title: Dist. 31, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 726 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Nam bonum prolis dicitur non ipsa proles* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia per matrimonium non generatur proles *sancta*, sed culpam habens: ergo si proles non est bonum Sacramenti in quantum *proles*, sed in quantum *sancta*; cum in principio ortus sit *non sancta*, non debet dici *bonum*, sed *malum*. — Item, <!-- page 727 --> quid est quod dicitur[^1], quod bonum prolis dicitur «spes ac desiderium, quo proles quaeritur, ut religiose informetur»? Cum enim hoc habeant steriles, videtur etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod proles potest quaeri triplici intentione: primo, ut educetur ad cultum Dei; secundo, ut in hereditate succedat; tertio, ut quis in prolis multitudine et pulcritudine gloriosus appareat. Primum est bonum sub ratione *boni*; secundum est sub ratione *indifferentis*, et tertium est bonum *deformatum* sive ad malum tractum. Bonum igitur matrimonii, quod est bonum *simpliciter*, iudicandum est prolis cum tali intentione et cum tali ordinatione. Si autem aliis duobus modis habeatur, habetur quidem aliquod bonum, sed non sicut institutum est et competit huic Sacramento, quod institutum est ad procreandam prolem ad cultum divinum.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ubi vero non inter legitimas personas contrahitur coniugium, potest solvi talium copula* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia nunquam fuit ibi matrimonium, ergo nunquam fuit copula: ergo nunquam solvitur, quia non solvuntur nisi copulati.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui copulantur secundum *veritatem*, aliqui copulantur *de facto* et secundum *apparentiam*. Si sint *matrimonialiter* copulati, non solvuntur, quia vere fuit ibi copula et vinculum; si secundum *apparentiam*, solvuntur; sed illud *solvere* nihil aliud est quam *ostendere*, prius non fuisse.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si ambo tales non sint, aut illa meretrix est mariti.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia matrimonium est vinculum, quod importat relationem, sicut similitudo; sed etiam in relativis necessaria est convertentia[^2]: ergo si ista non est uxor, nec ille est vir: ergo si ista est adultera, et ille similiter.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod esse adulterum est duobus modis: aut ratione *actus*, aut ratione *intentionis*. Si ratione *actus*; sic dico, quodsi ista est adultera, quod ille qui eam cognoscit, est adulter. Si ratione *intentionis*; sic dico, quod potest bene esse, quod una persona intendat cognoscere affectu maritali, et alia affectu libidinis. Et sic loquitur Augustinus[^3] in proposito: quia, si matrimonialiter coniuncti sunt, ita quod talis pactio non intercedit, sed postmodum in altero, vel in utroque fit intentio extra generandi prolem; est adulterium non ratione generis *actus*, sed ratione *intentionis*, pro eo quod facit contra bonum prolis; et ita adversatur matrimonio, non[^4] excusatur. — Quod ipse obiicit tenet de adulterio, quod est ratione generis actus.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Informe puerperium animam non habet, ideoque multatur pecunia*; quaeritur ergo, utrum talis peccet mortaliter, et utrum sit irregularis. Et quod *non*, videtur: quia non punitur nisi solummodo pecunia, non poena mortis: ergo videtur leve peccatum esse, quia mortalia peccata in Lege[^5] puniebantur poena mortis. — Item, si est peccatum mortale; quaero: sub quo genere? Sed non sub genere *homicidii*: ergo si non est homicidium, de quo magis videtur: videtur, quod non sit mortale peccatum. — *Contra:* videtur, quod gravius peccat quam ille qui procurat aborsum[^6], puerperio iam formato, quia plus nocet qui maius bonum impedit; sed maius bonum impedit qui impedit animae procreationem, quam qui impedit corporis vegetationem: ergo magis peccat ille qui aborsum procurat, quam ille qui animam a corpore separat. — Item, ex hac ratione videtur, quod magis peccat qui interficit puerum non baptizatum, quam qui interficit puerum christianum, quia facit[^7] perire in anima et in corpore. — Item, peccatum procurantis aborsum aut pensatur secundum quantitatem bonitatis rei, quae *est*, vel quae *futura est*. Si rei, quae *est*; tunc nullum videtur peccatum, quia non est nisi quaedam superfluitas in ventre. Si rei, quae *futura est*; sed futurus est homo vivens: ergo talis iudicandus est homicida.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod talis non est iudicandus homicida quantum ad *factum*, quia non <!-- page 728 --> occidit, nec aliquis moritur ante puerperium formatum; tamen quantum ad *voluntatem perversam* iudicandus est homicida, non ratione *homicidii*, sed *maleficii*; unde talis inter maleficos[^8] computatur, et tale crimen grave est.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod non sit mortale, quia non punitur morte; ratio non valet, quia multa sunt mortalia, quae morte non plectebantur; tamen illud gravius scelus est, dum ex certa scientia operatur contra naturam; contra enim naturam bestiarum est, quae prolem exspectant.

Quod quaeritur, sub quo genere peccati sit; dicendum quod spectat ad *maleficium*.

Quod obiicitur, quod plus nocet; dicendum, quod non consideratur quantitas nocumenti secundum id quod *potest esse*, sed secundum id quod *est*: quia secundum id quod potest esse, cum unus homo per successionem possit esse origo mille, qui occideret unum, occideret mille, quod falsum est; et ideo, quia nondum est anima, necdum est tantum bonum, quamvis *esse possit*: ideo non sic graviter peccat. Et sic patent obiecta[^9].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non propter illud malum culpabile est hoc bonum.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia primae ad Corinthios quinto[^10] dicitur, quod *modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit*: ergo videtur, quod modicum malum foedat bonum potius quam e converso.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod «malum est corruptio boni[^11]»; dico igitur, quod malum dupliciter potest iungi bono: aut ut *corruptibili*, aut in quantum *medicinali*. Si in quantum *corruptibili*, sic malum foedat bonum; si ut *medicinali*, sic curatur et expellitur. Et est exemplum: quia morbus iunctus naturae sanae eam vitiat et infirmat; morbus vero iunctus medicinae non reddit medicinam morbidam, sed potius curatur ab ipsa. Et quoniam matrimonium est bonum *medicinale*, ideo non foedatur a malo, sed potius curat malum.

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *admixtio coniugis sine carnis voluptate fieri non potest*; et iterum dicit: *Carnalis voluptas sine culpa nullatenus esse potest.* Hoc videtur falsum: quia tunc nullum coitum contingeret esse sine peccato; et hoc est contra Gregorium[^12], qui excipit eum qui gratia prolis coit sive pro generanda prole; et tamen est carnis admixtio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod facienda est vis in verbo, quia non dicitur *carnis admixtio* quilibet actus coniugalis, sed ille qui fit ad delectationem carnis, vel ad eius excitationem[^13], in qua quidem semper est aliqua culpa.

---

english:
<!-- page 726 -->

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning that which the Master says: *For the good of offspring is called not offspring itself* etc. For it seems to be ill said, because through matrimony offspring is not begotten *holy*, but as having guilt: therefore if offspring is not the good of the Sacrament insofar as it is *offspring*, but insofar as it is *holy*; since at the beginning of its birth it is *not holy*, it ought not to be called *good*, but *evil*. — Likewise, <!-- page 727 --> what is it that is said[^1], namely that the good of offspring is called "the hope and desire by which offspring is sought, so that it may be religiously formed"? For since barren persons have this, it seems etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that offspring can be sought with a threefold intention: first, that it may be brought up for the worship of God; second, that it may succeed in the inheritance; third, that one may appear glorious in the multitude and beauty of offspring. The first is good under the account of *the good*; the second is under the account of *the indifferent*, and the third is a good *deformed* or drawn toward evil. Therefore the good of matrimony, which is a good *simply*, is to be judged that of offspring with such an intention and with such an ordering. But if it is had in the other two ways, some good is indeed had, but not as it is instituted and belongs to this Sacrament, which is instituted for procreating offspring for the divine worship.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *But where marriage is not contracted between legitimate persons, the union of such persons can be dissolved* etc. For it seems to be ill said, because there was never matrimony there, therefore there was never a union: therefore it is never dissolved, because none are dissolved except those who are united.

**I respond:** It must be said that some are united according to *truth*, some are united *in fact* and according to *appearance*. If they are *matrimonially* united, they are not dissolved, because there truly was a union and bond there; if [they are united] according to *appearance*, they are dissolved; but that *dissolving* is nothing else than to *show* that previously it was not.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *If both are not such, either she is a harlot of the husband.* For it seems to be ill said, because matrimony is a bond, which carries a relation, like likeness; but even in relatives a mutual conversion is necessary[^2]: therefore if she is not the wife, neither is he the husband: therefore if she is an adulteress, he likewise.

**I respond:** It must be said that being an adulterer is in two ways: either by reason of the *act*, or by reason of *intention*. If by reason of the *act*; then I say that if she is an adulteress, he who knows her is an adulterer. If by reason of *intention*; then I say that it can well be that one person intends to know with a marital affection, and the other with an affection of lust. And thus Augustine[^3] speaks in the matter at hand: because, if they are matrimonially joined, such that no such pact intervenes, but afterward in one, or in both, there arises an intention beyond begetting offspring; it is adultery not by reason of the kind of the *act*, but by reason of *intention*, for the reason that it works against the good of offspring; and so it is opposed to matrimony, and is not[^4] excused. — What he objects holds of adultery which is by reason of the kind of the act.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *An unformed birth does not have a soul, and therefore is punished with a money-fine*; therefore it is asked whether such a one sins mortally, and whether he is irregular. And that he does *not*, it seems: because he is not punished except only with money, not with the penalty of death: therefore it seems to be a light sin, because mortal sins in the Law[^5] were punished with the penalty of death. — Likewise, if it is a mortal sin; I ask: under what genus? But not under the genus of *homicide*: therefore if it is not homicide, concerning which it more seems [so]: it seems that it is not a mortal sin. — *On the contrary:* it seems that he sins more gravely than he who procures an abortion[^6] when the birth is already formed, because he harms more who impedes a greater good; but he impedes a greater good who impedes the procreation of the soul, than he who impedes the vegetation of the body: therefore he who procures the abortion sins more than he who separates the soul from the body. — Likewise, from this reasoning it seems that he sins more who kills an unbaptized child than he who kills a christian child, because he causes[^7] [it] to perish in soul and in body. — Likewise, the sin of him who procures an abortion is weighed either according to the quantity of the goodness of the thing which *is*, or which *is to be*. If of the thing which *is*; then no sin seems [present], because it is nothing but a certain superfluity in the womb. If of the thing which *is to be*; but a living man is to be: therefore such a one is to be judged a homicide.

**I respond:** It must be said that such a one is not to be judged a homicide as regards the *deed*, because he does not <!-- page 728 --> kill, nor does anyone die before the birth is formed; yet as regards the *perverse will* he is to be judged a homicide, not by reason of *homicide*, but of *maleficium*; whence such a one is counted among the makers of maleficence[^8], and such a crime is grave.

Therefore, as to what is objected, that it is not mortal because it is not punished with death; the reasoning is not valid, because there are many mortal [sins] which were not punished with death; yet that is the graver wickedness, when one acts against nature out of certain knowledge; for it is against the nature even of beasts, which await [their] offspring.

As to what is asked, under what genus of sin it is; it must be said that it pertains to *maleficium*.

As to what is objected, that it harms more; it must be said that the quantity of the harm is not considered according to that which *can be*, but according to that which *is*: because according to that which can be, since one man through succession can be the origin of a thousand, he who would kill one would kill a thousand, which is false; and therefore, because there is not yet a soul, there is not yet so great a good, although it *can be*: therefore he does not sin so gravely. And thus the objections are answered[^9].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *This good is not culpable on account of that evil.* For it seems to be false to say, because in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter five[^10], it is said that *a little leaven corrupts the whole mass*: therefore it seems that a little evil defiles the good rather than the reverse.

**I respond:** It must be said that «evil is the corruption of the good[^11]»; therefore I say that evil can be joined to a good in two ways: either as to something *corruptible*, or insofar as something *medicinal*. If insofar as something *corruptible*, then evil defiles the good; if as something *medicinal*, then it is cured and expelled. And there is an example: because a disease joined to healthy nature vitiates and weakens it; but a disease joined to medicine does not render the medicine diseased, but rather is cured by it. And since matrimony is a *medicinal* good, therefore it is not defiled by evil, but rather cures the evil.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says, that *the union of a spouse cannot come about without pleasure of the flesh*; and again he says: *Pleasure of the flesh can in no way be without fault.* This seems false: because then no intercourse would happen to be without sin; and this is against Gregory[^12], who excepts him who has intercourse for the sake of offspring or for the begetting of offspring; and yet it is a union of the flesh.

**I respond:** It must be said that force must be put on the word, because *union of the flesh* is not said [of] any conjugal act whatever, but [of] that one which is done for the pleasure of the flesh, or for its excitation[^13], in which indeed there is always some fault.

---

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Superius pro *ortus* cod. U *coitus*, cod. X *actus*.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — Above, for *ortus* ("birth") codex U [reads] *coitus*, codex X *actus*.

la: Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Iis quae ad aliquid* (relativis): *Omnia autem, quae sunt ad aliquid, ad convertentia* [alias *ad convertentiam*, πρὸς ἀντιστρέφοντα] *dicuntur, ut servus domini servus, et dominus servi dominus esse dicitur* etc. — Cod. L omittit *etiam*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Categories*, the chapter *On Those Things Which Are Relative to Something* (relatives): *But all things which are relative to something are said with a mutual conversion* [otherwise *toward a conversion*, πρὸς ἀντιστρέφοντα], *as the servant is said to be servant of the master, and the master master of the servant* etc. — Codex L omits *etiam*.

la: In verbis, de quibus agitur in hoc dubio. — Superius fide codd. R T (bb a secunda manu) supplevimus *potest bene esse, quod*, pro quo in cod. F secunda manus substituit *possibile est, quod*, cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *si*, subinde post *libidinis* addito *unus potest esse adulter, et non alius* (cod. U *una est adultera, alia non*).

en: In the words which are treated in this doubt. — Above, on the faith of codices R and T (bb by a second hand) we have supplied *potest bene esse, quod* ("it can well be, that"), for which in codex F a second hand substituted *possibile est, quod*, codex K (1 by a second hand) *si*, and thereupon, after *libidinis*, adding *one can be an adulterer, and not the other* (codex U *one is an adulteress, the other not*).

la: Cod. aa *et non*. — Idem dub. solvit Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Codex aa [reads] *et non*. — The same doubt is resolved by Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Cfr. Exod. 21, 12. seqq.; Lev. 20, 2. et 9. seqq. — Pro *puniebantur* codd. A E *plectebantur*, codd. I K Z *multabantur*.

en: Cf. Exodus 21:12 ff.; Leviticus 20:2 and 9 ff. — For *puniebantur* ("were punished") codices A, E [read] *plectebantur*, codices I, K, Z *multabantur*.

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. hic et in seqq. *abortum*. Subinde pro *maius bonum* codd. communissime bis *magis bonum*.

en: The editions with a few codices, here and in what follows, [read] *abortum*. Thereupon, for *maius bonum* ("greater good") the codices most commonly [read], twice, *magis bonum*.

la: Codd. R T Z supplent *eum*, codd. I K *quem facit* pro *quia facit*.

en: Codices R, T, Z supply *eum*, codices I, K [read] *quem facit* for *quia facit*.

la: Secundum Du Cange, Glossarium etc., *maleficium* significat quandoque peccatum quodvis, quandoque membri mutilationem, vel enormem laesionem (*Mahamium*), et *malefici* dicuntur incantatores, divini, mathematici, magi. Hieron., in Comment. in Ierem. 28, 9: *Maleficos, quos vel veneficos possumus appellare vel daemonum phantasmatibus servientes.* Cfr. Iustinian., C. IX. de Maleficis etc. (tit. 18.). — Post *sed* edd. pluresque codd. non bene addunt *etiam*.

en: According to Du Cange, Glossarium etc., *maleficium* signifies sometimes any sin whatever, sometimes the mutilation of a limb, or an enormous injury (*Mahamium*), and *malefici* are called enchanters, diviners, astrologers, magicians. Jerome, on the Commentary on Jeremiah 28:9: *The malefici, whom we can call either poisoners or servants of the phantasms of demons.* Cf. Justinian, Codex IX, On the Malefici etc. (title 18). — After *sed* the editions and several codices not well add *etiam*.

la: Codd. R T addunt: *Quod enim quaerebatur de interfectore pueri christiani, et quis magis peccet; dicendum, quod secundum diversas considerationes plus potest peccare in isto, et plus in illo; unde secundum considerationem, quae in argumento tangitur, concedo, quod plus peccat occidendo non baptizatum; sed si ob reverentiam christianitatis parceret potius baptizato, minus peccaret; tamen illud argumentum nihil facit ad propositum, sicut patet.*

en: Codices R, T add: *For as to what was asked concerning the killer of a christian child, and who sins more; it must be said that according to diverse considerations one can sin more in the one, and more in the other; whence according to the consideration which is touched on in the argument, I grant that one sins more by killing the unbaptized; but if out of reverence for christianity one should rather spare the baptized, he would sin less; yet that argument makes nothing for the matter at hand, as is clear.*

la: Vers. 6.

en: Verse 6.

la: Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 20; August., contra Epist. Manichaei, c. 35. n. 39, et de Natura boni etc. c. 4. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 35. per totam.

en: According to Dionysius, *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 20; Augustine, *Against the Epistle of Manichaeus*, c. 35, n. 39, and *On the Nature of the Good* etc., c. 4. Cf. II *Sentences*, d. 35, throughout.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 8. circa finem.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 8, near the end.

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *exercitationem*.

en: The editions with several codices [read] *exercitationem*. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** *Dubia circa litteram Magistri* for Distinctio XXXI (*De bonis coniugii*, a single-pars distinction). Raw lines L78229–78462 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, printed pp. 726–728 (pdf 746–748). Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 <p> 1880`, split x≈1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-shattered Respondeo and footer regions; OCR used as base only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing.
- **Page span verified** by running heads: p.726 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (verso); p.727 "DIST. XXXI. DUBIA." (recto, page number 727 confirmed); p.728 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (verso). The dubia begin at the section header "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI." (raw L78229) at the foot of p.726, below a. 2 q. 3's body.
- **Dubia count: six (Dub. I–VI).** Each is a question-then-*Respondeo* unit. Confirmed complete at the d.31→d.32 seam: the last dubium (Dub. VI) closes with "…in qua quidem semper est aliqua culpa." (raw L78462), immediately before "DISTINCTIO XXXII." (raw L78463). The d.32 littera (*Cap. I. De solutione carnalis debiti*, "Sciendum etiam est…") begins in the lower half of p.728 spanning both columns and is **not** part of this chunk. No running-head bleed truncated the final answer.
- **Column reflow.** Dub. I opens at the bottom of p.726 (left-column-bottom → right-column-bottom) and continues at the top of p.727-left. Dub. III's *Respondeo* crosses from p.727-left to p.727-right ("…aut ratione in-|tentionis"). Dub. IV runs p.727-right → p.728-left, with its *Respondeo* crossing pages ("…quantum ad factum, quia non |occidit"). Dub. V crosses p.728-left → p.728-right ("…totam massam |corrumpit"). Dub. VI is wholly on p.728-right.
- **Footer hand-off (received).** This chunk shares p.726 with the preceding chunk `bon-sent-IV-d31-a2-q3` (pp. 725–726). All eight numbered footers on p.726 (notes 1–8) anchor in a. 2 q. 3's body (its Contra 1–4, Respondeo Opinio 1–2, the "faciant⁷"/"coniuncta⁸" markers) — they are that chunk's, not this one's. The Dub. I opening on p.726 carries **no** footnote markers, so this chunk claims **zero** footers from p.726.
- **Apparatus: 13 entries.** Per-page split — p.727 footers 1–7 → `[^1]`–`[^7]`; p.728 footers 1–6 → `[^8]`–`[^13]`. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page; a single continuous `[^N]` sequence is used here, mapped in the apparatus `>` note. The separate "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM." footer with its note 1 (Epist. I Cor. 7, 3…) at the foot of p.728 belongs to the d.32 *Cap. I* littera, **not** claimed here.
- **Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The Quaracchi side-marginals ("Notandum.", "Quaestio incidens.", "Ad quaest. incid.", plus the "Dist. / Notandum / Exemplum" cluster in Dub. V) are editorial navigation aids and were not folded into the running Latin/English body, per the marginal-gloss rule.
- **[?] flags.** None material. Minor: apparatus `[^8]` prints the Jerome citation with an abbreviation before "Comment. in Ierem." (read as "Hieron., [in] Comment. in Ierem. 28, 9"); the intervening abbreviation is faint but the reference is secure. No unresolved readings.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 32

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXII

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 728 -->

### Cap. I. *De solutione carnalis debiti.*

Sciendum etiam est, quia, cum in omnibus aliis vir *praesit* mulieri, ut caput corpori, est enim vir *caput mulieris*; in solvendo tamen carnis debito *pares sunt*. Ideo Apostolus[^1] utrique pariter praecipit in hac causa sibi invicem subiici, inquiens: *Vir debitum reddat uxori, similiter et uxor viro*; quia mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed vir; similiter et vir non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed mulier; quia nec mulier ad alium virum, nec vir ad aliam mulierem potestatem sui corporis habet, nec vir ad continendum nec mulier potestatem habet sine mutuo consensu; sed alter alterius potestatem habet corporis, ut poscenti alteri non liceat alteri negare debitum. In hoc enim *pares sunt*, quia nec viro nec mulieri corpus suum licet alii tradere, sed sibi invicem debitores sunt in hac causa, ne peccandi detur occasio; per quod

<!-- page 729 -->

non dominium tollitur viro, sed vitium. « Debent enim sibi coniugati non solum ipsius sexus sui commiscendi fidem liberorum procreandorum causa, quae prima est in ista mortalitate societas, verum etiam infirmitatis invicem excipiendae ad illicitos concubitus devitandos mutuam quodam modo servitutem, ut, etsi alteri eorum continentia placeat, nisi ex alterius consensu non possit. Ad hoc enim neuter habet potestatem sui corporis; quod adeo verum est, ut etiam quod non filiorum procreandorum, sed infirmitatis et incontinentiae causa expetit vel ille de matrimonio, vel illa, non sibi alterutrum negent, ne per hoc incidant in damnabiles corruptelas ». « Reddere enim debitum coniugale nullius est criminis; exigere autem ultra generandi necessitatem culpae est venialis; fornicari vero vel moechari puniendi est criminis[^2] ».

### Cap. II. *De continentia ex communi consensu servanda.*

Quod vero sine consensu uxoris vir continere non valeat, subditis probatur testimoniis. Ait enim Augustinus[^3]: « Si dicat vir: continere iam *volo*; *nolo*, autem uxor; non potest. Quod enim tu vis, illa non vult. Nunquid per continentiam tuam illa debet fieri fornicaria? Si alii nupserit, te vivo, adultera erit. Non vult tali lucro Deus tale damnum compensari. Redde debitum; et si non exigis, redde. Pro sanctificatione perfecta Deus tibi computabit, si non quod tibi debetur exigis, sed reddis quod debes uxori ». Idem: « Secundum verba apostolica, etiam si vir continere voluisset, et tu noluisses; debitum tibi reddere cogeretur; et illi Deus imputaret continentiam, si non suae, sed tuae cederet infirmitati, ne in adulterium caderes ». « Quisquis igitur, compatiens infirmitati uxoris, reddit, non exigit debitum; aut si propter propriam infirmitatem ducit uxorem, plangens potius, quia sine uxore esse non potuit, quam gaudens, quia duxit, securus exspectat diem novissimum ». Idem: « Una causa sola esse potest, qua te ad id quod vovisti, non modo non hortaremur, sed etiam prohiberemus implere: si forte tua coniux hoc tecum suscipere animi vel carnis infirmitate recusaret. Nam vovenda talia non sunt a coniugatis nisi ex consensu et voluntate communi; et si praepropere factum fuerit, magis est corrigenda temeritas, quam persolvenda promissio. Non enim Deus exigit, si quis ex alieno aliquid voverit, sed potius usurpare vetat alienum ». Idem[^4]: « Apostolus nec ad tempus, ut vacent orationi, nisi ex consensu voluit coniuges carnali invicem fraudari debito ». Idem: « Manifestum est, ita voluisse Legem feminam sub viro esse, ut nulla eius vota, quae abstinentiae causa voverit, reddantur ab ea, nisi auctor fuerit vir permittendo. Nam cum ad peccatum eiusdem viri pertinere voluerit Lex, si prius permiserit et postea prohibuerit; non tamen dixit, ut faciat mulier quod voverat, quia permissa iam prius a viro fuerat. Viri dixit esse peccatum, quia abnuit quod prius concesserat; non tamen mulieri ex hoc iussum dedit, ut, cum prius vir ei concesserit, postea, si prohibuerit, contemnatur ». — Ex his apparet, quod vir vel mulier continentiam Deo offerre non potest sine communi consensu, nec alter alteri debitum negare debet. Si vero quilibet eorum alterum a suo iure absolverit; ad praeteritam servitutem nunquid revocare poterit? Hoc enim videtur Augustinus supra voluisse. — Quibusdam videtur, quod mulier non discedens a domo viri, quae, viro permittente, continentiam voverit[^5], eodem prohibente, solvere non valeat; et hoc propter dignitatem viri, qui *est caput mulieris*. Sed melius hoc intelligitur in tali casu, ubi vir concedit mulieri vovere continentiam et ante votum prohibet implere. Si vero habitum mutaverit, non potest revocari, secundum illud: « Qui uxorem suam velare permiserit aliam non accipiat, sed similiter convertatur[^6] ».

### Cap. III. *Quando cessandum sit a coitu.*

Et licet debitum poscenti sit semper solvendum, non licet tamen quolibet die poscere. Unde Augustinus[^7]: « Christiano cum uxore sua aliquando licet convenire, aliquando non; propter processionis enim dies et ieiuniorum aliquando non licet convenire, quia etiam a licitis abstinendum est, ut facilius impetrari possit quod postulatur ». Idem: « Quoties enim vel dies Nativitatis, vel reliquae festivitates advenerint, non solum a concubinarum consortio, sed etiam a propriis uxoribus abstinete ». Item Ambrosius[^8]: « Si causa procreandorum filiorum ducitur uxor, non multum tempus concessum videtur ad ipsum usum; quia et dies festi et dies processionis et ipsa ratio conceptus et partus iuxta legem cessare usum carnis his debere temporibus demonstrant ».

Illi autem, quod dictum est, reddere debitum non esse peccatum, videtur obviare quod ait Hieronymus[^9]: « Quicumque uxori debitum reddit, vacare non potest orationi nec carnes Agni edere ». Idem: « Si panes propositionis ab his qui uxores suas tetigerant, comedi non poterant, quanto magis panis, qui de caelo

<!-- page 730 -->

descendit, non potest ab his qui coniugalibus paulo ante haesere complexibus, violari atque contingi? Non quod nuptias condemnemus, sed quod eo tempore, quo carnes Agni manducaturi sumus, vacare a carnalibus operibus debeamus ». — Hoc capitulum proprie ad ministros Ecclesiae pertinere videtur, quibus non licebat sacra officia celebrare atque mysteria tempore coniugalis amplexus, quo etiam praesentia Spiritus sancti non datur. Unde idem ait: « Connubia legitima carent quidem peccato, nec tamen tempore illo, quo coniugales actus geruntur, praesentia Spiritus sancti dabitur, etiam si propheta esse videatur qui officio generationis obsequitur[^10] ».

### Cap. IV. *Quibus temporibus nuptiae non sint celebrandae.*

Nec solum in opere carnali observanda sunt tempora, sed etiam in celebrandis nuptiis, secundum illud: « Non oportet a Septuagesima usque in Octavam Paschae et tribus hebdomadibus ante festum sancti Ioannis et ab Adventu Domini usque post Epiphaniam nuptias celebrare. Quod si factum fuerit, separentur[^11] ». Item Nicolaus Papa: « Nec uxorem ducere nec coniugia facere quadragesimali tempore convenire posse ullo modo arbitror ».

---

english:
### Chap. I. *On the payment of the carnal debt.*

It must also be known that, although in all other things the man *presides over* the woman, as the head over the body — for the man is *the head of the woman* — nevertheless in the paying of the debt of the flesh they are *equals*. Therefore the Apostle[^1] enjoins upon both alike, in this matter, to be subject to one another, saying: *Let the man render the debt to his wife, and likewise the wife to the husband*; because the woman does not have power over her own body, but the man; likewise the man does not have power over his own body, but the woman; because neither does the woman have power over her own body toward another man, nor the man toward another woman, nor does the man have power to abstain nor the woman, without mutual consent; but each has power over the other's body, so that it is not permitted to the one to deny the debt to the other who seeks it. For in this they are *equals*, since it is not permitted either to the man or to the woman to hand over his own body to another, but they are debtors to one another in this matter, lest occasion for sinning be given; through which

the dominion is not taken away from the man, but the vice [is]. « For those joined together owe to one another not only the fidelity of mingling their own sex, for the sake of procreating children — which is the first fellowship in this mortality — but also, for the receiving of each other's weakness in turn, in order to avoid illicit couplings, a mutual servitude in a certain manner, so that, even if continence be pleasing to one of them, it may not be [had] except by the other's consent. For to this neither has power over his own body; which is so true that even what one of them — either he of the marriage, or she — seeks not for the sake of procreating children, but from weakness and incontinence, they should not deny to one another, lest through this they fall into damnable corruptions ». « For to render the conjugal debt is no crime; but to exact it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault; while to fornicate or commit adultery is a crime to be punished[^2] ».

### Chap. II. *On continence to be observed by common consent.*

That the man cannot practise continence without the wife's consent is proved by the testimonies added below. For Augustine[^3] says: « If the man says: I now *wish* to be continent; but the wife *does not wish*; he cannot. For what you will, she does not will. Shall she through your continence be made a fornicatress? If she marries another while you live, she will be an adulteress. God does not will such a loss to be compensated by such a gain. Render the debt; and if you do not exact it, [still] render it. For perfect sanctification God will reckon it to you, if you do not exact what is owed to you, but render what you owe to your wife ». Likewise: « According to the apostolic words, even if the man had wished to be continent, and you had been unwilling, he would be compelled to render the debt to you; and God would impute continence to him, if he yielded not to his own, but to your weakness, lest you fall into adultery ». « Whoever therefore, having compassion on his wife's weakness, renders and does not exact the debt; or if on account of his own weakness he takes a wife, lamenting rather that he could not be without a wife than rejoicing that he took one, awaits secure the last day ». Likewise: « There can be one sole cause by which we would not only not exhort you to fulfill what you have vowed, but would even forbid [you] to fulfill it: if perchance your spouse should refuse to undertake this with you, from weakness of soul or of flesh. For such things are not to be vowed by married persons except by common consent and will; and if it has been done too hastily, the rashness is rather to be corrected than the promise to be fulfilled. For God does not exact it, if someone has vowed something out of what is another's, but rather forbids the usurping of what is another's ». Likewise[^4]: « The Apostle did not will that spouses be defrauded of the carnal debt toward one another even for a time, that they might have leisure for prayer, except by consent ». Likewise: « It is manifest that the Law so willed the woman to be under the man, that none of her vows, which she has vowed for the sake of abstinence, should be paid by her, unless the man be the authorizer by permitting. For since the Law willed that it should pertain to the sin of the same man, if he first permitted and afterward forbade; yet it did not say that the woman should do what she had vowed, because it had already been permitted beforehand by the man. It said it was the man's sin, because he refused what he had first granted; yet it did not for this give a command to the woman that, when the man had first granted it to her, afterward, if he should forbid it, he should be despised ». — From these things it appears that neither the man nor the woman can offer continence to God without common consent, nor ought one to deny the debt to the other. But if either of them has released the other from his right, can he recall [the other] to the past servitude? For this Augustine above seems to have willed. — To certain persons it seems that a woman not departing from the man's house, who, with the man permitting, has vowed continence[^5], cannot, with the same [man] forbidding, dissolve [the vow]; and this on account of the dignity of the man, who *is the head of the woman*. But this is better understood in such a case, where the man grants to the woman to vow continence and, before the vow, forbids [her] to fulfill it. But if he has changed his habit [i.e. entered religion], he cannot be revoked, according to that [text]: « Let him who has permitted his wife to take the veil not take another, but likewise be converted[^6] ».

### Chap. III. *When one must cease from intercourse.*

And although the debt must always be paid to the one who seeks it, it is nevertheless not permitted to seek it on just any day. Whence Augustine[^7]: « To a Christian it is sometimes permitted to come together with his wife, sometimes not; for on account of the days of procession and of fasts it is sometimes not permitted to come together, because one must abstain even from lawful things, that what is asked may more easily be obtained ». Likewise: « For as often as either the days of the Nativity, or the other festivities, come, abstain not only from the company of concubines, but also from your own wives ». Likewise Ambrose[^8]: « If a wife is taken for the sake of procreating children, not much time seems granted for the use itself; for both the feast days and the days of procession and the very nature of conception and birth show that, according to the law, the use of the flesh must cease at these times ».

But to those [words] — [namely] that what was said, that to render the debt is not a sin — there seems to be opposed what Jerome says[^9]: « Whoever renders the debt to his wife cannot have leisure for prayer nor eat the flesh of the Lamb ». Likewise: « If the loaves of proposition could not be eaten by those who had touched their wives, how much more the bread which

descends from heaven — cannot it be violated and touched by those who a little before clung to conjugal embraces? Not that we condemn marriages, but that at that time, in which we are to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought to have leisure from carnal works ». — This chapter seems properly to pertain to the ministers of the Church, to whom it was not permitted to celebrate the sacred offices and mysteries at the time of conjugal embrace, at which also the presence of the Holy Spirit is not given. Whence the same [author] says: « Lawful wedlocks indeed lack sin, yet not in that time in which conjugal acts are performed will the presence of the Holy Spirit be given, even if he seem a prophet who complies with the office of generation[^10] ».

### Chap. IV. *At what times marriages are not to be celebrated.*

Not only in the carnal work are the times to be observed, but also in the celebrating of marriages, according to that [decree]: « It is not fitting to celebrate marriages 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. And if it be done, let them be separated[^11] ». Likewise Nicholas the Pope: « I judge that in no way can it be fitting either to take a wife or to make marriages in the Lenten season ».

---

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 3; superius respicitur ibid. 11, 3. — Inferius est locus August., de Bono coniugali, c. 6. n. 6. Praecedentia excerpta sunt ex Glossa ad primum loc. cit.

en: [Note printed under the heading NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.] Epistle, I Cor. 7:3; above, the same is referred to at ibid. 11:3. — Below is the passage of Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage,* c. 6, n. 6. The preceding [matter] is excerpted from the Gloss on the first passage cited.

la: Ibid. c. 7.

en: Ibid., c. 7.

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 149. n. 15; C. *Si dicat* (1.), C. 33. q. 5. Seq. locus est Epist. 262. (alias 199.) ad Ecdiciam, n. 2; C. *Secundum verba* (3.), ibid. Tertius Enarrat. in Ps. 147. n. 4; can. cit. § 1. Quartus Epist. 127. (alias 43.) ad Armentarium etc. n. 9; C. *Una sola* (6.), ibid.

en: *Commentary on Psalm* 149, n. 15; the canon *Si dicat* (1.), C. 33, q. 5. The following passage is Epistle 262 (alias 199) to Ecdicia, n. 2; the canon *Secundum verba* (3.), ibid. The third [passage is] *Commentary on Psalm* 147, n. 4; the canon just cited, § 1. The fourth [is] Epistle 127 (alias 43) to Armentarius etc., n. 9; the canon *Una sola* (6.), ibid.

la: Libr. I. de Adulterinis Coniugiis, c. 2. n. 2; C. *Apostolus nec* (12.), C. 33. q. 4. Seq. locus est Quaestiones in Numeros, q. 59. n. 3; C. *Manifestum est* (11.), C. 33. q. 3. De seqq. cfr. Gratian. super hunc can.

en: Book I, *On Adulterous Marriages,* c. 2, n. 2; the canon *Apostolus nec* (12.), C. 33, q. 4. The following passage is *Questions on Numbers,* q. 59, n. 3; the canon *Manifestum est* (11.), C. 33, q. 3. On what follows, cf. Gratian on this canon.

la: Edd. addunt *vel promiserit,* refragantibus codd. et ed. I.

en: The editions add *vel promiserit* ("or has promised"), against the manuscripts and edition I.

la: Can. *Qui uxorem* (10.), ibid.

en: The canon *Qui uxorem* (10.), ibid.

la: Quaestion. ex utroque test. mixtim (inter opera), q. 127; C. *Christiano* (5.), C. 33. q. 4. Seq. locus est Sermo 116. (alias 2. de Temp.) in append. n. 3; C. *Quotiescumque* (2.), ibid.

en: *Questions from Both Testaments, Mixed* (among the [spurious] works), q. 127; the canon *Christiano* (5.), C. 33, q. 4. The following passage is Sermon 116 (alias 2, *de Tempore*), in the appendix, n. 3; the canon *Quotiescumque* (2.), ibid.

la: Comment. in I. Cor. c. 7, 5 (inter opera); C. *Si causa* (4.), ibid.

en: *Commentary on I Corinthians,* c. 7, [v.] 5 (among the [spurious] works); the canon *Si causa* (4.), ibid.

la: Sermo de Esu Agni (inter opera), c. 8; C. *Sciatis, fratres* (1.), ibid. Seq. textus citt. locis, ubi respiciuntur I. Reg. 21, 4; Ioan. 6, 31.

en: *Sermon on the Eating of the Lamb* (among the [spurious] works), c. 8; the canon *Sciatis, fratres* (1.), ibid. The following text [is] in the passages cited, where I Kings 21:4 and John 6:31 are alluded to.

la: Origen., Hom. 6. in Numeros n. 3; C. *Connubia legitima* (4.), C. 32. q. 2.

en: Origen, *Homily* 6 *on Numbers,* n. 3; the canon *Connubia legitima* (4.), C. 32, q. 2.

la: Can. *Non oportet* (10.), C. 33. q. 4. Seq. locus C. *Nec uxorem* (11.), ibid.

en: The canon *Non oportet* (10.), C. 33, q. 4. The following passage [is] the canon *Nec uxorem* (11.), ibid.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** The Littera Magistri of Distinctio XXXII (Master's chapters I–IV, *De solutione carnalis debiti*). Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol. IV PDF page-bands (`vol4-p{728,729,730}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`, generated with `tools/colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2120` for the L column and `1780` for the R column, per the Vol IV two-column layout; the default split_x truncates the wide left column). The IA djvu OCR (raw L78463–78652) was used only as a cross-check; on these pages it cascade-fragments the two columns and the footers, so the PDF bands are authoritative here per the VOL II OVERRIDE. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page layout / where the chunk begins and ends:** The d.32 littera begins on the **lower half of p. 728** — the upper half of both columns of p. 728 is d.31's **Dub. V / Dub. VI** (running head still `DISTINCTIO XXXI`), which is NOT part of this chunk. `Cap. I` opens under the centered `DISTINCTIO XXXII.` heading. The littera then fills the tops of both columns of pp. 729–730, running L-column-then-R-column on each page. It **ends on p. 730** at `...officio generationis obsequitur »` (end of Cap. IV's material, after the centered `Cap. IV`), immediately before the centered `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.` — everything from that heading on (De matrimonio quoad fidem tori; DIVISIO TEXTUS; TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) is Bonaventure's commentary and belongs to the **divisio** chunk, not here.

**Apparatus: 11 entries, per-page split 1 / 8 / 2.**
- **p. 728 (1 entry):** only the single note printed under the sub-heading `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` belongs to this chunk (anchor `Apostolus[^1]`). The other p. 728 footers (Du Cange note 1, Codd. RT note 2, and DUB notes 3–6: Vers. 6 / Dionys. / Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 8 / exercitationem) are anchored in d.31's Dub. V–VI text and belong to the d.31-dubia chunk.
- **p. 729 (8 entries, [^2]–[^9]):** the whole of p. 729 is littera, so all eight footers are this chunk's. Anchors: `criminis[^2]`, `Augustinus[^3]` (a compound note covering the first four Augustine loci), `Idem[^4]`, `voverit[^5]`, `convertatur[^6]`, `Augustinus[^7]`, `Ambrosius[^8]`, `Hieronymus[^9]`.
- **p. 730 (2 entries, [^10]–[^11]):** the page's footer restarts at 1; both notes anchor in the littera (`obsequitur[^10]`, `separentur[^11]`). The COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO text that fills the rest of p. 730 carries no footnote on this page, so no footer is shared with the divisio here.

**Hand-off picked up:** As flagged by the d.31-dubia chunk, the p. 728 `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` note 1 belongs here and is claimed as [^1].

**Hand-off forwarded:** This chunk shares p. 730 with the **divisio** chunk. The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` / `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` block on the lower half of p. 730, and any footers anchored in it, belong to the divisio, not here. The littera's last footer on p. 730 is [^11] (`separentur`).

**Marginalia trimmed:** Editorial side-glosses bleeding into the columns were removed from the body per the OCR-cleanup rule — author tags (`Augustinus.`, `Ambrosius.`, `Hieronymus.`, `Origenes.`, `De ministris Ecclesiae.`, `Nicolaus.`, `Canon`) and the Bonaventure cross-reference glosses (`Ad quaest. incid.`, `Dubium 3./4./5.`, `Opinio aliorum.`) that mark which commentary dubium treats each littera passage. A small marginal number (`113.`) beside `Augustinus[^3]` (a cross-reference) was likewise trimmed.

**[?] flags.** **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 730)** — d.31–d.40 decade polish gate, Pass 1 (2026-07-13). [^11] (= p. 730 footer note **²**, forwarded from the `d32-divisio` chunk's flag): read at 600 dpi from `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-730-r600-0750.png`, footer band (bottom 22%, right-hand footer column). The printed note reads in full: **`² Can. Non oportet (10.), C. 33. q. 4. Seq. locus C. Nec uxorem (11.), ibid.`** — the question number is a clear **4**; the pre-sliced raw OCR's `q. i.` (=1) is a garble. The chunk's existing reading (`C. 33. q. 4.`) is correct and stands unchanged; flag retired. (Also confirmed on the same crop: p. 730 footer note **¹** = `Origen., Hom. 6. in Numeros n. 3; C. Connubia legitima (4.), C. 32. q. 2.` = [^10], as transcribed.)

Minor OCR-digit ambiguities in the apparatus citations (e.g. [^3] `q. 5` vs raw `q. 3`; [^3] `n. 15` vs raw `n. 13`; [^7] `Christiano (5.)` vs raw `(3.)`; [^8] `c. 7, 5` vs raw `c. 7, 3`) were resolved from the clearer PDF bands and are noted here rather than left inline, since none affects the sense of the reference.

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, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 730 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.
#### *De matrimonio quoad fidem tori.*

*Sciendum est etiam, quod cum in omnibus aliis vir praesit* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de bonis matrimonii in communi. Hic specialiter agit, quomodo vir obligatur uxori, et e converso, quantum ad solutionem debiti. Habet autem haec pars duas. In prima determinat, quae sit obligatio inter uxorem et virum quantum ad fidem tori. In secunda determinat, quomodo et qualiter haec fides fuerit in Patribus antiquis, infra distinctione trigesima tertia: *Quaeritur hic de antiquis Patribus* etc.

Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima determinat de modo obligationis. In secunda de tempore, in quo debet debitum peti, ibi: *Et licet debitum poscenti sit semper solvendum* etc. Prima pars habet duas. In prima ostendit, quod vir et uxor in hac lege sive fide iudicantur ad paria, et quod unus sine voluntate alterius continere non valeat. In secunda auctoritatibus confirmat, ibi: *Quod vero sine consensu uxoris* etc.

*Et licet debitum poscenti sit semper solvendum.* Haec est secunda pars, in qua determinat de tempore, quo petendum et solvendum est debitum, et haec pars habet duas. In prima determinat, quod non semper est debitum petendum, quamvis semper sit solvendum. In secunda incidenter determinat, quod non omni tempore est contrahendum, et hoc ibi: *Nec solum in opere carnali* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de obligatione coniugum quantum ad solutionem debiti. Circa quod quatuor breviter oportet quaeri.

Primo quaeritur de obligatione per comparationem ad votum continentiae.

Secundo, per comparationem ad accidens superveniens.

Tertio, per comparationem ad tempus, in quo debitum debet peti et solvi.

Quarto, de tempore, in quo debent nuptiae celebrari.

Circa primum duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum post carnalem copulam possit vir continere, uxore nolente.

Secundo, utrum possit continere, uxore nolente, ante carnalem commixtionem.

<!-- page 731 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
#### *De obligatione coniugum per comparationem ad votum continentiae.*

---

english:
<!-- page 730 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXII.
#### *On marriage with respect to the fidelity of the bed.*

*It must also be known that, whereas in all other things the husband takes precedence,* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the goods of marriage in general. Here he treats specifically of how the husband is bound to the wife, and conversely, with respect to the rendering of the debt. Now this part has two [members]. In the first he determines what the obligation is between wife and husband with respect to the fidelity of the marriage-bed. In the second he determines in what way and manner this fidelity existed in the ancient Fathers, below in the thirty-third distinction: *Here it is asked concerning the ancient Fathers* etc.

The first part has two parts. In the first he determines the manner of the obligation. In the second, the time in which the debt must be sought, there: *And although the debt is always to be rendered to the one requesting it* etc. The first part has two [members]. In the first he shows that husband and wife under this law or fidelity are judged as equals, and that the one cannot practice continence without the will of the other. In the second he confirms it by authorities, there: *But that without the consent of the wife* etc.

*And although the debt is always to be rendered to the one requesting it.* This is the second part, in which he determines concerning the time at which the debt is to be sought and rendered; and this part has two [members]. In the first he determines that the debt is not always to be sought, although it is always to be rendered. In the second he incidentally determines that it is not to be contracted at every time, and this there: *Not only in the carnal act* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning the obligation of spouses with respect to the rendering of the debt. Concerning which four things must briefly be asked.

First it is asked concerning the obligation by comparison to the vow of continence.

Second, by comparison to a supervening accident.

Third, by comparison to the time in which the debt must be sought and rendered.

Fourth, concerning the time in which nuptials ought to be celebrated.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether, after carnal union, the husband can practice continence, the wife being unwilling.

Second, whether he can practice continence, the wife being unwilling, before carnal intercourse.

<!-- page 731 -->

### ARTICLE I.
#### *On the obligation of spouses by comparison to the vow of continence.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p730-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` regenerated at split_x=2120 for the left column, and `vol4-p731-L-0.png`), cross-checked against the pre-sliced raw OCR L78653–78712. Two-column cascade layout; the Divisio body is running prose that flows left column (bottom half of p.730-L) then continues into the right column ("Prima pars habet | duas. In prima ostendit…"). Reflowed accordingly, not in raw-line order.

**Running heads verified.** p.730 verso: "730" + "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." ✓. p.731 recto: "DIST. XXXII. ART. I. QUAEST. I." ✓. Offset pdf = printed + 20 confirmed (printed 730 → pdf 750).

**Chunk scope.** This chunk opens with the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII heading + subtitle (*De matrimonio quoad fidem tori.*) + the opening lemma (*Sciendum est etiam, quod cum in omnibus aliis vir praesit* etc.), which is Bonaventure's commentary opener that the Divisio immediately divides (per the CLAUDE.md convention that a pars's COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM group together). It closes with the ARTICULUS I header + subtitle on p.731. There is **no separate Art-I sub-divisio**: p.731 runs ARTICULUS I → QUAESTIO I directly. The article's own sub-division into two questions ("Circa primum duo quaeruntur. Primo… Secundo…") is already given inside the TRACTATIO on p.730 and is held here.

**Footer hand-offs (both TO the littera).**
- p.730 left-column footer **¹** = "Origen., Hom. 6. in Numeros n. 3; C. *Connubia legitima* (4.), C. 32. q. 2." — anchored at the Origen quotation in the littera (ends *…sequitur¹»*). Belongs to the littera chunk.
- p.730 right-column footer **²** = "Can. *Non oportet* (10.), C. 33. q. 4. Seq. locus C. *Nec uxorem* (11.), ibid." — anchored in the littera's CAP. IV (ends *…separentur²»*). Belongs to the littera chunk.

**Hand-off TO a1-q1.** QUAESTIO I (*Utrum post carnalem copulam possit vir continere, uxore nolente*) and its body (*Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod non: 1. …*) begin on p.731 and belong to `bon-sent-IV-d32-a1-q1`. The QUAESTIO I body footnotes on p.731 (¹ *potestatem sui corporis*; ² the littera Augustine citation, etc.) are a1-q1's, not claimed here.

**[?] flags.** Both dispositioned in the d.31–d.40 decade polish gate, Pass 1 (2026-07-13).
- **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 730):** footer **²** reads `Can. Non oportet (10.), C. 33. q. 4. Seq. locus C. Nec uxorem (11.), ibid.` — confirmed from `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-730-r600-0750.png` (footer band, right-hand column); the question number is a clear **4**, and the raw OCR's `q. i.` is a garble. The note is the littera's ([^11] in `bon-sent-IV-d32-littera`), which carries the correct reading; nothing to change here.
- **RESOLVED (false alarm, no PDF needed):** COMMENTARIUS-opener ownership. Grep of `bon-sent-IV-d32-littera.md` confirms it contains **no** `COMMENTARIUS` heading and **no** *Sciendum est etiam* lemma — its body ends at `…officio generationis obsequitur[^10] »`, exactly as its own Notes state. There is **no duplication**: the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.` heading + subtitle + *Sciendum est etiam* lemma live only here, in the divisio chunk, per the locked convention (COMMENTARIUS → divisio; Master's littera text → littera). No edit made; flag retired.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 731 -->

### Articulus I. *De obligatione coniugum per comparationem ad votum continentiae.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum post carnalem copulam possit vir continere, uxore nolente.*

Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod non:

1. Quia post carnalem copulam *vir non habet potestatem sui corporis*[^1]: si non habet, ergo non potest de ipso facere sacrificium continentiae, uxore nolente.

2. Item, Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^2]: « Non modo non hortamur, sed etiam quod vovisti prohibemus implere, si forte coniux tua hoc tecum suscipere animi vel carnis infirmitate recusat ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia mulier non tenetur continere, nec vir potest eam ad continentiam cogere; sed cogit eam, si, ipsa invita, vult[^3] continentiam servare: ergo cum non possit cogere, non potest continere.

4. Item, sicut servus tenetur domino obsequi, sic vir uxori debitum reddere, et fortius, quia est a Domino confirmatum[^4]; sed servus, prohibente domino, non potest religionem intrare, vel a servitio eius se auferre: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Licitum est viro, uxore etiam prohibente, accipere crucem in subsidium Terrae sanctae[^5]; sed votum continentiae adhuc melius est: ergo etc.

2. Item, uxore prohibente, potest quis corpus suum ad martyrium et mortem exponere; et tunc constat, quod se reddit impossibilem ad solvendum debitum: ergo etc.

3. Item, quantumcumque quis iuret, vel voveat, vel se obliget, ut non impleat consilia; non tenet iuramentum nec votum: ergo nullus potest se obligare, quin semper faciat melius; sed melius est continere, sicut dicit Apostolus[^6]: ergo etc.

4. Item, qui impedit aliquem volentem ascendere ad altiorem statum[^7] peccat graviter, quia Spiritui sancto obviat: ergo si vir vult continere et religionem intrare, videtur, quod uxor teneatur consentire: ergo si vult, potest ad hoc compelli de iure: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Post copulam carnalem, invita uxore, vir non potest continere, ut non reddat debitum, sed tantum, ut non petat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *continere* est duobus modis: aut omnino ita, quod debitum nec petat nec solvat; aut non omnino ita, quod debitum non petat, tamen petenti solvat. Primo modo non potest vir continere, uxore invita, quia non potest ei auferre ius, quod habet in corpus viri; secundo modo continere potest, ipsa contradicente, et vovere potest; et si voveat, servare tenetur, videlicet ut nunquam debitum petat. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes probantes, quod non omnino potest continere.

**Ad obiecta:**

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest accipere crucem; dicendum, quod hoc factum est in favorem et necessitatem Terrae sanctae; nec facta est omnino derogatio iuri mulieris, quia debet mulier velle pro necessitate tanta continere ad tempus; quod si nolit, potest virum suum sequi[^8]. Sed cum vovetur continentia, tunc omnino mulier iure suo privatur et secundum tempus totius vitae.

<!-- page 732 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de martyrio, dicendum, quod mori potest pro Christo, si necessitas immineat, quia mulier tenetur hoc velle; et si vir voluntarie se offerat, mulier non potest vetare[^9], quia, ipso mortuo, poterit cum alio contrahere. Sed non sic est, cum vovet, uxore vivente.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod semper licet facere quod melius est, nec potest se homo obligare ad minus bonum; dicendum, quod verum est de eo qui habet sui corporis potestatem. — Vel dicendum, quod si continet non petendo, sed solum reddendo, non minus meretur, quam si omnino contineret. Unde Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^10]: « Pro sanctificatione perfecta Deus tibi reputabit, si non quod tibi debetur exigis, sed reddis quod debes uxori ».

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eo qui impedit aliquem etc., dicendum, quod peccat qui impedit aliquem ea ratione, qua in illo exstinguit bonum propositum et sancti Spiritus donum; sed mulier in hoc non potest consentire, quin sit sibi in praeiudicium, quia, si concedit viro, quod voveat continentiam, tenetur et ipsa continere. Quoniam igitur ipsa non potest cogi ad continentiam, quia hoc est bonum consilium; ideo dico, quod ipsa non peccat, sed si *alia* mulier impediret, tunc peccatum esset.

english:
### Article I. *On the obligation of spouses by comparison to the vow of continence.*
### Question I. *Whether after carnal union a man may be continent, the wife being unwilling.*

As to the first point it is shown that he may not:

1. Because after carnal union *the man does not have power over his own body*[^1]: if he does not have it, then he cannot make of it a sacrifice of continence, the wife being unwilling.

2. Likewise, Augustine says, and it is contained in the text[^2]: "Not only do we not exhort you, but we even forbid you to fulfill what you have vowed, if perchance your spouse refuses to undertake this with you through weakness of soul or of flesh."

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because the woman is not bound to be continent, nor can the man compel her to continence; but he does compel her if, she being unwilling, he wishes[^3] to keep continence: therefore, since he cannot compel [her], he cannot be continent.

4. Likewise, just as a servant is bound to obey his master, so a man [is bound] to render the debt to his wife, and more strongly so, because it is confirmed by the Lord[^4]; but a servant, his master forbidding, cannot enter religion, or withdraw himself from his master's service: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is licit for a man, even his wife forbidding, to take the cross in aid of the Holy Land[^5]; but the vow of continence is still better: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the wife forbidding, one may expose his body to martyrdom and death; and then it is agreed that he renders himself unable to pay the debt: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, however much one swears, or vows, or binds himself not to fulfill the counsels; neither the oath nor the vow holds: therefore no one can bind himself so as not always to do the better thing; but it is better to be continent, as the Apostle says[^6]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, whoever hinders someone willing to ascend to a higher state[^7] sins gravely, because he opposes the Holy Spirit: therefore if a man wishes to be continent and to enter religion, it seems that the wife is bound to consent: therefore if he wishes, he can be compelled to this by law: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> After carnal union, the wife being unwilling, a man cannot be continent so as not to render the debt, but only so as not to demand it.

**I respond:** It must be said that to be continent is [understood] in two ways: either wholly so, that he neither demands nor pays the debt; or not wholly so, that he does not demand the debt, yet pays it to the one demanding. In the first way a man cannot be continent, the wife being unwilling, because he cannot take from her the right which she has over the man's body; in the second way he can be continent, she contradicting, and he can vow [it]; and if he vows, he is bound to keep [it], namely that he never demand the debt. — Therefore the reasons proving that he cannot be wholly continent are to be granted.

**To the objections:**

1. To that which is objected, that he can take the cross; it must be said that this was done in favor and for the necessity of the Holy Land; nor was there made an entire derogation of the woman's right, because the woman ought to will to be continent for a time on account of so great a necessity; and if she is unwilling, she can follow her husband[^8]. But when continence is vowed, then the woman is wholly deprived of her right, and that for the time of her whole life.

2. To that which is objected concerning martyrdom, it must be said that one can die for Christ, if necessity presses, because the woman is bound to will this; and if the man voluntarily offers himself, the woman cannot forbid [it][^9], because, he being dead, she will be able to contract with another. But it is not so when he vows, the wife being alive.

3. To that which is objected, that it is always licit to do what is better, nor can a man bind himself to a lesser good; it must be said that this is true of him who has power over his own body. — Or it must be said that if he is continent by not demanding, but only by paying, he merits no less than if he were wholly continent. Hence Augustine says, and it is contained in the text[^10]: "For perfect sanctification God will reckon it to you, if you do not exact what is owed to you, but render what you owe to your wife."

4. To that which is objected concerning him who hinders someone etc., it must be said that he sins who hinders someone for this reason, that in him he extinguishes a good purpose and a gift of the Holy Spirit; but the woman in this cannot consent without its being to her own prejudice, because, if she grants to the man that he vow continence, she too is bound to be continent. Since therefore she cannot be compelled to continence, because this is a counsel; therefore I say that she does not sin, but if *another* woman were to hinder [him], then it would be a sin.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVII. c. 7. seq.

en: First Letter to the Corinthians 7:4. See above in the Master's text, d. XXVII, c. 7 and following.

la: Hic c. 2. — Pro *recusat* cod. aa *recusaret*.

en: Here, c. 2. — For *recusat* codex aa reads *recusaret*.

la: Cod. F *vir vult*.

en: Codex F reads *vir vult* ("the man wishes").

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 7, 3. — De *minori* cfr. supra pag. 655, nota 4.

en: Cf. I Corinthians 7:3. — On the *lesser* [good] cf. above, p. 655, note 4.

la: Secundum C. *Ex multa* (9.), § *In tanta quoque necessitate*, X. de Voto et voti redemptione (lib. III. tit. 34.).

en: According to the decretal *Ex multa* (9.), § *In tanta quoque necessitate*, in the Decretals, "On the Vow and the Redemption of a Vow" (bk. III, tit. 34).

en: First Letter to the Corinthians 7:1, 8, and 38.

la: Cod. W *gradum*.

en: Codex W reads *gradum* ("step").

la: Ut dicitur in fine C. *Quod super his* (8.), X. de Voto et voti redemptione (lib. III. tit. 34.). — Superius pro *iuri* permulti codd. et ed. J perperam *viri et*.

en: As is said at the end of the decretal *Quod super his* (8.), in the Decretals, "On the Vow and the Redemption of a Vow" (bk. III, tit. 34). — Above, for *iuri* very many codices and ed. J wrongly read *viri et*.

la: Edd. *negare*, inferius pro *vivente* cod. O *nolente*.

en: The editions read *negare*; below, for *vivente* codex O reads *nolente*.

la: Hic c. 2.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad duas huius articuli quaestiones vide supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1. et 2. cum scholio. Casus in 1. quaestione solutus de voto non *petendi* a multis aliter, scilicet negative, solvitur; quam opinionem S. Thom. (hic a. 4. ad 3.) censet esse probabiliorem. Dicit enim: « Sed quia, si alter nunquam peteret debitum, ex hoc alteri matrimonium onerosum redderetur, dum oporteret, unum semper confusionem debiti petendi subire; ideo alii probabilius dicunt, quod neutrum [non reddere et non petere] potest unus absque consensu alterius vovere ». Durandus putat, tale votum licere quidem, sed non esse « usquequaque discretum ».
De 1. quaestione: Scotus hanc et seq. quaestionem tangit hic q. unica n. 2. seqq. — S. Thom., art. cit.; Suppl. q. 64. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. n. 4. 5. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

**II.** De seq. quaestione cfr. supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 2. et auctores ibi citatos.

**III.** Quoad sequentis articuli quaestionem 1. antiqui doctores communiter tenent, lepram solvere quidem sponsalia, tamen, cum non solvat matrimonium, partem sanam teneri ad reddendum debitum, sed non ad cohabitandum (ita S. Thom., hic a. 1. ad 4; Suppl. q. 64. a. 1. ad 4.). Hoc restringit Durand. (hic q. 1. n. 8.), excipiens casum, quando secundum iudicium medicorum sano immineat periculum infectionis; quae doctrina videtur esse secundum mentem omnium, praesertim S. Thomae (in corp. art.), nisi forte quis iam ante contractum matrimonium sciverit lepram alterius.
De eadem praeter citatos: Scot., hic q. unica n. 6. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.

**IV.** De divortio ob adulterium permisso diffuse tractatur infra d. 35, ubi alii Lombardi commentatores etiam hanc quaestionem solvunt.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As to the two questions of this article, see above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 1 and 2, with the scholion. The case in the first question, [namely] concerning the vow of not *demanding*, is solved by many otherwise, that is, negatively; which opinion S. Thomas (here a. 4, ad 3) judges to be more probable. For he says: "But because, if one party should never demand the debt, from this the marriage would be rendered burdensome to the other, since one would always have to undergo the confusion of demanding the debt; therefore others say more probably that neither [not rendering and not demanding] can one vow without the consent of the other." Durandus thinks that such a vow is indeed licit, but is not "in every way discreet."
On the first question: Scotus touches this and the following question here, q. unica, n. 2 ff. — S. Thom., art. cit.; Suppl. q. 64, a. 4. — B. Albert., here a. 2, 4. — Petr. a Tar., here a. 1, quaestiunc. 1, 2. — Richard. a Med., here a. 2, q. 1. — Durand., here q. 2, n. 4, 5. — Dionys. Carth., on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

**II.** On the following question cf. above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 2, and the authors cited there.

**III.** As to the question of the following article, 1., the ancient doctors commonly hold that leprosy indeed dissolves espousals, yet, since it does not dissolve marriage, that the healthy party is bound to render the debt, but not to cohabit (thus S. Thom., here a. 1, ad 4; Suppl. q. 64, a. 1, ad 4). Durandus restricts this (here q. 1, n. 8), excepting the case when, according to the judgment of physicians, danger of infection threatens the healthy [party]; which doctrine seems to be according to the mind of all, especially S. Thomas (in the body of the article), unless perhaps someone knew of the other's leprosy already before the marriage was contracted.
On the same, besides those cited: Scot., here q. unica, n. 6, 7. — Petr. a Tar., here a. 3, quaestiunc. 4. — Richard. a Med., here a. 4, q. 2.

**IV.** On divorce permitted on account of adultery it is treated at length below, d. 35, where the other commentators on Lombard also solve this question.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF colcrop bands (Vol II/III/IV two-column PDF-priority discipline): p731 read L→R, p732 read L→R, with left-column bands regenerated at split_x 2120 and right-column bands at split_x 1780 to clear the inter-column bleed. Raw IA djvu OCR (L78713–78831) used only as a spelling/marker-spacing cross-check. Running heads verified: p731 recto = "DIST. XXXII. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 731"; p732 verso = "732 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."

**Page-number correction ([?] resolved).** The auto-chunker's frontmatter read `printed_pages: [730, 731]` / `pdf_pages: [750, 751]`. Eyes-on the bands shows this is off by one: printed **730** is entirely the d.32 littera (Cap. IV) + COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO/TRACTATIO (the *divisio* chunk's material), and QUAESTIO I opens at the top of printed **731** (ARTICULUS I heading → QUAESTIO I) and runs onto printed **732**. Corrected to `printed_pages: [731, 732]` / `pdf_pages: [751, 752]` (offset pdf = printed + 20 holds).

**Scholion disposition.** This chunk owns the WHOLE Article I scholion (OCR header garbled "SCHOLIOK"; confirmed "SCHOLION" on the band). Four numbered sections: **§I** = the case of q1 (this question; "De 1. quaestione", S. Thom./Durandus + doctor-list Scot./S. Thom./Albert./Petr. a Tar./Richard./Durand./Dionys.); **§II** = q2 (sibling a1-q2; "De seq. quaestione"); **§III** = the next article's (a2) question on leprosy; **§IV** = divorce for adultery, cross-referring to d.35. Placed as the last subsection of both the Latin and English blocks per the parser rule. Sibling **a1-q2 renders NO scholion.**

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Page 730* (divisio): the littera footer (fn 1 Origen., Hom. 6 in Numeros) and the DIVISIO/TRACTATIO belong to the **divisio** chunk — none claimed here; this chunk's body never touches p730.
- *Page 731*: all ten footer notes (fn 1–10, split left-column 1–5 / right-column 6–10) anchor in this quaestio's body (videtur/contra/respondeo/ad) and are claimed here.
- *Page 732*: my share is only the Ad-4 tail + the whole scholion (no numbered notes). Everything from "Secundo quaeritur, utrum vir ante carnalem commixtionem…" onward — QUAESTIO II body **and page 732's own footer notes (fn 1 ff.)** — belongs to sibling **a1-q2**; forwarded, not claimed.

**[?] flags.** **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 731)** — d.31–d.40 decade polish gate, Pass 1 (2026-07-13). [^4] (= p. 731 footer note 4): read at 600 dpi from `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-731-r600-0751.png`, left-hand footer column (crop `(1500, 6430)–(2150, 6560)`, 4× upscale). The printed note reads **`Cfr. I. Cor. 7, 3. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 655, nota 4.`** — both trailing digits are unmistakably **5** (flat-topped Quaracchi 5, quite distinct from the double-bowled 3). The IA OCR's `653` is a digit-mangle. The chunk's existing reading (`pag. 655`) is correct and stands unchanged; flag retired.

**Minor OCR flags (non-blocking).** fn 4 cross-reference: band reads "supra pag. 655" (raw OCR had "653"); took the band's 655 — **now confirmed at 600 dpi, see above.** fn 6 "I. Cor. 7, 1. 8. et 38." (verses 1, 8, 38; slight glyph noise on the "1."). fn 8 edition siglum rendered "ed. J" (band "ed. ⸱J"). §IV "infra d. 35" taken from the band (raw OCR "d. 3.3").


title: Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 732 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum vir ante carnalem commixtionem possit continere, uxore nolente.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum vir ante carnalem commixtionem possit continere, uxore nolente. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^1]: *Uxori vir debitum reddat, similiter et uxor viro*; sed ante commixtionem sunt vir et uxor: ergo ante commixtionem tenentur: ergo etc.

2. Item, uxor viro obligatur voluntarie et per mutuum consensum: si ergo ante commixtionem est mutuus consensus, ergo et obligatio ad redditionem debiti.

3. Item, mulier non tenetur continere et non potest cum altero contrahere: ergo potest iuste debitum exigere; sed iuste exigenti iniustum est negare: ergo etc.

4. Item, esto quod vir post consensum de praesenti violenter extorqueat copulam carnis, est matrimonium consummatum: ergo tenetur ad solvendum debitum omnino ipsa uxor ei; sed violentia non inducit novam obligationem: ergo prius obligabatur.

**Contra:**

1. Decretalis, de Conversione coniugatorum[^2], concedit viro potestatem intrandi religionem, uxore nolente; sed plus est religionem intrare quam continere: ergo concedit licentiam continendi.

2. Item, per consensum contrahitur matrimonium, esto etiam quod non sit in copulam carnalem, ut supra[^3] ostensum est: ergo si non obligatur nisi ad illud, in quod consentit, patet etc.

3. Item, si omnis vir esset obligatus ad solvendum debitum ante carnalem copulam: ergo nihil adderet carnalis commixtio ad consummationem[^4] matrimonii.

Item, quaeritur iuxta hoc: unde hoc est, quod copula coniugalis, violenter extorta, matrimonium consummat, et consensus coactus matrimonium non ratificat[^5]? Et utrum huic liceat post copulam mulieris vovere continentiam. — Et quod sic, videtur: quia, si prius licebat, et nullus potest ei ius suum violenter auferre, patet etc.

> **Conclusio.** Ante consummationem matrimonii utraque persona continere potest per duos menses, sed post vel tenetur reddere debitum, vel per solemne votum se manifestare mortuum mundo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ante consummationem matrimonii utraque persona nec omnino obligatur, nec omnino est libera.

<!-- page 733 -->

Non *omnino obligatur*, quia potest mori mundo; et sic matrimonium solvitur, ipso vivente in carne, et tunc, cum hoc facit, omnino est absolutus. Nec *omnino libera*[^p733-1], quia, si vult huic mundo vivere, necesse habet petenti debitum reddere. Et quia in medio est inter vitam huius saeculi et vitam religiosam sive spiritualem; ideo sacri canones[^p733-2] terminum praefixerunt, ut possit deliberare, videlicet terminum duorum mensium, vel circa illud. Et ideo dicendum, quod uxore petente, continere potest per duos menses, sed post vel tenetur reddere debitum, vel manifestare se mundo mortuum per solemne votum ad[^p733-3] religionis ingressum; quod si non faciat, tenetur ad debitum solvendum, sicut primae rationes ostendunt.

**Ad argumenta ad oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod potest intrare religionem, ergo in saeculo continere; dicendum, quod non valet, quia introitus in religionem facit mori mundo et solvi vinculum; unde in nullo fit sponsae praeiudicium; non sic est, cum manet in saeculo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non oportet consentire in carnalem copulam; dicendum, quod quamvis non oporteat in eam consentire, oportet tamen consentire in copulam coniugalem, quae necessario ordinat ad illam, nisi interveniat *mors spiritualis*[^p733-4].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil addit; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo addit quantum ad *significationem*[^p733-5] et quantum ad *obligationem*. Quia enim fiunt unum corpus et una caro, ideo non potest unus transire de hoc mundo, reliquo remanente; et ideo non potest vovere continentiam, nisi coniux pariter voveat. *Praeterea*, tenetur ad statim reddendum post carnalem copulam, sed ante datur ei spatium duorum mensium; et ideo addit.

*Ad quaestionem incidentalem.* Ad illud quod quaeritur de ea quae corrupta est violenter a viro, dicendum, quod quia matrimonium est consummatum, non potest sine assensu viri religionem intrare nec votum vovere.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod matrimonium debet esse liberum; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad *consensum*, in quo est matrimonii fundamentum; ista tamen *copula*, quamvis sit violenta, quia tamen maritalis est et fundata super consensum voluntarium, ideo voluntaria iudicatur; et ideo matrimonium *ratum*[^p733-6] consummat. *Praeterea*, consensus de sui ratione importat libertatem, non sic coniunctio corporalis[^p733-7].

---

english:
<!-- page 732 -->

### Question II. *Whether before carnal union a man may be continent, the wife being unwilling.*

Secondly it is asked whether before carnal union a man may be continent, the wife being unwilling. And that he may not, it seems.

1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^1]: *Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and likewise the wife to the husband*; but before union they are husband and wife: therefore before union they are bound: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the wife is bound to the husband voluntarily and by mutual consent: if therefore before union there is mutual consent, then also the obligation to the rendering of the debt.

3. Likewise, the woman is not bound to be continent and cannot contract with another: therefore she can justly demand the debt; but to refuse one who demands justly is unjust: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, suppose that a man, after consent given for the present, should by force extort carnal union, the marriage is consummated: therefore the wife herself is wholly bound to render the debt to him; but violence does not induce a new obligation: therefore she was bound beforehand.

**On the contrary:**

1. The Decretal, *On the Conversion of the Married*[^2], grants a man the power of entering religion, the wife being unwilling; but to enter religion is more than to be continent: therefore it grants the license of being continent.

2. Likewise, by consent marriage is contracted, even though there be no [consent] to carnal union, as was shown above[^3]: therefore, if he is bound only to that to which he consents, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, if every man were bound to render the debt before carnal union: therefore carnal union would add nothing to the consummation[^4] of the marriage.

Likewise, it is asked in connection with this: whence is it that conjugal union, violently extorted, consummates the marriage, whereas coerced consent does not ratify[^5] the marriage? And whether it be lawful for such a one, after the woman's [carnal] union, to vow continence. — And that it is so, it seems: because, if it was lawful before, and no one can violently take her right from her, it is clear, etc.

> **Conclusion.** Before the consummation of the marriage either person may be continent for two months, but afterward is either bound to render the debt, or by a solemn vow to show himself dead to the world.

**I respond:** It must be said that before the consummation of the marriage either person is neither wholly bound nor wholly free.

<!-- page 733 -->

He is not *wholly bound*, because he can die to the world; and thus the marriage is dissolved, while he yet lives in the flesh, and then, when he does this, he is wholly absolved. Nor is he *wholly free*[^p733-1], because, if he wishes to live to this world, he must render the debt to the one who demands it. And because he is midway between the life of this age and the religious or spiritual life, therefore the sacred canons[^p733-2] have set a fixed term, that he may deliberate, namely the term of two months, or thereabouts. And therefore it must be said that, at the wife's request, he may be continent for two months, but afterward is either bound to render the debt, or to show himself dead to the world by a solemn vow unto[^p733-3] entrance into religion; and if he does not do this, he is bound to render the debt, as the first arguments show.

**To the arguments on the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected on the contrary, that he can enter religion, therefore [he can] be continent in the world; it must be said that it does not hold, because entrance into religion makes one die to the world and looses the bond; whence no prejudice is done to the betrothed; it is not so when he remains in the world.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that it is not necessary to consent to carnal union; it must be said that, although it is not necessary to consent to it, it is nevertheless necessary to consent to conjugal union, which is necessarily ordered to it, unless *spiritual death*[^p733-4] intervene.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that it adds nothing; it must be said that this is false, nay rather it adds both as to *signification*[^p733-5] and as to *obligation*. For because they become one body and one flesh, therefore one cannot pass out of this world while the other remains; and therefore he cannot vow continence unless the spouse vow likewise. *Moreover*, one is bound to render at once after carnal union, but beforehand a space of two months is given him; and therefore it adds [something].

*To the incidental question.* To that which is asked concerning her who has been violently corrupted by her husband, it must be said that, because the marriage is consummated, she cannot without her husband's assent enter religion nor vow a vow.

To that which is objected, that marriage ought to be free; it must be said that this is true as to the *consent*, in which is the foundation of the marriage; yet this *union*, although it be violent, because it is nevertheless marital and founded upon voluntary consent, is therefore judged voluntary; and therefore it consummates a *ratified*[^p733-6] marriage. *Moreover*, consent of its very nature implies liberty, but not so bodily conjunction[^p733-7].

---

la: Vers. 3. Post *similiter* Vulgata addit *autem*.

en: [1 Cor. 7,] verse 3. After *similiter* ("likewise") the Vulgate adds *autem* ("moreover").

la: Extra lib. III. tit. 32. C. *Verum post* (2.), ubi talis concessio datur, dummodo matrimonium non sit consummatum. Cfr. supra d. 27. dub. 5.

en: *Decretals* (Extra), Book III, tit. 32, ch. *Verum post* (2.), where such a concession is granted, provided the marriage has not been consummated. Cf. above, d. 27, dub. 5.

la: Dist. 28. q. 6. — Pro *non sit* cod. Z *non consensit*.

en: [Gratian,] Dist. 28, q. 6. — For *non sit* ("there be no [consent]") codex Z reads *non consensit* ("he did not consent").

la: [*consummationem*] Ita codd. Aaa, in aliis et edd. perperam, ut videtur, *conservationem*.

en: [*consummationem*, "consummation"] So codices A, a, a; in the others and in the editions, wrongly (as it seems), *conservationem* ("preservation").

la: Vide supra d. 29. q. 1.

en: See above, d. 29, q. 1.

la: Codd. communiter *liber*; quae lectio incongrua explicatur ex falsa lectione plurium codd., in qua haec propositio cum praecedente coniungitur: *hoc facit, nec omnino est absolutus nec omnino liber*.

en: The codices commonly read *liber* ("free," masculine); this incongruous reading is explained by the false reading of many codices, in which this proposition is joined to the preceding: *hoc facit, nec omnino est absolutus nec omnino liber* ("he does this, and is neither wholly absolved nor wholly free").

la: Cfr. supra pag. 684, nota 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 684, note 1.

la: Codd. 1 K *per*, cod. bb *vel*, cod. L *vel per*, cod. aa *et*, plures codd. *in*.

en: Codices 1, K read *per* ("through"), codex bb *vel* ("or"), codex L *vel per* ("or through"), codex aa *et* ("and"), several codices *in* ("in").

la: Vat. addit *vel civilis*.

en: The Vatican [edition] adds *vel civilis* ("or civil [death]").

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. et q. 3. — In seqq. respicitur ratio addita in C. *Verum post*, supra d. 27. dub. 5. allegato.

en: See above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1 and q. 3. — In what follows, reference is made to the reasoning added in the chapter *Verum post*, cited above at d. 27, dub. 5.

la: Codd. B P Q R S U bb *ratificatum*, codd. cum pluribus *radicatum*.

en: Codices B, P, Q, R, S, U, bb read *ratificatum* ("ratified"); the [remaining] codices, with the majority [of witnesses], *radicatum* ("rooted").

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p732-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p733-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against raw OCR L78832–78951. Bands authoritative per the Vol II/IV override (two-column cascade-shattered OCR). English is a fresh literal translation.

**⚠ Page correction (off-by-one in the auto-chunk frontmatter).** The skeleton frontmatter and the dispatch brief both gave printed pages **731–732**; that is wrong. The bands show printed **p.731 is entirely Quaestio I** (ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I, *Utrum* ***post*** *carnalem copulam possit vir continere*, with its own Conclusio + Respondeo in the right column), and printed **p.732 top holds q1's closing replies (Ad 3, Ad 4) + the Art I scholion**. This q2 (*Utrum* ***ante*** *carnalem commixtionem*) opens at the **bottom of p.732** (below the scholion) and runs onto **p.733**, ending just before ARTICULUS II. Corrected `printed_pages` to **[732, 733]**, `pdf_pages` to **[752, 753]**, and the source string to pp. 732–733. `line_start`/`line_end` kept as given (the "Secundo quaeritur…" alignment is correct; only the page numbers were off).

**Page/footer split.**
- Printed p.732 — q2's arguments (*quod non* 1–4; *Contra* 1–3; incidental question; Conclusio; opening of the Respondeo). Footer series [^1]–[^5], all anchored in this body. Claimed here.
- Printed p.733 — Respondeo continuation + solutions (*Ad* 1–3, *Ad* incidental question, *Ad* "matrimonium liberum"). Footer series [^p733-1]–[^p733-7], all anchored in this body. Claimed here.

**Hand-offs.**
- p.732 is shared with **a1-q1**, which owns the Art I **scholion** printed at the top of p.732 (I render no scholion here — `has_scholion: false`, per the brief). p.732's numbered footers 1–5 are q2's arguments (this chunk); the q1 scholion uses inline parenthetical refs, so there is no footer contention on p.732.
- p.733 is shared with **a2-q1** (ARTICULUS II, *De obligatione coniugum … ad accidens superveniens*, on leprosy). p.733's footers **8, 9, 10** anchor in the Art II body (fn8 *de Coniugio leprosorum*; fn9 *1 Cor. 7,4 / mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis*; fn10 *1 Cor. 7,2 / ipsa reddat debitum*) — **handed off to a2-q1, not rendered here.** This chunk claims only p.733 footers 1–7.

**[?] flags.** None. All twelve footers and all body markers were verified against the bands. Minor silent OCR corrections: `Gorinthios→Corinthios`, `conlinere→continere`, `commixtio` spellings normalized, `raundo→mundo`, `ARTIGULUS→ARTICULUS` (context-unambiguous). The lone marginal glosses on the printed page (*Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Conclusio.*, *Dupliciter addit.*, *Ad quaest. incid.*) are editorial side-notes and were trimmed per the corpus rule.