← Back to Distinction 36

Dist. 36, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 36

Textus Latinus
p. 799

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: Si ipsa femina fuerit in servitute detecta etc.; quaeritur, si, antequam plene detegatur, sunt in causa et lite, utrum debeat sibi reddere debitum. Et quod non, videtur: quia aut cognoscit eam affectu maritali, aut non. Si sic, generat sibi praeiudicium et consentiens reputatur. Si non cognoscit affectu maritali, peccat mortaliter. — Sed contra hoc est, quia nullus debet spoliari iure suo ante causae cognitionem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod talis potest dupliciter nosse, quod illa sit ancilla, quam liberam credidit: aut levi suspicione, aut probabili vel vehementi praesumtione sive certa cognitione. Primo, non debet petere, quousque inquirat; sed tamen, si Ecclesia compellat, debet reddere, quia ignorantia eum excusat, si non est uxor1; nescit enim, utrum sit uxor. — Secundo modo, sive Ecclesia compellat sive non, non debet, quia aut tunc sibi praeiudicat necessario, aut fornicatur; et propter mandatum Ecclesiae non est fornicandum. — Aliter iudicandum est de uxore fornicaria, quae vere uxor est, cui, cum ex mandato Ecclesiae redditur debitum, non generatur praeiudicium, nec incurritur2 aliquod peccatum.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Uno coniugio permanentes, dominis suis serviant. Videtur enim male dicere: quia ponatur, quod unus dominorum vendat servum ad remotas terras; si ancilla sequitur virum, privatur iure suo dominus eius; si non tenetur sequi; tunc ergo non fuit verum coniugium. — Item, ponatur, quod uxor sit libera, et servus venundetur gentilibus; quaeritur, utrum debeat sequi eum. Et quod sic, videtur per legem matrimonii.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si servus et ancilla contraxerunt, dominis contradicentibus, ipsi sibi praeiudicant, non dominis suis; et ideo, si dominus indiget, potest ancillam vendere, et si non potest vendere in terra sua, potest vendere in aliena. Si tamen in terra sua possit vendere, tenetur; alioquin manifeste iniuriatur viro et abutitur re sua in praeiudicium alienum. — Si vero dominis consentientibus; tunc simpliciter dicendum, quod non potest aliquis eorum vendi a domino in praeiudicium coniugis; et si alter3 vendat, debet alter compelli, vel quod redimat, vel debet eum emere, vel ancillae licentiam dare, quod virum sequatur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum debeat sequi virum, si venundetur hominibus gentilibus; dicendum, quod dominus suus non debet eum vendere gentilibus, pro eo quod est ibi periculum fidei. Si tamen vendat de facto; si uxor non timet periculum peccati, quod sit in contumeliam Dei, vel alicuius fornicationis alterius, potest et debet virum sequi; sed vix video, quomodo possit eum sequi sine periculo fidei, aut aliquo alio peccato moris4.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Si mulier virum liberum acceperit etc., utrum aliquis possit se ipsum vendere. Et quod non, videtur primae ad Corinthios sexto5: Non estis vestri; empti enim estis pretio magno: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est emptio, vel venditio ad obsequium humanum et ad servitium divinum. Divino autem servitio non repugnat obsequium hominis sive servitus corporalis, sed servitus spiritualis, quae est servitus peccati6. Dicendum ergo, quod quia fideles redempti sunt et Dei templa facti sunt, non possunt se vendere, ut faciant mala; possunt tamen se vendere ad obsequia.

Item, iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum pater possit vendere prolem suam, uxore invita. Et quod sic, videtur: quia ad ipsum spectat regimen domus. — Ad oppositum autem est, quia partus plus sequitur matrem7.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod filii non debent vendi nec possunt vendi sine culpa, nisi sit paupertatis et famis necessitas, in quo casu uxor debet viro consentire. Quod si in alio casu velit, non potest, cum uxor dissentit, sicut vir non potest vendere nec alienare dotem uxoris, quamvis sit dominus domus; sic in proposito. Et quod in tempore necessitatis et famis vendi possint, probatur per id quod scribitur Nehemiae quinto8.

p. 800

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Iudicatum est, uxorem minime debere dimitti; utrum vir possit se vendere, uxore invita. Et quod non, videtur: quia vir non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed mulier1: ergo etc. Item, mulier non potest se vendere, viro invito: ergo cum ad paria iudicentur, patet etc.

Item, quaeritur, utrum, si uxor consentiat, per hoc efficiatur serva.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si uxor contraxit cum libero, ita quod uterque est liber, uxore dissentiente, non debet vir nec potest se facere servum eatenus, ut praeiudicium generetur aliquod mulieri, quin reddat sibi debitum, cum petit; unde sicut servus contrahens contra voluntatem domini non potest facere contractum matrimonii in praeiudicium domini; sic nec vir in praeiudicium uxoris nihilominus tamen, quia caput est mulieris2, quantum ad alia, excepto debito, potest servum se facere, quamvis uxor non possit, cum sit sub potestate viri.

Si vero uxor consentiat in venditionem viri, tantum tunc vir potest se vendere in omne obsequium domini, et mulier praeiudicat sibi; tamen nec mulier nec proles vendi potest a viro, nisi ipsa consentiat, nisi forte in articulo necessitatis; hoc dico de prole, ut praedictum est3. Et sic patet, quomodo littera illa intelligitur.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur, si ante quatuordecim annos puer contraheret per verba de praesenti et de facto corrumpat sponsam; utrum separari queat. Et quod non, videtur, quia est matrimonium ratum et consummatum. — Contrarium videtur per illud quod dicitur in littera4: Si ante praedicta tempora etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in hoc differunt constitutiones iuris et demonstrationes disciplinarum: quia demonstrationes fiunt de his quae fiunt semper, et si fiant de his quae frequenter, non tamen ut frequenter, sed ut semper — exemplum est de eclipsi5 — sed constitutiones iuris de his quae sunt saepe. Si ergo aliquis sit exceptus a generalitate hominum, pro eo quod in eo «malitia supplet aetatem6»; iudicandum est, sicut si haberet aetatem. Et sic est in casu proposito intelligendum et in aliis consimilibus.

---

English Translation
p. 799

## 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] wife1; 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 incurred2.

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 one3 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 morals4.

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]5: 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 sin6. 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 more7.

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]8.

p. 800

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 wife1: 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 wife2, 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 before3. 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 text4: 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 eclipse5 — 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 age6», 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.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Edd. omittunt si non est uxor.
    The editions omit si non est uxor ("if she is not [his] wife").
  2. 2
    Communissima lectio codd. ponit incurrit. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Glossa in C. Proposuit (2.), X. de Coniugio servorum (lib. IV. tit. 9.), et supra a. 1. q. 2; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.
    The most common reading of the codices puts incurrit ("he incurs"). — Cf. on this doubt the Gloss on C. Proposuit (2), X [the Decretals], On the Marriage of slaves (book IV, title 9), and above, a. 1, q. 2; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
  3. 3
    Intellige: alter dominorum; edd., hoc non attendentes, mox pro vendat perperam substituunt vendatur.
    Understand: the one of the masters; the editions, not attending to this, presently for vendat ("[if] he should sell") wrongly substitute vendatur ("[if] he should be sold").
  4. 4
    Cfr. Glossa in C. Dignum est (1.), X. de Coniugio servorum (lib. IV. tit. 9.), et infra d. 39. a. 2. q. 1; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 4. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.
    Cf. the Gloss on C. Dignum est (1), X, On the Marriage of slaves (book IV, title 9), and below, d. 39, a. 2, q. 1; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, ad 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, ad 4 and on the text; Richard of Middleton, here a. 4, q. 2.
  5. 5
    Vers. 19. seq.
    Verse 19 f. [I Corinthians 6:19–20].
  6. 6
    Ioan. 8, 34; Rom. 6, 16. et II. Petr. 2, 19. — Mox respicitur I. Cor. 3, 16: Nescitis, quia templum Dei estis etc.
    John 8:34; Romans 6:16 and II Peter 2:19. — Presently there is a reference to I Corinthians 3:16: Do you not know that you are the temple of God? etc.
  7. 7
    Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3.
    Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3.
  8. 8
    Sive II. Esdrae 5, 5. Idem dicit Iustinian., C. IV. de Patribus, qui filios etc. (tit. 43.), lex Si quis (2.). — De hoc dubio cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.
    Or II Esdras 5:5. Justinian says the same, Code, book IV, On Fathers who [have sold] their children etc. (title 43), the law Si quis (2). — On this doubt cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
  9. 1
    Epist. I. Cor. 7, 4.
    Epistle, I Corinthians 7:4.
  10. 2
    Eph. 5, 23. et I. Cor. 11, 3. — Seq. locus est Gen. 3, 16: Sub viri potestate eris.
    Ephesians 5:23 and I Corinthians 11:3. — The following passage is Genesis 3:16: You shall be under the power of [your] husband.
  11. 3
    Dub. praeced. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 5; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.
    The preceding doubt. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 5; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3; Richard of Middleton, here a. 5, q. 1.
  12. 4
    Hic c. 4.
    Here, chapter 4 [of the Master's text].
  13. 5
    Secundum Aristot., I. Poster. c. 7. (c. 8.). Cfr. ibid. c. 24. (c. 30.), ubi ostendit, rerum fortuitarum non esse scientiam: VI. Metaph. text. 5. seq. et XI. c. 7. (V. c. 2. et X. c. 8.). — Superius pro disciplinarum cod. F disciplinales [i. e. scientificae].
    According to Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I, c. 7 (c. 8). Cf. ibid. c. 24 (c. 30), where he shows that there is no science of fortuitous things: Metaphysics VI, text 5 f. and XI, c. 7 (V, c. 2 and X, c. 8). — Above, for disciplinarum ("of the disciplines") codex F [reads] disciplinales [i.e. scientific].
  14. 6
    Ut dicit Iustinian., supra pag. 683, nota 1. allegatus, et C. De illis, qui in minori (9.), X. de Desponsat. impuberum (lib. IV. tit. 2.). — Mox post sicut si multi codd. perperam addunt non, cod. A homo. — De hoc dubio cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1, ubi etiam in scholio allegantur alii auctores, qui de hoc tractant.
    As Justinian says, cited above p. 683, note 1, and C. De illis, qui in minori (9), X, On the Betrothal of the under-age (book IV, title 2). — Presently, after sicut si ("just as if"), many codices wrongly add non ("not"); codex A [reads] homo ("man"). — On this doubt cf. above, a. 2, q. 1, where in the scholion other authors are also cited who treat of this. ---
← Dist. 36, Art. 2, Q. 3