Bonaventure

Quaestio III. Utrum conditio prolis sequatur patrem, an matrem.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; page-labelled markers keep the two pages' sequences distinct.

Tertio quaeritur, cuius conditionem sequatur proles, utrum patris, an matris. Et quod patris, videtur:

1. Quoniam denominatio fieri debet a principaliori et digniori²; sed pater est nobilius et dignius principium quam mater, et principalius: ergo si magis debet principiatum regulari secundum regulas dignioris principii, videtur, quod partus debeat sequi patrem.

2. Item, in sacra Scriptura³ nunquam ponitur genealogia mulierum, sed potius virorum: ergo generatio principaliter spectat ad viros: ergo et germen generationis.

3. Item, repromissio de semine benedicto, scilicet Christo, facta est viris principaliter, quamvis nasci deberet de muliere — non enim facta est repromissio Sarae, vel Bersabee, sed Abraham et David⁴ — ergo videtur, quod proles magis sit ipsius viri quam mulieris: ergo etc.

4. Item, unumquodque principiatum, quod producitur secundum unitionem, plus sequitur illud cui plus assimilatur; sed filii plus assimilantur patri⁵: ergo magis debent sequi patres.

Contra: 1. De Coniugio servorum⁶ dicit decretalis: « Indecens videtur, ut geniti ex libera filii ad serviendum retrahantur »: ergo qui nascuntur ex matre libera sunt liberi: ergo sequuntur matrem.

2. Item, si quis seminat in terra aliena, fructus est domini terrae, non seminantis⁷; sed venter mulieris respectu seminis viri est sicut terra respectu sementis: ergo videtur, quod sicut fructus sequitur terram, ita partus sequatur ventrem.

3. Item, hoc videtur in animalibus, quoniam si animal masculini sexus impraegnat animal feminini sexus, ut equus equam, pullus sequitur equam, non equum⁸: ergo pari ratione videtur in proposito.

4. Item, hoc videtur per simile in artificialibus: quia, si quis aedificat in terra aliena, aedificium cedit solo, non solum aedificio⁹: ergo si quis generat in alieno ventre, proles sequitur ventrem.

Conclusio

CONCLUSIO. Conditio prolis congrue sequitur matrem, licet in aliquibus regionibus alia sit consuetudo.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod secundum leges civiles sive ius imperiale¹⁰ « partus sequitur ventrem ». — Et ratio huius est valde conveniens, quoniam prolis duplex est principium, pater scilicet et mater. Pater est principium honorabilius, sed mater est principium substantialius; et ideo in honoribus et municipiis filius sequitur patrem, quoniam illa acquiruntur paterna sollicitudine et in hereditate patrimoniali¹¹. Sed quoniam mater est principium substantialius, quantum ad id quod est, sequitur matrem; et quoniam libertas et servitus respiciunt hominem secundum id quod est, non secundum id quod habet: hinc est, quod secundum leges civiles rationabiliter valde institutum est, ut partus sequatur ventrem; et hinc est, quod coniunctio ad prolem generandam matrimonium appellatur¹². — Et huic concordat ius canonicum, sicut patet in decretali prius posita; concordat etiam ius divinum, scriptum in lege Moysaica, ubi dicitur Exodi vigesimo primo¹³, quodsi dederit dominus uxorem alicui, quem emerit, et ille postmodum egredietur p. 795 liber, quod filii debent remanere domino, qui dedit ei uxorem, licet ipse egrediatur liber; concordat etiam multiplex ratio et similitudo naturalis. Et ideo, quia hoc dictat ius civile, et ius canonicum approbat, et divinum confirmat, et naturale commendat; ideo recte dicendum, quod partus debet sequi ventrem.

Verumtamen aliquae partes, quae non sunt huiusmodi legibus subiectae, non servant hanc consuetudinem, immo partus sequitur conditionem deterioris¹; unde si alter est servus, filii sunt servi, et similiter, si mater ancilla; et si ambo sint diversorum dominorum, filii dividuntur. Hunc morem servat Francia in aliquibus partibus, licet non ubique; sed tamen constitutio legalis multo nobilior est et rationabilior quam haec consuetudo.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod pater est dignius principium; dicendum, quod verum est, non tamen substantialius; et ideo in dignitatibus patrem debet sequi, non in substantia sive in libertate corporis sui². Et est exemplum: quia nobilius principium fructuum agriculturae est cultor quam ager; fructus tamen est agri, sive domini agri.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sacra Scriptura genealogias attribuit viris; dicendum, quod verum est et conveniens — nam et hunc modum habemus, quod filium denominamus a patre, unde dicitur Petrus Martini, non Berthae, ut in pluribus — similiter repromissio fit viris; tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod proles debeat sequi virum secundum conditionem libertatis, vel servitutis, sed secundum conditionem dignitatis et honoris, quae non substantiam respicit, sed potius qualitatem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod filius assimilatur patri; dicendum, quod assimilatio non venit a substantia, sed a virtute formativa, quae principaliter viget in semine viri, quando masculus generatur; et ideo frequentius filii assimilantur patribus³. Attamen, quantumcumque sit patri similior in figura et proprietatibus, plus tamen traxit a matre de substantia; et ideo ex hoc non sequitur, quod in libertate patrem sequatur⁴.

---

Question III. Whether the condition of the offspring follows the father or the mother.

Third, it is asked whose condition the offspring follows, whether the father's or the mother's. And that it follows the father seems to be the case:

1. Because denomination ought to be made from the more principal and more worthy [principle]²; but the father is a nobler and more worthy principle than the mother, and more principal: therefore, if the thing originated ought rather to be regulated according to the rules of the more worthy principle, it seems that the birth ought to follow the father.

2. Likewise, in sacred Scripture³ a genealogy of women is never set down, but rather of men: therefore generation principally regards men: therefore also the germ of generation.

3. Likewise, the promise concerning the blessed seed, namely Christ, was made principally to men, although he was to be born of a woman — for the promise was not made to Sarah, or Bathsheba, but to Abraham and David⁴ — therefore it seems that the offspring belongs rather to the man than to the woman: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, everything originated that is produced according to union follows more that to which it is more assimilated; but sons are more assimilated to the father⁵: therefore they ought rather to follow the fathers.

On the contrary: 1. Concerning the Marriage of slaves⁶ the decretal says: "It seems unfitting that sons begotten of a free woman should be dragged back into servitude": therefore those who are born of a free mother are free: therefore they follow the mother.

2. Likewise, if someone sows in another's land, the fruit belongs to the owner of the land, not to the sower⁷; but the woman's womb, with respect to the man's seed, is as land with respect to the sowing: therefore it seems that, just as the fruit follows the land, so the birth should follow the womb.

3. Likewise, this is seen in animals, since if an animal of the male sex impregnates an animal of the female sex, as a horse [impregnates] a mare, the foal follows the mare, not the [male] horse⁸: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems so in the matter proposed.

4. Likewise, this is seen by a similitude in artificial things: because, if someone builds on another's land, the building yields to the soil, not the soil to the building⁹: therefore if someone generates in another's womb, the offspring follows the womb.

Conclusion

CONCLUSION. The condition of the offspring fittingly follows the mother, although in some regions there is a different custom.

I respond: It must be said that, according to the civil laws or imperial law¹⁰, "the birth follows the womb." — And the reason for this is very fitting, since the offspring has a twofold principle, namely the father and the mother. The father is the more honorable principle, but the mother is the more substantial principle; and therefore in honors and municipal offices the son follows the father, since these are acquired by the father's care and in the patrimonial inheritance¹¹. But since the mother is the more substantial principle, as regards that which a thing is, [the offspring] follows the mother; and since liberty and servitude regard the human being according to what he is, not according to what he has: hence it is that, according to the civil laws, it has been very reasonably established that the birth should follow the womb; and hence it is that the union for generating offspring is called matrimony¹². — And with this the canon law agrees, as is clear in the decretal set down before; the divine law also agrees, written in the Mosaic law, where it is said in Exodus, chapter twenty-one¹³, that if a master gives a wife to someone whom he has bought, and the man afterward goes out p. 795 free, the sons ought to remain with the master who gave him the wife, although he himself goes out free; there agrees also manifold reasoning and natural likeness. And therefore, since the civil law dictates this, and the canon law approves it, and the divine [law] confirms it, and the natural [law] commends it; therefore it must rightly be said that the birth ought to follow the womb.

Nevertheless, some regions, which are not subject to laws of this kind, do not keep this custom, but rather the birth follows the condition of the worse [parent]¹; whence if one [parent] is a slave, the sons are slaves, and likewise if the mother is a bondwoman; and if both belong to different masters, the sons are divided. This custom France keeps in some parts, though not everywhere; but nevertheless the legal ordinance is far nobler and more reasonable than this custom.

1. To that, then, which is first objected, that the father is the more worthy principle; it must be said that this is true, yet not more substantial; and therefore in dignities [the offspring] ought to follow the father, not in substance or in the liberty of its own body². And there is an example: because the more noble principle of the fruits of agriculture is the cultivator than the field; yet the fruit belongs to the field, or to the owner of the field.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that sacred Scripture attributes genealogies to men; it must be said that this is true and fitting — for we also have this manner [of speaking], that we name a son from the father, whence one is called Peter [son] of Martin, not of Bertha, as in most cases — likewise the promise is made to men; yet from this it does not follow that the offspring ought to follow the man according to the condition of liberty or servitude, but according to the condition of dignity and honor, which does not regard substance, but rather quality.

4. To that which is objected, that the son is assimilated to the father; it must be said that assimilation does not come from substance, but from the formative power, which is chiefly vigorous in the man's seed, when a male is generated; and therefore more frequently sons are assimilated to their fathers³. Nevertheless, however much [a son] may be more similar to the father in figure and properties, he has drawn more from the mother as regards substance; and therefore from this it does not follow that in liberty he should follow the father⁴.

---