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

source_text:
<!-- page 733 -->

### Articulus II. *De obligatione coniugum per comparationem ad accidens superveniens.*

Consequenter, quantum ad secundum articulum, quaeritur de obligatione coniugum quantum ad accidens superveniens. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. *Primo* quaeritur, utrum oporteat debitum reddere, si alter fiat leprosus. *Secundo*, utrum quis teneatur debitum reddere, si alter fiat fornicarius, vel e converso.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum oporteat coniugi debitum reddere, si alter fiat leprosus.*

Et quod leproso coniugi oporteat debitum reddere, videtur:

1. Quia dicit decretalis, de Coniugio leprosorum[^p733-8]: «Uxores viros, et viri uxores sequantur et eis coniugali affectione ministrent».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia matrimonium est vinculum insolubile, ergo non solvitur per infirmitatem: ergo manet potestas petendi, etiam superveniente lepra: ergo si *mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis*[^p733-9], et sic etc.

3. Item, leprosi, si tentantur de fornicatione, ergo possunt et debent habere remedium: ergo si iste qui habet uxorem, remedium non potest habere, nisi ipsa reddat debitum[^p733-10]; videtur etc.

<!-- page 734 -->

4. Item, leprosi, eo ipso quod leprosi, non tenentur ad continentiam nec possunt cogi: ergo necesse est, uxores eorum eis reddi.

**Contra:**

1. Levitici decimo tertio[^p734-1] praecipitur, ut leprosi extra communionem sanorum eiiciantur: ergo cum uxor est sana, debet per Legem sequestrari ab uxore.

2. Item, lepra est morbus contagiosus, ergo morbus, quem licet homini fugere: ergo mulier cum viro leproso non tenetur cohabitare, et si hoc: ergo nec debitum reddere.

3. Item, lepra est morbus hereditarius[^p734-2], ergo transmittitur ad prolem: ergo cum coitus, qui est causa deformitatis in prole, sit contra bonum prolis, et talis sit prohibitus: ergo nullo modo licebit mulieri coire cum leproso, aut e converso.

4. Item, sicut lepra reddit inhabilem ad ordinis susceptionem, ita reddit inhabilem ad ordinis suscepti administrationem: ergo sicut reddit inhabilem ad matrimonii contractionem post sponsalia, quia solvit sponsalia[^p734-3]; ita videtur, quod reddat inhabilem ad debiti solutionem.

> **Conclusio.** Coniux leprosus habet ius petendi debitum, sed sanus cogi non potest, ut omnino cohabitet.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis lepra solvat sponsalia, tamen non potest solvere matrimonium; et ideo, cum aliquis efficitur leprosus, et coniux est et leprosus; et[^p734-4] quia coniux est, habet ius petendi debitum et reddendi; quia vero leprosus, debet extra sanos habitare: ita dico, quod mulier petenti debitum potest solvere, sed tamen non habet necesse cohabitare omnino. Unde quod dicitur, quod «viri uxores sequantur et administrent», dicitur per modum *admonitionis*, non praecepti; nec cogi potest sanus ad aliud, quam ut reddat debitum infirmo[^p734-5], et hoc propter periculum fornicationis. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes probantes, quod debeat solvere debitum.

**Ad oppositum:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad rationes duas ad oppositum patet responsio: quia non sequitur, si non tenetur *cohabitare*, quod nec *debitum solvere*.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de prole, dicendum, quod secus est in *menstruatis* et *leprosis*. Nam *menstruatae* alio tempore possunt bonam prolem procreare, sed *leprosi* non possunt nec omnino faciunt contra[^p734-6], quia, quantum in se est, libenter generarent sanum; attamen proli generatae melius est sic esse quam omnino non esse.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de irregularitate, dicendum quod non est simile: quia utraque est congruitatis, scilicet quod ordinem suscipiat[^p734-7] et quod in ordine suscepto administret. Sed matrimonium *contrahere* hoc libertatis est, sed *ius reddere* hoc necessitatis est propter insolubilitatem vinculi. Et sic patet illud quod obiicit[^p734-8].

---

english:
<!-- page 733 -->

### Article II. *On the obligation of spouses in comparison with a supervening accident.*

Next, with respect to the second article, it is asked concerning the obligation of spouses as regards a supervening accident. And concerning this two questions are asked. *First* it is asked whether one must render the debt if the other becomes a leper. *Secondly*, whether one is bound to render the debt if the other becomes a fornicator, or vice versa.

### Question I. *Whether one must render the debt to a spouse if the other becomes a leper.*

And that one must render the debt to a leprous spouse, it seems:

1. Because the decretal, On the Marriage of Lepers[^p733-8], says: «Let wives follow their husbands, and husbands their wives, and minister to them with conjugal affection».

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because marriage is an insoluble bond, therefore it is not dissolved by an infirmity: therefore the power of demanding remains, even when leprosy supervenes: therefore if *the woman does not have power over her own body*[^p733-9], and so forth.

3. Likewise, lepers, if they are tempted to fornication, therefore can and ought to have a remedy: therefore if this man who has a wife cannot have a remedy unless she render the debt[^p733-10]; it seems so, etc.

<!-- page 734 -->

4. Likewise, lepers, by the very fact that they are lepers, are not bound to continence nor can they be compelled [to it]: therefore it is necessary that their wives be rendered to them.

**On the contrary:**

1. In Leviticus, chapter thirteen[^p734-1], it is commanded that lepers be cast out from the fellowship of the healthy: therefore, when the wife is healthy, [the leper] must by the Law be separated from the wife.

2. Likewise, leprosy is a contagious disease, therefore a disease which a person is permitted to flee: therefore a woman is not bound to cohabit with a leprous husband, and if this [is so]: therefore neither [is she bound] to render the debt.

3. Likewise, leprosy is a hereditary disease[^p734-2], therefore it is transmitted to the offspring: therefore, since coitus, which is the cause of deformity in the offspring, is against the good of offspring, and such [coitus] is forbidden: therefore in no way will it be lawful for a woman to have intercourse with a leper, or vice versa.

4. Likewise, just as leprosy renders one unfit for the reception of orders, so it renders one unfit for the administration of an order received: therefore, just as it renders one unfit for the contracting of marriage after betrothal, because it dissolves the betrothal[^p734-3]; so it seems that it renders one unfit for the rendering of the debt.

> **Conclusion.** A leprous spouse has the right of demanding the debt, but the healthy one cannot be compelled to cohabit wholly.

**I respond:** It must be said that, although leprosy dissolves a betrothal, nevertheless it cannot dissolve a marriage; and therefore, when someone becomes leprous, he is both a spouse and a leper; and[^p734-4] because he is a spouse, he has the right of demanding and of rendering the debt; but because he is a leper, he must dwell apart from the healthy: thus I say that the woman can render [the debt] to the one who demands it, but nevertheless is not obliged to cohabit wholly. Hence, as to what is said, that «husbands should follow their wives and minister to them», it is said by way of *admonition*, not of precept; nor can the healthy one be compelled to anything other than to render the debt to the infirm[^p734-5], and this on account of the danger of fornication. — And thus the reasons proving that he ought to render the debt are to be granted.

**To the contrary [arguments]:**

*To 1 and 2.* To the two reasons to the contrary the response is clear: because it does not follow, if one is not bound *to cohabit*, that neither [is one bound] *to render the debt*.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning offspring, it must be said that it is otherwise in *menstruating women* and in *lepers*. For *menstruating women* can at another time procreate good offspring, but *lepers* cannot, nor do they at all act against [the good of offspring][^p734-6], because, as far as in them lies, they would gladly beget a healthy [child]; yet for the offspring already begotten it is better to be thus than not to be at all.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning irregularity, it must be said that it is not similar: because both belong to fittingness, namely that one receive an order[^p734-7] and that one administer in the order received. But to *contract* marriage is a matter of liberty, whereas to *render the right* [of the debt] is a matter of necessity, on account of the insolubility of the bond. And thus is clear that which he objects[^p734-8].

---

la: Extra lib. IV. tit. 8. C. *Pervenit ad nos* (1.). Textus originalis post *et viri uxores* addit *qui leprae morbum incurrunt*.

en: *Decretals* (Extra), Book IV, tit. 8, ch. *Pervenit ad nos* (1.). The original text, after *et viri uxores* ("and husbands their wives"), adds *qui leprae morbum incurrunt* ("who contract the disease of leprosy").

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 7, 4. — Cfr. de hoc arg. C. *Quoniam nemini licet* (2.), X. de Coniugio leprosorum (lib. IV. tit. 8.). Pro *ergo si* permulti codd. perperam *ergo similiter*.

en: [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Cor. 7:4. — Cf. on this argument the chapter *Quoniam nemini licet* (2.), in the *Decretals* (X.), On the Marriage of Lepers (Book IV, tit. 8). For *ergo si* ("therefore if") very many codices wrongly [read] *ergo similiter* ("therefore likewise").

la: Cfr. 1. Cor. 7, 2. seq. — Superius pro *si tentantur* cod. P saepe *tentantur*, codd. F G omittunt primum *ergo*.

en: Cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 f. — Above, for *si tentantur* ("if they are tempted") codex P often [reads] *tentantur*, codices F, G omit the first *ergo* ("therefore").

la: Vers. 3. seqq. — In fine arg. pro *uxore* cod. bb *viro* (in nostra lectione supple: *leprosus*).

en: [Lev. 13,] verse 3 ff. — At the end of the argument, for *uxore* ("wife") codex bb [reads] *viro* ("husband") (in our reading supply: *leprosus*, "the leper").

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 763, nota 3. verba Avicennae. — Inferius post *prohibitus* edd. rationem indicant allegantes infra a. 3. q. 1, ubi de menstruatis, ad quas in solut. huius obiect. respicitur.

en: See vol. II, p. 763, note 3, the words of Avicenna. — Below, after *prohibitus* ("forbidden"), the editions indicate the reasoning, citing below at a. 3, q. 1, where [the discussion] is of menstruating women, to whom reference is made in the solution of this objection.

la: Ut habetur in C. *Litteras* (3.), X. de Coniugio leprosorum (lib. IV. tit. 8.). — Pro *solvit* cod. bb *solvuntur*.

en: As is had in the chapter *Litteras* (3.), in the *Decretals* (X.), On the Marriage of Lepers (Book IV, tit. 8). — For *solvit* ("it dissolves") codex bb [reads] *solvuntur* ("they are dissolved").

la: Non pauci codd. pro *et* substituunt *est*, legentes *leprosus est; quia coniux* etc. Inferius pro *potest solvere* cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *tenetur reddere*. Post *omnino* cod. Z supplet *cum eo*.

en: Not a few codices for *et* ("and") substitute *est* ("is"), reading *leprosus est; quia coniux* etc. ("he is leprous; because he is a spouse," etc.). Below, for *potest solvere* ("can render") codex K (1, by a second hand) [reads] *tenetur reddere* ("is bound to render"). After *omnino* ("wholly") codex Z supplies *cum eo* ("with him").

la: Idem dicitur in Glossa super praeallegatum C. *Pervenit ad nos*. Cfr. Glossa in C. *Si uxorem* (18.), C. 32. q. 5.

en: The same is said in the Gloss on the aforecited chapter *Pervenit ad nos*. Cf. the Gloss on the chapter *Si uxorem* (18.), Causa 32, q. 5.

la: Vat. cum nonnullis codd. supplet *bonum prolis*, cui in cod. bb secunda manus addidit *nisi quantum ad bene esse*.

en: The Vatican [edition], with some codices, supplies *bonum prolis* ("the good of offspring"), to which in codex bb a second hand added *nisi quantum ad bene esse* ("except as to well-being").

la: Edd. *non suscipiat* et mox *non ministret* pro *administret*. Superius pro *utraque* (scilicet irregularitas), quod est in codd. IK, in aliis et edd. *utrumque*.

en: The editions [read] *non suscipiat* ("let him not receive") and shortly *non ministret* for *administret* ("administers"). Above, for *utraque* ("both," feminine — namely, irregularity), which is in codices I, K, in the others and in the editions *utrumque* ("both," neuter).

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p733-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p734-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against raw OCR L78952–79132. 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 gave printed pages **732–734**; that is wrong. The bands show this article's opener (ARTICULUS II) begins in the **right column of p.733**, immediately below a1-q2's tail — there is **nothing of this chunk on p.732**. The q1 body (opener + args 1–3) is on p.733; arg 4 through the Respondeo and replies (ending *…patet illud quod obiicit*, fn 8) are on p.734, just before QUAESTIO II (fornicarius). Corrected `printed_pages` to **[733, 734]**, `pdf_pages` to **[753, 754]**, source to pp. 733–734. `line_start`/`line_end` kept (78952–79132); the "Primo/Secundo quaeritur" alignment is correct.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false` — Article II's scholion sits in Art I's q1 (per the brief; the Art I scholion already extends into the leprosy/rendering material). No SCHOLION header appears anywhere in this chunk's range, and fn `[^p734-8]` (*Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.*) explicitly redirects to Art I's scholion. None rendered here; no duplication of a1-q1's scholion.

**Page/footer split.**
- Printed p.733 — this chunk owns footer series **nn. 8, 9, 10** (fn8 *Pervenit ad nos* at *leprosorum*; fn9 *1 Cor. 7,4* at *sui corporis*; fn10 *1 Cor. 7,2* at *reddat debitum*). Footers 1–7 of p.733 belong to the preceding chunk a1-q2.
- Printed p.734 — this chunk owns footer series **nn. 1–8** (fn1 Lev. 13 at *decimo tertio*; fn2 hereditarius/Avicenna at *hereditarius*; fn3 *Litteras* at *solvit sponsalia*; fn4 *et→est* at *et quia coniux*; fn5 Gloss on *Pervenit ad nos* at *infirmo*; fn6 *bonum prolis* at *faciunt contra*; fn7 *suscipiat/administret* at *suscipiat*; fn8 scholion cross-ref at *obiicit*). All eight anchor in this q1 body.

**Hand-offs.**
- **Picked up** from a1-q2: p.733 footers **8, 9, 10** (claimed here as `[^p733-8]`–`[^p733-10]`).
- **Forwarded** to a3-q1 (the fornicarius question, printed as QUAESTIO II of this article): p.734 footers **9, 10, 11** — fn9 *Nihil iniquius* at *alter alteri tenetur*; fn10 *omittunt ergo uterque habet ius petendi* at *uterque habet ius petendi*; fn11 *Matth. 19, 9* at *Potest dimittere uxorem causa fornicationis*. All three anchor in the fornicarius body (left/right columns of p.734 bottom, continuing onto p.735) — **not rendered here.**

**Structural note.** The auto-chunker/brief label the second Article II question (fornicarius) as **a3-q1**, whereas the Quaracchi print calls it **QUAESTIO II** of this same article ("Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur … Secundo, utrum quis teneatur debitum reddere, si alter fiat fornicarius"), and the p.735 running head reads "DIST. XXXII. ART. III." This chunk renders only q1 (leprosus) and ends cleanly before the QUAESTIO II header; the article/question numbering of the fornicarius chunk is left to a3-q1 per the dispatch.

**[?] flags.** None. All eleven footers and all body markers were verified against the bands. Minor silent OCR corrections: `ARTIGULUS→ARTICULUS`, `CoNURA→Contra`, `decmio→decimo`, `iepra/ieprosi→lepra/leprosi`, `raatriraoniura→matrimonium`, `efScitur→efficitur`, `eomux→coniux`, `usorem→uxorem`, `conlinentiam→continentiam`, `midier/muiier→mulier`, `aiiud→aliud`, all context-unambiguous. The marginal editorial side-notes on the printed page (*Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Coactio.*, *Solutio ad oppositum.*) are trimmed per the corpus rule.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 734 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum quis teneatur reddere debitum, si alter fiat fornicarius.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum teneatur debitum reddere fornicanti. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia, si uterque fornicetur, alter alteri tenetur[^9]: ergo si maius malum non solvit mutuam tentionem, ergo nec quando tantum alter fornicatur.

2. Item, vir semper tenetur servare fidem uxori, etiam fornicanti, quia non licet viro fornicari, esto quod uxor fornicetur; sed servare fidem est debitum reddere: ergo etc.

3. Item, non fornicans potest petere, ergo fornicans tenetur reddere: ergo habet ius petendi; sed vinculum coniugale est mutuum: ergo uterque habet ius petendi[^10]: ergo si fornicans habet ius petendi, iustum est, quod alter reddat: ergo tenetur reddere.

**Contra:**
1. Potest dimittere uxorem causa fornicationis[^11]: ergo non tenetur debitum solvere.

2. Item, si mulier procuraret aborsum, vir non deberet nec teneretur ei debitum reddere, quia agit contra bonum prolis; sed fornicans agit contra bonum fidei: ergo non tenetur.

3. Item, coniuges *ad paria* iudicantur quan<!-- page 735 -->tum ad *torum*[^1]: ergo quod non facit unus alteri, vel non vult facere, nec potest petere; sed si mulier fidem non servat: ergo nec potest cogere virum, ut fidem servet, ergo nec ut debitum solvat.

### Conclusio

> *Coniux innocens non tenetur fornicanti reddere debitum, nisi postquam ipse hoc petivit.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si alter fornicatur, et hoc potest alter scire per signa probabilia et per coniecturas apertas; nec tenetur solvere nec ab Ecclesia est cogendus, si potest illud probare; si tamen ipse, vel ipsa non sit eiusdem criminis, quia, si sunt in eodem crimine, non potest alter alteri obiicere quod habet in se. Si tamen innocens[^2] petat debitum, privat se libertate et ex hoc obligat se ad reddendum, quia, dum vult sibi debitum reddi a fornicante, et ipse se eidem obligat. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes, quod non tenetur.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tenentur[^3] ambo, si ambo peccent; dicendum, quod verum est. Ratio huius est, quia neuter est tunc super alterum; si tantum alter facit contra bonum matrimonii, alter, id est ille qui facit, meretur puniri, et alter meretur habere libertatem. Nunc autem neuter est liber, quia uterque peccat; et ideo non est simile: quia quod non tenetur reddere, hoc non tantum erat *poena peccantis*, sed etiam *libertas non peccantis*.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tenetur servare fidem; dicendum, quod fides attenditur quantum ad duo: primo, ut non cognoscat *aliam*, secundo, ut cognoscat *suam*. Quod non cognoscat *aliam*, hoc debet esse tanquam naturale[^4] matrimonio; unde talis fides nunquam potest solvi, matrimonio durante. Si autem haec non durat, cum alia super hanc fundetur, non tenetur servare hanc, cui prima non servatur, nec ius habet petendi qui prius infringit.

*Ad 3.* Ad aliud patet responsio: quia non fornicans habet ius petendi, quia nihil contra fidem[^5] fecit, sed alius fecit contra; et ideo in hoc factus est inferior et minus ius habet quam alter[^6].

---

english:
<!-- page 734 -->

### Question II. *Whether one is bound to render the debt if the other becomes a fornicator.*

Secondly it is asked, whether one is bound to render the debt to a fornicator. And that one is, it seems:

1. Because, if both fornicate, the one is bound to the other[^9]: therefore, if the greater evil does not dissolve the mutual claim, then neither [does it] when only one fornicates.

2. Likewise, the husband is always bound to keep faith with his wife, even with one who fornicates, because it is not lawful for the husband to fornicate, granted that the wife fornicates; but to keep faith is to render the debt: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the one who does not fornicate can demand, therefore the one who fornicates is bound to render: therefore he has the right of demanding; but the conjugal bond is mutual: therefore each has the right of demanding[^10]: therefore, if the fornicator has the right of demanding, it is just that the other render: therefore he is bound to render.

**On the contrary:**
1. He can dismiss the wife on account of fornication[^11]: therefore he is not bound to pay the debt.

2. Likewise, if a woman were to procure an abortion, the husband would neither owe nor be bound to render her the debt, because she acts against the good of offspring; but the fornicator acts against the good of fidelity: therefore he is not bound.

3. Likewise, spouses are judged *as equals* as regards<!-- page 735 --> the *marriage-bed*[^1]: therefore what one does not do for the other, or does not wish to do, neither can he demand; but if the woman does not keep faith: therefore neither can she compel the husband to keep faith, therefore neither to pay the debt.

### Conclusion

> *The innocent spouse is not bound to render the debt to a fornicator, except after he himself has demanded it.*

**I respond:** It must be said that if the one fornicates, and the other can know this through probable signs and through open conjectures; he is neither bound to pay nor to be compelled by the Church, if he can prove it; provided, however, that he himself, or she herself, is not guilty of the same crime, because, if they are in the same crime, the one cannot object against the other what he has in himself. If, however, the innocent one[^2] demands the debt, he deprives himself of his liberty and by this binds himself to rendering, because, while he wishes the debt to be rendered to himself by the fornicator, he too binds himself to the same. — Therefore the reasons are to be conceded, that he is not bound.

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that both are bound[^3] if both sin; it must be said that it is true. The reason for this is that neither is then above the other; if only one acts against the good of marriage, the other, that is, the one who acts, deserves to be punished, and the other deserves to have liberty. But now neither is free, because each sins; and therefore it is not similar: because that one is not bound to render was not only the *penalty of the sinner*, but also the *liberty of the non-sinner*.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that he is bound to keep faith; it must be said that faith is regarded as to two things: first, that he not know *another woman*, secondly, that he know *his own*. That he not know *another*, this ought to be as it were natural[^4] to marriage; whence such faith can never be dissolved, while the marriage lasts. But if this does not last, since another is founded upon it, he is not bound to keep this faith, to whom the first is not kept, nor does he have the right of demanding who first breaks it.

*To 3.* To the other the response is clear: because the one who does not fornicate has the right of demanding, since he has done nothing against fidelity[^5], but the other has acted against it; and therefore in this he has become inferior and has less right than the other[^6].

---

la: Vide C. *Nihil iniquius* (1.), C. 32. q. 6.

en: See the canon *Nihil iniquius* (1), C. 32, q. 6.

la: Plures codd. et ed. I omittunt *ergo uterque habet ius petendi*.

en: Several codices and ed. I omit *ergo uterque habet ius petendi* (therefore each has the right of demanding).

la: Cfr. Matth. 19, 9. — Ante *Potest* cod. bb supplet *vir*.

en: Cf. Matthew 19:9. — Before *Potest* codex bb supplies *vir* (the husband).

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

en: Cf. here the text of the Master [Peter Lombard], c. 1.

la: Cod. Z *non fornicans*, alii codd. et ed. I omittunt *innocens*. Mox post *reddendum* codd. R S bb supplent *debitum*. In fine corp. post *rationes* cod. O addit *ostendentes*, Vat. legit: *probantes, quod reddere debitum fornicanti non tenetur*.

en: Codex Z reads *non fornicans*; other codices and ed. I omit *innocens*. Soon after *reddendum* codices R S bb supply *debitum*. At the end of the body, after *rationes*, codex O adds *ostendentes*; the Vatican edition reads: *probantes, quod reddere debitum fornicanti non tenetur* (proving that one is not bound to render the debt to a fornicator).

la: Plurimi codd. perperam *non tenentur*.

en: Very many codices wrongly read *non tenentur* (they are not bound).

la: Cod. Y *essentiale*. Inferius post *cum alia* Vat. addit *conditio*; sed supplendum *fides* etiam post *haec*.

en: Codex Y reads *essentiale* (essential). Below, after *cum alia*, the Vatican edition adds *conditio*; but *fides* is to be supplied also after *haec*.

la: Codd. P Q *bonum fidei*.

en: Codices P Q read *bonum fidei* (the good of fidelity).

la: Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Quaracchi Vol IV PDF page bands (printed pp. 734–735 = pdf 754–755, offset +20), per the VOL II OVERRIDE recipe (two-column, cascade-shattered OCR; PDF bands authoritative for Respondeo/Solutio/footers). Raw OCR reference range L79048–79132. Column split regenerated: `colcrop.py vol4 {734,735} 2120` for the left column (default 1880/1660 truncates the right edge), `1780` for the right column.

**Running heads verified.** p.734 (verso): `734 · SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` p.735 (recto): `DIST. XXXII. ART. III. QUAEST. I. · 735` — the recto head already names ARTICULUS III (which begins at the foot of p.735), but the body of p.735 down to `ARTICULUS III.` is this quaestio's Conclusio + Respondeo + solutions. printed_pages [734, 735] / pdf_pages [754, 755] confirmed.

**Chunk boundaries.** This is QUAESTIO II of ARTICULUS II (*De redditione debiti*). Its OCR-garbled `QUAESTIO II.` header sits in the right column of p.734, after a2-q1's (leprosus) Respondeo. The body opens `Secundo quaeritur, utrum teneatur debitum reddere fornicanti` (raw L79051) and ends at *Ad 3* (`…minus ius habet quam alter`), immediately before `ARTICULUS III.` (*De obligatione coniugum per comparationem ad tempus*) and its QUAESTIO I (*Utrum tempore menstruorum possit reddi et peti debitum*), which begin lower in the p.735 columns and belong to a3-q1.

**Footer hand-offs picked up (both siblings forwarded their share to this body):**
- From **a2-q1** (leprosus): p.734 footers **nn.9, 10, 11** (`tenetur⁹` / `ius petendi¹⁰` / `fornicationis¹¹`) — all anchored in this fornicarius body. a2-q1 keeps p.734 nn.1–8 (leprosus).
- From **a3-q1** (menstruation): p.735 footers **nn.1–6** (`torum¹` / `innocens²` / `tenentur³` / `naturale⁴` / `fidem⁵` / `alter⁶`) — all anchored here. a3-q1 keeps p.735 note 7 onward (`Levitici decimo quinto⁷` = menstruation).

Apparatus total **9 entries**: p.734 → 3 (nn.9–11); p.735 → 6 (nn.1–6). No label collision, since this chunk holds no p.734 nn.1–6, so printed numbers are used verbatim.

**Scholion.** None (has_scholion false). Per note 6, rendering-the-debt is covered by the Art I scholion (a1-q1); menstruation/solemn days by the Art III scholion (a3-q1).

**No [?] flags.** The one ambiguous reading — arg 1 `non solvit mutuam tentionem` — was resolved by a targeted re-crop at split 2120: `mutuam` closes the left-column line (column rule following) and `tentionem` opens the next, i.e. *mutua tentio* = the reciprocal marital claim/hold; rendered "the mutual claim." Marginal editorial labels (*Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Solutio oppositi*, *Notandum*, *Duo attenduntur in fide*, *De 2. quaestione ad oppositum*) trimmed as Quaracchi navigation marginalia.

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, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 735 -->

### Articulus III. *De obligatione coniugum per comparationem ad tempus.*

Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de obligatione quantum ad tempus. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum tempore menstruorum obligetur mulier ad debitum reddendum, et utrum possit petere. Secundo, utrum tempore dierum solemnium debitum licite possit peti et solvi.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum tempore menstruorum possit reddi et peti debitum.*

Circa primum ostenditur, quod tempore menstruorum non possit *peti*.

Levitici decimo quinto[^p735-7]: *Vir, qui ad menstruatam accesserit, immundus erit septem diebus.* Si tu dicas, quod caerimoniale est; *contra*: Ezechielis decimo octavo: *Vir si iustitiam fecerit* etc.; et post: *Ad menstruatam non accesserit*, ubi inter moralia computatur. Et Glossa ibidem: «Praecipitur, ut viri non solum in alienis, sed etiam in propriis uxoribus modum et tempora servent».

Item, quod non debeat *reddi*, videtur:

1. Quia non solum qui male agunt peccant, sed etiam qui consentiunt: ergo peccat qui reddit, cum consentiat.

2. Item, non est reddendus gladius furioso, ut se interficiat; sed petens debitum tempore menstruorum contra salutem suam petit: ergo non ei reddendum est.

Item, quod nec sit *reddendum* nec *petendum*, videtur.

<!-- page 736 -->

1. Levitici vigesimo[^p736-1] dicitur, quod uterque interficiatur, scilicet vir et mulier; sed poena mortis non nisi pro peccato mortali infligebatur: ergo uterque peccat mortaliter.

2. Item, Hieronymus[^p736-2] dicit, quod ex tali coitu nascuntur pueri elephantici et monstruosi: ergo uterque facit contra bonum prolis; et si hoc: ergo uterque mortaliter peccat.

**Contra:**

1. Maior passio est passio leprae quam passio menstrui: ergo si propter lepram non potest mulier debitum negare[^p736-3], nec propter menstruum.

2. Item, *mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis*[^p736-4]: ergo cum vir petit, suum petit; et iustum est «unicuique reddere quod suum est»: ergo iuste reddit mulier.

3. Item, esto quod vir nesciat, quod sit tempus menstruorum, et mulier timet de lapsu eius; quaeritur: quid debet facere? Et ostenditur, quod reddere, quia illius animam liberat a morte[^p736-5] et ab omni culpa.

4. Item, sicut fluxus sanguinis reddit mulierem immundam, ita fluxus seminis reddit virum immundum[^p736-6]; sed non peccat mulier, quae petit a viro seminifluo debitum: ergo etc.

5. Item, si aliquo modo repugnat matrimonio talis coitus, hoc non est nisi ratione prolis; sed possibile est, quod talis mulier sit sterilis, et tunc non timetur deformitas prolis: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Tempore menstruorum, quae sunt secundum naturam, non licet sub mortali scienter exigere debitum; secus iudicandum de redditione.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod omni tempore, sive menstruorum, sive alio, debet debitum *reddi*, sed non debet *peti*. Et dicunt, quod ratio huius est, quia *petere* est *agere*, sed *reddere* quodam modo *pati*; et primum est libertatis, secundum vero est necessitatis. Unde et Dominus[^p736-7] non praecepit mulieri *non reddere*, sed homini *non accedere*; ac per hoc non exemit mulierem a tentione, sed vir obligatur, ut hoc non possit petere sine transgressione. Et hoc videtur Magister dicere in littera[^p736-8], cum dicit: «Et licet omni tempore debitum sit petenti solvendum, non tamen licet omni tempore petere». — Sed istud non videtur consonare nec *rationi* nec *auctoritati*. Primum non auctoritati, quia est contra bonum prolis, sicut dicit Hieronymus super illud Isaiae sexagesimo quarto[^p736-9]: *Omnes iustitiae nostrae sicut pannus menstruatae*; dicit: «Tunc concipiuntur membris damnati, caeci, claudi, leprosi, ut, quia parentes non erubuerunt in conclavi commisceri, patenter eorum peccatum et aperte redarguatur in parvulis». Item, Augustinus super Leviticum[^p736-10]: *Ad mulierem* etc.: «Necessario utrique interim continentia indicitur». Et iterum: «Cum sufficienter prohibuisset, hic etiam repetit, ne forte in superioribus videretur figurative dictum». Et iterum, uterque praecipitur interfici, Levitici vigesimo[^p736-11], sicut ibi patet: ergo uterque mortaliter peccat. Et iterum, esto quod mulier menstruata tunc temporis petat a viro, et hoc constet viro, durum videtur dicere, quod vir teneatur sibi reddere in prolis praeiudicium: si ergo ad paria iudicantur[^p736-12], et dominium non habet alter in alterum contra divinum statutum; non videtur, quod reddere teneatur.

Et ideo aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod non debet *reddere*, nisi praesumat de viro, quod cadat in fornicationem; quod si praesumit, debet occurrere maiori periculo nec reddit sibi gladium ad interficiendum, sed potius ad sanandum. — Sed nec istud sufficit, quia aut mulier *tenetur*, aut *non tenetur*. Si *tenetur*, absque omni praesumtione periculi debet reddere. Si *non tenetur* ut tunc, hoc non est, nisi quia hoc est[^p736-13] contra divinum mandatum: ergo quantumcumque timeat de culpa alterius, cum non sit faciendum malum certum pro incerto evitando, non debet sibi reddere debitum — non quia reddat

<!-- page 737 -->

gladium furioso, quia ista non est ratio — nam aliter se ipsum interficit. Nec dat ei occasionem periculi, nisi ipsa petat; non enim ideo est culpa, quia gladium furioso reddat, sed quia contra praeceptum sive prohibitionem agendo se deordinat; et hoc non est propter *tempus*, sed propter *morbum*, qui est contra prolis bonum. Unde similiter esset de vicina partui, quia ex actu illo timetur parvulus opprimi et occidi; vel si ipsa laboraret acuta[^p737-1], nullus pro illo tempore diceret eam teneri, non ratione *temporis*, sed ratione *morbi* vel *periculi*.

Tertius modus dicendi est, qui videtur esse probabilior, quod tempus menstruorum aut est *secundum naturam*, aut *praeter naturam*[^p737-2]. Si *secundum naturam* semel in mense; quia tunc possibile est filios generare et per abundantiam et corruptionem humoris in pessimo statu: ideo *morale* est praeceptum, ut illo tempore non cognoscatur. Unde si *ignoranter petit*, vel *violenter reddit*, excusatur; si *scienter et libenter petit et reddit*, contra praeceptum facit et mortaliter peccat, et vir secundum tempus illud non habet potestatem in corpus mulieris. — Si autem sit tempus *contra naturam* et passio *praeter naturam*; tunc dicitur, quod filii non generantur[^p737-3]; et tunc, si diu duret, debitum potest *peti* et *reddi*. Ex his patent obiecta.

1. Quod enim obiicit de lepra, non est simile, quia ille morbus est continuus, iste momentaneus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicit, quod non habet potestatem; dicendum, quod tunc non habet, vel etiam, quod plus est obediendum Deo quam homini[^p737-4] sive mulieri.

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, quando vir nescit; dicendum, quod si credit, ipsum desistere, debet ei infirmitatem dicere, vel saltem infirmitatem simulare; quodsi nec tunc vult desistere, debet quantum potest resistere, quia, si ille violenter extorqueat, mulier[^p737-5] est immunis a culpa. Aliter enim propter vitandam culpam viri non debet ipsa facere culpam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de immunditia, dicendum, quod non est propter immunditiam, sed quia talis[^p737-6] est proli contraria.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de sterili, dicendum, quod nescitur, quamdiu habet muliebria, utrum concipiat; et ideo obligatur divino mandato, sicut et aliae, quae consueverunt concipere.

Quamvis autem iste modus *ultimo* dictus videatur esse probabilior, *primus* tamen modus dicendi est securior et sanior, quoniam standum est pro matrimonio; et valde durum videtur, quod mulier debitum non reddat viro instanter petenti, cum non appareat infirmitas gravis et manifesta. Si tu dicas, quod non debet sine violentia; potest esse, quod vir non potest sibi violentiam facere, et ex hoc cadet in peiorem fornicationem. Et ideo dicendum est secundum primum modum, quod secus est in *petitione* et *redditione*, sicut dicit Magister in littera, et primo[^p737-7] notatum est. Unde prohibitio de cognitione menstruae se extendit, ut non *petant*, sed non ut non *reddant*; et ideo non absolvitur a tentione reddendi. Et secundum hoc intelligendae sunt auctoritates de hoc loquentes. Sed tamen mulier aliquo modo se debet reddere difficilem et cum dolore debitum solvere, ne, dum appetit a se peti, ipsa rea sit, ac si peteret; unde resistere potest, nisi credat scandalum praestare marito.

Ex hoc patet illud quod obiicit de consensu. Dum enim necessitate compulsa femina reddit; non dicitur consentire nec furioso gladium reddere, sed ipse agit, et haec patitur. Praeterea, gladius furioso est reddendus, si evitetur maius periculum; sic in proposito, cum timetur periculum, et vir potest evadere periculum fornicationis, vel odii per redditionem, in quam incurreret per abnegationem. — Ex his patent alia. Concedendum est enim, quod debitum non potest *peti* scienter, quia hoc est mortale propter praeceptum[^p737-8], quod debitum non petatur. — Et non valet de lepra nec de potestate corporis, quia usus est ei arctatus per mandatum illud; et patent auctoritates inductae in contrarium; omnes enim intelligendae sunt quantum ad *scienter exigentes*.

english:
### Article III. *On the obligation of spouses by comparison to time.*

Next, as to the third article, the question is asked concerning the obligation with respect to time. And about this two things are asked.

First it is asked whether during the menstrual period the woman is bound to render the debt, and whether she may seek it. Second, whether during the time of solemn days the debt may licitly be sought and paid.

### Question I. *Whether during the menstrual period the debt may be rendered and sought.*

As to the first, it is shown that during the menstrual period it cannot be *sought*.

Leviticus 15[^p735-7]: *The man who has approached a menstruous woman shall be unclean seven days.* If you should say that this is ceremonial; *on the contrary*: Ezekiel 18: *If a man do justice* etc.; and afterward: *He has not come near a menstruous woman*, where it is reckoned among moral matters. And the Gloss on the same place: "It is commanded that men keep measure and times not only with other women, but also with their own wives."

Likewise, it seems that it ought not to be *rendered*:

1. Because not only those who do evil sin, but also those who consent: therefore he who renders sins, since he consents.

2. Likewise, a sword is not to be returned to a madman, that he may kill himself; but one who seeks the debt during the menstrual period seeks against his own welfare: therefore it is not to be rendered to him.

Likewise, it seems that it is neither to be *rendered* nor to be *sought*.

<!-- page 736 -->

1. In Leviticus 20[^p736-1] it is said that both are to be put to death, namely the man and the woman; but the penalty of death was inflicted only for mortal sin: therefore each sins mortally.

2. Likewise, Jerome[^p736-2] says that from such intercourse elephantiac and monstrous children are born: therefore each acts against the good of offspring; and if this: therefore each sins mortally.

**On the contrary:**

1. The affliction of leprosy is a greater affliction than that of the menses: therefore if because of leprosy the woman cannot deny the debt[^p736-3], neither [can she deny it] because of the menses.

2. Likewise, *the woman does not have power over her own body*[^p736-4]: therefore when the husband seeks, he seeks his own; and it is just "to render to each what is his own": therefore the woman rightly renders.

3. Likewise, suppose that the husband does not know that it is the time of the menses, and the woman fears his lapse; it is asked: what ought she to do? And it is shown that [she ought] to render, because it frees his soul from death[^p736-5] and from all fault.

4. Likewise, just as the flux of blood renders the woman unclean, so the flux of seed renders the man unclean[^p736-6]; but the woman who seeks the debt from a man who has a seminal flux does not sin: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, if such intercourse is in some way repugnant to marriage, this is only by reason of offspring; but it is possible that such a woman is sterile, and then no deformity of offspring is feared: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> During the menstrual period, which is according to nature, it is not licit knowingly to exact the debt under [pain of] mortal [sin]; it is to be judged otherwise concerning the rendering of it.

**I respond:** It must be said that some have wished to say that at every time, whether of the menses or another, the debt ought to be *rendered*, but ought not to be *sought*. And they say that the reason for this is that *to seek* is *to act*, but *to render* is in a certain way *to be acted upon*; and the first belongs to liberty, but the second to necessity. Whence also the Lord[^p736-7] did not command the woman *not to render*, but the man *not to approach*; and by this he did not exempt the woman from temptation, but the man is bound, so that he cannot seek this without transgression. And this the Master seems to say in the text[^p736-8], when he says: "And although at every time the debt is to be paid to the one seeking it, nevertheless it is not licit to seek it at every time." — But this does not seem to accord either with *reason* or with *authority*. First, not with authority, because it is against the good of offspring, as Jerome says on that passage of Isaiah 64[^p736-9]: *All our justices are as the cloth of a menstruous woman*; he says: "Then are conceived, in the members, the condemned, the blind, the lame, the leprous, so that, because the parents were not ashamed to mingle in the bedchamber, their sin is openly manifest and openly reproved in the little ones." Likewise, Augustine on Leviticus[^p736-10]: *To the woman* etc.: "Necessarily continence is enjoined upon each meanwhile." And again: "When he had sufficiently prohibited [it], here too he repeats it, lest perhaps in the earlier passages it might seem to have been said figuratively." And again, each is commanded to be put to death, in Leviticus 20[^p736-11], as is clear there: therefore each sins mortally. And again, suppose that a menstruous woman at that time seeks from the man, and this is established to the man, it seems hard to say that the man is bound to render to her to the prejudice of offspring: if therefore they are judged equal[^p736-12], and neither has dominion over the other against the divine statute; it does not seem that he is bound to render.

And therefore some have wished to say that she ought not to *render*, unless she presume of the man that he will fall into fornication; and if she presumes this, she ought to meet the greater danger, and she does not return to him a sword for killing, but rather for healing. — But neither does this suffice, because either the woman is *bound* or she is *not bound*. If she is *bound*, she ought to render without any presumption of danger. If she is *not bound* at that time, this is only because it is[^p736-13] against the divine command: therefore however much she may fear the fault of the other, since a certain evil is not to be done in order to avoid an uncertain one, she ought not to render the debt to him — not because she renders

<!-- page 737 -->

a sword to a madman, since this is not the reason — for otherwise he kills himself. Nor does she give him occasion of danger, unless she herself seeks; for it is not therefore a fault because she renders a sword to a madman, but because by acting against a precept or prohibition she puts herself out of order; and this is not on account of the *time*, but on account of the *disease*, which is against the good of offspring. Whence it would be similar concerning a woman near to childbirth, because from that act the infant is feared to be crushed and killed; or if she were laboring under an acute [illness][^p737-1], no one would say that she is bound for that time, not by reason of the *time*, but by reason of the *disease* or *danger*.

The third way of speaking, which seems to be more probable, is that the time of the menses is either *according to nature* or *beyond nature*[^p737-2]. If *according to nature*, once a month; because then it is possible to generate children, and [that] through the abundance and corruption of the humor in a very bad state: therefore the precept is *moral*, that at that time [the woman] not be known. Whence if he *seeks unknowingly*, or *renders under compulsion*, he is excused; if he *knowingly and willingly seeks and renders*, he acts against the precept and sins mortally, and the man during that time does not have power over the body of the woman. — But if it is a time *contrary to nature* and an affliction *beyond nature*; then it is said that children are not generated[^p737-3]; and then, if it lasts a long time, the debt can be *sought* and *rendered*. From these things the objections are clear.

1. For what it objects concerning leprosy is not similar, because that disease is continuous, this momentary.

2. To that which it objects, that she does not have power; it must be said that at that time she does not have it, or also that one must obey God rather than a man[^p737-4] or a woman.

3. To that which is asked, when the man does not know; it must be said that if she believes he will desist, she ought to tell him of the infirmity, or at least to feign an infirmity; but if even then he will not desist, she ought to resist as much as she can, because, if he extorts it by force, the woman[^p737-5] is free from fault. For otherwise, in order to avoid the fault of the man, she ought not to commit a fault herself.

4. To that which is objected concerning uncleanness, it must be said that [the reason] is not on account of uncleanness, but because such [a flux][^p737-6] is contrary to offspring.

5. To that which is objected concerning the sterile woman, it must be said that it is not known, as long as she has her monthly courses, whether she conceives; and therefore she is bound by the divine command, just as also others who are accustomed to conceive.

Although, however, this way spoken of *last* seems to be more probable, the *first* way of speaking is nevertheless safer and sounder, since one must stand for marriage; and it seems very hard that the woman should not render the debt to the husband urgently seeking it, when no grave and manifest infirmity appears. If you should say that she ought not [to render] without violence; it may be that the man cannot do violence to himself, and from this he falls into a worse fornication. And therefore it must be said, according to the first way, that it is otherwise in the *seeking* and in the *rendering*, as the Master says in the text, and [as] was noted at first[^p737-7]. Whence the prohibition concerning the knowing of a menstruous woman extends [only] so that they may not *seek*, but not so that they may not *render*; and therefore [the woman] is not absolved from the temptation of rendering. And according to this the authorities speaking of this matter are to be understood. Yet the woman ought in some way to make herself difficult and to pay the debt with sorrow, lest, while she desires to be sought, she herself become guilty, as if she were seeking; whence she may resist, unless she believes she would give scandal to her husband.

From this is clear that which it objects concerning consent. For while, compelled by necessity, the woman renders, she is not said to consent, nor to return a sword to a madman, but he acts, and she suffers. Moreover, a sword is to be returned to a madman if a greater danger is thereby avoided; so in the case proposed, when danger is feared, and the man can escape the danger of fornication, or of hatred, by the rendering — into which [hatred] he would fall through refusal. — From these things the rest are clear. For it must be conceded that the debt cannot be *sought* knowingly, because this is mortal on account of the precept[^p737-8] that the debt not be sought. — And [the argument] from leprosy is of no avail, nor [that] from the power over the body, because the use is restricted for her by that command; and the authorities adduced to the contrary are clear: for all are to be understood with respect to those *knowingly exacting*.

la: Vers. 24: *Si coierit cum ea vir tempore sanguinis menstrualis, immundus* etc. — Seq. locus est Ezech. 18, 5: *Et vir si fuerit iustus et fecerit iudicium et iustitiam.* Tertius ibid. v. 6: *Et ad mulierem menstruatam* etc. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta est ex Hieron., in hunc ult. loc.

en: [Leviticus 15,] verse 24: *If a man lie with her in the time of menstrual blood, he shall be unclean* etc. — The following passage is Ezek. 18, 5: *And if a man be just and do judgment and justice.* The third [passage] is ibid., v. 6: *And [if he come] not near to a menstruous woman* etc. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary [Gloss] in Strabus and Lyra, is taken from Jerome, on this last passage.

la: Vers. 18: *Interficientur ambo de medio populi sui.*

en: [Leviticus 20,] verse 18: *They shall both be put to death out of the midst of their people.*

la: Libr. VI. Comment. in Ezech. 18, 6: «Ita ut leprosi et elephantiaci... nascantur». Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc.: *Elephantia*, lepra sic dicta, quod cutem reddat elephanti corio similem... *Elephanticus*, qui elephantia laborat. — Codd. *elephantini*.

en: Book VI of the *Commentary on Ezekiel* 18, 6: "so that leprous and elephantiac [children]... are born." Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc.: *Elephantia*, a leprosy so called because it renders the skin like an elephant's hide... *Elephanticus*, one who suffers from elephantiasis. — The codices [read] *elephantini*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra a. 2. q. I. — Cod. E supplet *viro*.

en: As was shown above, a. 2 q. 1. — Codex E supplies *viro* (to the husband).

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4. — De definitione *iusti* inferius posita cfr. tom. III. pag. 728, nota I. — Post *petit* codd. M O R S T bb addunt *ergo si suum petit*, cod. Y *sed si suum*, Vat. *ergo si suum*.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 7, 4. — On the definition of *the just*, placed below, cf. tom. III, p. 728, note 1. — After *petit* (he seeks) codices M O R S T bb add *ergo si suum petit* (therefore if he seeks his own), codex Y *sed si suum*, the Vatican [edition] *ergo si suum*.

la: Iac. 5, 20: *Qui converti fecerit peccatorem... salvabit animam eius a morte.*

en: James 5, 20: *He who causes a sinner to be converted... shall save his soul from death.*

la: Secundum Lev. 15, 2. et 19.

en: According to Lev. 15, 2 and 19.

la: Cfr. fundamentum. — Inferius post *tentione* Vat. supplet *reddendi*.

en: Cf. the fundamentum [the opening argument]. — Below, after *tentione* (temptation) the Vatican [edition] supplies *reddendi* (of rendering).

la: Hic c. 3.

en: Here, c. 3 [of the Master's text].

la: Vers. 6. — Verba, quae Hieronymo attribuuntur, habentur in Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, in hunc loc., quae finem sic exhibet: *eorum peccata pateant cunctis et aperte redarguantur in parvulis.* — Pro *damnati* edd. *depravati*.

en: [Isaiah 64,] verse 6. — The words attributed to Jerome are found in the ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyra, on this passage, which gives the ending thus: *their sins may be manifest to all and be openly reproved in the little ones.* — For *damnati* (condemned) the editions [read] *depravati* (depraved).

la: Cap. 18, 19. — *Prima* sententia sive expositio non est *Augustini*, sed *Hesychii* (cui etiam attribuitur ab Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 149. m. 2.) in Lev. 18, 19. secundum Glossam ordinariam apud Strabum et Lyranum. Hesychii verba (ed. Migne) sunt, quod tales «non una die immundos, sed septem dies esse dicit: ergo sub dierum multorum continentia tam mulieres a viris, quam viri a mulieribus necessitate cohibentur». — *Secunda* est Augustini in allegatum locum (Lev. 18, 19.), Quaest. 64. Cfr. III. de Peccatorum meritis et remiss. etc. c. 12. n. 21.

en: Chapter 18, 19. — The *first* opinion or exposition is not *Augustine's*, but *Hesychius's* (to whom it is also attributed by Alex. of Hales, S. p. II q. 149 m. 2) on Lev. 18, 19, according to the ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyra. Hesychius's words (Migne ed.) are that of such [persons] "he says [they are] unclean not for one day, but seven days: therefore under the continence of many days both women are restrained from men and men from women by necessity." — The *second* is Augustine's, on the passage cited (Lev. 18, 19), Question 64. Cf. book III *On the Merits and Remission of Sins* etc., c. 12, n. 21.

la: Vers. 18.

en: [Leviticus 20,] verse 18.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Inferius pro *contra* permulti codd. *secundum*, perperam, nisi cum cod. F pro *non habet* substituatur *habet*; cod. E *habet in maritum secundum*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Below, for *contra* (against) very many codices [read] *secundum* (according to), wrongly, unless with codex F for *non habet* one substitutes *habet*; codex E [reads] *habet in maritum secundum*.

la: Pro *nisi quia hoc est*, quod Vat. male omittit, nonnulli codd. perperam *nisi quia hoc non est*.

en: For *nisi quia hoc est* (unless because this is), which the Vatican [edition] wrongly omits, some codices [read] wrongly *nisi quia hoc non est* (unless because this is not).

la: Edd. *aegritudine acuta*.

en: The editions [read] *aegritudine acuta* (with an acute illness).

la: Haec distinctio insinuatur Lev. 15, 24. seq. Ad ea quae hac de re in Lev. dicuntur, Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 149. m. 2, utitur hac distinctione, scil. quod Lev. 15, 24. agatur de *ignoranter* accedente, Lev. 18, 19. de *scienter* accedente, Lev. 20, 18. de *scienter* accedente et peccatum suum *publicante*. — Inferius post *statu* codd. T X addunt *infici*.

en: This distinction is suggested in Lev. 15, 24 f. Concerning the things said on this matter in Leviticus, Alex. of Hales, S. p. II q. 149 m. 2, uses this distinction, namely that Lev. 15, 24 treats of one approaching *unknowingly*, Lev. 18, 19 of one approaching *knowingly*, Lev. 20, 18 of one approaching *knowingly* and *making public* his sin. — Below, after *statu* codices T X add *infici*.

la: Edd. addunt *vitiosi in natura*. Lectio codd. confirmatur a S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. in corp.

en: The editions add *vitiosi in natura* (defective in nature). The reading of the codices is confirmed by S. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 2 quaestiunc. 2, in the body.

la: Act. 5, 29: *Obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus.* — Post *tunc non habet* Vat. addit: *alter potestatem in corpus alterius.* Pro *dicendum* plures codd. vel *solvendum*, vel perperam *solvendi*.

en: Acts 5, 29: *One ought to obey God rather than men.* — After *tunc non habet* the Vatican [edition] adds: *the other [has] power over the body of the other.* For *dicendum* several codices [read] either *solvendum*, or wrongly *solvendi*.

la: Multi codd. et ed. I perperam *uterque*, cod. bb *mulier utique*. Superius pro *vult desistere* codd. G L aa (E a secunda manu) *desisteret*.

en: Many codices and ed. 1 wrongly [read] *uterque* (each), codex bb *mulier utique* (the woman certainly). Above, for *vult desistere* (he wishes to desist) codices G L aa (E by a second hand) [read] *desisteret*.

la: Supple: *fluxus*. — Post *contraria* cod. aa subiungit: *sed quia passio illa, quae est seminiflui, non est proli contraria: ergo etc.*

en: Supply: *fluxus* (flux). — After *contraria* codex aa subjoins: *but because that affliction, which is of the seminal flux, is not contrary to offspring: therefore etc.*

la: In principio corp. — Mox pro *de cognitione* edd. *in fornicatione*.

en: At the beginning of the body [of the question]. — Soon, for *de cognitione* (concerning the knowing) the editions [read] *in fornicatione* (in fornication).

la: Edd. *est morale praeceptum*. Post pauca codd. Z bb verbis *Et non* interserunt *ideo*.

en: The editions [read] *est morale praeceptum* (it is a moral precept). After a little, codices Z bb insert *ideo* (therefore) among the words *Et non* (And not). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad *petitionem* debiti tempore naturalium menstruorum antiqui doctores Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Scot., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique satis conveniunt, etiam in duplici illa causa assignanda, scilicet ob periculum vel damnum prolis et ob praeceptum morale in veteri lege promulgatum. Sed plures recentiores mitius iudicant, immo non pauci petitionem hanc etiam a veniali peccato excusare volunt. — Cum S. Bonav. S. Thomas et alii communiter censent, prohibitionem illam non se extendere ad *reddentem*. — De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 149. m. 2. ad obiecta. — Scot., hic q. unica n. 5. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. 3; Suppl. q. 64. a. 3. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. I.

**II.** S. Thom. pluresque antiqui cum S. Bonav. docuerunt, non licere *sub veniali* certis temporibus sacris debitum *petere*; quod plerique recentiores cum S. Alphonso nullatenus prohiberi, sed tantum per modum consilii dissuaderi docent. — De 2. quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 5. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 64. a. 7. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. 10. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. I.

**III.** Quoad duas quaestiones 4. articuli nulla est difficultas. Breviter de utraque vel de I. tantum tractant: S. Thom., hic 5. quaestiunc. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. I. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As to the *seeking* of the debt during the time of natural menses, the ancient doctors — Alex. of Hales, S. Thomas, Scotus, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, and others — agree well enough, even in assigning that twofold cause, namely on account of the danger or harm to offspring and on account of the moral precept promulgated in the old law. But many more recent [authors] judge more mildly; indeed not a few wish to excuse this seeking even from venial sin. — With St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas and others commonly hold that that prohibition does not extend to the one *rendering*. — On the 1st question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. II q. 149 m. 2, at the objections. — Scotus, here q. unica n. 5 ff. — S. Thomas, here a. 2 quaestiunc. 2 and 3; Suppl. q. 64 a. 3 and 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3 quaestiunc. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4 q. 1.

**II.** S. Thomas and many of the ancients, with St. Bonaventure, taught that it is not licit *under [pain of] venial [sin]* to *seek* the debt at certain sacred times; which [prohibition] most of the more recent [authors], with St. Alphonsus, teach is in no way forbidden, but only dissuaded by way of counsel. — On the 2nd question: S. Thomas, here a. 5 quaestiunc. 1 and 2; Suppl. q. 64 a. 7 and 8. — B. Albert, here a. 9 and 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, at the place cited, quaestiunc. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3 q. 1.

**III.** As to the two questions of the 4th article there is no difficulty. Briefly, on both or on the first only, treat: S. Thomas, here 5, quaestiunc. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 4 quaestiunc. 1 and 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5 q. 1 and 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 PDF column bands (printed pp. 735–738 = pdf 755–758, offset pdf = printed + 20), raw OCR range L79133–L79383; column-by-column reflow (L then R per page). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page span corrected.** The skeleton frontmatter declared pp. 734–735. In fact the **Article III opener + Quaestio I** begin at the foot of the LEFT column of printed **p. 735** (odd page, running head "DIST. XXXII. ART. III. QUAEST. I."), immediately after the preceding article-2 question on the fornicating spouse ("Coniux innocens non tenetur fornicanti reddere debitum") concludes. The body runs through pp. 736 and 737; the **Scholion spans pp. 737–738**. Frontmatter corrected to printed_pages [735,736,737,738] / pdf_pages [755,756,757,758].

**Footer hand-offs.** Printed **p. 735** carries footers 1–7. Footers **1–6** (*torum, innocens, tenentur, naturale, fidem, alter*) anchor in the PRECEDING question (a. 2 on the fornicating spouse) and are NOT claimed here; only footer **7** (Lev. 15, 24) anchors in this body → [^p735-7]. Printed **p. 736** footers **1–13** and **p. 737** footers **1–8** all anchor in this body. Printed **p. 738** is entirely the SCHOLION continuation (no markers) plus the opening of the sibling **a3-q2** (Quaestio II, "Utrum tempore dierum solemnium…"); p. 738's footer 1 (1 Cor. 7) belongs to **a3-q2** and is NOT claimed here.

**Apparatus count.** 22 numbered entries (p. 735: 1; p. 736: 13; p. 737: 8). Labels are page-qualified because Quaracchi restarts numbering on each printed page.

**Scholion disposition.** This chunk owns the WHOLE Article III scholion (OCR header garbled "SCHOLIOl^"; the band confirms "SCHOLION"). Three numbered sections: **§I** = q1 (menstruation; prose + "De 1. quaestione" doctor-list), **§II** = q2 (sacred days; prose + "De 2. quaestione" doctor-list), **§III** = a brief note that the two questions of **Article IV** ("Quoad duas quaestiones 4. articuli") present no difficulty (with a doctor-list). Rendered in full in both languages, placed as the LAST subsection of both ## Latin and ## English per the parser rule. Sibling **a3-q2 renders NO scholion.**

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The bands carry Quaracchi side-glosses ("De utraque pro parte negativa/affirmativa", "Opinio 1 de utraque quaestione", "Conclusio", "Iudicium auctoris", "Restrictio", "De argg. de 2. quaest. ad oppos.", "De aliis obiectis", "De 2. quaestione ad oppositum") which are omitted from the body per project convention.

**Textual note.** [^p736-6] reads Lev. **15** (fluxus seminis 15,2 + menstruation/fluxus sanguinis 15,19); the IA djvu OCR's "13" is a digit-mangle, disambiguated by content.

**[?] flags.** **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 736)** — d.31–d.40 decade polish gate, Pass 1 (2026-07-13). `[^p736-6]` (= p. 736 footer note 6), the Leviticus chapter number: read at 600 dpi from `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-736-r600-0756.png`, left-hand footer column (crop `(950, 6220)–(2150, 6350)`, 3× upscale). **Quaracchi prints `Secundum Lev. 15, 2. et 19.`** — the chapter numeral is a clear **15**, not 13. The IA OCR's `13` is a digit-mangle, *not* an edition misprint, so no translator's note or restoration of a printed `13` is warranted: Quaracchi's own text is both what we transcribe and substantively correct (Lev 15:2, 19 is the menstruation/issue law that the article's argument turns on; Lev 13 is leprosy). The chunk's existing reading stands unchanged; flag retired.


title: Dist. 32, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 738 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum tempore dierum solemnium possit licite peti et solvi debitum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum tempore dierum solemnium debitum possit peti licite et solvi. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^1]: *Nolite fraudare invicem nisi ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacetis orationi*: ergo non licet abstinere etiam propter orationem, nisi utroque consentiente: ergo si non habet necesse consentire, alter potest petere, et alter debet reddere.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia concubitus coniugalis ratione debiti solvendi nullam habet de se culpam[^2]: ergo in die solemni reddere non est peccatum.

3. Item, coniugium constitutum est in remedium concupiscentiae, ut fornicatio vitetur[^3]; sed possibile est, quod homo infirmus magis tentetur de opere carnis in die solemni: ergo tunc licet adhibere remedium.

4. Item, si alter coniugum ex sola libidine explenda peteret debitum, ille cui[^4] petitur, deberet solvere, quia reddit ei quod suum est: ergo videtur multo fortius, si tempore sacro petat causa fornicationis vitandae.

**Contra:** 1. Quod tali tempore nec debeat peti nec reddi, ostenditur auctoritate Augustini, quae habetur in littera[^5]: «Christiano cum uxore sua licet aliquando convenire, aliquando non propter dies processionis et ieiuniorum» etc.

2. Item, hoc videtur exemplo Gregorii in primo Dialogorum[^6], quod mulier, quae nocte cognovit virum, cum in die veniret ad processionem, a diabolo est accepta; sed hoc non esset, nisi grave peccatum esset: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc videtur ratione, scilicet quod nec sit petendum nec reddendum: quia potest esse dies solemnis, ut Pascha vel Natalis, in quo uterque tenetur communicare; sed constitutio Ecclesiae est, ut non accedat aliquis ad communionem, quando cognoscit uxorem[^7]: ergo cum non possint simul stare, et tenetur ad faciendum unum: ergo non ad faciendum alterum.

4. Item, hoc videtur per rationem virtutis, quae considerat non solum actum, sed etiam debitas circumstantias[^8]; sed debita circumstantia est in discernendo diem sacrum a non sacro: ergo etc.

5. Item, hoc videtur per simile: quia non licet in omni loco nec petere nec reddere debitum, utpote in ecclesia: ergo similiter videtur, quod nec in omni tempore.

6. Item, hoc videtur ratione: quia maior est delectatio in coitu quam in cibo: ergo si ecclesiastica institutio quantum ad abstinentiam cibi est necessario observanda, multo fortius quantum ad coitum.

### Conclusio.

> *Diebus solemnibus petere debitum culpa est saltem venialis, non autem reddere.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Magister[^9], «debitum semper est poscenti solvendum, non tamen semper licet petere». Cuius ratio est, quia reddere est necessitatis, sed petere est voluntatis; et in sacris diebus inordinatae voluptatis est petere, quod patet sic. Coniugium enim ratione sui actus est remedium, sed non omnino curans, sed excusans; unde in actu coniugali est opus carnis, quod trahit animam deorsum et ad terrena sapiendum et etiam ad delectationem sentiendum. Quoniam igitur aliqui sunt dies, in quibus debet anima sanctificari et assurgere ad divina, utpote solemnitates praeclarae; sunt etiam, in quibus debet anima affligi, utpote ieiuniorum et processionum: ideo conveniens est in talibus temporibus ab illo actu cessare; et ideo sancti Patres instituerunt, non tamen instituerunt tanquam praeceptum, propter carnis lubricum, quod in multis est magnum. Et quia <!-- page 739 -->non tanquam praeceptum instituerunt nec ius petendi debitum abstulerunt; ideo, cum petitur, manet necessitas ad reddendum.

Ideo dicendum, quod reddi potest sine omni culpa[^10] in illis diebus, dum tamen reddat cum displicentia et dolore; peti autem non potest sine culpa; et si aspectus sit ad delectationem, gravis est culpa, si autem ad lubricum carnis et suam infirmitatem, cuius est conscius, vel conscientia vehementer timet, et propter hoc petit; veniale potest esse peccatum; attamen vix contingit, quod in praecipuis diebus non sit grave peccatum. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes, quod debet reddi, quia non possunt fraudare nisi ex consensu. Unde tempus orationis non sufficit ad abstinendum, nisi adsit etiam mutuus consensus, sicut innuit Apostolus[^11].

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Christiano non licet convenire; dicendum, quod non dicit hoc propter hoc, quod illud sit peccatum mortale, et eius oppositum sit in praeceptum; sed quia quandam inhonestatem habet. Et hoc patet in eadem auctoritate[^12], quia dicit, quod in talibus diebus debent a licitis temperare; et hoc dico, nisi contemptus solemnitatis interveniat, sicut fuit in illa muliere, de qua loquitur Gregorius, quae ivit ad processionem.

3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod non debet reddi propter communionem; dicendum, quod cum reddens cum dolore et invitus reddat, non arctatur nec ab ingressu ecclesiae nec a communione; tamen communio posset de consilio sacerdotis differri.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ibi excessus; dicendum, quod non est excessus ex parte reddentis, immo necessitas, sed ex parte petentis[^13]; si tamen propter periculum faciat, non est excessus mortalis, sed venialis.

5. Ad aliud dicendum, quod non est simile de loco, quia in loco est consecratio Sacramenti et deputatio ad opera divina solum; ideo temeratur locus sacer, est enim mensa[^14] propria; sed tempus non sic omnino deputatur.

6. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod non est tantum periculum nec lubricum in gustu, sicut in tactu; et ideo institutum est de ieiunio sub praecepto, sed de cessatione ab amplexu est consilium, maxime coniugatis, qui invicem cohabitant.

Hoc sine praeiudicio sit dictum, pro eo quod Sancti videntur talem coitum aggravare, sicut auctoritates Hieronymi in littera[^15] videntur sentire. Sed intelligendum est, quod Sancti istud non prohibuerunt, maxime cum Apostolus dicat, quod propter orationem non debent invicem fraudare nisi ex consensu; et ideo concedendum est, istud magis esse congruitatis et honestatis quam necessitatis, nisi conscientia obliget, qua credat, illud esse prohibitum et mortale peccatum; vel nisi interveniat sacrae diei contemptus, de quo valde potest[^16] timere qui tunc debitum non erubescit petere.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether during solemn days the debt may licitly be sought and paid.*

Secondly it is asked, whether during solemn days the debt may licitly be sought and paid. And that it may, it seems.

1. In the first [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^1]: *Do not defraud one another, except by consent for a time, that you may have leisure for prayer*: therefore it is not licit to abstain even for the sake of prayer, unless with both consenting: therefore if [one] has no need to consent, the other can seek, and the other must render.

2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because conjugal intercourse, by reason of rendering the debt, has of itself no fault[^2]: therefore on a solemn day to render is not a sin.

3. Likewise, marriage is established as a remedy for concupiscence, that fornication may be avoided[^3]; but it is possible that a weak man be more tempted concerning the work of the flesh on a solemn day: therefore then it is licit to apply the remedy.

4. Likewise, if one of the spouses were to seek the debt out of mere lust to be satisfied, the one from whom[^4] it is sought would be bound to pay, because he renders to him what is his own: therefore it seems much more strongly [licit] if in sacred time he seek [it] for the sake of avoiding fornication.

**On the contrary:** 1. That at such a time it ought neither to be sought nor rendered, is shown by the authority of Augustine, which is contained in the text[^5]: «To a Christian it is licit sometimes to come together with his wife, sometimes not, on account of the days of procession and of fastings» etc.

2. Likewise, this is seen by the example of Gregory in the first [book] of the Dialogues[^6], that a woman who by night had known her husband, when by day she came to a procession, was seized by the devil; but this would not be, unless it were a grave sin: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this is seen by reason, namely that it ought neither to be sought nor rendered: because there can be a solemn day, such as Easter or Christmas, on which both are bound to communicate; but it is a constitution of the Church that no one should approach communion when he has known his wife[^7]: therefore since they cannot stand together, and [each] is bound to do the one: therefore not to do the other.

4. Likewise, this is seen through the account of virtue, which considers not only the act, but also the due circumstances[^8]; but a due circumstance is in discerning a sacred day from a non-sacred one: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, this is seen through a likeness: because it is not licit in every place to seek or render the debt, as in a church: therefore similarly it seems that [it is] not [licit] at every time either.

6. Likewise, this is seen by reason: because the delight in intercourse is greater than in food: therefore if the ecclesiastical institution as regards abstinence from food is to be necessarily observed, much more strongly [is it to be observed] as regards intercourse.

### Conclusion.

> *On solemn days to seek the debt is a fault at least venial, but not [so] to render it.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master says[^9], «the debt is always to be paid to the one requesting, yet it is not always licit to seek [it]». The reason of this is that to render is [a matter] of necessity, but to seek is [a matter] of will; and on sacred days to seek is [a matter] of disordered pleasure, which is evident thus. For marriage, by reason of its act, is a remedy, yet not altogether healing, but excusing; hence in the conjugal act there is a work of the flesh, which drags the soul downward and toward tasting earthly things and also toward feeling pleasure. Since, therefore, there are some days on which the soul ought to be sanctified and to rise up to divine things, such as the illustrious solemnities; there are also [days] on which the soul ought to be afflicted, such as [those] of fastings and processions: therefore it is fitting at such times to cease from that act; and therefore the holy Fathers instituted [this], yet they did not institute [it] as a precept, on account of the slipperiness of the flesh, which in many is great. And because <!-- page 739 -->they did not institute [it] as a precept nor take away the right of seeking the debt; therefore, when it is sought, the necessity of rendering remains.

Therefore it must be said that it can be rendered without all fault[^10] on those days, provided however that one render with displeasure and grief; but it cannot be sought without fault; and if the gaze be toward pleasure, the fault is grave, but if toward the slipperiness of the flesh and his own weakness, of which he is conscious, or [if] his conscience vehemently fears, and on account of this he seeks [it]; the sin can be venial; yet it scarcely happens that on the chief days it is not a grave sin. — The reasons are therefore to be granted, that it ought to be rendered, because they cannot defraud except by consent. Hence the time of prayer does not suffice for abstaining, unless there be present also mutual consent, as the Apostle intimates[^11].

1. 2. To that, therefore, which is objected, that to a Christian it is not licit to come together; it must be said that he does not say this on account of this, that it be a mortal sin, and its opposite be [enjoined] in a precept; but because it has a certain unseemliness. And this is evident in the same authority[^12], because it says that on such days they ought to abstain from licit things; and this I say, unless contempt of the solemnity intervene, as was [the case] in that woman of whom Gregory speaks, who went to the procession.

3. To that indeed which is objected, that it ought not to be rendered on account of communion; it must be said that since the one rendering renders with grief and unwillingly, he is not constrained either from entering the church or from communion; yet communion could, by the counsel of a priest, be deferred.

4. To that which is objected, that there is there an excess; it must be said that there is no excess on the part of the one rendering, but rather necessity, but [there is] on the part of the one seeking[^13]; if however he do it on account of danger, it is not a mortal excess, but a venial one.

5. To the other it must be said that it is not alike concerning place, because in a place there is the consecration of the Sacrament and the deputation to divine works alone; therefore the sacred place is profaned, for it is a proper table[^14]; but time is not so wholly deputed.

6. To the last it must be said that there is not so much danger nor slipperiness in taste as in touch; and therefore [something] was instituted concerning fasting under precept, but concerning cessation from embrace there is [only] counsel, especially for the married, who dwell together with one another.

Let this be said without prejudice, for the reason that the Saints seem to aggravate such intercourse, as the authorities of Jerome in the text[^15] seem to hold. But it must be understood that the Saints did not prohibit this, especially since the Apostle says that on account of prayer they ought not to defraud one another except by consent; and therefore it must be granted that this is rather [a matter] of fittingness and honorableness than of necessity, unless conscience oblige, whereby one believe it to be prohibited and a mortal sin; or unless contempt of the sacred day intervene, of which he can greatly[^16] fear who then is not ashamed to seek the debt.

---

la: Vers. 5, ubi Vulgata post *nisi* addit *forte*.

en: Verse 5, where the Vulgate after *nisi* [except] adds *forte* [perhaps].

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

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

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 7, 2. — Edd. *institutum* pro *constitutum*.

en: Cf. 1 Cor. 7, 2. — The editions [read] *institutum* [instituted] for *constitutum* [established].

la: Edd. *ille a quo*.

en: The editions [read] *ille a quo* [he from whom].

en: Here, ch. 3 [i.e. in the text of the Master].

en: Chapter 10.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: See here the text of the Master, ch. 3.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 400, nota 1. et pag. 461, nota 6.

en: Cf. above, p. 400, note 1, and p. 461, note 6.

en: Here, ch. 3.

la: Codd. R T *sine omni culpa*.

en: Codices R T [read] *sine omni culpa* [without all fault].

la: Hic in fundam. 1. allegatus. — Superius verbo *fraudare* Vat. praemittit *se*.

en: Here the first fundamentum [i.e. argument 1] is cited. — Above, at the word *fraudare* [to defraud], the Vatican [edition] prefixes *se*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3: *Quia etiam a licitis abstinendum* etc. — In fine solut. pro *quae ivit* codd. E W *quando ivit*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, ch. 3: *Because [one ought] to abstain even from licit things* etc. — At the end of the solution, for *quae ivit* [who went] codices E W [read] *quando ivit* [when she went].

la: Vat. legit: *reddentis, nec etiam ex parte petentis, cum exigit necessitas*.

en: The Vatican [edition] reads: *of the one rendering, nor even on the part of the one seeking, when necessity demands [it]*.

la: Codd. R S *mensura*. Locutio est obscura.

en: Codices R S [read] *mensura* [measure]. The expression is obscure.

la: Hic c. 3. — Superius pro *est consilium* multi codd. *institutum*, quod refertur ad *institutum est*.

en: Here, ch. 3. — Above, for *est consilium* [there is counsel] many codices [read] *institutum*, which refers back to *institutum est* [was instituted].

la: Codd. N aa *debet*. — Cfr. Glossa in C. *Sciatis fratres* (1.), q. 4. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Codices N aa [read] *debet* [ought]. — Cf. the Gloss on the canon *Sciatis fratres* (1.), q. 4. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF page bands (printed pp. 738–739 = pdf pp. 758–759, offset +20), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the two-column cascade-shattered OCR). Raw IA djvu range L79384–79545 supplied the base and footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation. `has_scholion: false` — this question renders no scholion (see hand-off below).

**PAGE-SPAN CORRECTION (report to coordinator).** The auto-chunk frontmatter had `printed_pages: [735, 736, 737]` / `pdf_pages: [755, 756, 757]` — this was WRONG. Eyes-on the bands: pages 735, 736, and 737 are ENTIRELY a3-q1 (*De tempore menstruorum*): its arguments, its Respondeo (which the editors mark "de utraque quaestione," treating both questions' arguments together), and its SCHOLION, which runs from the bottom of p. 737 into the top of p. 738. QUAESTIO II (*dies solemnium* = this chunk) does not begin until the middle of printed p. 738, below the scholion, and runs to the upper portion of p. 739. Corrected to `printed_pages: [738, 739]` / `pdf_pages: [758, 759]`. The `"Secundo quaeritur…"` opener alignment is otherwise correct (content matches the raw range); only the page metadata was off. **a3-q1's own frontmatter (`printed_pages: [734, 735]`) is likewise understated — it actually spans 734–738 (scholion tail on 738); flagged for that chunk's builder.**

**Hand-offs.**
- *First page (738), shared with a3-q1:* the top of p. 738 (both columns) carries the tail of a3-q1's ARTICULUS-III scholion (items I–III: `hanc etiam a veniali… S. Thomas… se extendere ad reddentem`; `De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal.…`; `De 2. quaestione: S. Thom.…`; `III. Quoad duas quaestiones 4. articuli nulla est difficultas…`). Per the brief, this scholion belongs to a3-q1 and is NOT rendered here. No numbered footnote is anchored in that scholion tail, so a3-q1 claims no footer note from p. 738; page 738's footer notes 1–9 are all anchored in THIS question's body and are claimed here ([^1]–[^9]).
- *Last page (739), shared with a4-q1:* ARTICULUS IV (*De tempore, in quo debent nuptiae celebrari*) + its QUAESTIO I (a4-q1) begin in the lower part of p. 739. Page 739's footer notes 8 (`Vers. 5.` → a4-q1 arg 1, Eccles. 3:5) and 9 (`Can. 11. Nonnulli codd. cum Magistro…` → a4-q1 arg 2, Nicolaus / Causa 33) anchor in a4-q1's body and are FORWARDED to a4-q1, not claimed here. This chunk claims only p. 739 notes 1–7 ([^10]–[^16]), all anchored in this question's Respondeo/replies/epilogue.

**Editorial marginalia (trimmed from body per convention).** Quaracchi keyword glosses in the printed margins, omitted from the reflowed text: "*Argg. pro parte affirmativa*" (beside args 1–4, p. 738); "*Pro parte negativa*" (beside the Contra, p. 738); "*Epilogus et iudicium auctoris*" (beside the closing `Hoc sine praeiudicio…` paragraph, p. 739).

**[?] flags.** [^15] — the middle clause `Superius pro *est consilium* multi codd. *institutum*` is read from the p. 739 right-column footer band; the variant word (`institutum`) sits at the clipped inner margin and is partly cut, though `quod refertur ad *institutum est*` makes the reading near-certain (it refers back to reply 6's `institutum est de ieiunio`). No other unresolved ambiguities; routine OCR garbles (`QLI.ESTIO`→`QUAESTIO`, `cuipani`→`culpam`, `deleclatio`→`delectatio`, `lubricnm`→`lubricum`) silently corrected against the bands where intent is unambiguous.