Dist. 36, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/36/q/bon-sent-IV-d36-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning this which he says: *If the woman herself shall have been detected in servitude* etc.; it is asked whether, before she is fully detected, while they are in suit and litigation, he ought to render her the [conjugal] debt. And that he ought not, it seems: because either he *knows* her with marital affection, or *not*. If *so*, he generates a prejudice against himself and is reckoned as consenting. If he *does not know* [her] with marital affection, he sins mortally. — But *against* this is that no one ought to be despoiled of his right before cognizance of the case.

**I respond:** It must be said that such a one can know in two ways that she is a bondwoman whom he had believed free: either by a slight suspicion, or by a probable or vehement presumption, or by certain knowledge. In the first [way], he ought not to seek [the debt], until he inquires; but nevertheless, if the Church compels [him], he ought to render it, because ignorance excuses him, if she is not [his] wife; for he does not know whether she is [his] wife. — In the second way, whether the Church compels or not, he ought not, because either then he prejudices himself necessarily, or he fornicates; and on account of the Church's mandate one must not fornicate. — Otherwise it must be judged concerning a fornicating wife, who truly is a wife, to whom, when the debt is rendered by the mandate of the Church, no prejudice is generated, nor is any sin incurred.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: *Remaining in one marriage, let them serve their masters.* For it seems to speak wrongly: because let it be supposed that one of the masters sells a slave to distant lands; if the bondwoman follows her husband, her master is deprived of his right; if she is not bound to follow; then therefore it was not a true marriage. — Likewise, let it be supposed that the wife is free, and the slave is sold to gentiles; it is asked whether she ought to follow him. And that [she ought] so, it seems by the law of matrimony.

**I respond:** It must be said that if a male and female slave contracted [marriage], their masters *contradicting* [it], they prejudice themselves, not their masters; and therefore, if the master is in need, he can sell the bondwoman, and if he cannot sell [her] in his own land, he can sell [her] in another's. If, however, in his own land he can sell [her], he is bound [to do so]; otherwise he manifestly wrongs the husband and abuses his own property to another's prejudice. — But if [it be] with the masters *consenting*; then it must be said simply that none of them can be sold by the master to the prejudice of the spouse; and if the one should sell, the other ought to be compelled either to redeem [the slave], or he ought to buy him, or to give the bondwoman leave to follow her husband.

To that which is asked, whether she ought to follow her husband, if he is sold to gentile men; it must be said that his master ought not to sell him to gentiles, for the reason that there is there a peril to the faith. If, however, he does sell [him] in fact; if the wife does not fear the peril of sin, that it be to the contumely of God, or of some other fornication, she can and ought to follow her husband; but I scarcely see how she can follow him without peril to the faith, or without some other sin of morals.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: *If a woman shall have taken a free man* etc., whether anyone can sell himself. And that [he can] not, it seems from the first to the Corinthians, the sixth [chapter]: *You are not your own; for you were bought at a great price*: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a buying, or selling, unto *human service* and unto *divine service*. But to *divine service* there is no repugnance in the service of a man, or bodily servitude, but [only] spiritual servitude, which is the servitude of sin. It must be said therefore that, since the faithful have been redeemed and made temples of God, they cannot sell themselves so as to do evil; they can nevertheless sell themselves unto services.

Likewise, in connection with this it is asked, whether a father can sell his offspring, the wife being unwilling. And that [he can] so, it seems: because the governance of the household pertains to him. — But to the *contrary* is that the offspring follows the mother more.

**I respond:** It must be said that children ought not to be sold nor can be sold without fault, unless there be a necessity of poverty and hunger, in which case the wife ought to consent with the husband. But if in another case he should wish [to], he cannot, when the wife dissents, just as a husband cannot sell nor alienate the dowry of his wife, although he is master of the household; so in the matter proposed. And that in a time of necessity and hunger they can be sold, is proved by that which is written in Nehemiah, the fifth [chapter].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: *It is adjudged that a wife ought by no means to be dismissed*; whether a husband can sell himself, the wife being unwilling. And that [he can] not, it seems: because *the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife*: therefore etc. Likewise, a wife cannot sell herself, the husband being unwilling: therefore, since they are judged to be on a par, it is evident etc.

Likewise, it is asked whether, if the wife consents, she is thereby made a bondwoman.

**I respond:** It must be said that if the wife contracted [marriage] with a free man, so that each is free, the wife dissenting, the husband neither ought nor can make himself a slave to such a degree that any prejudice be generated against the wife, so as not to render her the debt when she seeks it; whence, just as a slave contracting against the will of the master cannot make a contract of matrimony to the prejudice of the master; so neither [can] the husband to the prejudice of the wife — nevertheless, because *the husband is the head of the wife*, as to other things, the debt excepted, he can make himself a slave, although the wife cannot, since she is *under the power of the husband*.

But if the wife consents to the selling of the husband, then only can the husband sell himself unto every service of a master, and the woman prejudices herself; yet neither the woman nor the offspring can be sold by the husband, unless she herself consents, unless perhaps in a moment of necessity; this I say concerning the offspring, as was said before. And thus it is evident how that text is to be understood.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked, if before fourteen years a boy should contract by words of the present [tense] and in fact should corrupt his betrothed; whether they can be separated. And that [they can] not, it seems, because it is a ratified and consummated marriage. — The *contrary* seems [true] through that which is said in the text: *If before the aforesaid times* etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that in this the *constitutions of law* and the *demonstrations of the disciplines* differ: because *demonstrations* are made concerning those things which happen *always*, and if they are made concerning those things which [happen] *frequently*, yet not as *frequently* [merely], but as *always* — an example is that of an eclipse — but the *constitutions of law* [are made] concerning those things which are *often*. If therefore anyone be excepted from the generality of men, for the reason that in him «malice supplies for age», it must be judged [of him] just as if he had the [requisite] age. And so it is to be understood in the case proposed and in others of the like kind.

---