title: Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 839 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum, altero tantum infidelium veniente ad fidem, matrimonium solvatur quoad infidelem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum solvatur matrimonium quoad infidelem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia matrimonium est vinculum duorum et se habet ut relatio[^p839-4]; sed destructa ligatione respectu unius extremi, destruitur respectu alterius: ergo etc.

2. Item, mulier ista, postquam discessit[^p839-5], aut est uxor, aut non. Si *sic*: ergo vir non potest contrahere; si *non*: ergo ipsa potest, cum non sit uxor.

3. Item, esto quod fidelis contrahat post discessum, et illa postmodum convertatur ad fidem; constat, quod non redditur ei vir[^p839-6]: ergo si non tenetur continere, potest nubere: ergo si non est ei ius acquisitum ad hoc, poterat et prius.

<!-- page 840 -->

**Contra:** 1. Ambrosius[^p840-1] dicit, quod «infidelis pro parte discedens peccat in Deum et in matrimonium»: ergo si in bono matrimonii est punienda, non potest nubere.

2. Item, «nullus debet reportare commodum de malitia sua[^p840-2]»; sed reportaret, si deserendo virum fidelem posset nubere: ergo etc.

3. Item, si mulier, quae erat prius alligata viro, absolvitur, quaero: a quo? Non ab *Ecclesia*, quia non intromittit se; non a *Deo*, quia contra Deum facit; non a *viro*, quia ipsum invitum deserit; nec *a se* potest: ergo vinculum manet: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Matrimonium, licet sit respectu fidelis solutum, reapse manet a parte infidelis, quousque fidelis potest ad infidelem redire; postea autem manet tantum in poenam, durante infidelitate.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quidam dicunt, quod hanc quaestionem non est nostrum determinare, quia non spectat ad nos *de his qui foris sunt, iudicare*[^p840-3]. — Sed verum est, quod non spectat iudicare *publicando* spiritualiter; tamen *spiritualis homo iudicat omnia discernendo*, quis recte, quis non recte vivat.

Et ideo dicendum, quod statim post discessum solvitur vinculum a parte viri, quia potest alteri coniungi statim, non sic a parte mulieris. Unde notandum, quod vinculum manet dupliciter: aut secundum *veritatem Sacramenti*, aut in *poenam peccati*. Quamdiu vir relictus — vel mulier fidelis — manet in statu, in quo potest redire ad eam[^p840-4]; mulier est alligata quantum ad *veritatem Sacramenti*. Sed quando vir est in statu, in quo non potest ei coniungi, ut si alteram ducat, vel intret religionem, vel accipiat sacrum ordinem; mulier soluta est secundum *veritatem Sacramenti*, quia amplius non est uxor; sed tamen alligata est in *poenam peccati*; unde non licet ei nubere, quousque relinquatur a culpa; et hoc non est, quamdiu est *infidelis*. Si autem *convertatur* et baptizetur; cum tunc solvatur ab omni culpa et poena peccati, ex tunc licite poterit nubere, nisi aliud obsistat.

Et sic patent obiecta utraque. Prima enim probant, quod solvitur secundum veritatem; secunda, quod manet in poenam peccati.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, a quo solvitur, dico quod a Deo et ab Ecclesia, sed *per accidens*: quia, ex quo ille desinit esse vir, per consequens ista desinit esse uxor. *Et si tu obiicias*, quod commodum reportat de malitia; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia, quamdiu manet culpa, divino iudicio est alligata. Et *amplius*, si ad fidem veniat, et vir eam repetat; si non contraxit cum alia, est ei reddenda. — Unde satis rationabiliter potest dici, quod vinculum illud non omnino solvitur statim, cum mulier discedit, sed cum vir alligatur alii fideli vinculo inseparabili: tunc enim fortius vinculum solvit minus; unde etsi prius aliquo modo esset solutum, ex tunc perfecte solutum est, illo ultimo[^p840-5] persistente.

---

english:
<!-- page 839 -->

### Question II. *Whether, when only one of the infidels comes to the faith, the marriage is dissolved with respect to the infidel.*

Secondly it is asked whether the marriage is dissolved with respect to the infidel. And that it is [dissolved], seems [to be so]:

1. Because marriage is a bond of two and stands as a relation[^p839-4]; but when the tying is destroyed with respect to one extreme, it is destroyed with respect to the other: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this woman, after she has departed[^p839-5], is either a wife or not. If *yes*: then the husband cannot contract [marriage]; if *no*: then she herself can, since she is not a wife.

3. Likewise, suppose that the faithful [husband] contracts [marriage] after the departure, and that she afterward is converted to the faith; it is certain that the husband is not restored to her[^p839-6]: therefore, if she is not bound to continence, she can marry: therefore, if she has no right acquired for this, she could [marry] even before.

<!-- page 840 -->

**On the contrary:** 1. Ambrose[^p840-1] says that «the infidel departing on his part sins against God and against the marriage»: therefore, if she is to be punished in the good of the marriage, she cannot marry.

2. Likewise, «no one ought to reap advantage from his own malice[^p840-2]»; but she would reap [it], if by deserting her faithful husband she could marry: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if the woman, who was previously bound to a husband, is absolved, I ask: by whom? Not by the *Church*, since it does not intromit itself; not by *God*, since she acts against God; not by the *husband*, since she deserts him against his will; nor can she [be absolved] by *herself*: therefore the bond remains: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** The marriage, although it is dissolved with respect to the faithful [party], in fact remains on the side of the infidel, as long as the faithful [party] can return to the infidel; but afterward it remains only as a punishment, while the infidelity lasts.

**I respond:** It must be said that some say that it is not for us to determine this question, since it does not pertain to us *to judge those who are outside*[^p840-3]. — But it is true that it does not pertain [to us] to judge by *publishing* [it] spiritually; nevertheless *the spiritual man judges all things, discerning* who lives rightly and who does not live rightly.

And therefore it must be said that immediately after the departure the bond is dissolved on the husband's side, since he can be joined to another at once, but not so on the woman's side. Hence it must be noted that the bond remains in two ways: either according to the *truth of the Sacrament*, or as a *punishment of sin*. As long as the deserted husband — or the faithful woman — remains in a state in which he can return to her[^p840-4], the woman is bound with respect to the *truth of the Sacrament*. But when the husband is in a state in which he cannot be joined to her — as if he marries another, or enters religion, or receives holy orders — the woman is loosed according to the *truth of the Sacrament*, since she is no longer a wife; yet nevertheless she is bound as a *punishment of sin*; whence she is not permitted to marry until she is released from the fault; and this is not [the case] as long as she is *unfaithful*. But if she *is converted* and baptized, since then she is loosed from all fault and punishment of sin, from that point she will licitly be able to marry, unless something else stands in the way.

And thus both [sets of] objections are answered. For the first ones prove that it is dissolved according to truth; the second, that it remains as a punishment of sin.

To that which is asked, by whom it is dissolved, I say that [it is dissolved] by God and by the Church, but *per accidens*: because, from the fact that he ceases to be a husband, consequently she ceases to be a wife. *And if you object* that she reaps advantage from malice, it must be said that this is false, because, as long as the fault remains, she is bound by the divine judgment. And *further*, if she comes to the faith, and the husband seeks her back, provided he has not contracted [marriage] with another, she is to be restored to him. — Hence it can reasonably enough be said that that bond is not entirely dissolved at once, when the woman departs, but [only] when the husband is bound to another faithful [party] by an inseparable bond: for then the stronger bond dissolves the weaker; whence, even if it was previously in some way loosed, from that point it is perfectly loosed, that last [bond] persisting[^p840-5].

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 1. q. I. ad 3. — Mox pro *ligatione* cod. K (bb a secunda manu) *relatione* (cfr. d. 27. a. 3. q. I. in corp.).

en: Cf. above, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3. — Presently, for *ligatione* codex K (bb by a second hand) [reads] *relatione* (cf. d. 27, a. 3, q. 1, in the body).

la: Codd. R S supplent *a viro*.

en: Codices R and S supply *a viro* ("[departed] from her husband").

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. et infra dub. 5.

en: Cf. the preceding question, and below, dubium 5.

la: In Comment. super I. Cor. 7, 15. (inter opera Ambros.). Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: In the Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:15 (among the works of Ambrose). Cf. here the Master's [Lombard's] text, c. 5.

la: Vide supra pag. 103, nota 11.

en: See above, p. 103, note 11.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 5, 12. — Seq. locus est ibid. 2, 15: *Spiritualis autem iudicat omnia*. — Immediate post cod. L legit *Sed licet verum, quod*. Subinde post *non spectat* edd. supplent *ad nos*, quae etiam *puniendos spiritualiter* substituunt pro *publicando spiritualiter* [aliqui codd. *specialiter*]. Secundum Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc. *publicare* sumitur pro *allegare*, in iure sistere, apud iudicem inducere. Sensus igitur nostrae lectionis est: quamvis non ad nos spectet, infideles iudicare vocando eos ad tribunal ecclesiasticum, tamen etc. Post *tamen* edd. prosequuntur: *spectat ad nos, cum spiritualis homo omnia iudicet, discernendo*.

en: Epistle, 1 Corinthians 5:12. — The following passage is ibid. 2:15: *But the spiritual man judges all things*. — Immediately afterward codex L reads *Sed licet verum, quod*. Then, after *non spectat*, the editions supply *ad nos*, and they also substitute *puniendos spiritualiter* ("to be punished spiritually") for *publicando spiritualiter* [some codices: *specialiter*]. According to Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc., *publicare* is taken for *allegare*, to bring into court, to lead before a judge. The sense of our reading, therefore, is: although it does not pertain to us to judge unbelievers by summoning them to the ecclesiastical tribunal, nevertheless etc. After *tamen* the editions continue: *it does pertain to us, since the spiritual man judges all things, discerning*.

la: Edd. *Quamdiu vir fidelis relictus manet in statu, in quo potest mulier infidelis redire ad eum*. Aliquanto inferius pro *relinquatur* edd. *solvatur*.

en: The editions [read]: *As long as the deserted faithful husband remains in a state in which the unfaithful woman can return to him*. A little further down, for *relinquatur* the editions [read] *solvatur*.

la: Codd. L M O P R S T bb *illo vinculo*, scil. quo vir fidelis alii alligatur; ed. 1 *nullo vinculo*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Codices L M O P R S T bb [read] *illo vinculo* ("that bond"), namely the bond by which the faithful husband is bound to another; the first edition [reads] *nullo vinculo* ("no bond"). — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed pp. 839–840 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p839-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p840-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; p840 left column regenerated at split_x=2120 to recover the clipped right edge). Raw IA OCR L89605–L89692 used only for cross-check. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Opener alignment (verified).** Raw L89605 "Secundo quaeritur, utrum solvatur matrimonium quoad infidelem" aligns correctly with QUAESTIO II; the raw range ends (L89692) at "illo ultimo … persistente," immediately before QUAESTIO III. No auto-chunker q-swap.

**Scholion.** has_scholion = false. The Article II scholion (SCHOLION, "Bene notandae sunt distinctiones…") prints at the top of p. 839 but belongs to a. 2, q. 1 (it covers all Article II questions) and is rendered there. Not reproduced here.

**Page-split of apparatus.** p. 839: notes 3, 4, 5, 6 (4 entries) — notes 1–2 anchor in q1's body / the Art II scholion. p. 840: notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (5 entries). Total 9.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- Received (none new): p. 839 notes 1–2 stay with a2-q1.
- Forwarded to a2-q3 (shares p. 840, which q3 opens with "Tertio quaeritur…"): p. 840 note 6 (*Dist. 35. q. 4.* → q3 arg. 1 "supra⁶"); note 7 (*Iam supra pag. 838, nota 1. allegatus.* → q3 Contra 1 "Ambrosius⁷"); note 8 (*Cfr. supra pag. 327, nota 10. et pag. 582, nota 5.* → q3 arg. 2 "aedificii⁸").

**Marginalia trimmed.** Editorial side-notes (Pro parte negativa, Opinio 1, Improbatur, Conclusio 1–3, Ad argumenta, Ad arg. pro parte negativa, Epilogus, Ratio 2–3, Solutio oppositorum) are Quaracchi apparatus glosses, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted per the OCR-cleanup convention.

**[?] flags.** None. One low-confidence reading noted but resolved: Contra 1 tail reads "ergo si in bono matrimonii est punienda, non potest nubere" (clear on the p840-L band at split 2120); the phrase is grammatically compressed but the words are legible, so no flag placed.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 840 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum matrimonium solvatur, si alter coniugum fit infidelis, specialiter quoad fidelem.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum matrimonium solvatur, si alter coniugum fit infidelis, specialiter quoad fidelem. Et quod non solvatur, videtur:

1. Quia per fornicationem corporalem non fit solutio, maxime quoad substantiam matrimonii, ut supra[^p840-6] visum est; et tamen illa plus obviat bono matrimonii: ergo nec per fornicationem spiritualem.

2. Item, matrimonium est vinculum insolubile; sed contingens est, aliquem labi in infidelitatem; sed insolubile non dirimitur aliquo casu accidentali: ergo etc.

3. Item, si solveretur per lapsum in haeresim, posset quilibet, volens uxorem dimittere, haeresim simulare, et ita semper praeiudicaretur matrimonio.

**Contra:**
1. Ambrosius[^p840-7] dicit, et habetur in Glossa super septimum ad Corinthios: «Contumelia Creatoris solvit ius matrimonii in eo qui relinquitur, ut non accusetur alteri copulatus»: ergo si lapsus in haeresim non vult cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris, licet alteri copulari.

2. Item, fides est fundamentum totius spiritualis aedificii[^p840-8]; sed sublato fundamento, destruitur <!-- page 841 --> quidquid superaedificatum est: ergo sublata fide, pereunt omnia Sacramenta, ergo et matrimonium.

3. Item, si alter veniat ad fidem, solvitur matrimonium, si alter remanet in infidelitate[^p841-1]; sed peior est conditio labentis quam remanentis et magis elongatur a fide: multo fortius ergo solvitur matrimonium.

### Conclusio

> Matrimonium non solvitur, altero coniugum labente in infidelitatem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod altero coniugum labente in infidelitatem, non solvitur matrimonii Sacramentum. — Et ratio huius duplex est: una, ut praecludatur malis via simulationis et deceptionis; alia est secundum veritatem, quia Sacramentum coniugii in fidelibus, propter hoc quod perfectam habet significationem et significat unionem insolubilem, ipsum est insolubile[^p841-2]. *Rursus*, quia fundatum est super Sacramentum baptismi, quod imprimit characterem indelebilem, ipsum est insolubile. Unde Innocentius dicit in decretali, *Quanto te novimus*, quod «Sacramentum fidei, quod semel admissum est, ratum efficit coniugii Sacramentum», ut dictum est prius[^p841-3].

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod contumelia Creatoris solvit; dicendum, quod auctoritas Ambrosii intelligitur de matrimonio contracto in infidelitate, quod non est *ratum*, quia non est fundatum super fidei Sacramentum; et ideo non est simile de conversione et lapsu[^p841-4].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de fundamento, dicendum, quod *fides* est fundamentum virtutum, non Sacramentorum; sed *Sacramentum fidei* est fundamentum Sacramentorum, et hoc est Sacramentum[^p841-5] stabile, quod manet semper.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod peior est conditio labentis; dicendum, quod solutionem matrimonii non tam facit contumelia Creatoris et disparitas cultus, quam etiam facit imbecillitas ipsius matrimonii contracti in infidelitate[^p841-6] et disparitas cultus non solum quoad *fidem*, sed etiam quoad *Sacramentum fidei*, in quo cultu quoad Sacramentum qui baptizati sunt dispares esse non possunt[^p841-7].

---

english:
<!-- page 840 -->

### Question III. *Whether the marriage is dissolved if one of the spouses becomes an infidel, specifically with respect to the believer.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the marriage is dissolved if one of the spouses becomes an infidel, specifically with respect to the believer. And that it is not dissolved seems [to be the case]:

1. Because through bodily fornication no dissolution occurs, especially with respect to the substance of the marriage, as was seen above[^p840-6]; and yet that [bodily fornication] runs more counter to the good of marriage: therefore neither [is it dissolved] through spiritual fornication.

2. Likewise, marriage is an indissoluble bond; but it is contingent that someone should lapse into infidelity; but the indissoluble is not dissolved by any accidental circumstance: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it were dissolved through a lapse into heresy, then anyone wishing to dismiss his wife could feign heresy, and thus the marriage would always be prejudiced.

**On the contrary:**
1. Ambrose[^p840-7] says, and it is contained in the Gloss on the seventh [chapter] to the Corinthians: «The insult to the Creator dissolves the right of marriage in the one who is abandoned, so that he may not be accused as joined to another»: therefore if one who has lapsed into heresy is unwilling to cohabit without insult to the Creator, it is permitted [to the other] to be joined to another.

2. Likewise, faith is the foundation of the whole spiritual edifice[^p840-8]; but when the foundation is removed, whatever <!-- page 841 --> has been built upon it is destroyed: therefore, faith being removed, all the Sacraments perish, and therefore marriage also.

3. Likewise, if one [spouse] comes to the faith, the marriage is dissolved, if the other remains in infidelity[^p841-1]; but the condition of the one lapsing is worse than that of the one remaining, and he is more distanced from the faith: therefore all the more strongly is the marriage dissolved.

### Conclusion

> The marriage is not dissolved when one of the spouses lapses into infidelity.

**I respond:** It must be said that, when one of the spouses lapses into infidelity, the Sacrament of marriage is not dissolved. — And the reason for this is twofold: one, that the way of simulation and deception may be foreclosed to evil persons; the other is according to truth, because the Sacrament of marriage among the faithful, on account of the fact that it has a perfect signification and signifies an indissoluble union, is itself indissoluble[^p841-2]. *Again*, because it is founded upon the Sacrament of baptism, which imprints an indelible character, it is itself indissoluble. Hence Innocent says in the decretal *Quanto te novimus* that «the Sacrament of faith, which has once been admitted, renders the Sacrament of marriage ratified», as was said before[^p841-3].

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that the insult to the Creator dissolves [it]; it must be said that the authority of Ambrose is understood of a marriage contracted in infidelity, which is not *ratified*, because it is not founded upon the Sacrament of faith; and therefore the case is not similar concerning conversion and lapse[^p841-4].

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning the foundation, it must be said that *faith* is the foundation of the virtues, not of the Sacraments; but the *Sacrament of faith* is the foundation of the Sacraments, and this is the stable Sacrament[^p841-5], which remains always.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that the condition of the one lapsing is worse; it must be said that the dissolution of marriage is brought about not so much by the insult to the Creator and the disparity of worship, as it is also brought about by the weakness of the marriage itself contracted in infidelity[^p841-6] and by the disparity of worship not only with respect to *faith*, but also with respect to the *Sacrament of faith*, in which worship, with respect to the Sacrament, those who are baptized cannot be unequal[^p841-7].

---

en: Distinction 35, q. 4.

la: Iam supra pag. 838, nota 1. allegatus.

en: Already cited above on p. 838, note 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 327, nota 10. et pag. 582, nota 5.

en: Cf. above, p. 327, note 10, and p. 582, note 5.

la: Vide supra q. 1. et 2. — Servavimus cum Vat. hunc ordinem argg., qui respondet solutioni eorum; codd. et ed. 1 ultima duo argg. invertunt.

en: See above, q. 1 and 2. — We have preserved, with the Vatican [edition], this order of the arguments, which corresponds to their solution; the codices and edition 1 invert the last two arguments.

la: Ut dictum est supra a. 1. q. 2. — Superius pro *duplex* edd. *triplex*.

en: As was said above, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, for *duplex* (twofold) the editions read *triplex* (threefold).

la: Supra q. 1. fundam. 2.

en: Above, q. 1, fundamentum 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master [Lombard], c. 5.

la: Cod. E *fundamentum*.

en: Codex E [reads] *fundamentum*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra q. 1. in corp.

en: As was shown above, q. 1, in the body [of the article].

en: See the scholion to the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed pp. 840–841 (pdf 860–861), per the Vol II Override (PDF authoritative in the cascade-shattered two-column regions). Raw OCR L89693–89776 was reference only. Alignment verified: the "Tertio quaeritur…" opener (L89693) matches QUAESTIO III on p. 840 — no q-swap. Column read order confirmed: p. 840 left col (args 1–2), right col (arg 3 + Contra 1–2); p. 841 left col (Contra 2 tail, arg 3, Conclusio, Respondeo), right col (Respondeo tail + solutio oppositorum), ending at "dispares esse non possunt⁷" immediately before QUAESTIO IV.

**Page break.** The p. 840→841 boundary falls mid-sentence inside Contra arg. 2, after "…destruitur" / "quidquid superaedificatum est…"; `<!-- page 841 -->` placed there in both Latin and English.

**OCR garbles corrected against the PDF** (all in the p. 840 right-column footers): note 6 OCR "Dist. 35. q. i." → PDF **q. 4**; note 7 OCR "aliogatus" → PDF **allegatus**; note 8 OCR "pag. 382, nota 3" → PDF **pag. 582, nota 5**. These now match the values forwarded in a2-q2's hand-off.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- Picked up (from a2-q2, shared p. 840): notes 6, 7, 8, which anchor in this body — note 6 at arg. 1 "supra", note 7 at Contra 1 "Ambrosius", note 8 at Contra 2 "aedificii". CLAIMED here.
- p. 840 notes 1–5 remain with a2-q2 (notes 1–3 anchor in q2's Contra; notes 4–5 in q2's Respondeo/epilogue). Not rendered here.
- Forwarded (to a2-q4, shared p. 841): notes 8–12 (Innoc. *Gaudemus* decretal, *Extra* lib. IV tit. 19, Justinian *C. de Legibus*, etc.), which anchor in q4's body. Not claimed here.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false` — the Art II scholion lives in a2-q1 (covers all Art II questions); p. 841 note 7 explicitly cross-refers "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." No scholion text falls in this range.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): "Pro parte negativa," "Fundamenta," "Solutio oppositorum."

**[?] flags.** None. All ten footers and the full body were read cleanly from the 450 dpi bands.

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. 39, Art. 2, Q. 4

source_text:
### Quaestio IV. *Utrum in infidelibus venientibus ad fidem solvatur matrimonium.*

<!-- page 841 -->

Quarto quaeritur, utrum in infidelibus venientibus ad fidem solvatur matrimonium propter personarum illegitimitatem, ut si habet sororem in uxorem. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Per illam decretalem Innocentii, *Gaudemus*[^p841-8], in qua dicit, non esse separandos.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: « Per Sacramentum baptismi coniugia non solvuntur, sed crimina tolluntur[^p841-9] »: ergo cum istud fuerit coniugium apud paganos, non solvitur, cum baptizatur.

3. Item, « pagani canonicis constitutionibus non arctantur[^p841-10] », sed tunc solum incipiunt arctari, quando ad fidem veniunt; « sed iura et constitutiones formam futuris imponunt negotiis, non ad praeterita revocantur »: si ergo ante contraxit, quam arctetur; constitutio tale matrimonium non solvit.

**Contra:** 1. Si aliquis infidelis contraxit cum duabus, ad fidem veniens compellitur alteram relinquere, quia hoc est contra constitutiones canonicas, sicut probatur per decretalem *de Divortiis*[^p841-11], *Gaudemus* etc.: ergo a simili in proposito.

2. Item, si aliquis infidelis repudiavit uxorem quod quidem licitum est apud eos, ambobus venientibus ad fidem, compellitur recipere eam quia hoc, apud fideles non licet: ergo a simili in contrario tenetur talem uxorem dimittere.

3. Item, apud fideles profanum est uxorem accipere sororem uxoris[^p841-12]; sed noviter conversus debet se fidelibus conformare: ergo debet huiusmodi coniugium reputare profanum: ergo non debet amplius stare.

> **Conclusio.** Quando conversi ad fidem matrimonium contraxerunt cum impedimento dirimente secundum legem naturae et divinam, separandi sunt; secus est, si impedimentum est ex constitutione Ecclesiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illegitimitas personarum ad matrimonium est duplex. Una est se-

<!-- page 842 -->

cundum *naturam* et *institutionem divinam*, ut puta quod filius non contrahat cum matre, neque pater cum filia[^p842-1]; item, quod alligatus uxori non ducat aliam, vel etiam in gradibus divina lege prohibitis Levitici decimo octavo[^p842-2], ut dicunt iurisperiti, ubi prohibetur secundus gradus; et haec illegitimitas astringit fideles et infideles. Et si in tali illegitimitate contrahitur matrimonium apud infideles, solvitur, cum veniunt ad fidem; quia, ut dicit Ambrosius[^p842-3], « quod extra Dei decretum factum est non est putandum matrimonium, sed, cum cognoscitur, emendandum ». Unde si Iudaeus contrahat cum sorore in secundo gradu, ad fidem veniens ab ea separatur. Si autem contraxit cum uxore fratris, quia hoc est in Lege concessum[^p842-4], minime separatur. — Alia est illegitimitas ex *constitutione Ecclesiae*, ut sunt personae infra quartum gradum; et haec non arctat infideles nec impedit matrimonium, quin contrahatur; et quia non ad praeterita revocantur[^p842-5], non solvunt legitime iam contractum.

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de bigamia et repudio, solvendum, quod utrumque est contra ius naturae et contra ius divinum[^p842-6]; ideo non est simile.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod profanum est sororem uxoris[^p842-7] ducere in uxorem, vel etiam habere; dicendum, quod hoc verum est propter *Ecclesiae mandatum*; quo quia iste non astringitur, non debet illud coniugium reputare profanum; unde iste, ex quo venit ad fidem, alligatur, ut amplius non contrahat contra Ecclesiae statutum; si tamen contraxit, non debet solvi, nec tenetur dimittere, quia ad ipsum non se extendit constitutio Ecclesiae[^p842-8].

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether among infidels coming to the faith the marriage is dissolved.*

<!-- page 841 -->

Fourthly it is asked whether among infidels coming to the faith the marriage is dissolved on account of the illegitimacy of the persons, as for instance if one has a sister as wife. And that it is not [dissolved], it seems:

1. By that decretal of Innocent, *Gaudemus*[^p841-8], in which he says that they are not to be separated.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: "Through the Sacrament of baptism marriages are not dissolved, but crimes are taken away[^p841-9]": therefore, since that was a marriage among the pagans, it is not dissolved when he is baptized.

3. Likewise, "pagans are not bound by canonical constitutions[^p841-10]," but they only begin to be bound when they come to the faith; "but laws and constitutions impose their form on future affairs, they are not called back to the past": if therefore he contracted before he is bound, the constitution does not dissolve such a marriage.

**On the contrary:** 1. If some infidel contracted [marriage] with two [women], upon coming to the faith he is compelled to relinquish one, because this is against the canonical constitutions, as is proved through the decretal *On Divorces*[^p841-11], *Gaudemus* etc.: therefore by a similar [argument] in the matter proposed.

2. Likewise, if some infidel repudiated his wife — which indeed is licit among them — when both come to the faith, he is compelled to take her back, because this, among the faithful, is not licit: therefore by a similar [argument] on the contrary he is bound to dismiss such a wife.

3. Likewise, among the faithful it is profane to take the sister of one's wife as wife[^p841-12]; but the newly converted ought to conform himself to the faithful: therefore he ought to reckon a marriage of this kind profane: therefore it ought no longer to stand.

> **Conclusion.** When those converted to the faith have contracted marriage with a diriment impediment according to the law of nature and the divine [law], they are to be separated; it is otherwise if the impediment is from a constitution of the Church.

**I respond:** It must be said that the illegitimacy of persons with respect to marriage is twofold. One is ac-

<!-- page 842 -->

cording to *nature* and *divine institution*, as, for instance, that a son not contract with his mother, nor a father with his daughter[^p842-1]; likewise, that one bound to a wife not take another, or also in the degrees prohibited by divine law in Leviticus chapter eighteen[^p842-2], as the jurists say, where the second degree is prohibited; and this illegitimacy binds both the faithful and infidels. And if in such illegitimacy a marriage is contracted among infidels, it is dissolved when they come to the faith; because, as Ambrose says[^p842-3], "what is done outside God's decree is not to be reckoned a marriage, but, when it is recognized, is to be amended." Hence if a Jew contracts with a sister in the second degree, upon coming to the faith he is separated from her. But if he contracted with his brother's wife, since this was permitted in the Law[^p842-4], he is by no means separated. — The other [kind of] illegitimacy is from a *constitution of the Church*, as are persons within the fourth degree; and this does not bind infidels nor impede the marriage from being contracted; and because [such constitutions] are not called back to the past[^p842-5], they do not dissolve what was legitimately already contracted.

*To 1, 2.* To that, then, which is objected concerning bigamy and repudiation, it must be resolved that each is against the law of nature and against the divine law[^p842-6]; therefore it is not similar.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that it is profane to take the sister of one's wife[^p842-7] as wife, or even to have her; it must be said that this is true on account of the *Church's mandate*; and since this man is not bound by it, he ought not to reckon that marriage profane; hence this man, from the time he came to the faith, is bound not to contract further against the Church's statute; if nevertheless he did contract, it ought not to be dissolved, nor is he bound to dismiss [her], because the constitution of the Church does not extend to him[^p842-8].

---

la: Extra, libr. IV. tit. 19. (de Divortiis) c. 8. — Superius post *sororem* in cod. bb additur *uxoris*.

en: Decretals (Extra), book IV, title 19 (On Divorces), c. 8. — Above, after *sororem*, in codex bb is added *uxoris*.

en: Innocent, in the aforementioned canon *Gaudemus*, following Augustine, cited above at art. 1, q. 4, fundamentum 2.

la: Innocent. loc. cit. — *Minor* est secundum Iustinian., C. I. de Legibus et constitut. (tit. 17.), lex *Leges et constitutiones* (7.). Cfr. C. *Cognoscentes* (2.) et C. *Quoniam constitutio* (13.), X. de Constitutionibus (lib. I. tit. 2.).

en: Innocent, at the place cited. — The minor [premise] is according to Justinian, Codex, book I, On Laws and Constitutions (title 17), the law *Leges et constitutiones* (7). Cf. the canon *Cognoscentes* (2) and the canon *Quoniam constitutio* (13), X, On Constitutions (book I, title 2).

la: Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 8.

en: [Decretals] book IV, title 19, c. 8.

la: Ex repetitione huius propositionis, quae fit inferius in solut. huius obiectionis, et in qua cod. bb addit *uxoris*, hic et ibi adiecimus *uxoris*, quod in aliis codd. desideratur; edd. legunt *uxorem fratris accipere in uxorem*. Lectio codd. stare non potest, quia Ecclesia non patitur, neoconversos continuare matrimonium cum propria sorore, immo tunc nec in secundo gradu.

en: From the repetition of this proposition, which occurs below in the solution of this objection, and in which codex bb adds *uxoris*, here and there we have added *uxoris*, which in the other codices is lacking; the editions read *to take the brother's wife as wife*. The reading of the codices cannot stand, because the Church does not permit the newly converted to continue marriage with their own sister, indeed not even then in the second degree. *(This note begins in the p. 841 footer and its text runs over into the p. 842 footer block.)*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 664, nota 3.

en: Cf. above, p. 664, note 3.

la: Vers. 6. seqq. Vide Glossam in praeallegatum C. *Gaudemus* ad verbum *in secundo* (gradu).

en: Verses 6ff. See the Gloss on the aforecited canon *Gaudemus* at the word *in the second* (degree).

la: In Comment. super I. Cor. 7, 15. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, secundum quam a Bonav. verba allegantur.

en: In the Commentary on 1 Cor. 7:15. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, according to which the words are cited by Bonaventure.

la: Deut. 25, 5; Matth. 22, 24. Cfr. C. *Deus, qui Ecclesiam* (9.), X. De Divortiis (lib. IV. tit. 19.).

en: Deut. 25:5; Matt. 22:24. Cf. the canon *Deus, qui Ecclesiam* (9), X, On Divorces (book IV, title 19).

la: Supple: iura et constitutiones Ecclesiae (cfr. fundam. 3.).

en: Supply: the laws and constitutions of the Church (cf. fundamentum 3).

la: Vide supra d. 33. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: See above, dist. 33, art. 1, q. 2, and art. 3, q. 1f.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 841, nota 12. — Aliquanto inferius pro *alligatur* cod. aa *obligatur*.

en: Cf. above, p. 841, note 12. — Somewhat below, for *alligatur* codex aa [reads] *obligatur*.

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF colcrop bands for printed pp. 841–842 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p84{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-shattered two-column OCR). Raw OCR range L89777–90112 used only for reference / marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page layout (both pages are split into stacked half-page blocks spanning both columns).** On p. 841 the *upper* block (both columns) is a2-**q3**'s Respondeo + Solutio oppositorum; q4 occupies the *lower* block — left column: opener + the three "quod non" arguments + Contra 1; right column: Contra 2–3 + Conclusio + Respondeo opening. On p. 842 the *upper* block (both columns) is q4's Respondeo continuation, ending "…non se extendit constitutio Ecclesiae"; the *lower* block begins the DUBIA (see below).

**Seam verification — q4 is COMPLETE, not truncated.** q4 opens cleanly at "Quarto quaeritur…" (verified against the QUAESTIO IV header + italic title on p. 841-L). It ends at "…quia ad ipsum non se extendit constitutio Ecclesiae[^p842-8]" (p. 842-R), immediately before the centered header **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI**. Nothing of q4 bleeds toward the d.40 littera (raw L90113). No d.40 material claimed here.

**⚠ MAJOR STRUCTURAL FINDING — d.39 DUBIA are orphaned; the brief's "no dubia section" is incorrect.** The auto-chunker's `line_end: 90112` over-runs q4 by ~236 lines: it swallows **d.39's entire DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI (DUB I–V)**, printed pp. 842 (lower)–844, running head "DIST. XXXIX. DUBIA." on p. 843. These dubia are NOT part of q4 and are deliberately NOT rendered in this chunk (they need a `type: dubia` chunk of their own). There is currently **NO `bon-sent-IV-d39-dubia*` file on disk** — the dubia are unassigned to any chunk. **Coordinator action needed: create a d.39 dubia chunk (raw ≈ L89877–90112) before d.39 is considered complete.** `line_start`/`line_end` kept per instruction; `printed_pages` corrected [841,842,843,844]→[841,842] and `pdf_pages` [861..864]→[861,862] because pp. 843–844 are pure dubia.

**Footer split (page footnotes restart each page; I claim only q4's body anchors).**
- p. 841 (12 footers): **1–7 belong to a2-q3** (upper block). **q4 claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.** Footer 12's text overflows onto the p. 842 footer block ("solut. huius obiectionis…") — captured inside [^p841-12].
- p. 842 (13 footers): **q4 (Respondeo) claims 1–8.** Footers **9–13 belong to DUB I / DUB II** (the orphaned dubia) and are NOT claimed here.

**Hand-offs.** Back: shares p. 841 with **a2-q3**, which owns the p. 841 upper block through "…dispares esse non possunt[7]" and footers 1–7. Forward: the p. 842 lower block + pp. 843–844 (DUB I–V, footers p842-9 onward) are the orphaned dubia — do not attribute them to q4 or to d.40.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false` — the Art II scholion lives in a2-q1 (covers all Art II questions); footer [^p842-8] explicitly points there ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.").

**[?] flags.**
- ~~[?]~~ [^p841-9] — **RESOLVED (600dpi p.841), 2026-07-13 decade polish-blocker.** The 450 dpi band read "supra a. 1. q. **4**. fundam. 2."; the IA djvu OCR read "q. i." (= q. 1). Re-checked at 600 dpi on `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-841-r600-0861.png`, right-column footer band (crop x 2400–4959, y 0.70h–0.95h), footnote 9: Quaracchi prints **«Innocent. in praenotato C. *Gaudemus*, secutus August. supra a. 1. q. 4. fundam. 2. allegatum.»** — the numeral is an unmistakable arabic **4** (closed apex + crossbar), not a roman `i`. The rendering `q. 4.` stands; no edit needed. Flag closed.
- Marginal print-glosses trimmed from the body per CLAUDE.md (editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text): p. 841 "Solutio oppositorum" (q3's), "Duplex illegitimitas"; p. 842 "Conclusio 1.", "Ad 1. 2.", "Notand[um]". Structural headers CONCLUSIO / RESPONDEO retained.


title: Dist. 39, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 842 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *evidenter apparet, non posse contrahi matrimonium ab his qui sunt diversae fidei.* Videtur enim ex hoc, quod si aliquis vult baptizari et est fidelis, quod etiam ante baptismum contrahi possit cum illo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod fides non tantum accipitur pro *habitu credendi*, quantum accipitur pro *Sacramento fidei*; et hoc probatur per illud quod dicitur Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima[^p842-9], *Cave, Christiane*, et infra: « Si Christiana sit, non est satis, nisi ambo initiati sitis Sacramento baptismi ». Unde Hugo fuit istius opinionis, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad Sacramentum baptismi, scilicet disparitas cultus. Quamvis ergo talis fidem habeat, quia tamen non habet fidei Sacramentum; ideo non est persona ad contrahendum legitima[^p842-10].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Apostolus, ne fiat, consilio caritatis suadet.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia ex hoc videtur, quod fidelis licite possit infideli cohabitare. Sed *contra*: Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima[^p842-11], *Iudaei* etc.: « Non potest infidelis in eius permanere coniunctione, quae iam in christianam translata est fidem »; et in duobus capitulis subsequentibus idem dicitur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad hoc voluerunt aliqui distinguere, quod illud Apostoli intelligitur de *paganis*, qui ad fidem facilius convertuntur. Sed ille canon intelligitur de *Iudaeis*, qui obstinati sunt adeo, quod potius perverterent conversos, quam per ipsos proficerent[^p842-12]. — Sed cum omnes sint in malitia *nunc* obstinati, ista distinctio non habet locum nunc, sed in principio, cum tam Iudaei quam gentiles passim converterentur ad fidem et cum modico adiutorio, propter salutem coniugum concessit et consuluit Apostolus tunc cohabitare. — Sed postmodum Iudaei adeo sunt obstinati in malitia, quod potius volebant pervertere quam converti, adhuc gentilibus ad fidem intrantibus; et tunc concedebatur cohabitare *gentilibus*, non *Iudaeis*. — Nunc autem, quia utrique sunt in malitia obstinati, propter periculum corruptionis evitandum neutris conceditur cohabitare, quia semper praesumitur, nisi velint converti, quod nolint cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris[^p842-13].

<!-- page 843 -->

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quod propter quaslibet illicitas concupiscentias potest vir dimittere uxorem*; et hoc idem supra probavit. Sed in contrarium *obiicitur* Hieronymus[^p843-1]: « Si uxor peccat in animam suam, non est polluta viro suo »: ergo vir non potest eam dimittere. — Et hoc etiam videtur *ratione*: quia vir non habet potestatem *animae* uxoris, sed tantum *corporis*; sed *omne peccatum, quodcumque fecerit homo*, excepta fornicatione, *est extra corpus*[^p843-2]; alia enim peccata animam offendunt: ergo etc. — Item, per *deductionem ad inconveniens* improbatur hoc ipsum: quia, cum vix reperiantur de saecularibus personis aliqui, qui non peccent aliquando, tunc fere omnia matrimonia possent licite separari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non est concessum propter fornicationem fieri matrimonii divisionem, nisi eatenus, qua per illam fornicationem alter laeditur vel offenditur, qui est matrimonialiter copulatus.

Secundum hoc nota, quod *fornicatio* tripliciter dicitur: *proprie*, *communiter*, *communissime*. Proprie dicitur fornicatio esse peccatum circa *actum carnis*, utpote quia coit cum non sua, vel non suo. *Communiter* dicitur fornicatio in Scriptura *idololatria*, per quem modum Prophetae ipsos idololatras meretricibus fornicariis frequenter comparant, sicut patet Ieremiae secundo[^p843-3]. *Communissime* dicitur fornicatio omnis *concupiscentia inordinata*, qua offenditur Deus et relinquitur. — Prima fornicatio non potest fieri ab uxore scienter, quin fiat iniuria viro; et ideo per illam potest fieri divortium, etiam pro unico solo actu, si possit probari, etiam quantumcumque fornicans poeniteat[^p843-4]. — Secunda vero tunc est in iniuriam coniugis, quando coniux in illa perseverat, quia tunc est via ducendi ad corruptionem; et ideo per illam potest fieri separatio, si coniux nolit poenitere; si autem vult poenitere et redire, non potest repudiare eam. — Tertia fornicatio tunc est in damnum coniugis, quando dat ei occasionem scandali, ut quando non vult cum eo quiete vivere, nisi consentiat male facere; et tunc potest eam dimittere vel quantum ad torum, vel quantum ad cohabitationem, non *simpliciter*, si ambo sunt fideles[^p843-5].

Et per istum modum sunt intelligendae auctoritates ad hoc inductae. Nam propter alia genera peccatorum non potest dimittere, nec quantum ad torum nec quantum ad cohabitationem, nisi praestent magnam occasionem ruinae, et vehementer timeatur de lapsu. Tunc enim licet dimittere, sicut dicitur hic, et dicitur Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima[^p843-6], et Matthaei decimo octavo: *Si oculus tuus scandalizat te*; Glossa: « In *manu* et in *oculo dextro* possunt accipi frater, uxor et propinqui ». Alias non debet dimitti, sed debet corrigi, ut Extra, de Divortiis[^p843-7], *Quaesivit*, et infra: « Mulier pro furto vel alio crimine viri sui, nisi religionem suae fidei corrumpere velit, ab eo separari non debet ». Et sic patent obiecta.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Filii vestri, qui de hac copula nascuntur, immundi erunt* etc. Est hic quaestio, utrum natus ex patre fideli et matre infideli debeat sequi *patrem*, aut *matrem*. Et quod *matrem*, videtur, quia, sicut in praecedentibus[^p843-8] habitum est, « partus sequitur ventrem ». — Item, proles in principio « magis indiget materno solatio quam paterno[^p843-9] »: ergo magis debet relinqui matri; sed mater est Iudaea vel infidelis. — Sed *contra*: Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima[^p843-10], *Iudaei*, et infra: « Illi qui procreati sunt de infidelibus mulieribus et fidelibus viris, christianam sequantur religionem, non Iudaicam superstitionem ».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod proles aut *pervenit ad adultam* aetatem, aut *non*. Si *pervenit*; cum salus sua pendeat ex libera eius voluntate, eius est requirendus consensus; et si non vult consentire; cum iustitiam Deus nulli invito tribuat, potest cum infideli matre vel patre remanere. — Si autem *minor* est, cum salus sua sit a parentibus procuranda, qui etiam ad cultum Dei debuerunt procreare, et genuerunt filium irae; recte secundum ius vetus et etiam novum, sicut patet de Conversione infidelium[^p843-11], *Ex litteris*, debet sequi fidelem

<!-- page 844 -->

in favorem fidei et salutis illius et parvuli et boni matrimonii; nec potest mater recipere propter parvitatem, qua indigeat eius solatio, nec allegare laborem, propter periculum damnationis, quod imminet, ne ipsum detineat in infidelitatis errore. Et hoc totum probatur per illud quod habetur in praedicta decretali de Conversione infidelium, *Ex litteris*.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si ambo crediderint, per agnitionem Dei confirmatur coniugium.* Ponatur, quod primo credat unus, et alter discedat et nolit cohabitare vel fornicetur, et postea convertatur; utrum reddendus sit ei vir suus, an ille possit excipere de iniuria[^p844-1] dimissionis vel fornicationis. Et quod debeat *reddi*, videtur per litteram istam. — Item quod non possit excipere, videtur, quia in baptismo omnia sunt dimissa quoad culpam et poenam. — Sed *in contrarium* videtur littera praecedens[^p844-2]: quia « contumelia Creatoris solvit »: ergo si solutum est, videtur, quod altero nolente, non sit redintegrandum. — Item, iste fidelis statim, ut dimissus fuit, potuit contrahere: ergo statim fuit absolutus a ligamine: ergo non videtur, quod uxor possit eum repetere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si coniuges successive ad fidem veniant, si neuter alterum dimisit nec fornicationem commisit; compellendi sunt insimul cohabitare et affectione maritali se invicem tractare. — Si autem alter ab altero discesserit, refert quis: utrum *fidelis* ab *infideli*, an e converso. Si *fidelis* ab *infideli*, hoc libere potuit et sine culpa; unde in nullo sibi praeiudicatur. Si *infidelis* a fideli, potest fidelis, etiam postquam venit ad fidem, excipere, et si vult, potest eam recipere; tamen compelli non debet, quia statim est ab ea absolutus[^p844-3]. — Sed de fornicatione distinguendum, quia primo conversus aut *dedit occasionem* fornicandi, utpote quia repudiavit, aut *non*. Si *dedit*, non potest propter fornicationem excipere; si vero *non dedit*, tunc potest excipere[^p844-4].

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnia crimina dimittuntur in baptismo; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad Deum; sed non oportet, quod dimittantur, ita quod libertas proximi iniuriatur. Et sic patet illud, sicut supra[^p844-5] dictum est de poenitentia.

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says, that *it evidently appears that marriage cannot be contracted by those who are of a different faith.* For from this it seems that, if someone wishes to be baptized and is a believer, then even before baptism a marriage could be contracted with him.

**I respond:** It must be said that "faith" is taken not so much for the *habit of believing* as it is taken for the *Sacrament of faith*; and this is proved by that which is said in Cause 28, question 1[^p842-9], *Beware, Christian*, and below: « If she is a Christian, it is not enough, unless you are both initiated by the Sacrament of baptism ». Hence Hugh was of this opinion, that this is understood with respect to the Sacrament of baptism, namely disparity of worship. Although, therefore, such a person may have faith, yet because he does not have the Sacrament of faith, he is for that reason not a legitimate person for contracting [marriage][^p842-10].

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *The Apostle, that it may not happen, urges [it] by the counsel of charity.* For it seems to be said badly, since from this it seems that a believer could lawfully cohabit with an unbeliever. But *on the contrary*: Cause 28, question 1[^p842-11], *The Jews* etc.: « An unbeliever cannot remain in union with her whose faith has already been translated into the Christian [faith] »; and in the two following chapters the same is said.

**I respond:** It must be said that on this point some have wished to distinguish, [saying] that that [saying] of the Apostle is understood of the *pagans*, who are more easily converted to the faith. But that canon is understood of the *Jews*, who are so obstinate that they would rather pervert the converts than make progress through them[^p842-12]. — But since now all are obstinate in malice, that distinction has no place now, but [it had place] in the beginning, when both Jews and Gentiles were everywhere being converted to the faith and, with a little help, the Apostle then granted and counseled cohabitation for the salvation of the spouses. — But afterward the Jews are so obstinate in malice that they would rather pervert than be converted, while the Gentiles were still entering the faith; and then cohabitation was granted to the *Gentiles*, not to the *Jews*. — But now, because both are obstinate in malice, cohabitation is granted to neither, in order to avoid the danger of corruption, since it is always presumed, unless they wish to be converted, that they are unwilling to cohabit without reproach to the Creator[^p842-13].

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *That on account of any illicit lusts whatever a husband can dismiss his wife*; and he proved this same thing above. But *on the contrary* Jerome is *objected*[^p843-1]: « If a wife sins against her own soul, she is not defiled to her husband »: therefore a husband cannot dismiss her. — And this also seems [true] *by reason*: because a husband does not have power over the *soul* of his wife, but only over her *body*; but *every sin, whatever a man may commit*, except fornication, *is outside the body*[^p843-2]; for the other sins offend the soul: therefore etc. — Likewise, this very thing is disproved by *reduction to an unfitting [conclusion]*: because, since hardly any among secular persons are found who do not sin at some time, then nearly all marriages could be lawfully separated.

**I respond:** It must be said that a division of marriage is not granted on account of fornication, except to the extent that by that fornication the other party, who is joined in marriage, is harmed or offended.

According to this, note that *fornication* is spoken of in three ways: *properly*, *commonly*, *most commonly*. Properly, fornication is said to be a sin concerning the *act of the flesh*, inasmuch as one lies with one not his own, or [a woman with a man] not her own. *Commonly*, fornication is called in Scripture *idolatry*, in which manner the Prophets frequently compare the idolaters themselves to harlot fornicatresses, as is clear in Jeremiah, chapter 2[^p843-3]. *Most commonly*, fornication is called every *disordered lust*, by which God is offended and forsaken. — The first fornication cannot be done by a wife knowingly without an injury being done to the husband; and therefore through it a divorce can be made, even for a single act only, if it can be proved, however much the fornicator may repent[^p843-4]. — The second, however, is then to the injury of the spouse when the spouse perseveres in it, because then it is a way of leading to corruption; and therefore through it a separation can be made, if the spouse is unwilling to repent; but if he wishes to repent and return, he cannot repudiate her. — The third fornication is then to the harm of the spouse, when it gives him occasion of scandal, as when she does not wish to live peacefully with him unless he consents to do evil; and then he can dismiss her either with respect to the bed, or with respect to cohabitation, [but] not *absolutely*, if both are believers[^p843-5].

And in this manner the authorities adduced for this are to be understood. For on account of other kinds of sins he cannot dismiss [her], neither with respect to the bed nor with respect to cohabitation, unless they present a great occasion of ruin and it is vehemently feared concerning a fall. For then it is permitted to dismiss, as is said here, and as is said in Cause 28, question 1[^p843-6], and in Matthew 18: *If your eye scandalizes you*; the Gloss: « By the *hand* and by the *right eye* can be understood a brother, a wife, and kinfolk ». Otherwise she ought not to be dismissed, but ought to be corrected, as in the *Extra*, on Divorces[^p843-7], *Quaesivit*, and below: « A woman ought not to be separated from her husband on account of theft or another crime of his, unless he wishes to corrupt the religion of her faith ». And thus the objections are made clear.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Your children, who are born from this union, will be unclean* etc. Here there is a question, whether one born of a believing father and an unbelieving mother ought to follow the *father* or the *mother*. And that [he ought to follow] the *mother* seems [right], because, as was held in the preceding [passages][^p843-8], « the offspring follows the womb ». — Likewise, offspring in the beginning « needs the maternal solace more than the paternal[^p843-9] »: therefore he ought rather to be left to the mother; but the mother is a Jew or an unbeliever. — But *on the contrary*: Cause 28, question 1[^p843-10], *The Jews*, and below: « Those who are begotten of unbelieving women and believing men should follow the Christian religion, not the Jewish superstition ».

**I respond:** It must be said that the offspring either *reaches adult* age, or *not*. If he *reaches [it]*; since his salvation depends on his own free will, his consent must be sought; and if he does not wish to consent, since God grants justice to no one against his will, he can remain with the unbelieving mother or father. — But if he is a *minor*, since his salvation must be procured by the parents, who also were obliged to beget for the worship of God, and [instead] begot a child of wrath; rightly, according to both the old law and the new, as is clear in [the title] on the Conversion of unbelievers[^p843-11], *Ex litteris*, he ought to follow the believer

in favor of the faith and salvation of that one and of the little child and of the good of the marriage; nor can the mother take him back on account of his smallness, [claiming] that he needs her solace, nor can she allege labor, on account of the danger of damnation which threatens, lest she keep him in the error of unbelief. And all this is proved by that which is contained in the aforesaid decretal on the Conversion of unbelievers, *Ex litteris*.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *If both have believed, the marriage is confirmed through the acknowledgment of God.* Let it be supposed that first one believes, and the other departs and is unwilling to cohabit or fornicates, and afterward is converted; whether the husband must be restored to her, or whether he can plead exception on account of the injury[^p844-1] of the dismissal or of the fornication. And that he ought to be *restored* seems [right] from this text. — Likewise, that he cannot plead exception seems [right], because in baptism all things are remitted as to guilt and penalty. — But *on the contrary* the preceding text seems [to speak][^p844-2]: because « the reproach of the Creator dissolves [the bond] »: therefore if it has been dissolved, it seems that, the other being unwilling, it ought not to be reintegrated. — Likewise, this believer, as soon as he was dismissed, was able to contract [marriage]: therefore he was at once absolved from the bond: therefore it does not seem that the wife can reclaim him.

**I respond:** It must be said that if the spouses come to the faith successively, if neither dismissed the other nor committed fornication, they are to be compelled to cohabit together and to treat one another with marital affection. — But if one has departed from the other, it matters who: whether a *believer* [departed] from an *unbeliever*, or the reverse. If a *believer* [departed] from an *unbeliever*, this he was able [to do] freely and without fault; hence in no way is he prejudiced. If an *unbeliever* [departed] from a believer, the believer can, even after he has come to the faith, plead exception, and if he wishes, he can take her back; yet he ought not to be compelled, because he is at once absolved from her[^p844-3]. — But concerning the fornication a distinction must be made, because the one first converted either *gave occasion* for the fornicating, inasmuch as he repudiated [her], or *not*. If he *gave* [it], he cannot plead exception on account of the fornication; but if he *did not give* [it], then he can plead exception[^p844-4].

To that which is objected, that all crimes are remitted in baptism, it must be said that it is true with respect to God; but it is not necessary that they be remitted in such a way that the freedom of a neighbor is injured. And thus that is made clear, as was said above[^p844-5] concerning penance.

---

la: Principium huius canonis (15.) non pauci codd. exhibent sic: *Cave aeque, Christiane.* — De opinione Hug. cfr. eius Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 8. et II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 13.

en: The beginning of this canon (15) not a few codices give thus: *Cave aeque, Christiane* (Beware likewise, Christian). — On Hugh's opinion cf. his *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 7, c. 8, and *De Sacramentis* II, p. XI, c. 13.

la: Codd. N aa non bene addunt *matrimonia.* — Idem dub. solvitur a Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Codices N and aa wrongly add *matrimonia*. — The same doubt is resolved by Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

en: Canon 10.

la: Cod. U *converterentur.* Pro *perverterent* cod. M *averterent*, edd. *converterent*, quae etiam inferius pro *in principio* substituunt *in primitiva Ecclesia.*

en: Codex U [reads] *converterentur*. For *perverterent* codex M [has] *averterent*, the editions *converterent*, which also below substitute for *in principio* [the reading] *in primitiva Ecclesia*.

la: Edd. cohabitare *sine contumelia Creatoris, quia semper...* *quod velint cohabitare in contumeliam Creatoris.*

en: The editions [read] *cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris, quia semper...* [and] *quod velint cohabitare in contumeliam Creatoris* (that they are willing to cohabit to the reproach of the Creator).

la: Comment. in I. Cor. 6, 18. (inter opera Hieron.): Unde si aliquis ipsorum (coniugum) fuerit fornicatus, peccat in alium quasi in proprium corpus. Residua autem peccata specialia uniuscuiusque sunt nec alterum condemnant. Cfr. supra pag. 782, nota 2.

en: *Commentary on I Cor.* 6:18 (among the works of Jerome): Hence if either of them (the spouses) has committed fornication, he sins against the other as against his own body. But the remaining sins are proper to each one and do not condemn the other. Cf. above, p. 782, note 2.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 6, 18. — In praeced. propos. respicitur I. Cor. 7, 4. — Inferius pro *aliqui, qui* Vat. *aliquae, quae.*

en: *Epistle*, I Cor. 6:18. — In the preceding proposition reference is made to I Cor. 7:4. — Below, for *aliqui, qui* the Vatican [edition reads] *aliquae, quae*.

la: Vers. 20. seqq. Cfr. Hieron., I. in Osee 4, 10. seqq.: Fornicationem autem idololatriam nominat iuxta illud quod in Ieremia [3, 6. seqq.] legimus etc. (Vat. allegat I. Paralip. 5, 25.) — De seq. propos. cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. seq.

en: Verse 20 ff. Cf. Jerome, book I on Hosea 4:10 ff.: But he names idolatry "fornication" according to that which we read in Jeremiah [3:6 ff.], etc. (The Vatican [edition] cites I Chron. 5:25.) — On the following proposition cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3 f.

la: Vide supra d. 35. q. 1. seqq. — Inferius pro *per illam* cod. L *propter illam.*

en: See above, d. 35, q. 1 ff. — Below, for *per illam* codex L [reads] *propter illam*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. et 3. — Superius vocibus *fornicatio tunc* ex cod. aa praemisimus *Tertia.*

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1 and 3. — Above, before the words *fornicatio tunc* we have prefixed *Tertia* from codex aa.

la: Can. *Idololatria* (5.). — Seq. locus est Matth. 18, 9. Glossa invenitur apud Hieron. in Matth. 5, 29, ubi eadem Christi verba habentur: In dextero oculo et in dextera manu fratrum, uxorum et liberorum atque affinium et propinquorum monstratur affectus etc.

en: Canon *Idololatria* (5). — The following passage is Matt. 18:9. The Gloss is found in Jerome on Matt. 5:29, where the same words of Christ are given: In the right eye and in the right hand is shown the affection of brothers, wives, and children and kindred and relatives, etc.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 2. — Idem dubium solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic a. 6; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 2-4. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Book IV, tit. 19, c. 2. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 8; St. Thomas, here a. 6; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 2–4 and on the text; Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

en: Distinction 36, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Ut dicitur C. *Ex litteris tuis* supra pag. 678, nota 3. et infra nota 11. allegato, suntque verba matris iudaeae.

en: As is said in the canon *Ex litteris tuis*, cited above p. 678, note 3, and below note 11; and they are the words of the Jewish mother.

la: Libr. III. tit. 33. c. 2. — Ex cit. canone post *salutis* supplevimus *illius*, quod male deest in edd. et codd., licet habeant *et*. Inferius pro *ne ipsum* edd. *si ipsum.*

en: Book III, tit. 33, c. 2. — From the cited canon, after *salutis* we have supplied *illius*, which is wrongly lacking in the editions and codices, although they have *et*. Below, for *ne ipsum* the editions [read] *si ipsum*.

la: Codd. F G L *iniuriam*, alii *iniuria*, omisso *de.*

en: Codices F, G, L [read] *iniuriam*, others *iniuria*, with *de* omitted.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Inferius post *nolente* (codd. I M O *volente*) edd. omittunt *non.*

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 5. — Below, after *nolente* (codices I, M, O *volente*) the editions omit *non*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Codd. R S *absolvitur.*

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — Codices R, S [read] *absolvitur*.

la: Vide supra d. 35. dub. 1.

en: See above, d. 35, dub. 1.

la: Dist. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 4. — Pro *iniuriatur* cod. U *impediatur*, plures alii codd. *minuatur.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Distinction 15, p. II, a. 2, q. 4. — For *iniuriatur* codex U [reads] *impediatur*, several other codices *minuatur*. — Cf. on this doubt Hugh of St. Victor, *De Sacramentis* II, p. XI, c. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page-bands for printed pages 842–844 (pdf 862–864; offset pdf = printed + 20), per the VOL II OVERRIDE. Raw OCR range L89884–L90112 used only as a locating reference; the cascade-shattered two-column OCR (and the OCR-garbled DUBIA header, "DUBIA CmCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI") was not trusted for running prose or footers. This distinction is a single-pars *De dispari cultu*; the dubia are its final part.

**Dubia count.** Five dubia: **Dub. I–V** (headers verified on the bands — Dub. I–II on p. 842, Dub. III on p. 843, Dub. IV spanning p. 843→844, Dub. V on p. 844). No Dub. VI exists.

**Seam verification (d.39→d.40).** The last dubium, **Dub. V, is complete**: its Respondeo ends "...sicut supra dictum est de poenitentia." at the foot of the right column of p. 844. Immediately below it the full-width header **DISTINCTIO XL.** begins, and the lower half of p. 844 already prints d. 40's *littera Magistri* (left column: **Cap. I. *De cognatione carnali***; right column: **Cap. II. *De computatione graduum consanguinitatis***). None of that d. 40 material is claimed here.

**Reading order.** On p. 842 the dubia begin below a full-width *DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* header (the preceding a. 2 q. 4 fills both columns above it). Dubia body then reads left column then right column on each page. Editorial marginal locators (*Conclusio, Distinctio, Ad auctoritates, Notandum, Solutio, De 1./2. casu, Casus, Gregorius, Nicolaus, Isidorus, Dubium 1*, etc.) were trimmed as marginalia, not Bonaventure's text.

**Apparatus (21 entries), page-split.**
- **p. 842 — 5 entries (notes 9–13):** notes 9–10 anchor in Dub. I, notes 11–13 in Dub. II. (Notes 1–8 of p. 842 anchor in the preceding a. 2 q. 4 and are that chunk's; the note texts sit in the two-column footers — L footer 1–6, R footer 7–13.)
- **p. 843 — 11 entries (notes 1–11):** notes 1–5 (L footer) anchor in Dub. III; notes 6–7 (R footer) anchor in Dub. III; notes 8–11 (R footer) anchor in Dub. IV.
- **p. 844 — 5 entries (notes 1–5, L footer):** all anchor in Dub. V. The p. 844 **R footer *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* (notes 1–3)** belongs to the d. 40 littera and is **not** claimed.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* a. 2 q. 4 forwarded p. 842 footer notes 9–13; claimed here (all anchor in Dub. I–II body). Confirmed notes 1–8 of p. 842 belong to a. 2 q. 4.
- *Forwarded:* the p. 844 tail carries d. 40's *littera* (Cap. I–II) and its *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM*; **not** claimed here — reserved for the d. 40 littera chunk.

**[?] flags.** None. All five dubia and all 21 claimed footer notes were legible on the regenerated wide bands (L split 2120, R split 1650/1780).


title: Dist. 40

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XL

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

source_text:
<!-- page 844 -->

### Cap. I. *De cognatione carnali.*

Nunc superest aliquid de cognatione dicere. Est autem cognatio alia *carnalis*, et alia *spiritualis*. Primum de carnali cognatione et affinitate inspiciamus. Cognati igitur vel affines in septimo gradu vel infra copulari non debent. Unde Gregorius[^p844-1]: « Progeniem suam unumquemque usque ad septimam decernimus observare generationem; et quamdiu se agnoscunt affinitate propinquos, ad coniugalem copulam accedere denegamus; quod si fecerint, separentur ». Item, Nicolaus Papa[^p844-2]: « De consanguinitate sua nullus uxorem ducat usque post generationem septimam, vel quousque parentela cognosci potest ». Item: « Nulli ex propinquitate sui sanguinis usque ad septimum gradum uxores ducant ». — His auctoritatibus aliisque pluribus consanguineorum coniunctiones prohibentur usque ad septimum gradum.

### Cap. II. *De computatione graduum consanguinitatis.*

Quomodo autem gradus consanguinitatis computandi sint, Isidorus[^p844-3] ostendit sic: « Series consanguinitatis sex gradibus dirimitur, hoc modo: filius et filia, quod est frater et soror, sit ipse truncus. Illis seorsum seiunctis, ex radice illius trunci egrediuntur isti ramusculi: nepos et neptis, primus; pronepos et proneptis, secundus; abnepos et abneptis, tertius; adnepos et adneptis, quartus; trinepos et trineptis, quintus; trinepotis nepos et trineptis neptis, sextus ». Attende, quod sex gradus tantum ponit Isidorus, quia *truncum* inter gradus non computat. — Alii vero, qui septem ponunt gradus, *truncum* inter gradus computant. « Varie namque computantur gradus cognationis. Alii enim patrem in primo gradu, filios in secundo ponunt. Alii primum gradum filios appellant, negantes, gradum cognationis inter patrem et filium esse, cum una caro sint pater et filius.

<!-- page 845 -->

Auctoritates ergo, quae consanguinitatis cautelam usque in septimum gradum prohibent, patrem ponunt in primo gradu; illae vero, quae usque ad sextum gradum prohibent, primum gradum filios appellant. Atque ita fit, ut eaedem personae secundum hanc diversitatem inveniantur in sexto et septimo gradu[^p845-1] ». Patrem vero in primo gradu ponit qui fratres dicit esse secundum gradum. Hoc modo computat Zacharias Papa[^p845-2] inquiens: « Parentelae gradus taliter computamus: ego et frater meus una generatio sumus primumque gradum efficimus. *Rursus*, filius meus et fratris mei filius secunda generatio sunt et gradum secundum faciunt, atque ad hunc modum ceterae successiones ». « Inter illos vero, qui sex computant gradus, et illos qui septem computant gradus, nulla in sensu existit diversitas, quamvis in numero graduum varietas videatur. Ultima enim generatio, si a fratribus sumat initium numerandi, septima invenitur ».

### Cap. III. *Quare septem gradus computantur.*

Quare vero sex computet Isidorus, ipse aperit dicens[^p845-3]: « Consanguinitas dum se paulatim propaginum ordinibus dirimens usque ad ultimum gradum protraxerit et propinquitas esse desierit; tunc primum lex in matrimonii vinculum eam recipiet et quodam modo incipiet revocare fugientem. Ideo autem usque ad sextum generis gradum consanguinitas constituta est, ut, sicut sex aetatibus mundi generatio et hominis status finitur, ita propinquitas generis tot gradibus terminetur ». In his sex gradibus omnia propinquitatum nomina continentur, ultra quos nec affinitas inveniri, nec successio potest amplius prorogari. Secundum alios, septem gradus ideo computantur, ut ita post septem gradus sponsus sponsae iungatur, sicut post hanc vitam, quae septem diebus agitur, Ecclesia Christo iungetur.

### Cap. IV. *De dispensatione Gregorii habita ad Anglicos.*

His autem occurrit illud, quod Gregorius[^p845-4] Augustino, Anglorum Episcopo, a quo requisitus fuerat, quota generatione debeant copulari, rescribit sic: « Quaedam lex Romana permittit, ut sive fratris vel sororis, seu duorum fratrum germanorum seu duarum sororum filius et filia misceantur. Sed experimento didicimus, ex tali coniugio sobolem non posse succrescere. Unde necesse est, ut quarta vel quinta generatio fidelium licenter sibi coniungantur ». Sed post multum temporis idem Gregorius a Felice, Messinae Siciliae praesule, requisitus, utrum Augustino scripserit, ut Anglorum quarta generatione contracta matrimonia non solverentur, inter cetera talem reddidit rationem: « Quod scripsi Augustino, Anglorum Episcopo, ipsi etiam Anglorum genti, quae nuper ad fidem venerat, ne a bono, quod coeperat, metuendo austeriora recederet, specialiter et non generaliter me cognoscas scripsisse. Nec ideo haec eis scripsi, ut, postquam in fide fuerint solidati, si infra propriam consanguinitatem inventi fuerint, non separentur, aut infra affinitatis lineam, id est usque ad septimam generationem iungantur ».

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. They are Quaracchi's *Notae ad Librum Sententiarum* — the editors' apparatus to the Master's own text. Quaracchi restarts the numbering on each printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified (p844-1, p845-1, …).

---

english:
### Chap. I. *On carnal kinship.*

It now remains to say something about kinship. Now one kinship is *carnal*, and another *spiritual*. Let us first look at carnal kinship and affinity. Kinsfolk, then, or persons related by affinity within the seventh degree or nearer ought not to be joined in marriage. Whence Gregory[^p844-1]: « We decree that each one is to observe his own lineage as far as the seventh generation; and as long as they acknowledge themselves to be near of kin by affinity, we deny them access to the marriage bond; and if they shall have done it, let them be separated ». Likewise, Pope Nicholas[^p844-2]: « Let no one take a wife from among his own blood-relations until after the seventh generation, or as long as the kindred can be known ». Likewise: « Let no one take a wife from the nearness of his own blood within the seventh degree ». — By these authorities and by many others the unions of blood-relations are forbidden as far as the seventh degree.

### Chap. II. *On the reckoning of the degrees of consanguinity.*

But in what way the degrees of consanguinity are to be reckoned, Isidore[^p844-3] shows thus: « The series of consanguinity is divided out into six degrees, in this manner: let the son and the daughter, that is to say the brother and the sister, be themselves the trunk. When these are set apart by themselves, from the root of that trunk there go forth these little branches: grandson and granddaughter, the first; great-grandson and great-granddaughter, the second; great-great-grandson and great-great-granddaughter, the third; the son and daughter of these, the fourth; the third-grandson and third-granddaughter, the fifth; the grandson of the third-grandson and the granddaughter of the third-granddaughter, the sixth ». Note that Isidore posits only six degrees, because he does not reckon the *trunk* among the degrees. — Others, however, who posit seven degrees, do reckon the *trunk* among the degrees. « For the degrees of kinship are variously reckoned. For some place the father in the first degree, the sons in the second. Others call the sons the first degree, denying that there is a degree of kinship between father and son, since father and son are one flesh.

Therefore the authorities which forbid the observance of consanguinity as far as the seventh degree place the father in the first degree; but those which forbid it as far as the sixth degree call the sons the first degree. And so it comes about that, according to this diversity, the same persons are found in the sixth and in the seventh degree[^p845-1] ». But he places the father in the first degree who says that brothers are the second degree. In this way Pope Zacharias[^p845-2] reckons, saying: « We reckon the degrees of kindred thus: I and my brother are one generation and make up the first degree. *Again*, my son and my brother's son are the second generation and make the second degree, and in this manner the remaining successions ». « But between those who reckon six degrees and those who reckon seven degrees there exists no diversity in sense, although a variety appears in the number of the degrees. For the last generation, if it takes the beginning of the numbering from the brothers, is found to be the seventh ».

### Chap. III. *Why seven degrees are reckoned.*

But why Isidore reckons six, he himself discloses, saying[^p845-3]: « When consanguinity, dividing itself out little by little through the ranks of the offshoots, shall have drawn itself out to the last degree and shall have ceased to be nearness of kin; then for the first time the law will receive it into the bond of matrimony and will in a certain way begin to call back the one who is fleeing away. And consanguinity has been established as far as the sixth degree of the stock for this reason: that, just as generation and the state of man is brought to an end in the six ages of the world, so the nearness of the stock may be terminated in as many degrees ». In these six degrees all the names of the relationships are contained, beyond which neither affinity can be found, nor can the succession be prolonged any further. According to others, seven degrees are reckoned for this reason: that so, after seven degrees, the bridegroom may be joined to the bride, just as after this life, which is passed in seven days, the Church will be joined to Christ.

### Chap. IV. *On the dispensation granted by Gregory to the English.*

But against these things there arises that which Gregory[^p845-4] writes back to Augustine, Bishop of the English, by whom he had been asked in what generation they might be joined in marriage; and he writes thus: « A certain Roman law permits that the son and the daughter either of a brother or of a sister, or of two full brothers or of two sisters, be joined together. But we have learned by experience that from such a marriage offspring cannot grow up. Whence it is necessary that the fourth or the fifth generation of the faithful be lawfully joined to one another ». But after a long time the same Gregory, being asked by Felix, bishop of Messina in Sicily, whether he had written to Augustine that marriages contracted by the English in the fourth generation should not be dissolved, gave among other things this account: « Know that what I wrote to Augustine, Bishop of the English, I wrote specially and not generally — for the English people themselves, who had lately come to the faith, lest, in dread of things too austere, they should fall back from the good which they had begun. Nor did I write these things to them for this purpose, that after they shall have been made solid in the faith, if they be found within their own consanguinity, they should not be separated, or that they should be joined within the line of affinity, that is, up to the seventh generation ».

---

la: Libr. XIV. Regest. indict. 7. epist. 17. (alias 32.) ad Felicem episc., sed verbotenus in C. *Progeniem* (16.), C. 35. q. 2. Cfr. C. *Non debet* (8), X. de Consanguinitate et affin. (IV. tit. 14.).

en: Book XIV of the *Register*, indiction 7, letter 17 (elsewhere 32), to Bishop Felix; but word for word in the canon *Progeniem* (16), Causa 35, q. 2. Compare the canon *Non debet* (8), in the *Decretals*, On consanguinity and affinity (Book IV, tit. 14).

la: Can. *De consanguinitate* (17.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. *Nulli* (19.), ibid.: cfr. Gratian. super eundem can.

en: The canon *De consanguinitate* (17), in the same place. The following passage is the canon *Nulli* (19), in the same place: compare Gratian on the same canon.

la: Excerptum ex IX. Etymolog. c. 5; C. *Series* (1.), ibid. q. 5. — Pro *ramusculi* codd. D E et plurimae edd. *ramunculi*.

en: Excerpted from the *Etymologies* IX, c. 5; the canon *Series* (1), in the same place, q. 5. — For *ramusculi* codices D E and most editions read *ramunculi*.

la: Gratian. super C. *Contradicimus* (21.), ibid. q. 2. — Pro *gradus cognationis* codd. C D et plurimae edd. *gradus consanguinitatis*, refragante etiam Gratiano.

en: Gratian on the canon *Contradicimus* (21), in the same place, q. 2. — For *gradus cognationis* codices C D and most editions read *gradus consanguinitatis*, although Gratian too speaks against it.

la: Can. *Parentelae* (4.), ibid. q. 5. — Post *successiones* ed. 7 ex canone addit *numerandae sunt*. — Seq. locus est C. *Ad sedem* (2.), ibid. § 10.

en: The canon *Parentelae* (4), in the same place, q. 5. — After *successiones* edition 7 adds, from the canon, *numerandae sunt*. — The following passage is the canon *Ad sedem* (2), in the same place, § 10.

la: Loc. cit. c. 6. n. 29; C. *Consanguinitas* (1.), C. 35. q. 4. — Cfr. August., XV. de Civ. Dei, c. 16. — Infra pro *prorogari*, quod habent codd. (etiam Erf.) et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9, ed. 1 *prolongari*, ceterae *propagari*.

en: The place cited, c. 6, n. 29; the canon *Consanguinitas* (1), Causa 35, q. 4. — Compare Augustine, *City of God* XV, c. 16. — Below, in place of *prorogari*, which the codices (including the Erfurt one) and editions 4, 5, 6, 9 have, edition 1 reads *prolongari*, the rest *propagari*.

la: Libr. XI. Regest., indict. 4, epist. 64. (alias 31.), 6. interrogatio; C. *Quaedam lex* (20.), ibid. q. 2. Seq. locus est ibid. et in can. § 1.

en: Book XI of the *Register*, indiction 4, letter 64 (elsewhere 31), the 6th interrogation; the canon *Quaedam lex* (20), in the same place, q. 2. The following passage is in the same place and in the canon, § 1. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p844-{L,R}-*`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p845-{L,R}-*`), with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L90113–L90203) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The left-column split had to be widened (`colcrop.py vol4 844 2120`) to avoid clipping; p.845's right-column footer needed a narrower split (`colcrop.py vol4 845 1620`) because the footer block extends left of the body-column edge.

**Page verification.** The printed-page estimate (844–845) is CORRECT and was not changed. Running heads verified from the bands: the DISTINCTIO XL header + Cap. I open in the lower half of p.844 (d.39's dubia tail occupies the upper half of both columns); p.845 carries the running head `DIST. XL. DIVISIO TEXTUS.` (left) and the folio number `845` (right). `printed_pages: [844, 845]` / `pdf_pages: [864, 865]` (offset +20) confirmed.

**Page-split / footer crosswalk.**
- **p.844, left column footer (notes 1–5)** — these are *Bonaventure's* apparatus (`Codd. FGL iniuriam…`, `Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5.`, `Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. seqq.`, `Vide supra d. 35. dub. 1.`, `Dist. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 4.…`). They anchor in the **d.39 dubia** body printed above them, NOT in this littera. **NOT claimed here** — they belong to the d.39 dubia chunk.
- **p.844, right column footer, under the heading `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` (notes 1–3)** — the Master's-text apparatus. All three anchor in this littera (Gregorius¹, Nicolaus Papa², Isidorus³). **Claimed here** as `[^p844-1]`–`[^p844-3]`.
- **p.845, footer (notes 1–4, both columns; no separate `NOTAE` heading — the whole footer is a continuation of the Master's-text apparatus)** — all four anchor in this littera (Gratian's `…in sexto et septimo gradu¹»`, Zacharias Papa², Isidore's `dicens³`, Gregorius⁴). **Claimed here** as `[^p845-1]`–`[^p845-4]`.

**Hand-off to `d40-divisio`.** The COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XL / *De impedimento consanguinitatis* / DIVISIO TEXTUS begins in the lower half of p.845 (raw L90204) and carries **no footnote anchors on p.845** — the entire p.845 footer is the Master's apparatus and is claimed here. So **no footers are handed off** to `d40-divisio` from p.845; the divisio chunk's first apparatus entries begin on p.846. The divisio chunk should still open with the shared page-break comment `<!-- page 845 -->`.

**OCR garbles silently corrected** (bands authoritative): `C. Non debet (S)` → `(8)`; `Isidorus '` → marker 3; `Rursits^` → *Rursus*,; `truncusIllis` → `truncus. Illis`; `ZnwzcMm` → *truncum*; `compntal` → `computat`; the OCR's `Alia cai / latii / Gratiaa / Dubinm` fragments are marginal glosses (*Alia computatio.*, *Gratianus.*, *Dubium 2.*, etc.) and were trimmed per the corpus convention (marginalia are editorial, not Lombard's text).

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every reading in the body and in all 7 apparatus entries was confirmed eyes-on against the 450 dpi bands.