Dist. 41, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 41
Quaestio II. Utrum affinitas transeat in alterum.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum affinitas transeat in alterum. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Causa trigesima quinta, quaestione tertia1, 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 capitulo2: «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 eadem3»: 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 Consanguinitate4, 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 viro5; 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.
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 se1: 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 diffusio2 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 accidens3 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 generavit4; 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 versus5:
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 verior6.
---
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 three1, [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 chapter2: «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 other3»: 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 Consanguinity4, 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 man5; 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.
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 se1: 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 diffusion2 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 accidens3 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 generated4; 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 true5:
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 understanding6.
---
- 1Cap. 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.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.
- 2Cap. 22: Porro duorum consobrinorum coniuges, quamvis diversis temporibus, viro uni alteram post alterius obitum nubere, ipsa praeter auctoritatem canonicam publicae honestatis iustitia contradicit.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.
- 3Aristot., 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».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».
- 4Libr. IV. tit. 14. c. 8.Book IV, tit. 14, c. 8.
- 5Cod. U «cognatam illius viri», et pro «manifestum» codd. N a a «magnum».Codex U reads «the kinswoman of that man», and for «manifest» codices N a a read «great».
- 1Secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 66. (c. 6.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 638, nota 3.According to Aristotle, Physics II, text 66 (c. 6). Cf. tom. II, p. 638, note 3.
- 2Plures codd. «definitio», cod. U «distinctio».Several codices read «definition», codex U «distinction».
- 3Codd. L Y «per consequens».Codices L Y read «consequently».
- 4Ita codd. E L Y (F in margine); alii codd. «cognovit», cod. K (I a secunda manu) legit: «cum filia, cuius matrem cognovit».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».
- 5Vide 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.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.
- 6Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---