title: Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 6

title_alt: Whether a divorce can take place if no fault precedes

source_text:
<!-- page 787 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum possit fieri divortium, si non praecedat aliqua culpa.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum possit fieri divortium, si non praecedat aliqua culpa. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p787-3]: *Praecipio non ego, sed Dominus, uxorem a viro non discedere, excepta causa fornicationis:* ergo praeceptum est, quod non separentur; sed contra praeceptum non potest quis facere, quin incurrat culpam: ergo etc.

2. Item, Ambrosius super Lucam[^p787-4]: « Dimittis uxorem sine crimine; putas hoc tibi licere, quod lex divina prohibet »: ergo hoc est prohibitum, sine crimine dimittere.

3. Item, verbo ipsius Domini, quod est firmius inter cetera, Matthaei decimo nono[^p787-5]: *Qui dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem, moechatur;* sed per fornicationem, sive accipiatur large, sive stricte, semper intelligitur culpa: ergo etc.

4. Item, qui legitime coniuncti sunt ad perpetuam et individuam vitae consuetudinem ex matrimonio sunt ligati; qui ergo contra hoc facit, nisi habeat causam, quare debeat rationabiliter facere, matrimonio facit iniuriam; et non est sine peccato facere iniuriam Sacramento[^p787-6]: ergo etc.

5. Item, primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p787-7]: *Alligatus es uxori? Noli quaerere solutionem:* ergo nisi interveniat culpa sive peccatum, videtur, quod non liceat facere divortium.

**Contra:**

1. Sicut habetur *Extra, de Conversione coniugatorum*[^p787-8], vir et mulier possunt, si volunt, ex consensu mutuo religiones intrare diversas, etiam si non praecedat culpa; sed hoc non fit sine divortio: ergo etc.

2. Item, unusquisque potest licite renuntiare iuri suo[^p787-9]: ergo et quoad cohabitationem et quoad debitum solvendum potest absolvere: ergo etc.

3. Item, uxore volente intrare monasterium, vir potest promoveri ad sacros ordines et ad episcopatum; et hoc totum sine culpa, sicut dicitur *de Conversione coniugatorum*[^p787-10], *Sane si coniugati:* ergo etc.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum necesse sit, utrumque votum solemne emittere ad hoc, quod divortium possit fieri, et quare.

<!-- page 788 -->

> **Conclusio.** Divortium sine culpa praecedente non potest fieri, nisi utroque ad altiorem statum voluntarie transeunte et voto solemni se obligante.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod divortium inter legitimas coniuges potest fieri dupliciter: aut ut in *eodem statu persistant,* aut ut ad *frugem melioris vitae transeant.* Si, ut in *eodem statu persistant;* tunc non debet fieri, nisi manifesta culpa praecedat, tum propter *periculum,* tum propter scandalum. — Si, ut ad *frugem melioris vitae transeant;* tunc aut *uterque est voluntarius,* aut *alter invitus.* Si *uterque est voluntarius;* tunc potest fieri sine culpa, ita tamen quod uterque votum solemne emittat, et uterque habitum religionis assumat, nisi sit talis persona, « de qua nulla possit oriri suspicio », quae, voto solemni emisso, poterit remanere in domo; sin autem, oportet, utrumque converti, sicut expresse in pluribus decretalibus tangitur *de Conversione coniugatorum*[^p788-1]: rursus, et tale divortium fieri debet per personam publicam, maxime per episcopum. — Si autem *alter vult cohabitare;* nullo modo fieri potest nisi per culpam praecedentem.

Et secundum hanc distinctionem respondetur argumentis factis ad utramque partem, sicut patet aspicienti[^p788-2]. — Verumtamen quod ultimo dicit Apostolus, quod *alligatus non quaerat solutionem,* hoc non dicit, ut dehortetur statum altiorem, sed ut a communione removeat instabilitatem, et ut ostendat, in quolibet statu hominem posse salvari. Unde illud intelligitur, quod *non quaerat solutionem,* scilicet *in praeiudicium uxoris,* sicut nec servus libertatem in praeiudicium domini[^p788-3].

---

english:
### Question VI. *Whether a divorce can take place, if no fault precedes.*

Sixthly and lastly it is asked whether a divorce can take place, if no fault precedes. And that it cannot, seems [to be the case].

1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^p787-3]: *I command, not I but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, except for the cause of fornication:* therefore it is commanded that they not be separated; but against a command one cannot act without incurring fault: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, Ambrose on Luke[^p787-4]: « You dismiss your wife without crime; you think this permitted to you, which the divine law forbids »: therefore this is forbidden, to dismiss [her] without crime.

3. Likewise, by the word of the Lord himself, which is firmer than the rest, Matthew, chapter nineteen[^p787-5]: *Whoever dismisses his wife unless for fornication, commits adultery;* but by fornication, whether it be taken broadly or strictly, fault is always understood: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, those who are legitimately joined for a perpetual and undivided common life are bound by matrimony; whoever therefore acts against this, unless he have a cause for which he ought reasonably to do it, inflicts an injury on the matrimony; and it is not without sin to inflict injury on the Sacrament[^p787-6]: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, first to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^p787-7]: *Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek release:* therefore, unless fault or sin intervene, it seems that it is not permitted to make a divorce.

**On the contrary:**

1. As is held in the *Decretals, On the Conversion of the Married*[^p787-8], a man and a woman can, if they wish, enter different religious [orders] by mutual consent, even if no fault precedes; but this is not done without a divorce: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, everyone can licitly renounce his own right[^p787-9]: therefore, both as to cohabitation and as to paying the debt he can absolve [himself]: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, with the wife wishing to enter a monastery, the man can be promoted to sacred orders and to the episcopate; and all this without fault, as is said in *On the Conversion of the Married*[^p787-10], *Sane si coniugati:* therefore, etc.

Alongside this it is asked whether it is necessary for both to make a solemn vow in order that a divorce may take place, and why.

> **Conclusion.** A divorce without a preceding fault cannot take place, unless both, voluntarily passing over to a higher state, bind themselves by a solemn vow.

**I respond:** It must be said that a divorce between legitimate spouses can take place in two ways: either so that *they remain in the same state,* or so that *they pass over to the fruit of a better life.* If [it be] so that *they remain in the same state;* then it ought not to take place, unless manifest fault precede, both on account of *danger* and on account of scandal. — If [it be] so that *they pass over to the fruit of a better life;* then either *both are willing,* or *the other is unwilling.* If *both are willing;* then it can take place without fault, provided, however, that each make a solemn vow, and each take on the habit of religion — unless it be such a person « of whom no suspicion can arise », who, once the solemn vow has been made, will be able to remain in [her] home; but if not, it is necessary that both be converted [to religious life], as is expressly touched upon in several decretals *On the Conversion of the Married*[^p788-1]: again, such a divorce ought to be made through a public person, especially through a bishop. — But if *the other wishes to cohabit;* in no way can it take place except through a preceding fault.

And according to this distinction, the arguments made for both parts are answered, as is clear to one who looks[^p788-2]. — Nevertheless, as to what the Apostle says lastly, that *the one bound should not seek release,* he does not say this to dissuade [anyone] from the higher state, but to remove instability from the community, and to show that in any state a person can be saved. Hence that [saying] is understood [thus]: that *he should not seek release,* namely *to the prejudice of the wife,* just as neither [should] a slave [seek] freedom to the prejudice of [his] master[^p788-3].

---

la: Vers. 10. Verba *excepta causa fornicationis* habentur Matth. 5, 32.

en: [1 Cor. 7,] v. 10. The words *except for the cause of fornication* are found in Matt. 5, 32.

la: Libr. VIII. n. 5: Dimittis ergo uxorem quasi iure, sine crimine; et putas, id tibi licere, quia lex humana non prohibet; sed divina prohibet. Cfr. C. *An quod* (2.), C. 33. q. 2.

en: Book VIII, n. 5: You dismiss your wife as if by right, without crime; and you think it permitted to you, because the human law does not forbid it; but the divine [law] forbids it. Cf. the canon *An quod* (2), C. 33, q. 2.

la: Vers. 9: Quicumque dimiserit... fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur. — De diversa acceptione *fornicationis* cfr. infra d. 39. dub. 3.

en: [Matt. 19,] v. 9: Whoever dismisses... fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. — On the differing sense of *fornication* cf. below, d. 39, dub. 3.

la: Cod. U *sine peccato matrimonio facere iniuriam, quia facit iniuriam Sacramento.*

en: Codex U [reads] *sine peccato matrimonio facere iniuriam, quia facit iniuriam Sacramento.*

la: Vers. 27. — Inferius Vat. perperam omittit *non.*

en: [1 Cor. 7,] v. 27. — Below, the Vatican [edition] wrongly omits *non.*

la: Libr. III. tit. 32. C. *Cum sis* (4.).

en: [Decretals,] Book III, tit. 32, the canon *Cum sis* (4).

la: Vide supra pag. 567, nota 4. — Inferius post *potest* cod. K (2a secunda manu) addit *alterum,* cod. P *alter alterum,* cod. Q *unus alterum.*

en: See above, p. 567, note 4. — Below, after *potest,* codex K (by a second hand) adds *alterum,* codex P [reads] *alter alterum,* codex Q *unus alterum.*

la: Extra, lib. III. tit. 32. c. 6.

en: Decretals, Book III, tit. 32, c. 6.

la: Can. paulo superius citato *Cum sis* et C. *Uxoratus* (8.), ibid. Cfr. supra pag. 743, nota 5. — Superius pro *sin autem... converti* [i. e. religionis habitum assumere], quod praebet cod. E (a secunda manu), codd. F G *si autem non... converti,* et edd. *si autem... converti.*

en: The canon *Cum sis,* cited a little above, and the canon *Uxoratus* (8), ibid. Cf. above, p. 743, note 5. — Above, for *sin autem... converti* [i.e. to take on the habit of religion], which codex E (by a second hand) supplies, codices F G [read] *si autem non... converti,* and the editions *si autem... converti.*

la: Plures codd. *aspicientibus.* Inferius pro *a communione* Vat. *a corde,* et post *unde illud* codd. U X addunt *sic.*

en: Several codices [read] *aspicientibus.* Below, for *a communione* the Vatican [edition reads] *a corde,* and after *unde illud* codices U X add *sic.*

en: See the scholion on the 4th question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Split from the combined a1-q4 chunk 2026-07-12; content re-set from vol4 Quaracchi PDF column-bands (offset pdf = printed + 20) pp. 787–788, verbatim from the combined chunk (nothing re-translated). Pages verified by running heads: **787** (`DIST. XXXV. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI. 787`), **788** (`788 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`). The q6 QUAESTIO header (`Sexto et ultimo quaeritur…`, raw L84328) was OCR-garbled, which is why the auto-chunker originally folded q6 into the q4 chunk. Opener alignment verified: raw "Sexto et ultimo quaeritur…" matches this chunk.

**Quaestio incidens.** The short "Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum necesse sit, utrumque votum solemne emittere…" incidental question is folded into q6 (answered within q6's Respondeo, in the "uterque votum solemne emittat" clause); it is not a separate chunk.

**Scholion.** None here. The article's second scholion (§I–III, covering q4–q6) stays with the group-owner chunk `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q4.md`; its §III is the note on this (6th) question. Apparatus [^p788-3] ("Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.") points back to that scholion.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- **p. 787 notes 3–10** claimed here (q6 body). p. 787 notes 1–2 stay with q5.
- **p. 788 notes 1–3** claimed here (q6 Respondeo). p. 788 notes 4, 5 (`Libr. IV. tit. 19. C. Significasti…`; `Can. 1. Cum per bellicas…`) anchor in **DUB. I** (the dubia chunk), NOT in q6, and are not claimed here.
- **p. 787/788 seam:** q6's *Contra* + incidental question close on p. 787; the Conclusio + Respondeo open on p. 788. Rendered continuous.

**Apparatus count:** 11 entries — p.787: 8 (notes 3–10); p.788: 3 (notes 1–3).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 35, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 788 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo super hoc quod dicit: *Nequit adultera uxor dimitti a viro*; quaeritur, utrum vir, qui fornicatur in occulto, possit dimittere uxorem, quae fornicatur in aperto. Et quod sic, videtur: quoniam vir potest agere contra uxorem, et illa non potest excipere contra virum, et si excipit, nihil valet, cum non possit probare. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur, in quibus casibus competat uxori excipere contra virum petentem divortium.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod talis vir fornicans non debet eam dimittere nec potest sine peccato in conspectu Dei, licet possit in conspectu Ecclesiae, pro eo quod uxori non defuit ius excipiendi, quamvis desit probatio. Argumentum est Causa trigesima secunda, quaestione sexta per totum. Si tamen vir egisset poenitentiam, et illa accusata nollet agere poenitentiam, sed perseveraret in adulterio; creditur tunc, quod vir possit eam accusare et dimittere per sententiam; si vero vir esset in crimine notorio, sicut uxor, non posset. — Unde septem sunt casus, in quibus secundum iura adultera potest excipere contra virum. Primus est, si fornicari convincitur; Causa trigesima secunda, quaestione sexta per totum, et Extra, *de Divortiis*[^p788-4]. — Secundus, si quis prostituit eam; Extra, *de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris suae*, *Discretionem* etc. — Tertius, cum credebat maritum in bello defunctum et nupsit alii; Causa trigesima quarta, quaestione prima: *Cum per bellicam*[^p788-5]. — Quartus, si cognita fuit latenter ab aliquo, quem credebat esse virum suum; Argumentum Causa trigesima quarta, quaestione prima[^p788-6]. — Quintus, si fuerit vi oppressa; Causa trigesima secunda, quaestione quinta, *Proposito* etc.; hoc autem intelligendum est de vi absoluta, non de metu. — Sextus, quando reconciliavit eam sibi post adulterium et petiit debitum; Causa trigesima secunda, quaestione prima. — Septimus est rarus, si infidelis repudiat uxorem, et illa ducit virum alterum; si veniat ad fidem, debet eam recipere, non obstante, quod fuerit fornicata; Extra, *de Divortiis*[^p788-7], *Gaudemus*.

### Dub. II.

Item super hoc quod dicit: *Cum tanto gravius eos puniri oportuerit* etc.; quaeritur: quis gravius peccat, utrum mulier, quae adulteratur, quam vir, vel e converso? Et quod magis *vir*, videtur littera[^p788-8] dicere. — Item, sexus muliebris est infirmior et ad

<!-- page 789 -->

lapsum pronior per naturam: ergo magis excusatur in culpa. — Sed *contra* hoc est, quia sexus muliebris naturaliter est verecundior et viro debet esse subiectior: ergo videtur, quod gravius peccat, si adulteratur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista duo crimina se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. In hoc enim, quod sexus virilis est stabilior per naturam et debet regere feminam, gravius peccat adulterando; sed quia vir maiorem habet impulsionem ad luxuriam propter fortitudinem caloris et quia maiorem habet copiam, nec est ita sexus verecundus per naturam: hinc est, quod mulier gravius peccat, et ideo maior ex peccato mulieris oritur infamia tam viro quam mulieri. Unde aliquo modo verum est hic quod dicit Gregorius[^p789-1] de carnalibus vitiis, quod sunt minoris culpae, sed maioris infamiae. — Fere enim in omnibus vitiis istud reperitur, quod ad invicem comparata se habent ut excedentia et excessa. — Verumtamen, si quaeratur, quod magis excedat; videtur, quod fornicatio mulieris, quia magis laedit virum et minus habet impulsivum, licet sit minus fortis ad resistendum; illud enim recompensatur per humanam verecundiam, quae debet eam retrahere multum[^p789-2].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Chrysostomus: *Patronus enim est turpitudinis qui celat crimen uxoris*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Proverbiorum undecimo[^p789-3]: *Fidelis est qui celat crimen amici*: ergo bonum est crimen celare. — Item, qui scienter infamat alterum aufert ei maximum bonum: ergo graviter peccat.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod *celare* est dupliciter: aut cum scit, sed tamen est *occultum aliis*, et non detegit; aut cum scit[^p789-4] *apertum* et notum et dissimulando cooperit. Et primum est *fidelitatis*, secundum vero est *praebere patrocinium sceleri*. — Vel aliter, *celare* hoc est dupliciter: aut in *praeiudicium correptionis*, aut in *supportationem peccatoris* et infirmi; et primum est malum, secundum vero est bonum. — Vel aliter, *celare crimen* est dupliciter: aut personae, quae *potest prodesse*; aut personae, quae *potest obesse*[^p789-5]; primum est malum, secundum licitum. Et sic patet illud.

### Dub. IV.

Item super hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Quod si tibi durum videtur, ut post adulterium tibi reconcilietur coniux* etc.; quaeritur, si sententia divortii lata est per errorem, et post vir promotus est ad sacerdotium; si error Ecclesiae et deceptio pateat, utrum reddendus sit uxori, si ipsa non vult continere. Et quod *sic*, videtur: quia mulier habebat ius suum, et salvo iure mulieris non poterat continentiam vovere contra voluntatem uxoris.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod inducenda est ad continentiam; quodsi manifesta deceptio in latione prioris sententiae appareat, et ipsa non vult continere; debet vir suus sibi reddi. Verumtamen ille non poterit *petere* debitum, quoniam, quantum in se fuit, continentiam vovit[^p789-6]; et hoc dico, nisi mulier fuerit fornicata.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Et insuper moechae iuramentum dedisse* etc. Videtur enim, quod fides superaddita impediat suum iuramentum. Sed videtur, quod *non*: quia licitum est hanc ducere uxorem post mortem viri: ergo licitum est promittere: ergo propter illam promissionem non debet impediri sequens matrimonium, sed confirmari: si ergo simplex adulterium non impedit, videtur, quod nec impediat cum fidei datione.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod talis fides non est fides, sed potius *infidelitas*, pro eo quod est contra *bonum fidei*, quo uxor tenetur alligata viro; et ideo, cum in fidei datione matrimonia inchoentur, et talis fides matrimonio repugnet; non initiat, immo simpliciter inhabiles reddit, quia nec initiari amplius inter tales personas potest nec consummari. Similiter, si alter in mortem viri machinetur propter contrahendum matrimonium, potius se facit inhabilem, quam se reddat habilem[^p789-7]. Quod ergo obiicitur, quod est licitum; dicendum, quod non est, tum quia fit ex mala causa, tum quia est occasio multorum malorum; et ideo, si iurat, non obligatur ad iuramentum servandum, sed potius ad poenitentiam faciendam pro iuramento male et inordinate emisso. Et sic patet illud.

---

english:
### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first upon that which he says: *An adulterous wife cannot be dismissed by her husband*; it is asked whether a husband who fornicates in secret may dismiss a wife who fornicates openly. And that he can, it seems: since the husband can bring an action against the wife, while she cannot lodge an exception against the husband, and if she does lodge it, it is of no avail, since she cannot prove it. — Along with this it is asked in which cases it is competent to a wife to lodge an exception against a husband who seeks a divorce.

I respond: It must be said that such a fornicating husband ought not to dismiss her, nor can he do so without sin in the sight of God, although he can in the sight of the Church, for the reason that the wife did not lack the right of lodging an exception, even though proof is wanting. The argument is Causa 32, question 6, throughout. If, however, the husband had done penance, and she, being accused, were unwilling to do penance but persevered in adultery, then it is held that the husband can accuse her and dismiss her by sentence; but if the husband were in a notorious crime, like the wife, he could not. — Hence there are seven cases in which, according to the laws, an adulteress can lodge an exception against her husband. The first is if he is convicted of fornication; Causa 32, question 6, throughout, and the Decretals, *On Divorces*[^p788-4]. — The second, if someone has prostituted her; the Decretals, *On the man who has known a kinswoman of his wife*, *Discretionem* etc. — The third, when she believed her husband dead in war and married another; Causa 34, question 1: *Cum per bellicam*[^p788-5]. — The fourth, if she was secretly known by someone whom she believed to be her own husband; the argument, Causa 34, question 1[^p788-6]. — The fifth, if she was overpowered by force; Causa 32, question 5, *Proposito* etc.; but this is to be understood of absolute force, not of fear. — The sixth, when he reconciled her to himself after the adultery and demanded the [marriage] debt; Causa 32, question 1. — The seventh is rare: if an unbeliever repudiates his wife, and she takes another husband; if he comes to the faith, he ought to take her back, notwithstanding that she has fornicated; the Decretals, *On Divorces*[^p788-7], *Gaudemus*.

### Doubt II.

Likewise, upon that which he says: *Since they must be punished so much the more gravely* etc.; it is asked: who sins more gravely, whether the woman who commits adultery, or the man, or the reverse? And that the man does more, the text seems[^p788-8] to say. — Likewise, the female sex is weaker and more

<!-- page 789 -->

prone to a fall by nature: therefore it is more excused in fault. — But *against* this stands the fact that the female sex is naturally more modest and ought to be more subject to the man: therefore it seems that she sins more gravely if she commits adultery.

I respond: It must be said that these two crimes stand to one another as the exceeding and the exceeded. For in this respect, that the male sex is more stable by nature and ought to rule the woman, he sins more gravely in committing adultery; but because the man has a greater impulse toward lust on account of the strength of his heat, and because he has greater abundance, and the sex is not so modest by nature: hence it is that the woman sins more gravely, and therefore a greater infamy arises from the woman's sin, both for the man and for the woman. Hence in some way what Gregory[^p789-1] says of the carnal vices is true, namely that they are of lesser guilt but greater infamy. — For in nearly all vices this is found, that when compared with one another they stand as the exceeding and the exceeded. — Nevertheless, if it be asked which exceeds the more, it seems that the woman's fornication does, because it harms the husband more and has less that impels it, although she is less strong for resisting; for this is compensated by the human modesty which ought to hold her back greatly[^p789-2].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which Chrysostom says: *For he is a patron of baseness who conceals his wife's crime*. For he seems to speak ill, because in Proverbs, chapter eleven[^p789-3]: *Faithful is he who conceals a friend's crime*: therefore it is good to conceal a crime. — Likewise, he who knowingly defames another takes from him the greatest good: therefore he sins gravely.

I respond: It must be said that to *conceal* is twofold: either when one knows, but it is nonetheless *hidden from others*, and he does not disclose it; or when one knows[^p789-4] it *open* and manifest and, by dissembling, covers it up. And the first belongs to *faithfulness*, but the second is to *furnish patronage to wickedness*. — Or otherwise, to *conceal* this is twofold: either to the *prejudice of correction*, or unto the *bearing-with of a sinner* and a weak person; and the first is evil, but the second is good. — Or otherwise, to *conceal a crime* is twofold: either to a person who *can be benefited*, or to a person who *can be harmed*[^p789-5]; the first is evil, the second permissible. And thus that [saying] is clear.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise, upon that which Augustine says: *But if it seems hard to you that after adultery your spouse should be reconciled to you* etc.; it is asked, if a sentence of divorce was passed through error, and afterward the man was promoted to the priesthood; if the error and deception of the Church become manifest, whether he must be restored to his wife, if she is unwilling to remain continent. And that he must, it seems: because the woman had her right, and, the woman's right being preserved, he could not vow continence against his wife's will.

I respond: It must be said that she must be led to continence; but if a manifest deception should appear in the passing of the prior sentence, and she is unwilling to remain continent, her own man must be restored to her. Nevertheless he will not be able to *demand* the debt, since, as far as lay in him, he vowed continence[^p789-6]; and this I say unless the woman has fornicated.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *And moreover that the adulteress has given her oath* etc. For it seems that the superadded faith [i.e. the pledge given] impedes his oath. But it seems that it does *not*: because it is permissible to take this woman as wife after the husband's death: therefore it is permissible to promise: therefore on account of that promise the subsequent marriage ought not to be impeded but confirmed: if therefore simple adultery does not impede, it seems that neither would it impede along with the giving of faith.

I respond: It must be said that such faith is not faith, but rather *infidelity*, for the reason that it is against the *good of faith* by which the wife is held bound to her husband; and therefore, since marriages are begun in the giving of faith, and such a faith is repugnant to marriage, it does not initiate [the marriage], but rather renders them simply incapable, since such persons can neither be initiated further [into marriage] nor consummate it. Likewise, if one party contrives the death of the [other's] husband in order to contract marriage, he rather makes himself incapable than renders himself capable[^p789-7]. As to the objection, then, that it is permissible, it must be said that it is not, both because it is done from an evil cause, and because it is the occasion of many evils; and therefore, if he swears, he is not bound to keep the oath, but rather to do penance for an oath wickedly and inordinately uttered. And thus that [saying] is clear.

---

la: Libr. IV. tit. 19. C. *Significasti* (4.). — Seq. locus est ibid. tit. 13. c. 6.

en: Decretals, Book IV, tit. 19, ch. *Significasti* (4.). — The following passage is ibid., tit. 13, c. 6.

la: Can. 1. (Codd. et edd. *Cum per bellicas*). — Post *nupsit* alii cod. B addit: *tunc enim maritus rediens tenetur eam recipere, non obstante adulterio, si steterit cum secundo, postquam primus venerit.*

en: Canon 1. (The codices and editions read *Cum per bellicas*). — After *nupsit* another codex, B, adds: *for then the returning husband is bound to take her back, notwithstanding the adultery, if she remained with the second [husband] after the first returned.*

la: Can. *In lectum* (6.). — Seq. locus est C. 32. q. 5. c. 4. Cfr. ibid. Gratian. super C. *Puto* (16), qui etiam a nonnullis codd. allegatur. Tertius (sextus) habetur C. 32. q. 1. C. *Si quis uxorem* (4.), seqq.

en: Canon *In lectum* (6.). — The following passage is C. 32, q. 5, c. 4. Cf. ibid. Gratian on C. *Puto* (16), which is also cited by several codices. The third (sixth) is found at C. 32, q. 1, C. *Si quis uxorem* (4.), and following.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 8. — Vide de hoc dubio supra q. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 10; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 1.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1.

en: Decretals, Book IV, tit. 19, c. 8. — On this doubt see above, q. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 10; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 1; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Inferius pro *in culpa* edd. *a culpa*.

en: See here in the text of the Master, ch. 2. — Below, for *in culpa* the editions read *a culpa*.

la: Libr. XXXIII. Moral. c. 12. n. 23: *Scimus autem, quia aliquando minus est in corporis corruptionem cadere quam cogitatione tacita ex deliberata elatione peccare; sed cum minus turpis superbia creditur, minus vitatur. Luxuriam vero eo magis erubescunt homines, quo simul omnes turpem noverunt. Unde fit plerumque, ut nonnulli, post superbiam in luxuriam corruentes, ex aperto casu malum culpae latentis erubescant.*

en: Book XXXIII of the *Morals*, c. 12, n. 23: *But we know that sometimes it is a lesser thing to fall into corruption of the body than to sin by a silent thought out of deliberate pride; but since pride is held to be less base, it is less avoided. Lust, however, men blush at all the more, because all alike recognize it as base. Hence it usually comes about that some, falling from pride into lust, blush at the evil of a hidden fault through an open lapse.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 4. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. et circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 1; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 4 and on the text; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 4, and on the text.

la: Vers. 13: *Qui autem fidelis est animi celat amici commissum.* Codd. allegant c. 17, ubi v. 9: *Qui celat delictum quaerit amicitias.* — Pro arg. seq. cfr. ibid. 22, 1: *Melius est nomen bonum quam divitiae multae.*

en: Verse 13: *But he who is of a faithful mind conceals what is committed to him by a friend.* The codices cite c. 17, where v. 9 reads: *He who conceals a fault seeks friendships.* — For the following argument cf. ibid. 22, 1: *A good name is better than many riches.*

la: Plures codd. *sit*, quod etiam a nonnullis codd. paulo ante pro *scit* substituitur.

en: Several codices read *sit*, which some codices also substitute a little earlier for *scit*.

la: Codd. A F G Q V *quae non prodesse, sed obesse potest.* — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med. hic circa lit.

en: Codices A F G Q V read *quae non prodesse, sed obesse potest.* — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Vide supra d. 27. dub. 4. — De hoc dub. cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: See above, d. 27, dub. 4. — On this doubt cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Cfr. infra d. 37. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius post *personas potest* edd. prosequuntur: *nec consummari similiter. Si autem alter* etc.

en: Cf. below, d. 37, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, after *personas potest*, the editions continue: *nec consummari similiter. Si autem alter* etc. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 two-column PDF page-bands for printed pp. 788–789 (pdf 808–809; offset +20), per the VOL II/IV OVERRIDE (PDF-band authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo/footer regions; raw IA OCR L84420–84656 used as the base for clean running prose and for footnote-marker spacing). Column bands regenerated with `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2120` (left) / `1640` (right) because the default split clipped the wide left column and the right column's left edge. Read left column top→bottom then right column, both pages, then footer bands.

**Dubia count: five (Dub. I–V), all complete.** Dub. I (statement + Respondeo + the seven *casus*), Dub. II (statement on p. 788 → Respondeo on p. 789), Dub. III, Dub. IV, Dub. V. **Seam verified:** Dub. V's Respondeo closes with *Et sic patet illud.* in the right column of printed p. 789; it is immediately followed by p. 789's footer block, then the p. 790 running head and `DISTINCTIO XXXVI.` (raw L84662). The final dubium is therefore NOT truncated at the d.35→d.36 seam — the d.36 littera begins fresh on p. 790, which holds no dubia content.

**Page-span correction (was [789, 790]).** The dubia actually occupy printed pp. **788–789**, not 789–790. The `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header, all of Dub. I, and the opening of Dub. II sit on p. 788 (raw L84420 ff.); Dub. II's Respondeo through Dub. V sit on p. 789; p. 790 is already d.36. Frontmatter `printed_pages`, `pdf_pages`, `line_start`, `line_end` corrected accordingly (line_start moved from 84485 to the DUBIA header at 84420).

**Boundary hand-off with a. 1, q. 4 (shared p. 788).** The auto-chunker gave the still-skeleton `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q4` a raw range ending L84484, which erroneously swallows the DUBIA header + Dub. I + Dub. II opening (L84420–84484). Those belong here and are transcribed here. **When a1-q4 is promoted, its Latin body must STOP at the end of its CONCLUSIO** (`...sicut nec servus libertatem in praeiudicium domini`, marker 3) and must not include any Dub. material.

**Footer split on p. 788 (shared page).** Printed p. 788 carries footnotes 1–8. Notes **1, 2, 3** belong to a. 1, q. 4's conclusio (marker 3 = *libertatem in praeiudicium domini*; its def *Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.*) — they are a1-q4's, claimed there, NOT here. Notes **4, 5, 6, 7, 8** are the dubia-body footers (Dub. I *casus* + Dub. II) and are claimed here. All seven footers on p. 789 (notes 1–7) fall inside the dubia body and are claimed here. **Apparatus total: 12** (p.788: 4–8 = 5 entries; p.789: 1–7 = 7 entries).

**Editorial marginalia trimmed** (printed side-labels, not Bonaventure's text): *Quaestio incidens*, *Ad quaest. incid.*, *Casus primus … Casus septimus*, the *1a./2a. via* markers beside the *Vel aliter* divisions in Dub. III, and *Notandum* beside Dub. V's Respondeo.

**[?] flags / resolved readings.**
- Dub. V opener lemma: bands read *Et insuper moechae iuramentum dedisse etc. Videtur enim, quod fides superaddita impediat suum iuramentum.* The raw OCR had misplaced *enim* into the lemma (*iuramentum enim dedisse*); band placement (*…dedisse etc. Videtur enim, quod…*) preferred. No word *velle* present on the band.
- Dub. V, arg.: *…sed confirmari: si ergo simplex adulterium non impedit, videtur, quod nec impediat cum fidei datione.* — the leading *si* is fully visible on the band; only the preceding wrapped *mari:* (from *confirmari*) was clipped. Raw OCR dropped the *si*; band retained.
- [^p788-4]: *Seq. locus … tit. 13. c. 6* — the band reads *tit. 13* (raw OCR ambiguous). [^p789-6]: *Vide supra d. 27. dub. 4* — band reads *dub. 4* (raw OCR had a garbled *dub. i*).

No scholion (this is a dubia unit; `has_scholion: false`).

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. 36

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXXVI

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

source_text:
<!-- page 790 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXVI.

### Cap. I. *De servis.*

Nunc de *conditione* videamus, an valeat coniugium dividere. — «Ad quod dicimus, quia non negatur ingenua posse nubere servo; sed si nescitur esse servilis conditionis, libere potest dimitti, cum servitus eius fuerit deprehensa[^1]», secundum illud: «Si quis ingenuus homo ancillam alterius uxorem acceperit et aestimat, quod ingenua sit; si ipsa femina fuerit postea in servitute detecta, si eam a servitute redimere potest, faciat; si non potest, si voluerit, aliam accipiat. Si vero ancillam eam scierat et collaudaverat, post eam ut legitimam habeat». Item ex eodem: «Si femina ingenua acceperit servum, sciens, quod servus esset; habeat eum, quia omnes unum patrem habemus in caelis, una lex erit viro et feminae». «Cum dicitur: *sciens* illum servum, datur intelligi, quod si *nescierit,* illum servum esse; non cogitur manere cum ipso. Si enim conditionis dolum patitur, non cogitur adhaerere ei cuius fraude decepta est. Si autem scierit vir conditionem mulieris, vel e converso; non valet eam dimittere». Unde Zacharias Papa[^2]: «Si quis liber ancillam in matrimonio acceperit; non habet licentiam dimittendi eam, si consensu amborum coniuncti sunt, nisi ob fornicationem»; de illis agit, quibus alterutrius conditio nota est, quando coniunguntur.

### Cap. II. *De copula servi et ancillae diversorum dominorum.*

«Quaeritur etiam, si servus unius ancillam alterius acceperit, an sit inter eos coniugium». De hoc ita est statutum[^3]: «Dictum est nobis, quod quidam legitima servorum matrimonia potestativa quadam praesumtione dirimant, non attendentes illud: *Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet.* Unde nobis visum est, ut coniugia servorum non dirimantur, etiam si diversos dominos habeant; sed in uno coniugio permanentes, dominis serviant suis. Et hoc in illis observandum est, ubi legalis coniunctio fuit et *per voluntatem dominorum*». — Attende finem huius capituli, ubi videtur innui, *praeter voluntatem dominorum* inter servum et ancillam non posse contrahi coniugium, vel si contrahitur, non esse ratum. — Quibusdam tamen videtur, inter eos posse fieri coniugium, dominis ignorantibus.

### Cap. III. *De viro, qui se facit servum, ut dividatur ab uxore.*

Illud etiam notandum, quod si mulier «virum liberum acceperit, et ille, ut causam praestet dissidii, se alicuius servum fecerit; nec uxorem dimittere, nec illa ob vinculum coniugii in servitutem redigi poterit[^4]». Unde illud: «Perlatum est ad sanctam Synodum, quod quidam ingenuus ingenuam acceperit uxorem et post filiorum procreationem occasione divortii cuiusdam se servum fecerit. Utrum mulierem necessario tenere debeat, et si tenuerit, an illa etiam servituti subiici debeat; quaesitum est. Iudicatum est, uxorem minime debere dimitti, non tamen ob Christi legem mulierem in servitutem redigi, dum ille non ex consensu coniugis se servum fecerit, quem liberum ipsa maritum acceperat».

### Cap. IV. *De aetate contrahentium.*

Hoc etiam sciendum est, quod «pueri ante quatuordecim annos et puellae ante duodecim secundum leges matrimonium inire nequeunt. Quodsi ante praedicta tempora copulam inierint; separari possunt, quamvis voluntate et assensu parentum iuncti fuerint. Qui vero in pueritia copulati post annos pubertatis nolunt se relinquere, sed in coniunctione permanere; iam ex hoc efficiuntur coniuges et deinceps nequeunt separari[^5]». Item: «Sponsalia ante septennium contrahi non possunt; solo enim consensu contrahuntur, qui intervenire non potest, nisi ab alterutra parte intelligatur quod inter eos agitur». — Duo illa exsecuti sumus cum aliorum quorundam adiectione, quibus coniugium solvi potest, nec tamen solvi semper necesse est. Nunc de aliis, quae personas illegitimas penitus faciunt, addendum est et primum de *ordine*.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXVI.

### Chap. I. *On slaves.*

Now let us consider concerning [servile] *condition*, whether it can dissolve a marriage. — «To which we say that it is not denied that a freeborn woman can marry a slave; but if it is not known that he is of servile condition, she can freely be released, once his servitude has been detected[^1]», according to this: «If any freeborn man takes another's female slave as his wife and reckons that she is freeborn; if the woman afterwards is discovered in servitude, if he can redeem her from servitude, let him do so; if he cannot, if he wishes, let him take another. But if he had known her to be a female slave and had approved of her, let him keep her afterward as a lawful [wife]». Likewise from the same: «If a freeborn woman takes a slave, knowing that he was a slave; let her keep him, because we all have one Father in heaven, [and] there shall be one law for man and woman». «When it is said: *knowing* him [to be] a slave, it is given to understand that if she *did not know* him to be a slave; she is not compelled to remain with him. For if she suffers the deceit of [his] condition, she is not compelled to cling to him by whose fraud she was deceived. But if the man knew the condition of the woman, or conversely; he is not permitted to dismiss her». Whence Pope Zacharias[^2]: «If any free man takes a female slave in marriage; he does not have license to dismiss her, if they have been joined by the consent of both, except on account of fornication»; he treats of those of whom the condition of one or the other is known when they are joined.

### Chap. II. *On the union of the male slave and female slave of different masters.*

«It is also asked, if the slave of one [master] takes the female slave of another, whether there is marriage between them». Concerning this it has been thus established[^3]: «It has been told us that certain persons, by a certain domineering presumption, dissolve the lawful marriages of slaves, not heeding that [word]: *What God has joined let man not separate.* Whence it has seemed [good] to us that the marriages of slaves should not be dissolved, even if they have different masters; but, remaining in one marriage, let them serve their [own] masters. And this is to be observed in those [cases] where the union was lawful and [made] *through the will of the masters*». — Note the end of this chapter, where it seems to be intimated that, *apart from the will of the masters*, marriage cannot be contracted between a male slave and a female slave, or, if it is contracted, it is not valid. — To some, nevertheless, it seems that marriage can be made between them, with the masters unaware.

### Chap. III. *On the man who makes himself a slave, in order to be divided from his wife.*

This too must be noted, that if a woman «takes a free man [as husband], and he, in order to furnish a cause of dissension, makes himself the slave of someone; neither can he dismiss [his] wife, nor can she, on account of the bond of marriage, be reduced into servitude[^4]». Whence that [decree]: «It has been brought before the holy Synod that a certain freeborn man took a freeborn wife and, after the procreation of children, on the occasion of divorce made himself the slave of a certain person. Whether he must necessarily keep the woman, and if he keeps her, whether she too must be subjected to servitude; has been asked. It has been judged that the wife ought by no means to be dismissed, yet that not on account of Christ's law is the woman to be reduced into servitude, since he did not make himself a slave with the consent of his spouse, whom she herself had taken as a free husband».

### Chap. IV. *On the age of those contracting [marriage].*

This too must be known, that «boys before fourteen years and girls before twelve according to the laws cannot enter marriage. But if before the aforesaid times they have entered union; they can be separated, although they were joined with the will and assent of [their] parents. But those who, joined in childhood, after the years of puberty are unwilling to leave one another, but [wish] to remain in the union; from this they now become spouses and thenceforth cannot be separated[^5]». Likewise: «Espousals cannot be contracted before the seventh year; for they are contracted by consent alone, which cannot intervene unless by either party there be understood what is being transacted between them». — These two [points] we have carried through, with the addition of certain others by which marriage can be dissolved, yet [by which] it is not always necessary that it be dissolved. Now concerning the others, which make persons wholly unfit [for marriage], something must be added, and first concerning [holy] *order*.

---

la: Gratian., super C. *Si quis ancillam* (3.), C. 29. q. 2; seq. locus C. *Si quis ingenuus* (4.), ibid.; tertius *Si femina ingenua* (5.), ibid.; quartus est Gratian. super C. *Cuius rei* (6.), ibid. In secundo loco pro *in servitute detecta* codd. et edd., excepta 1, 8, *in servitutem deiecta*.

en: Gratian, on the canon *Si quis ancillam* (3.), Causa 29, q. 2; the following passage [is] the canon *Si quis ingenuus* (4.), in the same place; the third [is] *Si femina ingenua* (5.), in the same place; the fourth is Gratian on the canon *Cuius rei* (6.), in the same place. In the second place, for *in servitute detecta* ("discovered in servitude") the codices and editions, except 1 and 8, [read] *in servitutem deiecta* ("cast down into servitude").

la: Can. *Si quis liber* (2.), ibid. — Pro *habet licentiam* codd. ABCD et ed. 1 *habeat licentiam*, refragante canone.

en: The canon *Si quis liber* (2.), in the same place. — For *habet licentiam* ("he has license") codices ABCD and edition 1 [read] *habeat licentiam* ("let him have license"), against the canon.

la: Can. *Dictum est* (8.), ibid. Citatur ibi Matth. 19, 6. Quae praecedunt leguntur apud Gratian., ibid.

en: The canon *Dictum est* (8.), in the same place. There Matthew 19:6 is cited. What precedes is read in Gratian, in the same place.

la: Gratian., super C. *Cuius rei* (6.), ibid. Seq. locus est C. *Perlatum est* (7.), ibid.

en: Gratian, on the canon *Cuius rei* (6.), in the same place. The following passage is the canon *Perlatum est* (7.), in the same place.

la: Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 15; seq. locus est Gratian. C. 30. q. 2. introduct.; cfr. C. *Litteras tuae fraternitati* (4.), X. de Desponsat. impuberum (libr. IV. tit. 2.).

en: Hugh [of St. Victor], *Summa Sententiarum*, tract 7, c. 15; the following passage is Gratian, C. 30, q. 2, introduction; cf. the canon *Litteras tuae fraternitati* (4.), in the Decretals (X.), *de desponsatione impuberum* (on the betrothal of minors, book IV, title 2). ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed p.790 (pdf 810), `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p790-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, generated with `colcrop.py vol4 790 2120` (L) and `... 790 1780` (R). Raw OCR range L84662–84799 (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`) served only as a cross-check; the two-column cascade-shattered OCR was not authoritative (VOL II OVERRIDE). The littera comprises the four chapters of Lombard's text (Cap. I–IV) printed at the top of the distinction.

**Page span corrected.** Skeleton frontmatter had `printed_pages: [790, 791]` / `pdf_pages: [810, 811]`. Verified against running heads and bands: the littera (Cap. I–IV, ending «...addendum est et primum de *ordine*.») occupies **p.790 only**. Corrected to `[790]` / `[810]`.

**Hand-off to the divisio.** The top of **p.791** (running head `DIST. XXXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`) begins `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXVI` / *De impedimentis conditionis et aetatis* / `Nunc de conditione videamus...` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` / `Supra egit Magister de impedimentis...` — this is Bonaventure's commentary and belongs to the **d.36 divisio chunk**, not the littera. No p.791 body or footers are claimed here. There is therefore **no shared printed page**: all footers on p.790 (five, numbered 1–5) are the littera's; page 791's footers (if any) are the divisio's.

**Apparatus:** 5 entries, all page 790 (no per-page split needed; single page).

**Editorial marginalia dropped from body.** The printed margins carry source-labels (*Gratianus*, *Canon*, *Hugo*) and dubium markers (*Dubium 1/2/3*) keyed to the quoted decretal sources and to the dubia treated later in the distinction. Per the d.8 littera template these editorial marginalia are not rendered in the littera body.

**[?] flags:** none. All readings clear at 450 dpi; footnote markers 1–5 legible in both bands.


title: Dist. 36, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 791 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXVI.
#### *De impedimentis conditionis et aetatis.*

*Nunc de conditione videamus, an valeat coniugium dividere* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de impedimentis, in quibus impeditur matrimonium, quia ille qui contrahit, non potest se ligare propter defectum virtutis. Hic agit de illo impedimento, quod impedit, quia ille qui contrahit, non potest se ligare propter conditionem servitutis. Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima determinat de conditione, quia est defectus libertatis. In secunda vero, quia, *quanto tempore heres parvulus est, nihil differt a servo, cum sit dominus omnium*[^1], agit de puerili aetate, ibi: *Hoc etiam sciendum est, quod pueri ante annos quatuordecim,* ubi determinat, quod pueri non possunt contrahere matrimonium ante annum decimum quartum.

Prima pars habet tres. In prima quaerit Magister, utrum error conditionis impediat matrimonium, ubi est error et dissimilitudo. Secundo vero, ubi est error, et tamen similitudo. Tertio vero, utrum, viro facto servo, fiat serva et ipsa uxor. Primum facit hic: *Nunc de conditione* etc. Secundum facit secundo capitulo, ibi: *Quaeritur etiam, si servus unius ancillam alterius* etc. Tertium tertio capitulo, ibi: *Illud etiam notandum est, quod si.* — Et ita in hac distinctione breviter duo determinat: primo, de errore conditionis; secundo vero, de defectu aetatis.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

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

Primo quantum ad primam partem distinctionis quaeritur de conditione servitutis.

Secundo quantum ad secundam quaeritur de defectu aetatis.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum servitus cum contradictione domini impediat matrimonium.

Secundo, utrum cum errore contrahentis.

Tertio quaeritur de fructu ventris, cuius conditionem debeat sequi, scilicet patris vel matris.

### ARTICULUS I.
#### *De conditione servitutis.*

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXVI.
#### *On the impediments of condition and of age.*

*Now let us consider condition, whether it can avail to dissolve wedlock,* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the impediments by which marriage is impeded, because he who contracts cannot bind himself on account of a defect of [virile] power. Here he treats of that impediment which impedes because he who contracts cannot bind himself on account of the condition of servitude. And this part is divided into two. In the first he determines concerning condition, because it is a defect of liberty. In the second, however, because, *for as long a time as the heir is a little child, he differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all*[^1], he treats of childhood age, there: *This too must be known, that boys before fourteen years,* where he determines that boys cannot contract marriage before the fourteenth year.

The first part has three [members]. In the first the Master asks whether error of condition impedes marriage, where there is error and dissimilitude. Secondly, however, where there is error, and yet similitude. Thirdly, whether, the husband having been made a servant, the wife herself also becomes a servant. The first he does here: *Now concerning condition,* etc. The second he does in the second chapter, there: *It is also asked, if the servant of one [take] the handmaid of another,* etc. The third in the third chapter, there: *This also is to be noted, that if.* — And thus in this distinction he briefly determines two things: first, concerning error of condition; secondly, concerning defect of age.

### THE TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

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

First, as to the first part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning the condition of servitude.

Secondly, as to the second, inquiry is made concerning the defect of age.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked, whether servitude with the contradiction of the master impedes marriage.

Secondly, whether [it does so] with the error of the one contracting.

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the fruit of the womb, whose condition it ought to follow, namely the father's or the mother's.

### ARTICLE I.
#### *On the condition of servitude.*

---

la: Gal. 4, 1. — Superius pro *quia est* codd. A G H *quae est*, cod. L *in qua est*.

en: Galatians 4:1. — Above, for *quia est* ("because it is"), codices A G H read *quae est* ("which is"), codex L *in qua est* ("in which it is"). ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed page 791 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p791-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split_x=1780 to recover the full right column), authoritative over the cascade-shattered IA djvu OCR (raw L84800–84837). Running head **DIST. XXXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I. — 791** confirms `printed_pages: [791]` / `pdf_pages: [811]`; no page spill.
- **Reflow:** DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM are two-column on the page; both read left column top→bottom, then right column. The DIVISIO's right column (`Prima pars habet tres…`) continues the left column; the TRACTATIO's right column (`Circa primum quaeruntur tria…`) continues the left. The OCR's cascade-shatter mangled the two-column interleave; text is set from the bands.
- **Chunk scope:** COMMENTARIUS opener + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the "duo principalia" listing and the "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" listing, both rendered in full) + the ARTICULUS I sub-header opener (`De conditione servitutis`). The QUAESTIO I heading, title, and body (`Circa primum sic proceditur…`) belong to `bon-sent-IV-d36-a1-q1`.
- **Footer hand-offs (printed p. 791):** four footer notes on the page.
  - **[^1] Gal. 4, 1** anchors at `dominus omnium¹` in the DIVISIO — CLAIMED here.
  - **note 2** (`Vide supra pag. 655, nota 4…`) anchors at `sicut dicunt iura²` in QUAESTIO I arg. 1 → belongs to `a1-q1`.
  - **note 3** (`Ut ostensum est supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 4…`) anchors at `promoveri³` in the QUAESTIO I body → belongs to `a1-q1`.
  - **note 4** (`Epist. 1. Cor. 7, 4.`) anchors at `e converso⁴` in the QUAESTIO I body → belongs to `a1-q1`.
- **First-page / littera hand-off:** the COMMENTARIUS begins at the top of printed p. 791 (below the running head); no Littera Magistri text or its Master-caps footers appear on this page, so no littera footer is shared here.
- **[?] flags:** none — the bands are clean and fully legible.


title: Dist. 36, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 791 -->

### Articulus I. *De conditione servitutis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum conditio servitutis cum contradictione domini impediat matrimonium.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod conditio cum contradictione domini impediat matrimonium:

1. Quia servus non potest intrare religionem, domino suo contradicente, sicut dicunt iura[^p791-2], et si intrat, compellitur exire, et pro nullo habetur votum: si ergo non potest se obligare Deo per votum, multo minus nec mulieri per matrimonium.

2. Item, servus, contradicente domino, non potest ad sacros ordines promoveri[^p791-3]: ergo videtur, quod nec matrimonium contrahere pari ratione.

3. Item, in matrimonio transfertur potestas corporis viri in uxorem, et e converso[^p791-4]; sed servus non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed eius dominus: ergo non potest contra voluntatem domini contrahere.

4. Item, servus tenetur domino suo obedire, cum praecipit sibi aliquid; item tenetur uxori debitum reddere, cum petit; sed potest esse, quod <!-- page 792 --> dominus petat servitium, et uxor tunc petat debitum; sed utrumque reddere est impossibile: ergo si nullus potest se obligare ad incompossibilia[^p792-1], si est servus, non potest contrahere.

5. Item, conditio enumeratur inter impedimenta matrimonii[^p792-2]; sed haec est servitus: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Ad Galatas tertio[^p792-3]: *In Christo Iesu non est servus neque liber*: ergo nec quantum ad Sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae est distinctio servi et liberi: ergo nec in matrimonio.

2. Item, servus et dominus sunt pares in concupiscentiae morbo, ergo et in remedio; sed remedium concupiscentiae carnalis est matrimonium: ergo in hoc sunt pares: ergo unus non potest alterum impedire.

3. Item, servitus est de iure positivo[^p792-4]; sed matrimonium est de iure naturali: ergo si ius positivum non praeiudicat nec impedit ius naturale, nec servitus matrimonium.

4. Item, sicut servus tenetur obedire domino, ita et filius patri; sed in hoc filius non tenetur obedire patri, ut habitum est supra[^p792-5] et ostensum quantum ad matrimonium contrahendum: ergo nec servus domino.

> **Conclusio.** Conditio servitutis non impedit matrimonium, etiam contradicente domino.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod secundum ius novum[^p792-6] conditio servitutis non impedit matrimonium, etiam domino contradicente, vel dominis, quia Sacramenta ecclesiastica omnibus sunt communia, et servus etiam coniugatus potest suo domino debita servitia exhibere; unde per matrimonium non subtrahitur a domini potestate.

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de religione, dicendum, quod in religione religiosus omnino subest praecepto religionis quantum ad omne tempus, et ideo absolvitur ab omni alia potestate; et quia non potest nec debet auferri ius domini, quod habet in servum, ipso invito: ideo patet etc. Non sic in matrimonio, quia adhuc servus est. — Et per hoc patet illud de ordine, quia promotus ad ordines sacros hoc ipso efficitur liber[^p792-7].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod transfertur in mulierem potestas viri; dicendum, quod non *simpliciter* transfertur — quia uxor non dicitur domina viri — sed quoad *actum coniugalem*, quantum ad quem nullam habebat potestatem dominus super servum; et ideo quantum ad illum actum transferre potest, licet non ita libere, sicut unus alius, ut videbitur[^p792-8].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de redditione servitii, dicendum, quod servus aut contrahit, domino *consentiente*, aut *contradicente*. Si *consentiente*; cum concedens aliquid concedat et illa quae ad illius ius pertinent[^p792-9], et ad matrimonium pertinet redditio debiti, cum uxor petat; uxore petente debitum, et domino aliud imperante, tenetur et debet non obedire domino, sed uxori. — Si autem, domino *contradicente*, contractum est; cum dominus suo iure privari non debeat, ex utraque parte pari imminente periculo, debet domino obedire. Quodsi maius periculum sit ex parte uxoris, quia timet lapsum in fornicationem et non timet graviter dominum offendere; debet secundum legem caritatis divinae debitum prius uxori reddere quam exsequi imperium domini sui. Regulariter tamen tenendum est, quod cum contrahit cum servo scienter, domino contradicente, vel e converso, sibi praeiudicat, ut ius petendi non habeat, quando[^p792-10] obsequium postulabit; et ideo servus non obligatur hac repugnantia, quia tenetur debitum solvere, cum nullum praeiudicium domino generatur.

english:
### Article I. *On the condition of servitude.*
### Question I. *Whether the condition of servitude, with the master objecting, impedes marriage.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the [servile] condition, with the master objecting, impedes marriage:

1. Because a slave cannot enter religious life when his master objects, as the laws say[^p791-2], and if he does enter, he is compelled to leave, and his vow is held for nothing: if therefore he cannot bind himself to God by a vow, much less to a woman by marriage.

2. Likewise, a slave, with his master objecting, cannot be promoted to sacred orders[^p791-3]: therefore it seems that neither [can he] contract marriage, by parallel reasoning.

3. Likewise, in marriage the power over the husband's body is transferred to the wife, and conversely[^p791-4]; but a slave does not have power over his own body — rather his master does: therefore he cannot contract against his master's will.

4. Likewise, a slave is bound to obey his master when he commands him something; likewise he is bound to render the debt to his wife when she asks; but it can happen that the master demands service and the wife then demands the debt; but to render both is impossible: therefore, if no one can bind himself to incompatible things[^p792-1], then if he is a slave, he cannot contract.

5. Likewise, [servile] condition is numbered among the impediments of marriage[^p792-2]; but this is servitude: therefore, etc.

**Contra:**

1. To the Galatians, chapter three[^p792-3]: *In Christ Jesus there is neither slave nor free*: therefore, as regards the Sacraments of Christ and the Church, there is no distinction of slave and free: therefore neither in marriage.

2. Likewise, slave and master are equals in the disease of concupiscence, therefore also in its remedy; but the remedy of carnal concupiscence is marriage: therefore in this they are equals: therefore the one cannot impede the other.

3. Likewise, servitude is of positive law[^p792-4]; but marriage is of natural law: therefore, if positive law does not prejudice nor impede natural law, neither does servitude [impede] marriage.

4. Likewise, just as a slave is bound to obey his master, so too a son [is bound to obey] his father; but in this matter the son is not bound to obey his father, as was held above[^p792-5] and shown as regards the contracting of marriage: therefore neither [is] the slave [bound to obey] his master.

> **Conclusion.** The condition of servitude does not impede marriage, even with the master objecting.

**I respond:** It must be said that according to the new law[^p792-6] the condition of servitude does not impede marriage, even with the master, or the masters, objecting, because the ecclesiastical Sacraments are common to all, and a slave, even when married, can render the due services to his master; hence through marriage he is not withdrawn from the master's power.

*To the 1st and 2nd.* To that, then, which is objected concerning religious life, it must be said that in religious life the religious is wholly subject to the precept of religion for all time, and therefore is absolved from every other power; and because the master's right, which he has over the slave, cannot and must not be taken away against his will: therefore it is clear, etc. It is not so in marriage, because he is still a slave. — And by this is made clear that [point] about orders, because one promoted to sacred orders is by that very fact made free[^p792-7].

*To the 3rd.* To that which is objected, that the power of the husband is transferred to the woman; it must be said that it is not transferred *absolutely* — for the wife is not called the mistress of the husband — but as regards the *conjugal act*, over which the master had no power over the slave; and therefore as regards that act he can transfer [it], though not so freely as any other [free man], as will be seen[^p792-8].

*To the 4th.* To that which is objected concerning the rendering of service, it must be said that the slave either contracts with the master *consenting* or *objecting*. If [the master is] *consenting*; since one who grants something grants also those things that pertain to that thing's right[^p792-9], and to marriage pertains the rendering of the debt, when the wife asks; when the wife asks for the debt, and the master commands something else, he is bound and ought to obey not the master, but the wife. — But if it has been contracted with the master *objecting*; since the master ought not to be deprived of his right, when equal danger threatens on both sides, he ought to obey the master. But if the greater danger is on the wife's side, because she fears a lapse into fornication and does not gravely fear to offend the master; he ought, according to the law of divine charity, to render the debt to the wife first rather than carry out the command of his master. Yet as a rule it must be held that when someone knowingly contracts with a slave, the master objecting, or conversely, he prejudices himself, so that he does not have the right of demanding [the debt], whenever[^p792-10] [the master] shall demand service; and therefore the slave is not bound by this conflict, because he is bound to pay the debt, since no prejudice is generated for the master.

la: Vide supra pag. 653, nota 4. — Superius post *conditio* edd. addunt *servitutis*.

en: See above, p. 653, note 4. — Above, after *conditio* the editions add *servitutis*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 4. — Superius pro *non potest* cod. Z *non debet*.

en: As was shown above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 4. — Above, for *non potest* codex Z reads *non debet*.

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

en: Epistle, 1 Corinthians 7:4.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 234, nota 6. — In *maiori* respicitur Eph. 6, 5. et 1. Cor. 7, 3. — Superius pro *impossibile* plures codd. *incompossibile*.

en: Cf. above, p. 234, note 6. — In the *major* [premise] reference is made to Eph. 6:5 and 1 Cor. 7:3. — Above, for *impossibile* several codices read *incompossibile*.

la: Supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIV. c. 1, et Comment. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Above, in the Master's text, d. 34, c. 1, and Commentary, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vers. 28.

en: Verse 28.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 1008, nota 1. De *minori* vide supra d. 26. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 1008, note 1. On the *minor* [premise] see above, d. 26, a. 1, q. 2, in the body.

en: Distinction 29, q. 3.

la: Cfr. C. *Dignum est* (1.), X. de Coniugio servorum (lib. IV. tit. 9.).

en: Cf. the canon *Dignum est* (1), in the Decretals (X), On the Marriage of Slaves (book IV, title 9).

la: Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 4. circa finem.

en: See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 4, near the end.

la: In solut. ad 4. — Superius verbis *potestas viri* codd. L Y interserunt *corporis*.

en: In the solution to [objection] 4. — Above, in the words *potestas viri*, codices L and Y insert *corporis*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 453, nota 4. — Superius pro *contrahit* cod. L *contraxit*.

en: Cf. above, p. 453, note 4. — Above, for *contrahit* codex L reads *contraxit*.

la: Cod. Y (E a secunda manu) supplet *dominus*.

en: Codex Y (E by a second hand) supplies *dominus*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Non ipsa conditio servitutis, sed error circa hanc qualitatem personae est impedimentum dirimens, ut explicatur in tota 2. quaestione; infra autem in dubiis 1-4. plures casus huc spectantes solvuntur. A nonnullis illius aetatis auctoribus haec omnia diffusius tractantur.

De 1. et 2. quaestione et illis casibus: Scot., hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic a. 1-3; Suppl. q. 52. a. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1-5. (in novem quaest.). — Durand., hic q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de his et de 3. q. hic q. unica.

**II.** De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Not the condition of servitude itself, but error concerning this quality of the person is a diriment impediment, as is explained in the whole of the second question; and below, in dubia 1–4, several cases pertaining to this are resolved. By some authors of that age all these matters are treated more diffusely.

On the first and second questions and those cases: Scotus, here, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here, a. 1–3; Supplement, q. 52, a. 1–3. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 1–5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 1, a. 1–3. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 1–5 (in nine questions). — Durandus, here, q. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on these and on the third question, here, a single question.

**II.** On the third question: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 5, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{791,792}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), regenerating clipped columns at 2120 (L) / 1780 (R). Running heads verify printed pp. 791 (`DIST. XXXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`) and 792 (`SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`); p. 793 opens `QUAEST. II.` and belongs to a1-q2. Raw OCR L84838–L85013 used only for cross-check. `printed_pages` corrected from [791,792,793] to [791,792]; `pdf_pages` from [811,812,813] to [811,812] (question ends with the Scholion at the foot of p. 792).

**Scholion disposition.** A distinct Art. I Scholion (§§ I–II) prints at the foot of p. 792 (OCR header garbled `8CH0LI0K`); its doctor-lists cover "De 1. et 2. quaestione" and "De 3. quaestione," i.e. Art. I q1–q3. Per the dispatch brief it is rendered here in full as the last subsection of both language blocks and `has_scholion: true`. Siblings a1-q2 and a1-q3 render no scholion.

**Apparatus split (13 entries).** p. 791: footnotes 2, 3, 4 (3 entries). p. 792: footnotes 1–10 (10 entries).

**Footer hand-offs.** p. 791 footnote 1 (`Gal. 4, 1. — Superius pro quia est codd. A G H quae est, cod. L in qua est`) anchors at *dominus omnium* in the DIVISIO TEXTUS (Gal. 4:1, "quanto tempore heres parvulus est…"), which is body of the d.36 divisio chunk, not this quaestio → belongs to the divisio chunk; not claimed here. All other p.791 footers (2–4) and all p.792 footers (1–10) anchor in this quaestio's body and are claimed here. This quaestio shares its first page (791) with the divisio (whose COMMENTARIUS / De impedimentis / Nunc de conditione / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM / ARTICULUS I opener sit above `QUAESTIO I.`); no DIVISIO/TRACTATIO footers are claimed here.

**Boundary integrity.** Body begins at `QUAESTIO I.` (running head `DIST. XXXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` verifies); the ARTICULUS I opener and TRACTATIO belong to the divisio. Body ends grammatically complete with the Scholion; the next page (793) opens obj. 1 of q2 (`utrum cum errore contrahentis`), no splice at the seam. Page break placed inside obj. 4 (`sed potest esse, quod` | `dominus petat servitium`).

**[?] flags.** None. Both pages read cleanly from the bands; all apparatus cross-references and codex sigla legible.


title: Dist. 36, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 793 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum conditio servitutis cum errore impediat matrimonium.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum conditio servitutis cum errore impediat matrimonium. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia magis est tolerabilis in coniuge servitutis conditio quam qualitas leprae: ergo si error qualitatis talis non impedit, multo minus nec error conditionis.

2. Item, error fortunae, sicut iura[^p793-1] dicunt, non impedit matrimonium; sed possibile est, quod servitus sit *a fortuna*, sicut aliquis capitur *a casu* in bello et efficitur servus, vel propter paupertatem, quae est *a fortuna* secundum usum loquendi, se vendit in servum: ergo etc.

3. Item, servus, quantum est de se, persona est legitima ad contrahendum; sed conditio servitutis non tollit plenum consensum, quia, si cognoscit substantiam eius et qualitates et accidentia, talis cognitio sufficit ad hoc, quod consentiat: ergo non est ibi illegitimitas personae nec defectus consensus: ergo est matrimonium plenum.

4. Item, peior est conditio servitutis spiritualis quam corporalis[^p793-2]; sed error conditionis spiritualis non impedit matrimonium: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Iura dicunt Causa vigesima nona, quaestione secunda[^p793-3], et decretalis, de Coniugio servorum, quod error conditionis impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit iam contractum.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia illud est impedimentum matrimonii, quod est contra bonum matrimonii; sed servitus est contra *bonum prolis*, quia, si liber cum ancilla contrahat, filii non sunt liberi, sed servi, quia, sicut dicunt iura[^p793-4], «partus sequitur ventrem».

3. Item, est contra *bonum fidei*, quia dominus potest vendere uxorem alienigenis, ipso viro nolente, maxime infidelibus, ubi, si sequitur eam, imminet ei periculum fidei; si vero non sequitur, non potest petere debitum nec habere[^p793-5].

4. Item, nullus puniri debet sine culpa, ipso nolente et ignorante; sed opprobrium et infamia est alicui, quod sit servus, vel etiam servili personae subiectus: ergo ubi intervenit error conditionis, non est matrimonium.

Quaeritur igitur, quare et quando error conditionis impediat matrimonium.

> **Conclusio.** *Conditio servitutis cum errore tunc matrimonium dirimit, quando liberi cum servis contrahunt.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod error conditionis potest esse tripliciter: aut paris, ut cum servus contrahit cum ancilla; aut melioris, ut cum servus cum libera; aut deterioris, ut cum liber cum ancilla. In primis duobus casibus error non impedit matrimonium, in tertio vero impedit matrimonium et dirimit, nisi post cognitionem conditionis consenserit verbo, vel facto.

Ratio autem huius est propter duo, scilicet propter favorem *libertatis* et *causae matrimonialis*, quae maxime favorabilis est. Unde quia qui contrahit cum ancilla quodam modo perdit libertatem, quae est, sicut dicitur in iure civili[^p793-6], «bonum inaestimabile», et quam nullus perdit nisi nolens, quia perditam recuperare non potest etiam volens: ideo in favorem libertatis ius servatur erranti, ut, si velit, possit ancillam deserere. — Et *praeterea*, servitus est contra *bonum prolis* et *fidei*; et quia iura favent matrimonio, ideo praesumunt, errantem in conditione[^p793-7] non consentire, ideo nec matrimonium esse. Et ideo, quod impediat, hoc facit constitutio Ecclesiae ex praedicta veniens ratione.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de qualitate, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia nulla qualitas est ita contra bona matrimonii, ut servitus; nulla etiam ita obviat bonis matrimonii, ut servitus, de his quae non impediunt[^p793-8].

2. Ad aliud dicendum, quod libertas non computatur inter bona fortunae, immo omnibus aliis praeponderat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nec error nec servitus impedit; dicendum, quod *servitus per se*
<!-- page 794 -->
non impedit, cum est scita, quia quilibet, cum vult, potest effici servus; sed *ignorata* impedit, quia non debet puniri nolens.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de servitute spirituali, dicendum, quod etsi sit peior ipsi servo, non tamen adeo redundat in alium, utpote in prolem, vel etiam in uxorem; et praeterea facilius potest expelli[^p794-1].

---

english:
<!-- page 793 -->

### Question II. *Whether the condition of servitude with error impedes marriage.*

Secondly it is asked whether the condition of servitude with error impedes marriage. And that it does not, it seems:

1. Because the condition of servitude is more tolerable in a spouse than the quality of leprosy: therefore if such an error of quality does not impede, much less does an error of condition.

2. Likewise, an error of fortune, as the laws[^p793-1] say, does not impede marriage; but it is possible that servitude be *from fortune*, as someone is captured *by chance* in war and made a slave, or on account of poverty, which is *from fortune* according to the usage of speech, sells himself into slavery: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a slave, as far as concerns himself, is a legitimate person for contracting; but the condition of servitude does not remove full consent, because, if she knows his substance and qualities and accidents, such knowledge suffices for this, that she consent: therefore there is neither illegitimacy of person nor defect of consent there: therefore the marriage is full.

4. Likewise, the condition of spiritual servitude is worse than corporeal[^p793-2]; but an error of spiritual condition does not impede marriage: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The laws say, Cause twenty-nine, question two[^p793-3], and the decretal, On the Marriage of Slaves, that an error of condition impedes a marriage from being contracted and dissolves one already contracted.

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because that is an impediment of marriage which is against the good of marriage; but servitude is against the *good of offspring*, because, if a free man contracts with a bondwoman, the children are not free, but slaves, because, as the laws[^p793-4] say, «the offspring follows the womb».

3. Likewise, it is against the *good of fidelity*, because a master can sell the wife to foreigners, the husband himself being unwilling, especially to unbelievers, where, if he follows her, danger to his faith threatens him; but if he does not follow, he cannot ask for the debt nor have it[^p793-5].

4. Likewise, no one ought to be punished without fault, himself unwilling and ignorant; but it is a reproach and disgrace to someone that he be a slave, or even subject to a servile person: therefore where an error of condition intervenes, there is no marriage.

It is asked therefore why and when an error of condition impedes marriage.

> **Conclusion.** *The condition of servitude with error dissolves marriage in that case when free persons contract with slaves.*

**I respond:** It must be said that an error of condition can be of three kinds: either of an equal, as when a male slave contracts with a female slave; or of a better, as when a male slave [contracts] with a free woman; or of a worse, as when a free man [contracts] with a bondwoman. In the first two cases the error does not impede marriage, but in the third it does impede marriage and dissolves it, unless after knowledge of the condition one has consented by word or by deed.

Now the reason for this is on account of two things, namely on account of favor for *liberty* and for *the matrimonial cause*, which is most favorable. Hence, because he who contracts with a bondwoman in some manner loses liberty—which is, as is said in the civil law[^p793-6], «an inestimable good», and which no one loses except unwillingly, since even one willing cannot recover it once lost—therefore in favor of liberty the law is kept for the one erring, so that, if he wills, he may forsake the bondwoman. — And *moreover*, servitude is against the *good of offspring* and *of fidelity*; and because the laws favor marriage, therefore they presume that one erring as to condition[^p793-7] does not consent, and therefore that there is no marriage either. And therefore, that it impedes, this the constitution of the Church brings about, coming from the aforesaid reason.

1. To that which is objected concerning quality, it must be said that it is not alike: because no quality is so against the goods of marriage as servitude; nor does any so oppose the goods of marriage as servitude does, among those things which do not impede[^p793-8].

2. To the other it must be said that liberty is not counted among the goods of fortune, but rather outweighs all the others.

3. To that which is objected, that neither error nor servitude impedes; it must be said that *servitude in itself*
<!-- page 794 -->
does not impede when it is known, because anyone, when he wills, can be made a slave; but *unknown* it does impede, because one ought not to be punished unwillingly.

4. To that which is objected last concerning spiritual servitude, it must be said that although it be worse for the slave himself, nevertheless it does not so redound upon another, namely upon the offspring, or even upon the wife; and moreover it can more easily be cast off[^p794-1].

---

la: Gratian., C. 29. q. 1; eadem Magister retulit supra d. XXX. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. Comment. q. 1. et dub. 3.

en: Gratian, Cause 29, q. 1; the Master reported the same above at d. XXX, c. 1. Compare ibid., Commentary, q. 1 and dub. 3.

la: Cod. U addit: *et error conditionis spiritualis* [servitutis i. e. peccati; cfr. supra pag. 615, nota 3.] *quam corporalis.*

en: Codex U adds: *and an error of spiritual condition* [of servitude, i.e. of sin; cf. above p. 615, note 3] *than corporeal.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1-4. — C. *Proposuit* (2.) et C. *Ad nostram* (4.), X. de Coniugio servorum (lib. IV. tit. 9.).

en: See here the text of the Master, cc. 1–4. — Canon *Proposuit* (2.) and canon *Ad nostram* (4.), Decretals, On the Marriage of Slaves (bk. IV, tit. 9).

la: Verba sunt *Glossae* Viviani in Iustinian., C. IV. de Probationibus (tit. 19.), lex *Neque natales* (10.). Cfr. ibid. III. de Rei vindicatione (tit. 32.), lex *Partum ancillae matris sequi conditionem* (7.) et I. Institut. de Ingenuis, *Ingenuus* (tit. 4.).

en: The words are from the *Gloss* of Vivianus on Justinian, Code IV, On Proofs (tit. 19), the law *Neque natales* (10). Compare ibid. III, On the Vindication of Property (tit. 32), the law *Partum ancillae matris sequi conditionem* (7) and Institutes I, On the Freeborn, *Ingenuus* (tit. 4).

la: Cfr. infra dub. 2. — Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *nec reddere.*

en: Compare below, dub. 2. — Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] *nor render.*

la: Iustinian., I. Institut. imperial., Quibus ex causis manumittere non licet (tit. 6.), § *Cum ergo.* et D. L., de Regulis iuris (tit. 17.), lex *Libertas* (107.). — Mox pro *nisi nolens*, quod habet ed. 1, Vat. cum codd. *nisi volens* (cod. G *invitus vel nisi volens*; cfr. infra ad 3.).

en: Justinian, Institutes I of imperial law, For what causes it is not permitted to manumit (tit. 6), § *Cum ergo*, and Digest L, On the Rules of Law (tit. 17), the law *Libertas* (107). — Presently, in place of *unless unwilling*, which ed. 1 has, the Vatican edition with the codices [reads] *unless willing* (cod. G *unwilling or unless willing*; cf. below, at reply 3).

la: Ita plurimi codd.; edd. *in conditionem.*

en: So most of the codices; the editions [read] *as to condition* (accusative).

la: Vat. *quae impediunt.* — Locus est obscurus. Fortasse post primum *servitus* excidit: de his, quae impediunt.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *which do impede.* — The passage is obscure. Perhaps after the first *servitude* something has dropped out: among those things which do impede.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF bands for printed pp. 793–794 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{793,794}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; page 794 L regenerated at split_x=2120 because the default clipped the left column's right edge). Raw OCR L85014–85106 consulted only for footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment verified:** the `Secundo quaeritur…` opener aligns correctly — QUAESTIO II title at raw L85016, opener immediately following. The raw range ends just before QUAESTIO III (`Tertio quaeritur, cuius conditionem sequatur proles…`), which is the a1-q3 chunk. No q-swap misalignment.

**Page split of apparatus:** page 793 carries footnotes 1–8 (all anchored in this q2 body: args 1/2 pro, contra 1–3, respondeo, reply 1); page 794 carries footnote 1 only (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`), anchored at the tail of reply 4 (`potest expelli¹`). Total 9 entries.

**Footer hand-offs:**
- *First page (793):* shared with a1-q1, but q1 closes on the preceding page(s); QUAESTIO II opens at the very top of p. 793, so all 8 of p. 793's footers anchor in this body — none claimed by q1.
- *Last page (794):* shared with a1-q3. This body claims ONLY p. 794 footnote 1 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`). Page 794 footnotes 2–6+ (and the remainder of the page) anchor in QUAESTIO III's body and are left for the a1-q3 chunk. q3 should pick up p. 794 fns 2ff.

**has_scholion:** false — no scholion renders in this quaestio (footnote p794-1 explicitly refers the reader to the *preceding* question's scholion). No scholion text falls in this range.

**[?] flags:** none. Both pages read cleanly at the band resolution; the only editorial obscurity (fn p793-8, *Locus est obscurus*) is Quaracchi's own note, transcribed verbatim, not an OCR ambiguity.