title: Dist. 41, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Distinctio XLI — Divisio textus
Distinction XLI — Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 857 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLI.

#### *De impedimento affinitatis.*

> Nunc de affinitate videndum est.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de consanguinitate; hic agit de affinitate, et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima determinat gradus affinitatis. In secunda agit de separatione coniunctorum infra praedictos gradus, ibi: *Et sciendum est, quod Ecclesia infra praedictos gradus etc.*

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat gradus affinitatis secundum ius commune. In secunda determinat secundum dispensationem specialem, ibi: *Sed alii videntur concedere etc.* In tertia vero de secundo genere affinitatis, ostendens, quod secundum genus affinitatis impedit matrimonium, ibi: *Illud etiam non est praetermittendum.*

Similiter secunda pars habet tres. In prima ostendit, quod[^1] debeant separari. In secunda vero, quia non debent separari sine testimonio, per quod probetur proximitas; et determinat, qui possunt hoc testificari, ibi: *Si duo viri vel tres consanguinitatem etc.* In tertia, quia coniuncti infra gradus prohibitos committunt incestum, determinat ibi genera peccatorum circa actum carnis, ibi: *Hic dicendum est, quod aliud sit fornicatio, aliud etc.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

#### PRAENOTATA.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis, in qua agitur de affinitate, primo procedendum est per modum *narrationis*, secundo per modum *inquisitionis*. Quantum ergo ad primum, primo annotanda est *differentia*[^2], secundo vero annotanda est *triplex notula*.

Primo igitur attendendum est, quod differt esse *affinem* et esse *consanguineum*. Nam *consanguinitas* venit ex carnis *propagine*, sed *affinitas* ex carnali *commixtione*, praesupposita tamen consanguinitate. Unde *affinitas* definitur sic[^3]: «Affinitas est proximitas personarum ex carnali copula proveniens, omni carens parentela», intellige: quantum est de se; tamen praesupponit consanguinitatem. Unde si quis cognoscit mulierem, efficitur affinis omnibus consanguineis mulieris per illam commixtionem, et e converso in muliere.

Secundo intelligendum est, quod in affinitate differt *genus* et *gradus*. Nam *genus* attenditur secundum plurificationem commixtionis sive a parte commixtionis, sed *gradus* a parte sanguinis et propagationis; propter quod dicitur:

> *Mutat nupta genus, sed generata gradum.*

Unde antiquitus[^4] tria *genera* affinitatis esse consueverunt. Primum surgit ex consanguinitate et prima

<!-- page 858 -->

carnis commixtione; secundum surgit ex affinitate et secunda carnis commixtione; tertium surgit ex secunda affinitate et tertia carnis commixtione. Exemplum est: si frater tuus contrahat cum Maria, ipsa est affinis tibi in primo genere; si contrahat, mortuo fratre tuo, cum alio, ipse erit affinis tibi in secundo genere; si, ipsa mortua, ipse vir contrahat cum alia, illa mulier esset tibi affinis in tertio genere. — Sed generatio sive propagatio *gradum* mutat affinitatis sicut consanguinitatis. — Sed ista tria genera consueverunt esse antiquitus, nunc autem, sicut patebit post[^5], non stat nisi primum genus affinitatis, aliis cessantibus.

Tertio intelligendum est, quod differt, utrum mulier affinis generet prolem de *consanguineo* meo, an de *extraneo*. Si de consanguineo, proles generata non est mihi alligata vinculo affinitatis, sed consanguinitatis; si vero de alio, secundum iura moderna nihil omnino reputatur mihi attinere. Antiquitus tamen, sicut patet ex decreto Gregorii, et habetur in littera[^6], iudicabatur affinis, non primo genere, sed secundo, sicut expresse tangitur in littera; et pro illo tempore maxime intelligitur iste versus:

> *Mutat nupta genus, sed generata gradum,*

quia mulier affinis mihi, quia fuit uxor fratris mei, si nubat alii, generat mihi affinem in alio genere affinitatis. Si vero generet prolem, tunc generat mihi affinem, non alio genere, sed gradu; hoc tamen est retractatum quantum ad utrumque per ius novum Extra, de Consanguinitate et affinitate[^7], *Non debet*, et in decretali edita in Concilio generali expresse retractatur utrumque.

His visis, quaedam regulae sunt notandae. — Prima est, quod in *primo genere affinitatis* non licet contrahere usque ad quartum gradum inclusive, sicut et de consanguinitate[^8]. Quod si quartum gradum velis cognoscere, recurre ad personam, mediante qua contracta est affinitas, et quoto gradu distas ab illa, toto gradu distas a persona, cui es affinis; ut si contraxisti cum muliere, factus es affinis consanguineis, et quoto gradu aliquis est consanguineus uxoris tuae, toto gradu est tibi affinis; et si attinet ei in quarto gradu, attinet et tibi; et sicut non liceret uxori contrahere in tali gradu, ita nec tibi.

Secunda notula, quod ex quo contracta est affinitas, mortua persona, mediante qua contracta est, nihilominus manet affinitas, pro eo quod est vinculum perpetuum sicut et consanguinitas; et ideo minime potest contrahi cum persona affini, Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione decima[^9] *Fraternitatis*.

Tertia notula est, quod affinitas contrahitur non solum per matrimonium, sed etiam per coitum fornicarium, sicut dicitur Extra, de Consanguinitate[^10] *Fraternitati tuae etc.*; sed quia hoc dubium est, ideo ratio huius inquisitioni relinquatur.

His autem praelibatis, ut modo inquisitorio procedamus, possunt hic tria quaeri.

Primo quaeritur, utrum per omnem coitum contrahatur affinitas.

Secundo, utrum affinitas transeat ab uno in alterum.

Tertio, utrum affinitas impediat matrimonium.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

#### *De impedimento affinitatis.*

---

english:
<!-- page 857 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XLI.

#### *On the impediment of affinity.*

> Now affinity must be considered.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of consanguinity; here he treats of affinity, and this part is divided into two. In the first he determines the degrees of affinity. In the second he treats of the separation of persons joined within the aforesaid degrees, there: *And it must be known that the Church, within the aforesaid degrees, etc.*

The first part has three parts. In the first he determines the degrees of affinity according to common law. In the second he determines according to a special dispensation, there: *But others seem to concede, etc.* In the third, concerning the second kind of affinity, showing that the second kind of affinity impedes matrimony, there: *This too is not to be passed over.*

Likewise the second part has three [parts]. In the first he shows that[^1] they ought to be separated. In the second, that they ought not to be separated without testimony by which the nearness [of kin] may be proved; and he determines who can testify to this, there: *If two or three men [attest] the consanguinity, etc.* In the third, [showing] that those joined within the prohibited degrees commit incest, he there determines the kinds of sins concerning the act of the flesh, there: *Here it must be said that fornication is one thing, another [something else], etc.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

#### PRELIMINARY NOTES.

For the understanding of the present distinction, in which affinity is treated, one must proceed first by way of *narration*, second by way of *inquiry*. As regards the first, then, first the *difference*[^2] is to be noted, and second a *threefold observation*.

First, therefore, it must be attended to that to be an *in-law* (affinis) and to be a *blood-relative* (consanguineus) differ. For *consanguinity* comes from the propagation of the flesh, but *affinity* from carnal intercourse, consanguinity nevertheless being presupposed. Hence *affinity* is defined thus[^3]: «Affinity is a nearness of persons arising from carnal union, lacking all parentage», understand: as far as it is of itself; yet it presupposes consanguinity. Hence if someone knows a woman, he is made an in-law to all the blood-relatives of the woman through that intercourse, and conversely [it is] in the woman.

Second, it must be understood that in affinity *kind* (genus) and *degree* (gradus) differ. For *kind* is reckoned according to the multiplication of intercourse, or on the side of the intercourse, but *degree* on the side of the blood and of propagation; on account of which it is said:

> *The wedded woman changes the kind, but the [daughter] begotten the degree.*

Hence in antiquity[^4] there were wont to be three *kinds* of affinity. The first arises from consanguinity and the first

<!-- page 858 -->

carnal intercourse; the second arises from affinity and a second carnal intercourse; the third arises from a second affinity and a third carnal intercourse. An example is: if your brother contracts [marriage] with Mary, she is an in-law to you in the first kind; if, your brother having died, she contracts with another, he will be an in-law to you in the second kind; if, she having died, that man contracts with another woman, that woman would be an in-law to you in the third kind. — But generation or propagation changes the *degree* of affinity, just as [it does that] of consanguinity. — But these three kinds were wont to exist in antiquity; now, however, as will be clear afterward[^5], only the first kind of affinity stands, the others having ceased.

Third, it must be understood that there is a difference whether an in-law woman begets offspring by a *blood-relative* of mine, or by an *outsider*. If by a blood-relative, the offspring begotten is not bound to me by the bond of affinity, but of consanguinity; but if by another, according to modern laws it is reckoned to pertain to me in no way at all. In antiquity, however, as is clear from the decree of Gregory, and is contained in the text[^6], [such a one] was judged an in-law, not in the first kind, but in the second, as is expressly touched upon in the text; and for that time especially this verse is understood:

> *The wedded woman changes the kind, but the [daughter] begotten the degree,*

because a woman [who is] an in-law to me, because she was the wife of my brother, if she marries another, begets for me an in-law in another kind of affinity. But if she begets offspring, then she begets for me an in-law, not in another kind, but in degree; this, however, has been revoked as to both by the new law, *Extra*, On Consanguinity and Affinity[^7], *Non debet*, and in the decretal issued in the general Council both are expressly retracted.

These things having been seen, certain rules are to be noted. — The first is that in the *first kind of affinity* it is not licit to contract [marriage] up to the fourth degree inclusive, as also in consanguinity[^8]. But if you wish to know the fourth degree, have recourse to the person through whom the affinity was contracted, and by however many degrees you are distant from her, by that many degrees you are distant from the person to whom you are an in-law; so that if you have contracted with a woman, you are made an in-law to her blood-relatives, and by whatever degree someone is a blood-relative of your wife, by that degree he is an in-law to you; and if he is related to her in the fourth degree, he is related also to you; and just as it would not be licit for your wife to contract in such a degree, so neither for you.

The second observation [is] that from the time affinity has been contracted, even the person through whom it was contracted having died, the affinity nonetheless remains, for the reason that it is a perpetual bond, as consanguinity also is; and therefore [marriage] can by no means be contracted with an in-law person, Cause thirty-five, question ten[^9], *Fraternitatis*.

The third observation is that affinity is contracted not only through matrimony, but also through fornicatory intercourse, as is said [in] *Extra*, On Consanguinity[^10], *Fraternitati tuae, etc.*; but since this is doubtful, therefore the reasoning of this [matter] is left to the inquiry.

These things having been set forth beforehand, so that we may proceed in the manner of inquiry, three things can here be asked.

First it is asked, whether affinity is contracted through every [act of] intercourse.

Second, whether affinity passes from one to another.

Third, whether affinity impedes matrimony.

### SOLE ARTICLE.

#### *On the impediment of affinity.*

---

la: Edd. hic pro *quod* et paulo inferius pro *quia* substituunt *qui*. Subinde pro *probetur* edd. *prohibetur*.

en: The editions, here for *quod*, and a little below for *quia*, substitute *qui*. Thereupon, for *probetur* the editions [read] *prohibetur*.

la: Vat. *triplex differentia*.

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *triplex differentia* (a threefold difference).

la: In Declaratione arboris affinitatis C. 35. q. 5. in fine. — Superius pro *propagine* multi codd. *propagatione*.

en: In the Declaration of the tree of affinity, C. 35, q. 5, at the end. — Above, for *propagine*, many codices [read] *propagatione*.

la: Cfr. Glossa in C. *Non debet* (8.), X. de Consanguinitate et affinitate (lib. IV. tit. 14.), ad verba *In secundo et tertio*. — Mox pro *affinitatis* non pauci codd. *consanguinitatis*, perperam, sicut etiam inferius pro *ex affinitate* Vat. *ex consanguinitate*.

en: Cf. the Gloss on C. *Non debet* (8), X, On Consanguinity and Affinity (bk. IV, tit. 14), at the words *In secundo et tertio*. — Presently, for *affinitatis*, not a few codices [read] *consanguinitatis*, wrongly; as also below, for *ex affinitate* the Vatican [reads] *ex consanguinitate*.

la: Quaest. 2.

en: Question 2.

la: Hic c. 2. Cfr. infra q. 2. — Mox pro *genere* codd. et ed. 1 *gradu*, Vat. recte refragante.

en: Here, chapter 2. Cf. below, q. 2. — Presently, for *genere* the codices and edition 1 [read] *gradu*, the Vatican rightly resisting.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 14. c. 8.

en: Book IV, tit. 14, c. 8.

la: Cfr. d. 40. q. 3. — De seqq. regulis vide praenotatam Declarationem arboris affinitatis.

en: Cf. d. 40, q. 3. — For the following rules see the aforementioned Declaration of the tree of affinity.

la: Can. 1. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Canon 1. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Distinctius, de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam etc. (lib. IV. tit. 13.) c. 7. et duobus seqq., quae incipiunt: *Ex litteris fraternitatis tuae* (8.) et: *Tuae fraternitatis devotio* (10.); fortasse codd. et edd. allegantes *Fraternitatis tuae* ultimum hunc can. intendunt (cfr. infra q. 1.).

en: More precisely, [X,] On Him who has known a blood-relative of his wife, etc. (bk. IV, tit. 13) c. 7 and the two following, which begin: *Ex litteris fraternitatis tuae* (8) and: *Tuae fraternitatis devotio* (10); perhaps the codices and editions citing *Fraternitatis tuae* intend this last canon (cf. below, q. 1).

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 91279–91432 (DIVISIO TEXTUS through just before the QUAESTIO I body) with the p.857–858 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p857-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p858-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions — the OCR splices left- and right-column lines throughout the DIVISIO TEXTUS and PRAENOTATA. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running head p.857 = **DIST. XLI. DIVISIO TEXTUS** + folio 857; p.858 = **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.** + folio 858.
- **Chunk scope:** COMMENTARIUS opener + *De impedimento affinitatis* subtitle + *Nunc de affinitate videndum est.* argumentum; DIVISIO TEXTUS (both parts); TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM / PRAENOTATA (the *narratio*: three *intelligenda* + the three *regulae*) through the listing of the three questions ("possunt hic tria quaeri … Tertio, utrum affinitas impediat matrimonium"). Per the divisio-chunk convention the **ARTICULUS UNICUS** heading + *De impedimento affinitatis* sub-title are folded in as the closing; the QUAESTIO I title (*Utrum per omnem coitum, sive legitimum, sive fornicarium, possit contrahi affinitas*) and its body (*Circa primum sic proceditur…*, the *Fundamenta* "1. Causa trigesima quinta…") are **left to `bon-sent-IV-d41-a1-q1`**.
- **Structure:** single article (ARTICULUS UNICUS) with **three questions**, listed verbatim in the tractatio — q1 *utrum per omnem coitum contrahatur affinitas*; q2 *utrum affinitas transeat ab uno in alterum*; q3 *utrum affinitas impediat matrimonium*.
- **Page-split map:** page break `<!-- page 858 -->` placed mid-sentence inside the second *intelligendum* ("Primum surgit ex consanguinitate et prima | carnis commixtione…"), where the printed text breaks across the page foot. p.857 carries the COMMENTARIUS opener, the full DIVISIO TEXTUS, and the PRAENOTATA opening (first + second *intelligenda* through "…et prima"). p.858 carries the remainder of the second *intelligendum*, the third *intelligendum*, the three *regulae*, and the three-question listing, then ARTICULUS UNICUS.
- **Footer ownership / p.858 seam:** **p.857** — the notes printed *above* NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM ("(3.) ibid.; tertius…", "Can. *Quod autem* (5.)…") are the editors' apparatus on Lombard's *Cap. VIII–IX* littera at the top of the page and belong to the d.41 **littera** chunk, not here. The four **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** notes 1–4 all anchor in this divisio/praenotata body and are claimed as `[^1]`–`[^4]`. **p.858** — footer notes **1–6** all anchor in this body (the *narratio* + *regulae*) and are claimed as `[^5]`–`[^10]`. Footer notes **7–8** anchor in the QUAESTIO I body on the same page (note 7 = "quaestione tertia⁷" in the *Fundamenta*; note 8 = "consanguineam uxoris suae⁸" in q1 arg. 2) and are **left to `bon-sent-IV-d41-a1-q1`**. Hand-off to a1-q1: its opening sentence is *Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod per omnem coitum, sive legitimum, sive fornicarium, contrahi possit affinitas. 1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia…* — it must claim p.858 footers 7–8 (and any further q1 footers).
- **`[?]` flags:** one — in `[^6]` (p.858 footer 2) the interior variant clause reads "Mox pro *genere* codd. et ed. *gradu*"; "codd. et" is reconstructed from a column-divider-cut fragment (`…ere codd. et`) in the right footnote band, so the exact wording of that middle phrase is `[?]`-flagged. The citation head ("Hic c. 2. Cfr. infra q. 2.") and tail ("Vat. recte refragante") are legible and certain. No other ambiguities: the DIVISIO lemma *Illud etiam non est praetermittendum* (third subdivision of the first part), the *Mutat nupta genus…* verse (printed twice), and the ten owned footers all read cleanly once reflowed from the bands.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 41, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 858 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De impedimento affinitatis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum per omnem coitum, sive legitimum, sive fornicarium, possit contrahi affinitas.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod per omnem coitum, sive legitimum, sive fornicarium, contrahi possit affinitas.

1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia[^p858-7]: «Si homo fornicatus fuerit cum muliere, et frater eius uxorem duxerit; super eo, quod frater eius crimen celaverit, poeniteat septem annis»; sed hoc non est ob aliud, nisi quia illa facta est affinis fratri: ergo etc.

2. Item, Extra, de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris suae[^p858-8], expresse dicitur, quod non licet petere debitum, in decretali illa: *Transmissae nobis litterae* etc.; sed hoc non est nisi propter affinitatem: ergo per coitum fornicarium contrahitur affinitas.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia non ob aliud contrahitur affinitas per coitum, nisi quia est carnis commixtio, per quam vir et mulier fuerunt una

<!-- page 859 -->

caro; sed hoc non tantum est in actu legitimo, verum etiam in fornicario, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios sexto[^p859-1]: *Qui adhaeret meretrici unum corpus cum ea efficitur.*

4. Item, filius fratris tui natus de fornicatione ita est tibi consanguineus, sicut si esset de legitimo matrimonio natus; si ergo per actum fornicarium contrahitur consanguinitas, pari ratione et affinitas.

**Contra:** 1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia[^p859-2]: «Extraordinaria pollutio citra maritalem affectum, si ita esse constiterit, non videtur matrimonium impedire»; sed fornicarius actus est extra rectum ordinem: ergo non impedit matrimonium. Sed affinitas impedit: ergo ibi non contrahitur affinitas.

2. Item, affinitas est vinculum legitimum, quod est institutum a Deo et ab Ecclesia[^p859-3]: ergo cum fornicatio sit actio contra legitimitatem et contra divinum statutum, per fornicationem nunquam contrahitur tale vinculum.

3. Item, affinitas est vinculum insolubile[^p859-4]; sed coniunctio per coitum fornicarium non iungit insolubiliter, immo solubiliter: ergo nunquam per illum coitum contrahitur affinitatis vinculum.

4. Item, per coitum extra matrimonium non contrahitur irregularitas ad ordinem suscipiendum: ergo pari ratione nec illegitimitas ad matrimonium contrahendum: si ergo affinitas facit illegitimitatem, videtur, quod per talem coitum affinitas nec debet nec potest contrahi.

### Conclusio.

> *Affinitas generaliter contrahitur per omnem copulam completam.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod affinitas generaliter contrahitur per omnem coitum, in quo est commixtio sanguinum. — Et ratio huius est, quia affinitas non contrahitur nisi ratione unionis; tunc autem dicuntur una caro fieri, quando per commixtionem seminum fit consummatio illius operis. Si ergo aliter conveniant, sive contra naturam polluendo extra vas illi usui deputatum, sive invadendo claustra, ita quod opus nefarium non consummetur; affinitas contrahi non iudicatur, secundum quod dicitur Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia, *Extraordinaria*. Quodsi videatur dici contrarium Extra, de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam[^p859-5], *Fraternitati* etc.; dicendum, quod illa separatio non fuit propter affinitatem, sed propter publicae iustitiam honestatis, quae contrahitur ex puris sponsalibus.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de extraordinaria pollutione, iam patet responsio, quia intelligitur, ubi non fuit seminum commixtio, ob quam[^p859-6] dicerentur vir et mulier una caro effici.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vinculum legitimum est a Deo institutum; dicendum, quod in fornicatione duo sunt, scilicet *actio substrata*, quae est naturalis, et *deformitas voluntatis*, qua aliquis vult cognoscere non suam, sive circa ipsum actum defectus circumstantiae. Quantum ad primum est actio naturalis, bona et a Deo; quantum ad secundum dicit defectum et deformitatem et sortitur nomen vitii[^p859-7]; vinculum ergo affinitatis contrahitur ratione primi, non ratione secundi.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est vinculum insolubile; dicendum, quod actio transiens ut plurimum relinquit effectum perpetuum, sive ut melius dicam, diuturnum, ut patet: quia, sicut fornicatio inducit carnis corruptionem, sic uxoris cognitio efficit corporis unionem; et quoniam, ex quo cognovit, necesse est cognovisse: ideo ex hac coniunctione resultat vinculum insolubile. Et est exemplum: quia, sicut ex uno actu tali potest proles generari, quae vinculo perpetuo alligatur patri et matri; sic potest affinitas generari, quoniam talis coniunctio est introducens affinitatem, non conservans[^p859-8]. Ideo, ipsa existente transitoria, potest esse affinitas diuturna.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de irregularitate ad ordines, dicendum, quod cognitio mulieris non generat irregularitatem, nisi prout inducit defectum Sacramenti; et quoniam defectus Sacramenti praesupponit aliquod esse Sacramenti, et post privationem perfectionis; hinc est, quod irregularitas non contrahitur per coitum extra matrimonium. Sed affinitas respicit unitatem carnis et corporis, et haec est communis tam actui fornicario quam legitimo; ideo potest causare affinitatem, sed non irregularitatem[^p859-9].

<!-- page 860 -->

english:
### Sole Article. *On the impediment of affinity.*
### Question I. *Whether affinity can be contracted through every act of intercourse, whether legitimate or fornicating.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown that affinity can be contracted through every act of intercourse, whether legitimate or fornicating.

1. Causa 35, question 3[^p858-7]: "If a man has fornicated with a woman, and his brother has taken her to wife; because his brother concealed the crime, let him do penance for seven years"; but this is for no other reason than that she has become an affine to the brother: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the *Decretals*, [under the title] "On him who has known a blood-relation of his wife"[^p858-8], it is expressly said that it is not lawful to demand the [marriage] debt, in that decretal *Letters transmitted to us*, etc.; but this is only on account of affinity: therefore through fornicating intercourse affinity is contracted.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because affinity is contracted through intercourse for no other reason than that there is a mingling of flesh, through which man and woman have become one

flesh; but this is not only in the legitimate act, but also in the fornicating one, according to what is said in 1 Corinthians 6[^p859-1]: *He who cleaves to a harlot is made one body with her.*

4. Likewise, the son of your brother born of fornication is your blood-relation just as if he were born of legitimate matrimony; if therefore consanguinity is contracted through the fornicating act, by equal reasoning affinity is too.

**On the contrary:** 1. Causa 35, question 3[^p859-2]: "Extraordinary pollution apart from marital affection, if it be established to be so, does not seem to impede matrimony"; but the fornicating act is outside the right order: therefore it does not impede matrimony. But affinity does impede: therefore affinity is not contracted there.

2. Likewise, affinity is a legitimate bond, which is instituted by God and by the Church[^p859-3]: therefore, since fornication is an action against legitimacy and against the divine statute, through fornication such a bond is never contracted.

3. Likewise, affinity is an insoluble bond[^p859-4]; but the conjunction through fornicating intercourse does not join insolubly, but rather solubly: therefore through that intercourse the bond of affinity is never contracted.

4. Likewise, through intercourse outside matrimony irregularity for receiving orders is not contracted: therefore by equal reasoning neither is illegitimacy for contracting matrimony; if therefore affinity produces illegitimacy, it seems that through such intercourse affinity neither ought nor can be contracted.

### Conclusion.

> *Affinity is generally contracted through every completed union.*

**I respond:** It must be said that affinity is generally contracted through every act of intercourse in which there is a mingling of bloods. — And the reason for this is that affinity is not contracted except by reason of union; and they are then said to become one flesh when, through the mingling of seed, the consummation of that work takes place. If therefore they come together otherwise, whether by polluting against nature outside the vessel appointed for that use, or by invading the enclosures, in such a way that the nefarious work is not consummated; affinity is not judged to be contracted, according to what is said in Causa 35, question 3, *Extraordinaria*. But if the contrary seems to be said in the *Decretals*, [under the title] "On him who has known a blood-relation"[^p859-5], *Fraternitati* etc.; it must be said that that separation was not on account of affinity, but on account of the justice of public honesty, which is contracted from mere betrothals.

1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary concerning extraordinary pollution, the response is already clear, because it is understood [of the case] where there was no mingling of seed, by which[^p859-6] man and woman would be said to be made one flesh.

2. To that which is objected, that the legitimate bond is instituted by God; it must be said that in fornication there are two things, namely the *underlying action*, which is natural, and the *deformity of will*, by which someone wills to know a woman not his own, or [in which there is] a defect of circumstance concerning the act itself. As to the first it is a natural action, good and from God; as to the second it bespeaks a defect and deformity and takes on the name of vice[^p859-7]; the bond of affinity therefore is contracted by reason of the first, not by reason of the second.

3. To that which is objected, that it is an insoluble bond; it must be said that a transient action for the most part leaves behind a perpetual effect, or, that I may say it better, a lasting one, as is clear: because, just as fornication induces a corruption of the flesh, so the knowing of a wife effects a union of body; and since, from the moment he has known [her], he must necessarily have known [her]: therefore from this conjunction there results an insoluble bond. And there is an example: because, just as from one such act offspring can be generated, which is bound by a perpetual bond to father and mother; so affinity can be generated, since such a conjunction is one that introduces affinity, not one that conserves it[^p859-8]. Therefore, though it [the act] itself is transitory, the affinity can be lasting.

4. To that which is objected concerning irregularity for orders, it must be said that the knowing of a woman does not generate irregularity, except insofar as it induces a defect of the Sacrament; and since a defect of the Sacrament presupposes some being of the Sacrament, and [comes] after the privation of perfection; hence it is that irregularity is not contracted through intercourse outside matrimony. But affinity regards the unity of flesh and body, and this is common both to the fornicating act and to the legitimate one; therefore it can cause affinity, but not irregularity[^p859-9].

la: Can. 6, ubi textus originalis post *et frater eius* addit *nesciens eandem*, et post *uxorem duxerit* prosequitur: *frater, eo quod fratri crimen* etc. Ideo pro *frater eius* lege: *fratri*.

en: Canon 6, where the original text, after *and his brother*, adds *not knowing her to be the same*, and after *has taken [her] to wife* continues: *the brother, in that his brother's crime* etc. Therefore, for *frater eius* ("his brother") read: *fratri* ("to the brother").

la: Libr. IV. tit. 13. c. 4.

en: Book IV, tit. 13, c. 4.

la: Vers. 16. Vulgata omittit *cum ea*. — Superius pro *fuerunt* codd. M O U *fiunt*, et pro *fornicario* codd. R S T X *fornicatione*.

en: Verse 16. The Vulgate omits *cum ea* ("with her"). — Above, for *fuerunt*, codices M O U read *fiunt*, and for *fornicario*, codices R S T X read *fornicatione*.

la: Can. 11. Textus originalis plura interiicit.

en: Canon 11. The original text inserts more [between the words quoted].

la: Vide infra q. 3.

en: See below, q. 3.

la: Cfr. supra *Praenotata* ad hanc quaest. circa finem.

en: Cf. above, the *Praenotata* (Prefatory Notes) to this question, near the end.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 13. c. 7. Cfr. *Glossa* ibid. — Antiquitus iustitia publicae honestatis sic definiebatur: *Publicae honestatis iustitia est propinquitas duarum personarum ratione tertiae personae per sponsalia iunctae, robur trahens ab institutione Ecclesiae propter eius honestatem.* — Circa initium responsionis Vat. *seminum* pro *sanguinum*.

en: Book IV, tit. 13, c. 7. Cf. the *Gloss* there. — Anciently the justice of public honesty was defined thus: *The justice of public honesty is the propinquity of two persons by reason of a third person joined [to them] through betrothal, drawing its force from the institution of the Church on account of its honesty.* — Near the beginning of the response the Vatican edition reads *seminum* ("of seed") for *sanguinum* ("of bloods").

la: Ita cod. F, alii *antequam*; edd. legunt: *quia ibi non fuit seminum commixtio aliqua, ideo non dicuntur... effecti.*

en: So codex F reads; others read *antequam*; the editions read: *because there was there no mingling of seed, therefore they are not said... to be made [one flesh].*

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. — Cod. L *rationem vitii*.

en: See *Sentences*, Book II, d. 37, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1. — Codex L reads *rationem vitii* ("the account of vice").

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2. et 3. — Pro *quoniam talis*, quod habet cod. aa, in aliis *quando talis*.

en: Cf. above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 1, ad 2 and 3. — For *quoniam talis*, which codex aa has, others read *quando talis*.

la: Vide supra d. 25. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1. et 2. — Superius pro *et post* cod. F *et ponit*.

en: See above, d. 25, a. 2, q. 3, ad 1 and 2. — Above, for *et post*, codex F [reads] *et ponit*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa impedimentum *affinitatis* controversia fuit, quo iure dirimat in casu *primi* gradus in linea recta. Plurimi antiqui sustinebant, affinitatem in dicto casu dirimere iure naturali vel divino, saltem si oritur ex legitimo matrimonio, cui sententiae videtur favere S. Thomas. Alii vero putabant, affinitatem semper solo iure ecclesiastico dirimere; quibus favet Scot. (hic q. unica n. 4.). Nunc certum est, eam ne in primo quidem gradu lineae rectae iure divino dirimere, quando oritur ex copula illicita, cum s. Sedes interdum in hoc casu dispensaverit. Secundum ius a Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIV. de Reform. c. 4.) constitutum affinitas dirimit usque ad *quartum* gradum, si oritur ex copula licita, sed usque ad *secundum* tantum, si oritur ex copula illicita. — De *Praenotatis* alii auctores tractant in ipsis quaestionibus.

De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica, ubi etiam de seqq. qq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica a. 1. quaestiunc. 1-4; Suppl. q. 55. a. 1-4. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1-3. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica.

**II.** In 2. quaestione tangitur aliud impedimentum, scilicet *publicae honestatis*, ortum vel ex validis sponsalibus, vel ex matrimonio non consummato; in primo casu dirimit tantum in *primo* gradu (ita statuit Tridentinum), in secundo vero usque ad *quartum*.

De 2. quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 5; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4.

**III.** De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 6-8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1-4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the impediment of *affinity* there was controversy, by what law it dissolves [a marriage] in the case of the *first* degree in the direct line. Very many of the ancients held that affinity in the said case dissolves [it] by natural or divine law, at least if it arises from a legitimate marriage — an opinion to which S. Thomas seems to be favorable. But others thought that affinity always dissolves [it] by ecclesiastical law alone; and Scotus favors these (here q. unica, n. 4). Now it is certain that it does not, not even in the first degree of the direct line, dissolve [a marriage] by divine law when it arises from an illicit union, since the Holy See has at times dispensed in this case. According to the law established by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, de Reform., c. 4), affinity dissolves up to the *fourth* degree if it arises from a licit union, but only up to the *second* if it arises from an illicit union. — Concerning the *Prefatory Notes*, other authors treat [of them] within the questions themselves.

On question 1: Scotus, here q. unica, where also concerning the following questions. — S. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 1, little-questions 1-4; Suppl. q. 55, a. 1-4. — B. Albert, here a. 1-3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1-3. — On this and the 2 following questions: Durandus, here q. 1, 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. unica.

**II.** In the 2nd question another impediment is touched upon, namely that of *public honesty*, arising either from valid betrothals or from a non-consummated marriage; in the first case it dissolves only in the *first* degree (thus the Tridentine [Council] determined), but in the second up to the *fourth*.

On question 2: S. Thomas, here a. 1, little-question 5; Suppl. loc. cit., a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 4.

**III.** On question 3: S. Thomas, here a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit., a. 6-8. — B. Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1-4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw L91433–91581), base for the videtur/contra arguments; the Respondeo and the four replies (*Ad 1–4*), which cascade-fragment in the OCR, were re-set from the p.858–859 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p85{8,9}-{L,R}-*`), which are authoritative there. Editorial marginal glosses ("Notandum.", "Solutio oppositorum.", "Exemplum.") were trimmed as Quaracchi marginalia, not Bonaventure's text.

**Page span / structure.** The entire quaestio (Articulus Unicus opener → title → 4 arguments → 4 *Contra* → Conclusio → Respondeo → *Ad 1–4*) is contained on pp. 858–859. Body starts partway down p.858 (immediately after the divisio's TRACTATIO "possunt hic tria quaeri…"); the argument-3 clause "…una / caro" straddles the 858→859 boundary.

**p.858 seam (vs. divisio writer).** p.858 carries footers 1–8. Footers **1–6 anchor in the divisio body** (the *versus*, the Prima/Secunda/Tertia notulae) and belong to the `d41-divisio`/`Praenotata` chunk — NOT claimed here. **Footers 7 and 8 anchor in this quaestio's args 1 and 2** and are claimed (→ [^p858-7], [^p858-8]).

**p.859 footers.** All nine p.859 footers (1–9) anchor in this quaestio's body (arg 3, the four *Contra*, the Respondeo, and *Ad 1–4*) and are all claimed. Apparatus total = 11 (2 on p.858 + 9 on p.859).

**p.860 seam (vs. a1-q2 writer) — no q1 content on p.860.** p.860 begins with the article-level SCHOLION (covering q1, q2, q3: "De 1. quaestione… In 2. quaestione… De 3. quaestione…"), after which a1-q2 begins. Per the dispatch instruction ("NO scholion in d.41"), this quaestio chunk carries no scholion; the shared article scholion is left to whichever chunk owns the article-scholion (a1-q2/q3 or a divisio-level handling). Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` list 860/880 as instructed, but this q1 body does not physically extend onto p.860, so no `<!-- page 860 -->` break is placed.

**[?] flags.**
- **p.859 note 9 — RESOLVED at the d.41–d.50 decade gate (2026-07-21).** Re-read at 600 dpi in the p.859 right-column footer (PDF p.879): the entry ends *Superius pro* **et post** *cod. F* **et ponit** — i.e. the lemma is the two-word phrase *et post*, for which cod. F substitutes *et ponit*. The earlier reading mis-split it as *pro ei / post cod. F / et ponit*, which is what made the sense opaque. Latin and English both corrected; `[?]` removed.

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. 41, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 860 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum affinitas transeat in alterum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum affinitas transeat in alterum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia[^p860-1], *Contradicimus*, et infra, Iulius Papa: «Relictam consanguineorum uxoris suae nullus ducat uxorem»; sed consanguinei uxoris sunt affines: ergo uxor affinis efficitur illegitima ad contrahendum, non propter aliud nisi propter affinitatem: ergo etc.

2. Item, in sequenti capitulo[^p860-2]: «Porro duorum consanguineorum uxores uni viro alteram post alteram nubere, publicae honestatis iustitia contradicit».

3. Item, carnalis commixtio adeo iungit, ut propagatio — quod patet: quia tantum se extendit et per tot gradus et tales descendit affinitas, ad quos gradus protenditur consanguinitas, scilicet usque ad quartum gradum — cum ergo consanguinitas transeat in alterum: ergo et affinitas. *Minor* patet: quia, si aliquis est mihi consanguineus in primo gradu, generat mihi consanguineum in secundo: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne simile generat sibi simile, et «quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, inter se sunt eadem[^p860-3]»: ergo si aliqua uxor habeat duos viros, et aliquis vir duas uxores; cum isti duo viri coniungantur eidem mulieri, ut patet consideranti, et istae duae mulieres eidem viro: ergo omnes sibi attinent: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Ubi est vera affinitas, adeo ligat, ut consanguinitas; sed nunquam cum filia fratris sui potest quis contrahere: ergo nec cum filia uxoris fratris, quae est affinis, fratre mortuo; cuius contrarium habetur, Extra, de Consanguinitate[^p860-4], *Non debet reprehensibile iudicari*, ubi dicitur, quod potest coniungi talis tali.

2. Item, si affinitas surgit ex affinitate: ergo cum aliquis vir cognoscit decem mulieres, ergo illae omnes sunt affines: ergo contrahens cum una non potest contrahere cum alia; quod est manifeste falsum, quia tunc homo cum nulla posset contrahere.

3. Item, esto quod aliquis contrahat cum uxore alicuius, ipso mortuo; quaeritur, utrum efficiatur affinis consanguineis viri; quodsi *non*, tunc affinitas non generat affinitatem. Si vero *efficitur affinis* consanguineis: ergo multo magis ipsi viro: ergo non potest cognoscere cognitam ab alio viro[^p860-5]; quod est manifestum inconveniens.

4. Item, si affinitas generat affinitatem; cum carnis commixtio faciat unitatem et gradum affinitatis secundum primum gradum, tunc semper manebit affinitas propter commixtionem, et sic erit processus in infinitum in affinitate; quod est manifeste falsum: ergo et primum, scilicet quod affinitas per commixtionem carnis generet sive faciat affinitatem.

<!-- page 861 -->

### Conclusio

> Affinitas non generat affinitatem secundum ius novum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod differt vinculum affinitatis et consanguinitatis: quoniam vinculum affinitatis est vinculum *per accidens*; vinculum consanguinitatis est vinculum *per se*; et quoniam omne *per accidens* necessario habet reduci ad *per se*[^p861-1]: hinc est, quod affinitas necessario praesupponit consanguinitatem et superaddit commixtionem et ex his duobus surgit. Quia ergo illud quod est *per accidens*, non habet virtutem multiplicandi et diffundendi se, nisi per illud quod est ens *per se*; hinc est, quod diffusio[^p861-2] et descensus affinitatis secundum *veritatem* attenditur a parte *consanguinitatis* solum, non a parte *commixtionis*, quantum est de natura vinculi. Unde consanguinei uxoris Petri ita sunt affines ei usque ad quartum gradum sicut per consanguinitatem alligantur uxori; sed uxor Petri ex hoc, quod nubit alii, cum *per accidens*[^p861-3] iuncta sit consanguineis Petri, non propter hoc generat vinculum attinentiae secundum *veritatem*; sed si generat, hoc est solum secundum publicae iustitiam honestatis, per quem modum contrahitur in sponsalibus. Et secundum hunc modum fuerunt antiquitus *secundum* genus affinitatis et *tertium*, quae magis pertinebant ad publicae iustitiam honestatis quam ad *affinitatem*, sicut canon secundo propositus expresse dicit, si quis attendat. Et quia periculosum erat ad ista teneri, ideo totum oportuit revocari, excepto *primo genere* affinitatis. Et ita dicendum, quod secundum veritatem et secundum tempus praesens affinitas non generat affinitatem, ut qui est affinis alicui efficiatur affinis affini; vel qui est iunctus carnaliter cum aliqua, per hoc efficiatur affinis affinibus suis, immo solum consanguineis; nec surgit affinitas ex consanguinitate et affinitate, sed solum ex consanguinitate et carnis commixtione. — Et rationes ad hoc inductae sunt concedendae.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de illis duabus auctoritatibus, dicendum, quod retractatae sunt; nec illae prohibent coniunctionem talem propter vinculum affinitatis, sed propter iustitiam publicae honestatis.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod carnis commixtio adeo iungit, ut propagatio; dicendum, quod si loqueris *in se* et *per se*, falsum est. Nam pater non potest contrahere cum filia, quam generavit[^p861-4]; sed vir potest contrahere cum muliere, quam cognovit. Habet tamen hoc veritatem *per accidens*, praesupposita consanguinitate; quod patet: quia uxor viri ita propinqua efficitur consanguineis viri, sicut et ipse; et quia est vinculum *per accidens*, ideo non protenditur nisi secundum protensionem consanguinitatis; et ideo non sequitur, quod affinitas generet affinitatem, sicut consanguinitas consanguinitatem.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod simile generat simile; dicendum, quod verum est, *per se* loquendo, si illud quo assimilatur inest ei, secundum quod generat; unde leprosus generat leprosum, et calculosus calculosum, quia est ibi corruptio vis generativae. Sed tamen mancus non necessario generat mancum, quia defectus ille non respicit generantem secundum quod est generans. Et quia affinitas *per accidens* respicit aliquem, ideo non diffundit eam in alterum, nec in eum qui propagatur, nec in eum qui carnaliter commiscetur. Unde non est modo verus ille versus[^p861-5]:

*Mutat nupta genus, sed generat gradum,*

scilicet affinitatis; nisi quis velit ipsum distrahere et exponere, secundum quod competit proximitati modernae, ut per rationem matrimonii contrahatur genus affinitatis, et per generationem genus consanguinitatis. Primus tamen est intellectus verior[^p861-6].

---

english:
<!-- page 860 -->

### Question II. *Whether affinity passes over into another.*

Secondly it is asked whether affinity passes over into another. And that it does, it seems.

1. In Cause thirty-five, question three[^p860-1], [the canon] *Contradicimus*, and below, Pope Julius: «Let no one take to wife the widow of the kinsmen of his own wife»; but the kinsmen of the wife are affines: therefore an affine wife is rendered illegitimate for contracting [marriage], for no other reason than affinity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the following chapter[^p860-2]: «Moreover, for the wives of two kinsmen to marry one man, the one after the other, the justice of public honesty forbids».

3. Likewise, the commingling of the flesh joins [persons] as much as propagation does — which is clear: because affinity extends and descends through just as many and such degrees as those to which consanguinity is extended, namely up to the fourth degree — since therefore consanguinity passes over into another: therefore affinity also. The *minor* is clear: because, if someone is my kinsman in the first degree, he generates for me a kinsman in the second: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every like generates its like, and «whatever things are the same as one and the same thing are the same as each other[^p860-3]»: therefore if some wife has two husbands, and some man two wives; since these two husbands are joined to the same woman, as is clear to one who considers, and these two women to the same man: therefore all are related to each other: therefore etc.

**Contra:**
1. Where there is true affinity, it binds as much as consanguinity; but one can never contract [marriage] with the daughter of one's own brother: therefore neither with the daughter of a wife's brother, who is an affine, when the brother is dead; the contrary of which is held in the *Extra*, on Consanguinity[^p860-4], *Non debet reprehensibile iudicari*, where it is said that such a one can be joined to such a one.

2. Likewise, if affinity arises from affinity: then when some man knows ten women, then all those women are affines: therefore one contracting with one cannot contract with another; which is manifestly false, because then a man could contract with none.

3. Likewise, suppose that someone contracts [marriage] with another's wife, that man being dead; it is asked whether she becomes an affine to the man's kinsmen; and if *not*, then affinity does not generate affinity. But if she does *become an affine* to the kinsmen: then much more to the man himself: therefore he cannot know a woman known by another man[^p860-5]; which is a manifest incongruity.

4. Likewise, if affinity generates affinity; since the commingling of the flesh produces unity and a degree of affinity according to the first degree, then affinity will always remain on account of the commingling, and so there will be a process to infinity in affinity; which is manifestly false: therefore also the first [is false], namely that affinity through the commingling of the flesh generates or produces affinity.

<!-- page 861 -->

### Conclusio

> Affinity does not generate affinity according to the new law.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the bond of affinity and [that] of consanguinity differ: for the bond of affinity is a bond *per accidens*; the bond of consanguinity is a bond *per se*; and since everything *per accidens* must necessarily be reduced to what is *per se*[^p861-1]: hence it is that affinity necessarily presupposes consanguinity and superadds commingling, and arises from these two. Since therefore that which is *per accidens* does not have the power of multiplying and diffusing itself except through that which is a being *per se*; hence it is that the diffusion[^p861-2] and descent of affinity is, according to *truth*, regarded only on the side of *consanguinity*, not on the side of *commingling*, as far as pertains to the nature of the bond. Hence the kinsmen of Peter's wife are affines to her up to the fourth degree, just as they are bound to the wife by consanguinity; but Peter's wife, from the fact that she marries another — since she is joined *per accidens*[^p861-3] to Peter's kinsmen — does not on account of this generate a bond of relatedness according to *truth*; but if she does generate [one], this is only according to the justice of public honesty, in the manner by which [a bond] is contracted in betrothals. And according to this manner there were of old the *second* and *third* kind of affinity, which pertained more to the justice of public honesty than to *affinity*, as the canon proposed second expressly says, if one attends. And because it was dangerous to hold to these, therefore it was necessary to revoke the whole, except the *first kind* of affinity. And thus it must be said that, according to truth and according to the present time, affinity does not generate affinity, so that one who is an affine to someone should become an affine to that person's affine; nor [so] that one who is joined carnally with some woman should through this become an affine to her affines, but rather only to her kinsmen; nor does affinity arise from consanguinity and affinity, but only from consanguinity and the commingling of the flesh. — And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.

**To the arguments:**

*Ad 1, 2.* To that, then, which is objected concerning those two authorities, it must be said that they have been retracted; nor do they forbid such a conjunction on account of the bond of affinity, but on account of the justice of public honesty.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that the commingling of the flesh joins as much as propagation; it must be said that, if you speak *in itself* and *per se*, it is false. For a father cannot contract [marriage] with a daughter whom he has generated[^p861-4]; but a man can contract with a woman whom he has known. Yet this has truth *per accidens*, consanguinity being presupposed; which is clear: because the wife of the man becomes as near to the man's kinsmen as he himself is; and because it is a bond *per accidens*, therefore it is not extended except according to the extension of consanguinity; and therefore it does not follow that affinity generates affinity, as consanguinity [generates] consanguinity.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that like generates like; it must be said that it is true, speaking *per se*, if that by which [the offspring] is made like is present in [the parent] according to that by which it generates; whence a leper generates a leper, and one afflicted with the stone [generates] one afflicted with the stone, because there is there a corruption of the generative power. But nevertheless a maimed man does not necessarily generate a maimed one, because that defect does not regard the one generating insofar as he is generating. And because affinity *per accidens* regards someone, therefore it does not diffuse it into another, neither into the one who is propagated, nor into the one who is carnally commingled. Whence that verse is not now true[^p861-5]:

*The married woman changes the kind, but generates a degree,*

namely of affinity; unless one wishes to draw it out and expound it according to what befits modern nearness, so that through the account of marriage the kind of affinity is contracted, and through generation the kind of consanguinity. Yet the first is the truer understanding[^p861-6].

---

la: Cap. 21, super quod Gratian. affert in § 1. verba Iulii Papae, quae iam superius c. 12. allegata fuerunt ab ipso; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi plenius recitantur.

en: Chapter 21, upon which Gratian, in § 1, adduces the words of Pope Julius, which were already cited above by him in c. 12; cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, where they are more fully recited.

la: Cap. 22: Porro duorum consobrinorum coniuges, quamvis diversis temporibus, viro uni alteram post alterius obitum nubere, ipsa praeter auctoritatem canonicam publicae honestatis iustitia contradicit.

en: Chapter 22: Moreover, that the wives of two cousins, though at different times, should marry one man, the one after the death of the other — this the justice of public honesty forbids even apart from canonical authority.

la: Aristot., I. Elench. c. 5. (c. 6.). — De praeced. propos. cfr. supra pag. 642, nota 5. — Aristot., Rhetor. c. 14. (c. 4.), ait: Natura comparatum est, ut similia ex similibus oriantur. — Subinde pro «aliquis vir duas uxores», quod habet cod. E (A a secunda manu), alii codd. et edd. «aliqui viri illas [edd. alias] duas uxores».

en: Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* I, c. 5 (c. 6). — On the preceding proposition, cf. above, p. 642, note 5. — Aristotle, *Rhetoric*, c. 14 (c. 4), says: It has been arranged by nature that like things arise from like. — Further, for «one man [having] two wives», which codex E has (A by a second hand), other codices and editions read «certain men [having] those [edd. other] two wives».

la: Cod. U «cognatam illius viri», et pro «manifestum» codd. N a a «magnum».

en: Codex U reads «the kinswoman of that man», and for «manifest» codices N a a read «great».

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 66. (c. 6.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 638, nota 3.

en: According to Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 66 (c. 6). Cf. tom. II, p. 638, note 3.

la: Plures codd. «definitio», cod. U «distinctio».

en: Several codices read «definition», codex U «distinction».

la: Codd. L Y «per consequens».

en: Codices L Y read «consequently».

la: Ita codd. E L Y (F in margine); alii codd. «cognovit», cod. K (I a secunda manu) legit: «cum filia, cuius matrem cognovit».

en: Thus codices E L Y (F in the margin); other codices read «has known», codex K (I by a second hand) reads: «with a daughter whose mother he has known».

la: Vide supra *Praenotata*. — Inferius post *generationem* ex cod. E (secunda manus) substituimus *genus consanguinitatis* pro *genus affinitatis*, in cod. bb *gradus affinitatis*. — Sensus est: nisi *genus* sumatur *large* pro utroque impedimento.

en: See above, the *Praenotata*. — Below, after *generation*, from codex E (by a second hand) we have substituted *the kind of consanguinity* for *the kind of affinity*; in codex bb, *the degree of affinity*. — The sense is: unless *kind* be taken *broadly* for either impediment.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw L91582–91739) collated column-by-column against the vol4 PDF page-image bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{860,861}-{L,R}-*.png`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the two-column Respondeo and the page footers). The left-column bands were cut at their right margin, so the OCR carried the run-off line-ends; each was verified against the right-column bands and the raw OCR. English is a fresh literal parallel translation.

**Structure.** Standard scholastic pattern (not inverted): the four numbered *fundamenta* ("Et quod sic, videtur") argue that affinity DOES pass over; the four *Contra* argue it does NOT; the Conclusio + Respondeo deny the transfer; the closing replies (*Ad 1,2 / Ad 3 / Ad 4*) answer the fundamenta, the Contra reasons being granted ("rationes ad hoc inductae sunt concedendae"). Quaracchi's editorial marginal glosses (*Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio.*, *Dignitas per accidens/per se*, *publicae honestatis*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, and the verse-tag *Mutat*) are trimmed per the marginalia rule.

**Seam — p.860 (shared with a1-q1).** The top of p.860 (verso head *860 · SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.*) carries q1's tail: the article-level *Praenotata* (left col.) and the **SCHOLION** (right col., §I–III, "De 1./In 2./De 3. quaestione") — both belong to **a1-q1**, NOT claimed here. This q2 body opens at the centered title *Utrum affinitas transeat in alterum* partway down the left column. All **five** p.860 footers are anchored in this q2 body (1–3 in the fundamenta, 4–5 in the Contra) → all claimed here; q1 carries no footer on p.860.

**Seam — p.861 (shared with a1-q3).** QUAESTIO III opens at the foot of p.861. Of the eight p.861 footers, **1–6 are anchored in this q2 body** (1–3 in the Respondeo, 4–5 in the replies, 6 on the closing "intellectus verior") → all claimed here. Footers **7** (*Can. 13…*) and **8** (*Vers. 8, Vulgata discooperies pro revelabis*) are anchored in QUAESTIO III's opening arguments → **handed off to a1-q3**.

**Apparatus count.** 11 footers total — **p.860: 5** (labels p860-1…5), **p.861: 6** (labels p861-1…6).

**[?] flags.**
- `[^p861-5]`: the p.861 right-column footer 5 runs off the band's right margin ("…gradus affinitatis. — Sen-" / "nisi genus sumatur large pro utroque impedimento"). The bridging word after "Sen-" is not legible; supplied conjecturally as "Sensus [non stat]" — needs a 600 dpi confirmation at the d.41–d.50 decade-polish gate.
- Verse (`Mutat nupta genus, sed generat gradum`): the band shows a printer's flaw on the final word; read as *generat* (metrically/grammatically required; *gradum* is accusative) rather than the OCR's *generatn*/apparent *generata*.


title: Dist. 41, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 861 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De impedimento affinitatis.*
### Quaestio III. *Utrum affinitas praestet matrimonio impedimentum.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum affinitas praestet matrimonio impedimentum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia[^p861-7]: «Aequaliter coniungatur quis propinquis suis et uxoris suae consanguineis».

2. Item, Levitici decimo octavo[^p861-8]: *Turpitudinem uxoris patris tui non revelabis*: ergo nullus potest contrahere cum uxore patris; sed hoc non est ob aliud nisi ob vinculum affinitatis: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc ipsum arguitur *per rationem*: quia <!-- page 862 -->turpitudo uxoris est turpitudo viri[^p862-1]; sed turpitudo consanguineae non est aliquatenus per actum coniugalem revelanda: ergo nec uxor viri in coniugium assumenda.

4. Item, proximitatis vinculum tam in consanguinitate quam in affinitate est ex sanguinis unitate: ergo si consanguinitas propter unitatem sanguinis impedit, pari ratione et affinitas, cum vir et mulier fiant una caro ratione commixtionis seminum.

**Contra:**

1. In Lege[^p862-2] erat prohibitum ducere sororem, et praeceptum erat ducere uxorem fratris; et illa est affinis: ergo affinitas matrimonium non impedit.

2. Item, magis iungitur aliquis alicui, qui iungitur *per se* et *immediate*, quam qui *mediate*; sed vir, qui cognoscit mulierem, potest ei iungi matrimonialiter: ergo multo magis consanguinei ipsius viri.

3. Item, secundum iura[^p862-3] consanguinei succedunt defuncto in rebus suis, in quibus habuit dominium et possessionem; sed vir habuit dominium in mulierem per matrimonium: ergo secundum iura consanguinei debent et possunt habere dominium in corpus coniugis per matrimonium: ergo etc.

4. Item, commixtio carnalis est ad tempus, et matrimonium est vinculum insolubile: si ergo maius vinculum solvit minus; cum commixtio carnalis[^p862-4] matrimonium non possit impedire, ergo nec affinitas inde contracta.

> **Conclusio.** Affinitas, quae praecedit, impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit contractum, non autem superveniens, quae tantum aufert reo ius exigendi debitum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod affinitas impedit matrimonium, sicut habetur *Extra, de Consanguinitate et affinitate*[^p862-5]; et hoc intelligendum est de affinitate, quae praecedit matrimonii contractionem, non de ea quae supervenit. Si enim praecedat, impedit contrahendum et dirimit iam contractum, quia facit personam illegitimam secundum eundem modum et per easdem rationes, per quem modum et per quas rationes facit consanguinitas[^p862-6]. Si autem sequatur matrimonium, non potest ipsum dissolvere, cum sit vinculum insolubile; si tamen contractum est et consummatum, ambo sunt ad continentiam monendi. Si vero contractum est et ratificatum per verba de praesenti; cum solvi non possit, nisi ingrediatur alter coniugum religionem, sicut habetur *Extra, de Conversione coniugatorum*[^p862-7]: necessario oportet, quod ille qui malitiose cognovit consanguineam aliquam, reddat debitum, si illa non vult continere, aut in religionem ingrediatur, *Extra, de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam uxoris suae*[^p862-8]: *Discretionem*, et infra; ubi dicitur, quod tenetur reddere debitum, «cum non debeat coniux sine culpa iure suo privari». Ipse autem non debet exigere, quia reddidit se inhabilem, sicut dicitur eodem titulo: *Transmissae nobis* etc.; ubi dicitur, quod «requisitus non sine gravi cordis dolore accedat». — Sic igitur concedendum, quod affinitas praecedens matrimonium quantum ad primum genus ita impedit matrimonium, ut consanguinitas.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praeceptum erat ducere uxorem fratris; dicendum, quod hoc verum erat in casu, scilicet cum frater mortuus erat sine semine. Quia enim promissa erat eis perfecta benedictio in semine, ideo non debebat pati Lex, quod aliquis esset, qui videretur sine semine, si haberet propinquum, qui suscitaret. Nunc autem, quia hoc sublatum est, sic impedit omnino, sicut consanguinitas[^p862-9].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vir magis iungitur mulieri; dicendum, quod verum est; sed quoniam ille actus consonat et consequitur matrimonium; hinc est, quod vinculum nullum ibi concurrit inter virum et mulierem, quod matrimonio praestet impedimentum. — *Amplius*, sicut praedictum est[^p862-10], cum affinitas sit vinculum *per accidens*, praesupponit vinculum *per se*, scilicet consanguinitatem; et quia nemo sibi ipsi est consanguineus: hinc est, quod mulier non efficitur affinis viro, sed eius consanguineis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundum iura consanguinei debent succedere; dicendum, quod verum est in illa hereditate, quam potest quis alii communicare et dare. Sed uxor est adeo bonum proprium, quod nec caritas communicat, quae facit omnia communia[^p862-11]; et ideo illud ius nunquam se extendit ad uxorem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod carnalis commixtio est ad tempus; dicendum, quod quamvis sit ad tempus, tamen habet effectum perpetuum, scilicet affinitatem, ut prius visum est[^p862-12], et per illam impedit. Et sic patet totum[^p862-13].

---

english:
### Article Unique. *On the impediment of affinity.*
### Question III. *Whether affinity presents an impediment to marriage.*

Thirdly it is asked whether affinity presents an impediment to marriage. And that it does, seems to be the case.

1. Cause 35, question 3[^p861-7]: «Let a person be joined equally to his own kin and to the blood-relations of his wife».

2. Likewise, Leviticus 18[^p861-8]: *Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's wife*: therefore no one can contract [marriage] with his father's wife; but this is for no other reason than the bond of affinity: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this same thing is argued *by reason*: because the nakedness of the wife is the nakedness of the husband[^p862-1]; but the nakedness of a female blood-relation is in no way to be uncovered through the conjugal act: therefore neither is the wife of [one's] kinsman to be taken into wedlock.

4. Likewise, the bond of nearness, both in consanguinity and in affinity, is from the unity of blood: therefore, if consanguinity impedes on account of the unity of blood, by parity of reasoning affinity does too, since husband and wife become one flesh by reason of the commingling of the seeds.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the [Old] Law[^p862-2] it was forbidden to marry a sister, and it was commanded to marry a brother's wife; and she is an affine: therefore affinity does not impede marriage.

2. Likewise, one is more joined to another who is joined *per se* and *immediately* than to one who is joined *mediately*; but a man who knows a woman can be joined to her maritally: therefore much more [may] the blood-relations of that man himself.

3. Likewise, according to the [civil] laws[^p862-3] blood-relations succeed the deceased in his goods, in which he had ownership and possession; but a husband had ownership over his wife through marriage: therefore according to the laws blood-relations ought to and can have ownership over the body of the spouse through marriage: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, carnal commingling is for a time, and marriage is an indissoluble bond: if therefore a greater bond looses a lesser one; since carnal commingling[^p862-4] cannot impede marriage, therefore neither [can] the affinity contracted therefrom.

> **Conclusion.** Affinity which precedes impedes the contracting of marriage and annuls a contract [already made], but not [affinity] supervening, which only takes from the guilty party the right of exacting the [conjugal] debt.

**I respond:** It must be said that affinity impedes marriage, as is had in the *Extra*, [title] *On Consanguinity and Affinity*[^p862-5]; and this is to be understood of the affinity which precedes the contracting of marriage, not of that which supervenes. For if it precedes, it impedes the contracting and annuls what has already been contracted, because it makes the person illegitimate in the same manner and by the same grounds by which manner and by which grounds consanguinity does[^p862-6]. But if it follows the marriage, it cannot dissolve it, since it is an indissoluble bond; if, however, it has been contracted and consummated, both are to be admonished to continence. But if it has been contracted and ratified by words of the present tense, since it cannot be dissolved unless one of the spouses enters religion, as is had in the *Extra*, [title] *On the Conversion of the Married*[^p862-7]: it is necessarily required that he who has maliciously known some blood-relation [of his wife] render the [conjugal] debt, if she is unwilling to remain continent, or [else] enter religion — *Extra*, [title] *On Him Who Knew a Blood-relation of His Wife*[^p862-8]: [the decretal] *Discretionem*, and below; where it is said that he is bound to render the debt, «since a spouse ought not to be deprived of his own right without fault». He himself, however, ought not to exact it, because he has rendered himself unfit, as is said under the same title: *Transmissae nobis* etc.; where it is said that «when required, let him not approach without grave sorrow of heart». — Thus therefore it must be conceded that affinity preceding marriage, as regards the first kind, so impedes marriage as consanguinity does.

1. To that which is objected, that it was commanded to marry a brother's wife, it must be said that this was true in a [particular] case, namely when a brother had died without seed. For since a perfect blessing had been promised them in [their] seed, therefore the Law ought not to permit that there be anyone who might seem [to be] without seed, if he had a kinsman who might raise up [seed for him]. But now, since this has been taken away, [affinity] so impedes altogether, as consanguinity does[^p862-9].

2. To that which is objected, that the man is more joined to the woman, it must be said that it is true; but since that act is consonant with and follows upon marriage, hence it is that no bond concurs there between the man and the woman which would present an impediment to marriage. — *Furthermore*, as was said before[^p862-10], since affinity is a bond *per accidens*, it presupposes a bond *per se*, namely consanguinity; and because no one is a blood-relation to his very self, hence it is that a woman is not made an affine to [her] husband, but to his blood-relations.

3. To that which is objected, that according to the laws blood-relations ought to succeed, it must be said that it is true in that inheritance which one can share and give to another. But a wife is so much a proper good that not even charity — which makes all things common[^p862-11] — shares her; and therefore that [right of succession] never extends itself to the wife.

4. To that which is objected last, that carnal commingling is for a time, it must be said that, although it is for a time, nevertheless it has a perpetual effect, namely affinity, as was seen before[^p862-12], and through it it impedes. And thus the whole is plain[^p862-13].

---

la: Can. 13. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Canon 13. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Vers. 8. Vulgata *discooperies* pro *revelabis*.

en: Verse 8. The Vulgate has *discooperies* for *revelabis*.

la: In textu praecedentis arg. additur: *Turpitudo enim patris tui est.* — De minori cfr. d. 40. q. 2. fundam. 2.

en: In the text of the preceding argument there is added: *For it is thy father's nakedness.* — On the minor [premise] cf. d. 40, q. 2, fundamentum 2.

la: Iustinian., III. Institut. imperial. de Successione cognator. (tit. 5.), per totum.

en: Justinian, *Institutes* III, [title] *On the Succession of Cognates* (tit. 5), throughout.

la: Multi codd. et ed. I *corporalis*.

en: Many codices and edition I have *corporalis*.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 14. C. *Non debet* (8.), in quo primum genus affinitatis ut impedimentum non abrogatur.

en: Book IV, tit. 14, ch. *Non debet* (8), in which the first kind of affinity as an impediment is not abrogated.

la: Cfr. supra d. 40. q. 2. Rationes ibi adductae ex parte valent etiam pro affinitate, quae consanguinitatem praesupponit. — De seq. propos. vide C. *Tuae fraternitatis devotio* (10.), X. de Eo qui cognovit consanguineam etc. (lib. IV. tit. 13.).

en: Cf. above, d. 40, q. 2. The reasons adduced there in part hold also for affinity, which presupposes consanguinity. — On the following proposition see ch. *Tuae fraternitatis devotio* (10), X, [title] *On Him Who Knew a Blood-relation* etc. (bk. IV, tit. 13).

la: Libr. III. tit. 32. C. *Verum post* (2.); cfr. supra pag. 683, nota 10.

en: Book III, tit. 32, ch. *Verum post* (2); cf. above, p. 683, note 10.

la: Libr. IV. tit. 13. c. 6. (Vide infra pag. 863, nota 2.). — Seq. locus est ibid. c. 4.

en: Book IV, tit. 13, ch. 6. (See below, p. 863, note 2.) — The following passage is ibid., ch. 4.

la: Cfr. C. *Deus, qui Ecclesiam* (9.), X. de Divortiis (lib. IV. tit. 19.). — Superius pro *videretur* codd. E L P Q Y non ita bene *moreretur*.

en: Cf. ch. *Deus, qui Ecclesiam* (9), X, [title] *On Divorces* (bk. IV, tit. 19). — Above, in place of *videretur*, codd. E L P Q Y less aptly have *moreretur*.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Cfr. Act. 4, 32, et supra d. 33. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Verbo *communicat* cod. F praemittit *et illud*.

en: Cf. Acts 4, 32, and above, d. 33, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — To the word *communicat* cod. F prefixes *et illud*.

la: Quaest. I. ad 3.

en: Question 1, reply to 3.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the p.861–862 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{861,862}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, Vol II Override — PDF authoritative for the Respondeo/replies/footers), with the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L91740–L91892) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Running heads verified: p.861 `DIST. XLI. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III. 861`; p.862 `862 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`. Offset pdf = printed + 20 holds.

**Page span — CORRECTED from the dispatch brief.** The brief specified `printed_pages: [861, 862, 863]` on the assumption the body runs "partway into p.863." It does not. QUAESTIO III ends on p.862 with *Et sic patet totum* (footer 13). Page 863 opens with the running head `DIST. XLI. DUBIA.` and `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.` — entirely the DUBIA writer's material. So `printed_pages` set to `[861, 862]`, `pdf_pages` `[881, 882]`, source `pp. 861–862`. Nothing on p.863 belongs to q3, and none of p.863's footers are claimed here.

**Page-split map (apparatus, 15 entries).**
- **p.861 — 2 entries** (`p861-7`, `p861-8`): `7` anchors at *quaestione tertia* (obj. 1), `8` at *Levitici decimo octavo* (obj. 2). Footers **1–6 on p.861 anchor in q2's Respondeo/replies** (`per se¹`, `diffusio²`, `per accidens³`, `generavit⁴`, and the two *Vide supra Praenotata* / *Vide scholion* notes) and belong to `d41-a1-q2` — NOT claimed here.
- **p.862 — 13 entries** (`p862-1` … `p862-13`): all anchor in q3's body (obj. 3–4, the four *Contra*, the Respondeo's decretal citations, and the four replies). p.862 is wholly q3's — no sharing.

**Seam disposition — p.861 (vs a1-q2).** My body opens at `QUAESTIO III` in the bottom of p.861's left column; the whole left-column top + right-column top (q2 Respondeo, Conclusio *Affinitas non generat affinitatem secundum ius novum*, and replies Ad 1–4 ending *Primus tamen est intellectus verior⁶*) is q2's and is left for `d41-a1-q2`. q2's footers 1–6 are left for that chunk.

**Seam disposition — p.863 (vs dubia).** No q3 content on p.863; the `DIST. XLI. DUBIA` head and all p.863 footers are left for the dubia writer.

**Page break.** `<!-- page 862 -->` falls mid-sentence inside objection 3 (after *…arguitur per rationem: quia* on p.861's right column, before *turpitudo uxoris est turpitudo viri* atop p.862's left column), matching the print.

**Scholion.** None. d.41 has one article-level scholion, attached to question 1 (footer `p862-13` = *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* points there); it is owned by `d41-a1-q1`. `has_scholion: false`.

**Marginalia trimmed.** The printed side-glosses (*Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio 1*, *Conclusio 2*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Alia ratio*) are editorial marginalia and are not rendered in the body, per corpus convention.

**`[?]` flags.** None. One interpretive note (not an OCR ambiguity): obj. 3's tail *ergo nec uxor viri in coniugium assumenda* is rendered "the wife of [one's] kinsman" — *uxor viri* = the wife of the [blood-related] man, who by affinity is treated as kin; rendered literally with a bracketed gloss.