Dist. 36, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 36
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 iura1 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 corporalis2; sed error conditionis spiritualis non impedit matrimonium: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Iura dicunt Causa vigesima nona, quaestione secunda3, 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 iura4, «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 habere5.
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 civili6, «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 conditione7 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 impediunt8.
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 p. 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 expelli1.
---
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 laws1 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 corporeal2; but an error of spiritual condition does not impede marriage: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. The laws say, Cause twenty-nine, question two3, 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 laws4 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 it5.
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 law6, «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 condition7 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 impede8.
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 p. 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 off1.
---
- 1Gratian., C. 29. q. 1; eadem Magister retulit supra d. XXX. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. Comment. q. 1. et dub. 3.Gratian, Cause 29, q. 1; the Master reported the same above at d. XXX, c. 1. Compare ibid., Commentary, q. 1 and dub. 3.
- 2Cod. U addit: et error conditionis spiritualis [servitutis i. e. peccati; cfr. supra pag. 615, nota 3.] quam corporalis.Codex U adds: and an error of spiritual condition [of servitude, i.e. of sin; cf. above p. 615, note 3] than corporeal.
- 3Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1-4. — C. Proposuit (2.) et C. Ad nostram (4.), X. de Coniugio servorum (lib. IV. tit. 9.).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).
- 4Verba 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.).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).
- 5Cfr. infra dub. 2. — Cod. K (I a secunda manu) nec reddere.Compare below, dub. 2. — Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] nor render.
- 6Iustinian., 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.).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).
- 7Ita plurimi codd.; edd. in conditionem.So most of the codices; the editions [read] as to condition (accusative).
- 8Vat. quae impediunt. — Locus est obscurus. Fortasse post primum servitus excidit: de his, quae impediunt.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.
- 1Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question. ---