacob were not «according to truth *wives*, but only *concubines*» — is not accepted by very many of the ancients. For they teach that these same women were legitimate *wives* as to *the bed*, but not as to *dignity*. Hence St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 3. quaestiuncula 3.) teaches that they had something of the character of a *wife*, namely inasmuch as matrimony is referred to its principal end, which is the good of offspring; but something of the character of a *concubine*, namely as to the secondary end, which is the dispensation of the family. At the same time he teaches that against the first end there is no dispensation. Bl. Albert also (here 5.) says: «It was never lawful to know a maidservant, or another man's [woman], but a maidservant taken in matrimony by the instinct of the Holy Spirit; and thus did the Patriarchs act».
On the 3rd question: Scotus, here q. 1. n. 4. seqq. — St. Thomas, here a. 2; Suppl. q. 65. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF page-bands for printed pp. 747–749 (pdf 767–769; offset +20 confirmed by running heads: p. 747 recto "DIST. XXXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.", p. 748 verso "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.", p. 749 recto "DIST. XXXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. II."). Raw IA OCR L80366–80599 (two-column cascade-shattered) used only for marker spacing and cross-check; the bands are authoritative per the Vol II Override. Bands read L (split_x 2120) then R (split_x 1780); custom bottom crops used where the tall band-2 exceeded the 2000px read limit.

**Pages verified.** 747, 748, 749 — all three running heads confirmed. The article opens at the very top of p. 747 (ARTICULUS I. *De continentia coniugali in antiquis.* / QUAESTIO I.), so no divisio material bleeds onto my first page; all p. 747 footers are mine.

**Structure.** The quaestio bundles two pro-blocks — "quod non sit contra legem naturae habere concubinam" (args 1–3) and "quod possit … habere eam cum uxore" (args 4–5) — and a **Contra** side of args 1–6 with an interposed italic sub-heading "quod non debeat habere concubinam cum uxore, videtur" before args 5–6. Editorial marginal glosses printed in the Quaracchi side-margins (*Triplex ius naturale*, *Definitio 1/2*, *Conclusio 1/2*, *Ratio*, *Ad oppositum*) are omitted as editorial finding-aids per the project's marginalia rule.

**Scholion disposition.** The Article I SCHOLION (printed on p. 749, centered header spanning both columns, after q1's replies and before QUAESTIO II) is rendered here in full, both languages. It has **three** numbered sections §I–§III, each covering one of Article I's three questions and each closed by a "De N. quaestione" doctor-list: §I → q1 (this chunk), §II → q2, §III → q3. Siblings a1-q2 and a1-q3 render NO scholion. Placed as the last subsection of both the Latin and English blocks (body-then-scholion) so the parser reads a non-empty body.

**Footer hand-offs.** p. 747 (notes 1–8) and p. 748 (notes 1–11) fall wholly within my body — all claimed here. p. 749's per-page footer sequence is shared with a1-q2: notes **1–2 are mine** (anchored in q1's reply *de Sara*: "Unde¹ …" and "signum fuit²"); notes 3–7 on p. 749 anchor in q2's body (Lamech/Genesis-4 arguments, "pares sint", Gen 2, etc.) and are left for the a1-q2 agent. Total claimed apparatus: 21 entries (8 + 11 + 2).

**[?] flags.** **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 747)** — d.31–d.40 decade polish gate, Pass 1 (2026-07-13). `[^p747-4]` (= p. 747 footer note 4), the canon number: read at 600 dpi from `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-747-r600-0767.png`, left-hand footer column (crop `(100, 6640)–(1450, 6740)`, 2.6× upscale). The printed note reads **`Cfr. C. Liberi dicti (15.), C. 32. q. 4.`** — the second digit is a clear flat-topped **5**, not a 3. The IA OCR's `13` is a digit-mangle. The chunk's existing reading (`(15.)`) is correct and stands unchanged; flag retired. No other ambiguous readings — the bands were clean.

**Hand-off received.** None (first chunk of Art I; divisio closed on p. 746).

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 749 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum contra legem naturae sit, quod unus habeat plures uxores. Et quod sic, ostenditur:

1. *Auctoritate*, quia Genesis quarto[^p749-3] dicit Glossa de Lamech, qui habuit duas uxores: «Primus contra morem et naturam adulterium commisit»: ergo etc.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia secundum dictamen naturae est, quod vir et mulier quantum ad actum illum pares sint[^p749-4]; sed uxor una non potest esse plurium virorum: ergo nec e converso.

3. Item, secundum rectam rationem vir tenetur uxori debitum reddere: ergo cum impossibile sit simul pluribus reddere, non potest se simul pluribus obligare. Sed si plures posset simul habere, simul se pluribus obligaret: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod indictum est homini a sua constitutione spectat ad ius naturale; sed a sua constitutione dictum est[^p749-5]: *Relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo in carne una*: ergo secundum dictamen naturae est, quod tantum sint duo: ergo una unius, et non plures.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^p749-6]: «Quando erat mos habere plures uxores, peccatum non erat»; sed mos vel consuetudo contra naturam non est approbanda nec excusat a culpa: ergo habere plures uxores non est contra naturam.

2. Item, Augustinus[^p749-7] dicit, quod «contra praeceptum non erat, quia nulla hoc lege erat prohibitum»; sed quod est contra ius naturae est prohibitum in lege naturae: ergo etc.

<!-- page 750 -->

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia «quod est cibus ad salutem individui, hoc est coniugium ad conservationem speciei[^p750-1]»; sed licitum est pluribus cibis uti ad conservationem individui: ergo et plures uxores habere ad conservationem speciei.

4. Item, coniunctio maris et feminae est propter prolis multiplicationem, hoc est secundum dictamen naturae: ergo si mulier sterilis est[^p750-2], natura dictat, quod possit ex alia generare, cum unusquisque, quantum est de natura, appetat semen et prolem relinquere super terram: ergo non est *contra*, sed *secundum* naturam.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** Pluribus uti uxoribus est contra ius naturae communiter et proprie sumtum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est supra[^p750-3], illa distinctione praesupposita, si «*ius naturale* dicatur quod in Lege et Evangelio scribitur»; sic ius naturale est, quod sit una unius. *Erunt*, inquit, *duo in carne una*, tam in veteri quam in novo[^p750-4]. — Si autem *ius naturale* dicatur quod ratio recta dictat; adhuc verum est, quia adhuc dictat natura, secundum quod rationis rectae est, quod non faciat alii quod sibi non vult fieri; sed vir non vult, quod uxor habeat alium virum: nec ergo debet velle habere aliam uxorem, cum in tali actu, ut supra[^p750-5] visum est, ad paria iudicentur et tanquam pares conveniant. — Si dicatur *ius naturale* quod natura impressit animalibus; sic dicendum, quod *non omnibus*, sed aliquibus animalibus brutis[^p750-6] impressit; sed tamen in natura est aliquorum animalium irrationalium, et in *nostra* natura plantavit. — Et hoc patet experimento, eo quod in matrimonio est quidam *amor singularis*, in quo non communicat alienus; unde naturaliter omnis vir zelat uxorem quantum ad hoc, ut nullum diligat, ut diligit[^p750-7] ipsum in actu illo; et omnis uxor similiter zelat virum quantum ad hoc: unde stante natura, nunquam fuisset ibi *communitas*, etiam si cetera essent communia. — Similiter, *caritate adveniente*, quae facit omnia esse communia, nunquam facit uxorem communem, propter *privatum* amorem, qui debet esse in matrimonio[^p750-8], qui etiam est *Sacramentum* illius amoris, quo *Deus* zelat animam, ut nolit, aliquem tantum diligi; sic et *anima* a Deo nullo modo vult propter aliam deseri. Et in hoc patet sapientia Dei, quae *se* nobis *in nobis* ostendit, et nobis ipsis ostendit, quid *agere* debeamus, in *creaturis subditis*, secundum illud Iob[^p750-9]: *Interroga iumenta, et docebunt te*; sed mens hominis obfuscata hoc non attendit. — Concedendum igitur, quod uti pluribus uxoribus est contra ius naturae.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod quando mos erat, peccatum non erat; dicendum, quod mos ille erat approbatus non ab hominibus tantum, sed a Deo, ut post[^p750-10] patebit; et ideo peccatum non erat.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non erat contra praeceptum; dicendum, quod vocat *praeceptum* expressum exterius per vocem vel scripturam, sicut legem Moysaicam.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de cibo, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia ibi est usus rei inferioris, hic est usus paris, et ideo unius; alioquin superior fit. *Praeterea*, ibi est *mutuus* amor, et ideo *mutuus zelus*, et ideo *singularitas*[^p750-11].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ad multiplicationem[^p750-12] talis actus etc.; dicendum, quod etsi natura dictet, prolem esse multiplicandam, tamen dictat: *debite* et *ordinate*, et ita quod *nulli fiat iniuria*; et ideo magis cessandum esse a generatione prolis, quam iniuriam fieri alicui; et ideo nec uxorem aliam duci. Item, etsi natura dictet quaerendum bonum *commodi*, non tamen in praeiudicium boni *honesti*; et *honestas* consistit in rectitudine iustitiae et observatione fidei, sed bonum commodi est in fecunditate prolis[^p750-13]. Hinc est, quod ad prolem generandam non debet alia uxor adiici, nisi Deus dispenset[^p750-14].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether to have several wives is against the law of nature.*

Secondly it is asked whether it is against the law of nature that one man should have several wives. And that it is so is shown:

1. *By authority*, because on Genesis, chapter 4, the Gloss says of Lamech, who had two wives: «He was the first to commit adultery against custom and against nature»[^p749-3]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because it is according to the dictate of nature that man and woman should be equal as regards that act[^p749-4]; but one wife cannot belong to several men: therefore neither the reverse.

3. Likewise, according to right reason a man is bound to render the debt to his wife: therefore, since it is impossible to render it to several at the same time, he cannot bind himself to several at the same time. But if he could have several at once, he would bind himself to several at once: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, what is enjoined upon man from his very constitution pertains to natural right; but from his very constitution it was said[^p749-5]: *A man shall leave father and mother, and they shall be two in one flesh*: therefore it is according to the dictate of nature that there be only two: therefore one wife of one husband, and not several.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine says, and it is had in the text[^p749-6]: «When it was the custom to have several wives, it was not a sin»; but a custom or usage against nature is not to be approved, nor does it excuse from fault: therefore to have several wives is not against nature.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^p749-7] says that «it was not against a precept, because by no law was this prohibited»; but what is against the right of nature is prohibited in the law of nature: therefore etc.

3. Likewise it seems so *by reason*: because «what food is for the health of the individual, that marriage is for the conservation of the species[^p750-1]»; but it is lawful to use several foods for the conservation of the individual: therefore also to have several wives for the conservation of the species.

4. Likewise, the joining of male and female is for the multiplication of offspring, which is according to the dictate of nature: therefore if the wife is barren[^p750-2], nature dictates that he may beget from another, since everyone, so far as pertains to nature, desires to leave seed and offspring upon the earth: therefore it is not *against*, but *according to* nature.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** To use several wives is against the right of nature, taken commonly and properly.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was said above[^p750-3], that distinction being presupposed: if «*natural right* be called that which is written in the Law and the Gospel», then it is natural right that there be one wife of one husband. *They shall be*, he says, *two in one flesh*, both in the old and in the new [testament][^p750-4]. — But if *natural right* be called that which right reason dictates, still it is true, because nature still dictates, in accordance with what belongs to right reason, that one should not do to another what he does not wish done to himself; but a man does not wish his wife to have another man: neither therefore ought he to wish to have another wife, since in such an act, as was seen above[^p750-5], they are judged equal and come together as equals. — If *natural right* be called that which nature has impressed upon animals, then it must be said that it impressed it *not on all*, but on some brute animals[^p750-6]; but nevertheless it is in the nature of some irrational animals, and it planted [it] in *our own* nature. — And this is evident by experience, from the fact that in marriage there is a certain *singular love*, in which no stranger shares; whence naturally every man is jealous of his wife in this respect, that she love no one as she loves[^p750-7] him in that act; and every wife likewise is jealous of her husband in this respect: whence, nature standing [as it is], there would never have been *community* there, even if other things were common. — Likewise, *when charity comes*—which makes all things to be common—it never makes a wife common, on account of the *private* love which ought to be in marriage[^p750-8], which is also the *Sacrament* of that love by which *God* is jealous for the soul, so that He wills not that anyone be loved so much [as Himself]; so too the *soul* in no way wills to be deserted by God for the sake of another. And in this the wisdom of God is manifest, which shows *itself* to us *in ourselves*, and shows to our very selves what we ought *to do*, in the *creatures subject* [to us], according to that [word] of Job[^p750-9]: *Ask the beasts, and they will teach you*; but the mind of man, darkened, does not attend to this. — It must therefore be granted that to use several wives is against the right of nature.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected—that when it was the custom, it was not a sin—it must be said that that custom was approved not by men only, but by God, as will appear later[^p750-10]; and therefore it was not a sin.

*To 2.* To that which is objected—that it was not against a precept—it must be said that it calls a *precept* [something] expressed outwardly by word or writing, as the Mosaic law.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning food, it must be said that it is not similar: because there it is the use of an inferior thing, here it is the use of an equal, and therefore of one; otherwise the superior comes to be. *Moreover*, there is a *mutual* love, and therefore a *mutual jealousy*, and therefore *singularity*[^p750-11].

*To 4.* To that which is objected—that such an act is for multiplication[^p750-12] etc.—it must be said that although nature dictates that offspring is to be multiplied, yet it dictates: *duly* and *in order*, and in such a way that *no injury be done to anyone*; and therefore one must rather cease from the generation of offspring than that injury be done to anyone; and therefore not even is another wife to be taken. Likewise, although nature dictates that the good of *advantage* is to be sought, yet not to the prejudice of the *honorable* good; and the *honorable* consists in the rectitude of justice and in the observance of faith, whereas the good of advantage is in the fecundity of offspring[^p750-13]. Hence it is that, for the generating of offspring, another wife ought not to be added, unless God dispense[^p750-14].

---

la: Vers. 19. — In Glossa, quae est *ordinaria*, apud Strabum et Lyranum post *naturam* additur *per bigamiam*. Idem dicit Glossa *interlinearis* apud Lyranum.

en: Verse 19. — In the Gloss, which is the *ordinary* [Gloss], in Strabo and Lyra, after *nature* is added *through bigamy*. The *interlinear* Gloss in Lyra says the same.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXII. c. 1. — Mox pro *una* permulti codd. et ed. 1 *illa*, et pro *virorum* cod. E *uxor*.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXXII, c. 1. — Presently, instead of *una* very many codices and ed. 1 [read] *illa*, and instead of *virorum* cod. E [reads] *uxor*.

la: Gen. 2, 24: *Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae* [quod etiam cod. bb addit], *et erunt* etc. — Superius pro *indictum* codd. O U *inditum*, cod. M *indicatum*, et pro *constitutione* cod. F *institutione*, cod. U *conditione*.

en: Gen. 2:24: *A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife* [which cod. bb also adds], *and they shall be* etc. — Above, instead of *indictum* codd. O U [read] *inditum*, cod. M *indicatum*, and instead of *constitutione* cod. F [reads] *institutione*, cod. U *conditione*.

la: Hic c. 1. sumtum ex XXII. contra Faustum, c. 47.

en: Here [in the text], c. 1; taken from Against Faustus, [book] XXII, c. 47.

la: Loc. in praeced. nota allegato. Cfr. XVI. de Civ. Dei, c. 38. n. 3.

en: The passage cited in the preceding note. Cf. [book] XVI of the City of God, c. 38, n. 3.

la: Secundum August., de Bono coniugali, c. 16. n. 18. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. in fine.

en: According to Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, c. 16, n. 18. See here the text of the Master, c. 1, at the end.

la: Cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *ergo si vir uxorem habeat sterilem*; pro *est*, quod aliqui codd. omittunt, edd. cum pluribus codd. *ex*.

en: Cod. K (1, by a second hand) [reads] *ergo si vir uxorem habeat sterilem*; instead of *est*, which some codices omit, the editions with several codices [read] *ex*.

la: Quaest. praeced., in qua *triplex* distinctio iuris naturalis explicata est.

en: The preceding question, in which the *threefold* distinction of natural right was explained.

la: Supple: testamento. Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, 5.

en: Supply: testament. Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Superius per verba *non faciat alii* etc. respicitur Tob. 4, 16; Matth. 7, 12. et Luc. 6, 31. — Pro *nec ergo plures* codd. vel cum ed. 1 *nec ipse*, vel *nec*, vel ita *nec*, Vat. *igitur nec ipse*.

en: The preceding question. — Above, by the words *let him not do to another* etc., reference is made to Tob. 4:16; Matt. 7:12 and Luke 6:31. — Instead of *nec ergo plures* the codices, or with ed. 1, [read] *nec ipse*, or *nec*, or thus *nec*; the Vatican [ed.] *igitur nec ipse*.

la: Codd. R S T bb supplent *hoc natura*.

en: Codices R S T bb supply *hoc natura*.

la: Pro *ut diligit* cod. bb (L a secunda manu) *nisi*, edd. *praeter*.

en: Instead of *ut diligit* cod. bb (L by a second hand) [reads] *nisi*, the editions *praeter*.

la: Ex codd. T bb supplevimus *in matrimonio*. Immediate post iidem codd. substituunt *quoniam* pro *qui*, codd. I K *quia*. Subinde pro *aliquem tantum diligi* edd. *eam aliquem alium tantum diligere*. Pro *sic et* plures codd. *sed*, cod. L *et*, ac pro *aliam* cod. R *alium*, cod. S *alia*.

en: From codices T bb we have supplied *in matrimonio*. Immediately after, the same codices substitute *quoniam* for *qui*; codices I K [read] *quia*. Then, instead of *aliquem tantum diligi* the editions [read] *eam aliquem alium tantum diligere*. Instead of *sic et* several codices [read] *sed*, cod. L *et*, and instead of *aliam* cod. R [reads] *alium*, cod. S *alia*.

la: Cap. 12, 7. — Mox pro *hominis* edd. cum pluribus codd. *hominum*, cod. bb (E a secunda manu) *in hominibus*. Verbo *attendit* cod. R praemittit *in omnibus*.

en: Chapter 12:7. — Presently, instead of *hominis* the editions with several codices [read] *hominum*, cod. bb (E by a second hand) *in hominibus*. Before the word *attendit* cod. R prefixes *in omnibus*.

la: Quaest. seq. — Post *a Deo* codd. R S T addunt *inspiratus*.

en: The following question. — After *a Deo* codices R S T add *inspiratus*.

la: Exod. 34, 14: *Noli adorare Deum alienum. Dominus zelotes nomen eius, Deus est aemulator*.

en: Exod. 34:14: *You shall not worship a foreign god. The Lord, jealous is his name, God is a jealous one*.

la: Codd. R S T aa supplent *prolis*. Inferius pro *fieri* edd. *inferre*.

en: Codices R S T aa supply *prolis*. Below, instead of *fieri* the editions [read] *inferre*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro *adiici* codd. A E *adduci*.

en: Cf. above, d. 31, a. 1, q. 1. — Presently, instead of *adiici* codices A E [read] *adduci*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{749,750}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, regenerated at split 2120/1780 to de-clip the columns), cross-checked against raw OCR L80600–80734. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (p.749→pdf 769, p.750→pdf 770). Page numbers verified on the bands ("749" top-right of recto; "750" top-left of verso; running heads `DIST. XXXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` / `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`).

**Page span corrected.** Frontmatter `printed_pages` was `[749, 750, 751]`; corrected to `[749, 750]`. QUAESTIO II runs 749 (from mid-page) through the end of 750; QUAESTIO III (a1-q3) begins fresh at the top of page 751. This quaestio does **not** reach page 751.

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw range opens correctly with `QUAESTIO II. / Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae. / Secundo quaeritur…` — no q-swap. line_start/line_end retained.

**No scholion here (`has_scholion: false`).** The Art. I scholion prints at the top of page 749 but belongs to a1-q1 (its `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` back-reference is confirmed by my [^p750-14]). Not rendered here.

**Cross-chunk footer hand-off (shared page 749).** Page 749 is shared: q1's reply-5 tail + scholion sit above my `Secundo quaeritur` opener. Page 749's per-page footers **1 and 2 are anchored in q1's body**, not mine — [^749-1] (`Supple cum cod. bb vir. Infra pro de viro codd. RST in viro`) keys to q1's "Unde¹ … sic nec mulier *de viro*"; [^749-2] (`Cfr. infra q. 3. et dub. 5.`) keys to q1's "…sed *signum fuit*²". **→ These two belong to a1-q1; that chunk must claim them.** This chunk claims only page-749 footers **3–7**. No footers forwarded to a1-q3 (q3 starts on p.751, a page this chunk does not touch).

**Marginalia trimmed** per CLAUDE.md: side-margin topic labels `Ad oppositum.`, `Distinctio.`, `Conclusio 1./2./3.`, `Ratio notabilis 1.` were omitted from the body. The centered printed `CONCLUSIO.` header + its statement are retained (rendered as the `> **Conclusion.**` blockquote).

**Apparatus count:** 19 entries — page 749: 5 (markers 3–7); page 750: 14 (markers 1–14). All 19 markers map cleanly to body anchors in both languages.

**[?] flags:** none unresolved. (The exact glyph positions of the q1-owned markers ¹/² on p.749 were confirmed against q1's "de viro" / "signum fuit" anchors, so no ambiguity is carried into this chunk.)


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

source_text:
<!-- page 751 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Deus debuerit dispensare de concubina habenda.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Deus debuerit dispensare, quod licitum esset habere *concubinas*, et quod liceret habere plures *uxores*. Et quod non debuerit dispensare, videtur:

1. Quia «Conditor naturae non facit contra naturam[^p751-1]» nec contra ius naturae; sed habere plures uxores et plures concubinas est contra ius naturae: ergo etc.

2. Item, nunquam Deus dispensavit, quod una esset plurium virorum[^p751-2]: ergo cum magis sufficiat una mulier pluribus viris quam e converso, non debuit dispensare, quod unus vir esset plurium.

3. Item, in institutione matrimonii et eius confirmatione[^p751-3] dicitur, quod *erunt duo in carne una*; et Matthaei decimo nono super illud: *Adhaerebit uxori*; Glossa: «*Non uxoribus*»: ergo si Deus contra suam institutionem non debuit facere, videtur etc.

4. Item, dispensatio recta debet esse propter maius bonum; sed cum[^p751-4] unus habet duas, hic non salvatur bonum *fidei*, quia non tantum cognoscit vir uxorem, cum tamen mulier non cognoscat alium virum; nec etiam bonum *Sacramenti*, quia Christus unicam habet Ecclesiam sponsam, non plures: ergo videtur, quod male sit dispensatum.

5. Item, si omnis dispensatio debet esse propter aliquam causam; quaero, quae sit illa. Si multiplicatio prolis ad cultum Dei; cum ista causa omni tempore stet, quia cultus Dei[^p751-5] est multiplicandus: ergo in omni tempore deberet ista dispensatio stare.

6. Item, videtur, quod ista dispensatio se extenderit ad solos Patres, quia Deuteronomii decimo septimo[^p751-6] dicitur: *Non habebit uxores plurimas, quae alliciant animum eius*, hoc dicitur de rege: ergo multo fortius aliis est istud prohibitum.

**Contra:** 1. Quod dispensatum fuerit, videtur: quia Abraham simul cum uxore habuit concubinam; et tamen non reprehenditur, immo Dominus approbavit, cum dixit de Ismaele, quod ipsum faceret crescere[^p751-7]: ergo cum hoc non liceret per naturam, dispensatum est cum eo.

2. Item, Iacob habuit duas uxores et duas concubinas[^p751-8]; et constat, quod hoc placuit Deo, quia semen, quod ex omnibus accepit, est approbatum: ergo cum eo fuit dispensatum.

3. Item, David habuit plures, sicut dicitur secundo Regum[^p751-9], uxores et concubinas; et tamen non reprehenditur: ergo dispensatum est cum regibus.

4. Item, Elcana habuit plures uxores; et tamen non reprehenditur[^p751-10]: ergo videtur, quod cum omnibus sit dispensatum.

5. Item, Lex supponit tanquam licitum, Deuteronomii vigesimo primo[^p751-11]: *Si habuerit homo duas uxores, unam dilectam et alteram odiosam*; hoc non redarguit: ergo omnibus erat licitum, ergo cum omnibus dispensatum.

Quaeritur igitur, quomodo et quando sit dispensatum, et ubi expressum, et quare tunc et non modo, et quantum se extendat.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** Congruum fuit, quod Deus cum Patriarchis et in lege veteri dispensaverit circa polygamiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad dispensationem ad hoc, quod debite fiat, et convenienter homo ea utatur, ista quatuor sunt concurrentia, scilicet *necessitas*, *utilitas*, *congruitas* et *honestas*; et ista quatuor sunt hic.

Primum quidem *congruum* fuit illud tempus dispensationi, quoniam tempus fuit *figurae*; et quoniam Christus generare debebat liberos et filios per baptismum, et in Ecclesia catholica et in haereticis diverticulis: ideo in *figura* debuit praecedere matrimonium sive generatio ex libera et ex ancilla. Et rursus, quoniam inter illos qui ab haereticis baptizantur, quidam haeresim sequuntur, quidam ad Ecclesiam revertuntur; ideo utriusque figura praecessit: primi in Ismaele, de quo dictum est Genesis vigesimo primo[^p751-12]: *Eiice ancillam et filium eius*; secundi in ancillis Iacob, quarum filii sunt inter liberos computati. Hoc habetur ab Augustino in libro de Baptismo[^p751-13]. Fuit ergo temporis *congruitas*. —

Fuit etiam *necessitas*, quia pauci erant Deum colentes; et ut cultus divinus non periret, necesse fuit, ut filios multiplicarent; et contigit, quod uxo-

<!-- page 752 -->

res steriles haberent[^p752-1]: ideo necessitatem habuerunt tunc plures habere. — Fuit etiam *utilitas*, quia filii erudiebantur a parentibus et mores patrum servabant; et ideo, quanto plures, tanto cultus Dei erat celebrior, et ideo erat tunc utile multos procreare. — Fuit etiam *honestas*, quia non affectu libidinoso, sed casto, non affectu adulteri, sed mariti etiam concubinas cognoscebant. In cuius rei testimonium de Abraham dicitur, quod non ipse accepit ancillam, sed uxori obedivit et ei in ea debitum reddidit et affectu viri cognovit; et ideo dicitur Genesis decimo sexto[^p752-2], quod Sara dedit Agar in *uxorem* Abraham, non quia fuerit *uxor*, quia postmodum fuit eiecta, sed ut significetur, quod eo affectu eam cognovit, quo et uxorem. Unde Augustinus decimo sexto de Civitate Dei[^p752-3] vocat «virum feminis viriliter utentem, uxore temperanter, ancilla obtemperanter, nulla intemperanter».

Ex hoc patet, quod haec dispensatio non se extendat ad tempus *naturae institutae* nec *gratiae*: quia in *natura instituta* non erat *tempus figurae* nec *necessitas sterilitatis*; similiter in tempore *gratiae* cessaverunt figurae, et omnes vocantur[^p752-4] ad Christi culturam, et multiplicatum est genus humanum valde. — Similiter ratione *utilitatis* non se extendit *ante* tempus Abrahae, quia ante non multiplicabantur ad cultum Dei, sed ad malum, quia imitatores erant paternorum scelerum; et ideo deleti sunt cum terra[^p752-5]. — Ratione vero *honestatis* ad illos solos se extendit, qui uxoribus et concubinis temperanter et ad cultum Dei multiplicandum sciebant et volebant uti; aliter eis dispensatio non valebat.

Ista autem dispensatio facta est *divina inspiratione* in Patriarchis et rege David, quando utrisque de semine facta est repromissio[^p752-6]; et quia isti erant capita et imitandi erant tanquam Sancti; intellexerunt recte, dispensationem hanc ad omnes extendi, qui erant imitatores eorum in castitate; et mos fuit ex hoc introductus, durans usque ad Christi adventum. Sed tunc cessavit, quia cessavit *congruitas* et *necessitas*, ut visum est. Unde omnibus, quibus licuit, licuit solum ex dispensatione, quae fuit per inspirationem; et hoc dicitur Extra, de Divortio[^p752-7], in quadam decretali Innocentii; ubi dicitur, quod «nunquam licuit alicui nisi divina inspiratione».

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Deus non facit contra ius naturae; dicendum, quod verum est: contra ius naturae, quod ordinat *in ipsum*; sed contra ius naturae, quod ordinat *ad proximum*, potest; non tamen facit *contra*, sed *supra*, quia ratio recta sic dictat, hoc non esse faciendum, ut tamen dictet, in eius opposito Deo esse obediendum[^p752-8].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod una sit plurium; dicendum, quod una sit plurium, nulla esset *utilitas*, quia unus potest fecundare plures, sed non una a pluribus. Esset etiam *damnum*, quia *defectus tranquillitatis*; non enim potest cum pace unus *duobus dominis servire*[^p752-9], sicut unus dominus duobus servis imperare; et *vir caput est* et dominatur mulieri. Deesset etiam *bonum Sacramenti*, quia una anima non duobus viris, sed Christus multis copulatur animabus; et amplius, esset *incertitudo prolis* et confusio hereditatis.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus instituit, quod duo etc.; dicendum, quod verum est tempore *legis naturae* et tempore *gratiae*. Sed ex causa tempore *Legis* debuit dispensare; nec facit contra suam institutionem ipse, qui rem instituit, cum pro loco et tempore dispensat.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dispensatio debet esse propter maius bonum; dicendum, quod *bonum prolis* adeo necessarium est, ut propter ipsum vellet Deus in aliquo detrahi *bono fidei* et *Sacramenti*, non tamen omnino, quia tunc aliquibus[^p752-10] fidem servabant, et ratio significationis ibi manebat.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multiplicatio prolis non est causa: dicendum, quod immo, quia cultus Dei crescebat tunc non per vocationem, sed per successionem, quia illis tantum fuit Lex tradita; et ideo tunc erat opportunum[^p752-11].

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod quaeritur; ad quos se extendebat? dicendum, quod ratione *inspirationis* tantum ad Patres, sed ratione *honestae imitationis* et *moris* derivatum est ad posteros, qui uxoribus utiliter uti sciebant. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod regibus erat prohibitum; dicendum, quod non fuit prohibitum, ne haberent *plures*, sed ut non haberent *plurimas*; non dicitur etiam illud simpliciter, sed cum determinatione, *quae alliciant animum*, et tales erant alienigenae[^p752-12].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether God ought to have granted dispensation concerning the having of a concubine.*

Thirdly it is asked whether God ought to have dispensed, so that it should be lawful to have *concubines*, and so that it should be permitted to have several *wives*. And that He ought not to have dispensed, it seems:

1. Because «the Founder of nature does not act against nature[^p751-1]» nor against the right of nature; but to have several wives and several concubines is against the right of nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, God never dispensed that one woman should belong to several men[^p751-2]: therefore, since one woman suffices more for several men than the reverse, He ought not to have dispensed that one man should belong to several [women].

3. Likewise, in the institution of matrimony and its confirmation[^p751-3] it is said that *they shall be two in one flesh*; and on Matthew, chapter 19, upon that [word]: *He shall cleave to his wife*; the Gloss: «*Not to wives*»: therefore if God ought not to act against His own institution, it seems [it should not have been dispensed] etc.

4. Likewise, a right dispensation ought to be for a greater good; but when[^p751-4] one man has two [wives], here the good of *faith* is not preserved, because the man not only knows his wife, whereas the woman does not know another man; nor even the good of the *Sacrament*, because Christ has one Church as spouse, not several: therefore it seems that it was ill dispensed.

5. Likewise, if every dispensation ought to be for some cause, I ask what that cause is. If [it be] the multiplication of offspring for the worship of God, then, since this cause stands at every time, because the worship of God[^p751-5] is to be multiplied, therefore at every time this dispensation ought to stand.

6. Likewise, it seems that this dispensation extended only to the Fathers, because in Deuteronomy, chapter 17[^p751-6], it is said: *He shall not have many wives, who may allure his mind*; this is said of the king: therefore much more strongly is that thing prohibited to others.

**On the contrary:** 1. That it was dispensed, it seems: because Abraham together with his wife had a concubine; and yet he is not reproved, nay rather the Lord approved, when He said of Ishmael that He would make him increase[^p751-7]: therefore, since this was not permitted by nature, it was dispensed with him.

2. Likewise, Jacob had two wives and two concubines[^p751-8]; and it is established that this pleased God, because the seed which He received from them all is approved: therefore it was dispensed with him.

3. Likewise, David had several, as is said in Second Kings[^p751-9], wives and concubines; and yet he is not reproved: therefore it was dispensed with the kings.

4. Likewise, Elkanah had several wives; and yet he is not reproved[^p751-10]: therefore it seems that it was dispensed with all.

5. Likewise, the Law supposes it as lawful, Deuteronomy, chapter 21[^p751-11]: *If a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated*; this it does not censure: therefore it was lawful to all, therefore it was dispensed with all.

It is asked, then, how and when it was dispensed, and where it is expressed, and why then and not now, and how far it extends.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** It was fitting that God should have dispensed with the Patriarchs and in the old law concerning polygamy.

**I respond:** It must be said that, for dispensation—to the end that it be duly made and that a man use it becomingly—these four things concur, namely *necessity*, *utility*, *fittingness*, and *honorableness*; and these four are present here.

First indeed, that time was *fitting* for the dispensation, because it was a time of *figure*; and because Christ was to beget children and sons through baptism, both in the catholic Church and in the heretical byways: therefore in *figure* there had to precede a marriage, that is, a generation from a free woman and from a handmaid. And again, because among those who are baptized by heretics, some follow heresy, some return to the Church, therefore the figure of both preceded: of the first in Ishmael, of whom it is said in Genesis, chapter 21[^p751-12]: *Cast out the handmaid and her son*; of the second in the handmaids of Jacob, whose sons are counted among the free-born. This is had from Augustine in the book On Baptism[^p751-13]. There was, then, a *fittingness* of the time. —

There was also *necessity*, because few were worshippers of God; and lest the divine worship should perish, it was necessary that they should multiply children; and it happened that the wives

<!-- page 752 -->

were barren[^p752-1]: therefore they had necessity then to have several. — There was also *utility*, because the children were instructed by their parents and kept the ways of the fathers; and therefore, the more numerous [they were], the more renowned was the worship of God, and therefore it was then useful to procreate many. — There was also *honorableness*, because they knew even their concubines not with a lustful affection, but with a chaste one, not with the affection of an adulterer, but of a husband. In testimony of this it is said of Abraham that he did not himself take the handmaid, but obeyed his wife and rendered her the debt in her, and knew her with the affection of a husband; and therefore it is said in Genesis, chapter 16[^p752-2], that Sarah gave Agar to Abraham as a *wife*—not because she was a *wife*, since afterward she was cast out, but that it might be signified that he knew her with the same affection with which [he knew] his wife. Whence Augustine, in the sixteenth book On the City of God[^p752-3], calls him «a man using women manfully—the wife temperately, the handmaid compliantly, none intemperately».

From this it is evident that this dispensation does not extend to the time of *nature as instituted* nor to that of *grace*: because in *nature as instituted* there was neither *the time of figure* nor *the necessity of barrenness*; likewise in the time of *grace* the figures ceased, and all are called[^p752-4] to the worship of Christ, and the human race has been greatly multiplied. — Likewise, by reason of *utility*, it does not extend *before* the time of Abraham, because before then men were not multiplied for the worship of God, but for evil, since they were imitators of their fathers' crimes; and therefore they were destroyed with the earth[^p752-5]. — But by reason of *honorableness* it extends only to those who knew how, and willed, to use wives and concubines temperately and for the multiplying of the worship of God; otherwise the dispensation did not avail for them.

Now this dispensation was made by *divine inspiration* in the Patriarchs and in king David, when to both was made the promise concerning the seed[^p752-6]; and because these were heads and were to be imitated as Saints, they understood rightly that this dispensation extended to all who were imitators of them in chastity; and a custom was introduced from this, lasting until the coming of Christ. But then it ceased, because the *fittingness* and *necessity* ceased, as has been seen. Whence to all to whom it was permitted, it was permitted solely from the dispensation which was through inspiration; and this is said in the Extra[vagantes], On Divorce[^p752-7], in a certain decretal of Innocent, where it is said that «it was never lawful to anyone except by divine inspiration».

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected—that God does not act against the right of nature—it must be said that this is true: [it is] against the right of nature which ordains [a thing] *toward itself*; but against the right of nature which ordains [a thing] *toward the neighbor*, He can [act]; yet He does not act *against*, but *above*, because right reason so dictates that this is not to be done, in such wise that it may nonetheless dictate that, in the opposite case, God is to be obeyed[^p752-8].

*To 2.* To that which is objected—that one woman might belong to several men—it must be said that were one woman to belong to several, there would be no *utility*, because one man can make several fruitful, but not one woman by several men. There would also be *harm*, because [there would be] a *failure of tranquility*; for one man cannot with peace *serve two masters*[^p752-9], just as one master [cannot] command two servants; and *the man is the head* and rules over the woman. There would also be lacking the *good of the Sacrament*, because one soul is joined not to two men, but Christ is joined to many souls; and further, there would be *uncertainty of offspring* and confusion of inheritance.

*To 3.* To that which is objected—that God instituted that [there be] two etc.—it must be said that this is true in the time of the *law of nature* and in the time of *grace*. But from cause, in the time of the *Law*, He had to dispense; nor does He who instituted the thing act against His own institution when He dispenses according to place and time.

*To 4.* To that which is objected—that a dispensation ought to be for a greater good—it must be said that the *good of offspring* is so necessary that on account of it God willed that something be withdrawn from the *good of faith* and of the *Sacrament*, yet not entirely, because at that time they kept faith to some[^p752-10], and the ground of the signification remained there.

*To 5.* To that which is objected—that the multiplication of offspring is not a cause—it must be said that on the contrary [it is], because the worship of God grew then not through calling, but through succession, since to them alone was the Law delivered; and therefore it was then opportune[^p752-11].

*To 6.* To that which is asked—to whom did it extend?—it must be said that by reason of *inspiration* [it extended] only to the Fathers, but by reason of *honorable imitation* and *custom* it was derived to their descendants, who knew how to use wives usefully. — As to what is objected, that it was prohibited to the kings, it must be said that it was not prohibited that they should not have *several*, but that they should not have *very many*; nor is that said simply, but with a determination, *who may allure the mind*, and such were the foreign women[^p752-12].

---

la: August., XXVI. contra Faustum, c. 3.

en: Augustine, Against Faustus, [book] XXVI, c. 3.

la: Codd. G H addunt *uxor*.

en: Codices G H add *uxor*.

la: Gen. 2, 24. et Matth. 19, 5, ubi etiam seq. locus, quem Hieron. explicans dicit: *Similiter ait: Adhaerebit uxori suae, non uxoribus* (Glossa interlinearis apud Lyranum).

en: Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5, where also [is] the following passage, which Jerome, explaining, says: *Likewise he says: He shall cleave to his wife, not to his wives* (interlinear Gloss in Lyra).

la: Plures codd. *si tamen* et mox *plures* pro *duas*. Vat. *solvitur* pro *salvatur* et cum ed. 1 *aliam* pro *non tantum*.

en: Several codices [read] *si tamen* and presently *plures* for *duas*. The Vatican [ed. reads] *solvitur* for *salvatur*, and with ed. 1 *aliam* for *non tantum*.

la: Codd. O bb addunt *semper*, codd. T U *omni tempore*.

en: Codices O bb add *semper*, codices T U [read] *omni tempore*.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Gen. 16, 10. et 17, 20. — Inferius post *est* permulti codd. et ed. 1 subiungunt *ergo*.

en: Gen. 16:10 and 17:20. — Below, after *est* very many codices and ed. 1 subjoin *ergo*.

la: Libr. I. Reg. 1, 2.

en: Book I of Kings [1 Samuel], 1:2.

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Vers. 10. Post *ancillam* Vulgata addit *hanc*. Cfr. Gal. 4, 30. — Mox pro *liberos* cod. aa *filios*.

en: Verse 10. After *ancillam* the Vulgate adds *hanc*. Cf. Gal. 4:30. — Presently, instead of *liberos* cod. aa [reads] *filios*.

en: Book I, c. 10, n. 14; c. 15, n. 23 and c. 16, n. 25 [of Augustine, On Baptism].

la: Cfr. Gen. 16, 2; 29, 31; 30, 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Cf. Gen. 16:2; 29:31; 30:1. See here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Vers. 2. seq.: *Cumque ille acquiesceret deprecanti, tulit Agar... et dedit eam viro suo uxorem.*

en: Verse 2f.: *And when he acquiesced to her entreaty, she took Agar... and gave her to her husband as a wife.*

en: Chapter 25 [of the City of God, book XVI].

la: Codd. R S T aa bb *invitantur*.

en: Codices R S T aa bb [read] *invitantur*.

la: Vide Gen. 6. et 7. — Superius post *ratione utilitatis* Vat. perperam omittit *non*, et pro *ante tempus* multi codd. et ed. 1 *ad tempus*.

en: See Gen. 6 and 7. — Above, after *ratione utilitatis* the Vatican [ed.] wrongly omits *non*, and instead of *ante tempus* many codices and ed. 1 [read] *ad tempus*.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 8. *Gaudemus in Domino*, ubi dicitur: *Nec ulli unquam licuit insimul plures uxores habere, nisi cui fuit divina revelatione concessum.*

en: Book IV, title 19, c. 8, *Gaudemus in Domino*, where it is said: *It was never lawful to anyone to have several wives at once, except to him to whom it was granted by divine revelation.*

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 47. q. 4.

en: Cf. Sentences I, d. 47, q. 4.

la: Matth. 6, 24: *Nemo potest duobus* etc. (Post *unus* cod. Z addit *servus*). — Secundus locus est I. Cor. 11, 3: *Caput autem mulieris vir*. Eph. 5, 23: *Vir est caput mulieris*. Subinde respicitur I. Tim. 2, 12: *Docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum*. — Superius post *dicendum* edd. legunt *quod si una esset plurium*. Inferius post *anima* codd. O R S bb addunt *in spirituali matrimonio*.

en: Matt. 6:24: *No one can [serve] two* etc. (After *unus* cod. Z adds *servus*). — The second passage is 1 Cor. 11:3: *But the head of the woman is the man*. Eph. 5:23: *The man is the head of the woman*. Then reference is made to 1 Tim. 2:12: *But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man*. — Above, after *dicendum* the editions read *quod si una esset plurium*. Below, after *anima* codices O R S bb add *in spirituali matrimonio*.

la: Edd. male *aliqui*.

en: The editions wrongly [read] *aliqui*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Respicitur III. Reg. 11, 1. seq.: *Rex autem Salomon adamavit mulieres alienigenas* etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Reference is made to 3 Kings [1 Kings] 11:1f.: *But king Solomon loved foreign women* etc. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{751,752}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, regenerated at split 2120/1780 to de-clip the columns — the default vol4 split of 1880 clips the left edge of the right column), cross-checked against raw OCR L80735–81028. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (p.751→pdf 771, p.752→pdf 772). Page numbers verified on the bands ("751" top-right of recto with running head `DIST. XXXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. III.`; "752" top-left of verso with running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`).

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L80735 opens correctly with `QUAESTIO III.` (L80735), title `Utrum Deus debuerit dispensare de concubina habenda.` (L80740), and `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Deus debuerit dispensare…` (L80742) — no q-swap. line_start/line_end retained.

**Page span corrected.** Frontmatter `printed_pages` was `[751, 752, 753]` (`pdf_pages` `[771, 772, 773]`); corrected to `[751, 752]` / `[771, 772]`. QUAESTIO III begins at the very top of page 751 and its last reply (`*Ad 6.* … tales erant alienigenae`) ends on page 752 (right column). Page 753 begins fresh with `ARTICULUS II. De continentia virginali. / QUAESTIO I. Utrum virginitas sit virtus.` — that is Article II material (chunk a2-q1), not this quaestio. The `[751,752,753]` was an artifact of the auto-chunker's line range including page 753's running-head line (raw L81025).

**No scholion here (`has_scholion: false`).** The Article I scholion covers all of Article I's questions and lives in chunk a1-q1; my [^p752-12] (`Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.`) explicitly back-references it. No scholion text falls in this range.

**Cross-chunk footer hand-offs — none.** Both page boundaries are clean: (a) page 751 is wholly q3 (QUAESTIO III header sits at the top of the left column; q2 ended on page 750), so all 13 of page 751's footers anchor in this body; (b) q3 ends on page 752 and Article II opens fresh on page 753, so this chunk shares no printed page with a2-q1 and forwards no footers to it. Nothing is claimed on behalf of a1-q2 (its footers are on pages 749–750) or a2-q1 (its footers begin on page 753).

**Marginalia trimmed** per CLAUDE.md: Quaracchi side-margin topic labels were omitted from the body — page 751: `Quaestiones incidentes.`, `Quatuor requiruntur, ut congrue dispensetur.`, `Conclusio.`, `Fuit temporis congruitas.`, `Item necessitas.`; page 752: `Item utilitas.`, `Item honestas.`, `Notandum.`, `Corollarium.`, `Ad quaestiones incid.`, `Notandum.`, and the `Solutio`-marker glyphs beside the replies. The centered printed `CONCLUSIO.` header + its statement are retained (rendered as the `> **Conclusion.**` blockquote).

**Apparatus count:** 25 entries — page 751: 13 (markers 1–13); page 752: 12 (markers 1–12). All 25 markers map cleanly to body anchors in both languages.

**[?] flags:** none unresolved. All OCR garbles (e.g. `Uirum`→`Utrum`, `hai^uit`→`habuit`, `reprehendilur`→`reprehenditur`, `Ilem`→`Item`, running-head `732`→752, `783`→753) were resolved against the PDF bands with unambiguous context.