Gregory IX: Liber IV

De Francia nobilis quidam homo nobilem mulierem de Saxonia lege Saxonum duxit in uxorem, tenuitque eam multis annis, et ex ea, filios procreavit. Verum quia non eisdem utuntur legibus Saxones et. Francigenae, causatus est, quod eam non sua, id est Francorum lege desponsaverat, vel acceperat, vel dotaverat, dimissaque illa aliam superduxit. Diffinivit super hoc sancta synodus, ut ille transgressor evangelicae legis subiiciatur poenitentiae, et a secunda coniuge separetur, et ad priorem redire cogatur.

From France a certain noble man took to wife a noble woman from Saxony by the law of the Saxons, and he kept her for many years, and from her he begat sons. But since the Saxons and the Franks do not use the same laws, he alleged that he had not betrothed her by his own law, that is, by the law of the Franks, or had taken her, or had dowered her, and, she having been dismissed, he took another to wife. The holy synod defined on this point, that that transgressor of the evangelical law be subjected to penance, and be separated from the second spouse, and be compelled to return to the former.

CAP. II. Sponsalia de futuro dissolvuntur, si sponsi se dissolvunt, etiamsi fuerint iurata.

CHAPTER 2. Espousals for the future are dissolved, if the betrothed dissolve them, even if they have been sworn.

Innocentius III. Exonensi Episcopo.

Innocent III. To the Bishop of Exeter.

Praeterea hi, qui de matrimonio contrahendo pure et sine omni conditione fidem dederunt [aut] iuramentum fecerunt, commonendi sunt et diligentius exhortandi, et modis omnibus inducendi, ut praestitam fidem vel iuramentum factum observent, et se, sicut promiserint coniungant. Si autem se adinvicem admittere noluerint; ne forte deterius inde contingat, ut talem scilicet ducat, quam [semper] odio habet: videtur, quod ad instar eorum, qui societatem iuramento vel interpositione fidei contrahunt, et postea eandem sibi remittunt, hoc possit in patientia tolerari.

Moreover, those who, concerning contracting marriage, purely and without any condition have given their pledge [or] have made an oath, are to be admonished and more diligently exhorted, and by all means induced, that they observe the pledge given or the oath made, and that they, as they have promised, conjoin themselves. If, however, they are unwilling to admit one another; lest perhaps something worse should happen therefrom, namely that he should take as wife such a one whom [always] he holds in hatred: it seems that, on the model of those who contract a partnership by oath or by the interposition of faith, and afterwards remit the same to one another, this can be tolerated with patience.

CAP. III. Si maior septennio duxit in uxorem minorem septennio, et eam traduxit ad domum, oritur ex tali contractu publicae honestatis iustitia. H. d. inhaerendo literae.

CHAPTER 3. If one older than seven years has taken to wife one younger than seven years, and has led her over to the house, there arises from such a contract a right of public honesty. This, by adhering to the letter.

Panorm.

Panormitan.

Eugenius Papa.

Pope Eugene.

Iuvenis ille, qui puellam nondum septennem duxit, quamvis aetas repugnaret, ex humana tamen fragilitate forsan tentavit quod complere non potuit. Quia igitur in his, quae dubia sunt, quod certius existimamus tenere debemus, tum propter honestatem ecclesiae, quia ipsa coniux ipsius fuisse dicitur, tum propter praedictam dubitationem, mandamus tibi, quatenus consobrinam ipsius puellae, quam postmodum duxit, dividas ab eodem.

The youth who married a girl not yet seven years old, although age resisted, nevertheless from human fragility perhaps attempted what he could not complete. Since therefore in those things which are doubtful we ought to hold to what we consider more certain, both for the honor of the Church, because she herself is said to have been his spouse, and also on account of the aforesaid doubt, we command you, that you separate from the same man the cousin of that girl, whom he afterwards married.

CAP. IV. Ex sponsalibus, contractis cum consanguinea, oritur publicae honestatis iustitia.

CHAPTER 4. From sponsals, contracted with a consanguine woman, there arises the justice of public honesty.

Alexander III. Papiensi Episcopo.

Alexander 3. To the Bishop of Pavia.

Ad audientiam nostri apostolatus pervenit, quod, quum H. Albericus, Papiensis civis, filiam suam cuidam filiorum L. dare vellet uxorem, iuravit, quod, si ille, cui desponsabatur, eam habere casu aliquo interveniente non posset, alteri filio, quem de alia uxore genuerat, eandem puellam matrimonio copularet. Contractis autem a filio priore sponsalibus, quidam, ad ecclesiam accedentes, consanguinitatem inter eos esse iuramentis interpositis firmaverunt. Ideoque praefatus H. eandem feminam dare alteri filio nititur, ut iuravit.

It has come to the audience of our apostolate that, when H. Alberic, a citizen of Pavia, wished to give his daughter as a wife to one of the sons of L., he swore that, if the one to whom she was being betrothed could not have her, some chance intervening, he would couple the same girl in marriage to the other son, whom he had begotten from another wife. But, the sponsals having been contracted by the earlier son, certain persons, approaching the church, confirmed with oaths interposed that there was consanguinity between them. And therefore the aforesaid H. strives to give the same woman to the other son, as he swore.

Sed quoniam scriptum est, quod sponsam fratris frater habere non potest: discretioni tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus eum suum implere propositum, quod canonicae rationi obviat, non permittas, sed, ut poenitentiam agat de illicito iuramento, monitione praemissa, ecclesiastica districtione compellas.

But since it is written that a brother cannot have his brother’s betrothed: we command, enjoining upon your discretion by apostolic writings, that you do not permit him to fulfill his plan, which runs counter to canonical reason, but that, with monition first given, you compel him by ecclesiastical constraint to do penance for the unlawful oath.

CAP. V. Si sponsus de futuro ante copulam ad remota se transfert, sponsa libere cum alio contrahit: si tamen per eam stetit, quo minus matrimonium perficeretur, sibi poenitentia imponitur.

CHAPTER 5. If the betrothed man (under spousals de futuro) transfers himself to remote parts before coupling, the betrothed woman freely contracts with another: if, however, it was owing to her that the marriage was not perfected, penance is imposed upon her.

Idem Panormitano Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Palermo.

De illis autem, qui praestito iuramento promittunt, se aliquas mulieres ducturos, et postea eis incognitis dimittunt terram, se ad partes alias transferentes, hoc tibi volumus innotescere, quod liberum erit mulieribus ipsis, si non est amplius in facto processum, ad alia se vota transferre, recepta tamen de periurio poenitentia, si per eas steterit, quo minus fuerit matrimonium consummatum. Si vero etc. (cf. c.3.de cond. app.

But concerning those who, an oath having been given, promise that they will take certain women in marriage, and afterwards, with them remaining unknown, leave the land, transferring themselves to other parts, we wish this to be made known to you: that it will be free for the women themselves, if no further has been advanced in the matter, to transfer themselves to other vows, yet with penance for perjury received, if it was through them that the marriage was not consummated. If indeed etc. (cf. c.3.de cond. app.

IV. 3.)

4. 3.)

CAP. VI. Non omnis violentia impedit contractum matrimonii. H. d. quoad titulum.

CHAPTER 6. Not every violence impedes the contracting of matrimony. Here, as to the title.

Idem Paduano Episcopo.

The same, to the Bishop of Padua.

De muliere quae est invita tradita viro et detenta, quum inter vim et vim sit differentia, et utrum postea consensus intercesserit, certum nobis nihil postea expressisti, nihil certum inde tibi possumus respondere. Illos autem etc. (cf. c.3.de matr. contr.

Concerning a woman who has been handed over to a man against her will and detained, since there is a difference between force and force, and as to whether afterwards consent has intervened, you have expressed nothing certain to us thereafter; from that we can give you nothing certain in reply. But those, etc.. (cf. ch.3.on contracted marriage

IV. 16.)

4. 16.)

CAP. VII. Si aliqui, apti ad matrimonium, contrahunt per verba obscura, communem verborum intellectum sequi tenentur.

CHAPTER 7. If some, apt for marriage, contract through obscure words, they are held to follow the common understanding of the words.

Idem Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Ex litteris, quas super causa matrimonii cuiusdam iuvenis R. nomine, et Mariae filiae Gileberti de sancto Leodegario transmisisti, sollicitudo nobis innotuit, quam in ipsius negotii examine servasti. Quia vero absentibus partibus veritatem nequivimus plenarie indagare, nec causam ipsam ad te remittere, a quo pars mulieris ad audientiam nostram noscitur appellasse: eam venerabilibus fratribus nostris Wintoniensi, Herfordensi et Bathorniensi episcopis duximus committendam. Ideoque fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus partes adire eorum praesentiam, quum ab eis fuerint evocatae, et quod ipsi iudicaverit inviolabiliter observare contradictione et appellatione cessante compellas. De hoc autem, quod circa finem literarum consuluisti, quid debeat observari, quando inter aliquos sponsalia contrahuntur, nec intelligit alter quod alter proponit, respondemus, quod inspiciendum est iudici, si matrimonium contracturi ad id faciendum sint idonei scientia et aetate.

From the letter, which you sent concerning the cause of marriage of a certain youth by the name R., and of Mary the daughter of Gilbert of Saint Leodegarius, the solicitude became known to us which you observed in the examination of that business. But because, the parties being absent, we were not able fully to investigate the truth, nor to remit the cause itself to you, from whom the woman’s party is known to have appealed to our hearing, we have thought it should be committed to our venerable brothers, the bishops of Winchester, Hereford, and Bath. Wherefore we command your fraternity by apostolic writings, by enjoining, that you compel the parties to go to their presence when they shall have been summoned by them, and, with contradiction and appeal ceasing, to observe inviolably what they shall judge. But about that which you consulted near the end of the letter, what ought to be observed when sponsalia are contracted between some, and the one does not understand what the other proposes, we answer that it is to be inspected by the judge whether those about to contract marriage are fit for doing this in knowledge and in age.

Quo cognito, si alter non intellexerit, quod alter proposuit, ad communem verbi intelligentiam recurratur, et cogatur uterque verba prolata in eo, sensu retinere, quem solent recte intelligentibus generare. Quod vero quaesivisti, an debeat appellationi deferri, ubi sub eius praetextu noscitur adulterium vel aliud crimen committendum consultationi tuae breviter respondemus, quod ubi notorium esset adulterium vel aliud crimen commitendum, si appellationi interpositae deferretur, deferri nollemus. Nolumus enim incestus vel adulterii materiam aliquibus ministrare.

With this known, if the one has not understood what the other proposed, let recourse be had to the common understanding of the word, and let each be compelled to retain the words uttered in that sense which they are wont to generate for those who understand rightly. But as to what you asked, whether deference ought to be given to an appeal where, under its pretext, adultery or some other crime is known to be going to be committed, we briefly reply to your consultation that, where it would be notorious that adultery or some other crime is to be committed, if deference were paid to an interposed appeal, we would not wish it to be deferred. For we are unwilling to supply to anyone the material of incest or of adultery.

CAP. VIII. Inter sponsam et consanguineos sponsi oritur impedimentum publicae honestatis, impediens et dirimens matrimonium inter eos contrahendum.

CHAPTER 8. Between the betrothed woman and the consanguines of the bridegroom there arises an impediment of public honesty, which impedes and renders null the marriage to be contracted between them.

Idem Vigiliensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Vigiliensis.

Sponsam autem alterius, maxime si est nubili aetati proxima, nullus consanguineorum aliquo modo sibi potest matrimonio copulare.

But the betrothed of another, especially if she is proximate to nubile age, no one of the kinsmen can in any way couple to himself in marriage.

CAP. IX. Si vir et mulier invicem promittunt, quod ab eo tempore se pro coniugibus habebunt, contractum est matrimonium de praesenti. H. d. et est casus notabilis.

CHAPTER 9. If a man and a woman mutually promise that from that time they will hold themselves as spouses, a marriage de praesenti is contracted. H. d. and it is a notable case.

Idem Abbatibus sancti Eadmundi et Demer.

The same to the Abbots of Saint Edmund and of Demer.

Ex parte C. mulieris nobis intimatum est, quod Andreas sibi coram sacerdote quodam et diacono, et aliis plerisque tam clericis quam laicis ad hoc convocatis, iuramentum praestitit, quod eam ab eo tempore pro coniuge teneret, et ei sicut uxori suae fidem servaret. Ipsa quoque eidem Andreae iuravit, se illum pro marito habituram, et fidem ei tanquam viro proprio servaturam. Quo facto in eadem domo diu cohabitantes sibi liberos procreaverunt.

On behalf of the woman C. it was intimated to us, that Andrew, in the presence of a certain priest and a deacon, and many others both clerics and laymen summoned for this, took an oath that from that time he would hold her as a consort, and would keep faith with her as with his wife. She likewise swore to that same Andrew that she would hold him as husband, and would keep faith with him as with her proper man. This having been done, in the same house, dwelling together for a long time, they begot children for themselves.

Procedente vero tempore praenominatus A. contra iuramentum praestitum reliquit eandem et filios ex ea procreatos, et ab eorum cohabitatione recessit. Quia igitur nemini licet uxorem suam sine manifesta causa fornicationis dimittere, et tunc eam sibi [vel] reconciliare debet, aut ipsa vivente continere, nec nos sustinere debemus, ut praedictus Andreas iuramenti praestiti religionem infringat, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, rei veritate diligentius inquisita, si, prout superius dictum est, ita esse inveneritis, eundem Andream, ut suae saluti consulens, et superinducta, quam habet, prius dimissa, ad uxorem suam redeat, et eam maritali affectione pertractet, et reatum suum condigna satagat poenitentia expiare, monitione praemissa per ecclesiasticam censuram cogatis. Quodsi commonitioni vestrae acquiescere forte noluerit vos eum et superinductam omni occasione et appellatione remota excommunicationis vinculo innodetis, et usque ad dignam satisfactionem praecipiatis ab omnibus sicut excommunicatos cautius evitari.

As, however, time advanced the aforesaid A., against the oath given, left the same woman and the children begotten of her, and withdrew from cohabitation with them. Since therefore it is permitted to no one to dismiss his wife without a manifest cause of fornication, and then he ought either to reconcile her to himself [or] to be continent while she lives, nor ought we to endure that the aforesaid Andrew break the religion of the oath given; prescribing to your discretion by apostolic writings we command, to the end that, the truth of the matter having been more diligently inquired into, if, as has been said above, you find it to be so, the same Andrew, consulting for his own salvation, and the superinduced woman, whom he has, having first been dismissed, may return to his wife, and treat her with marital affection, and strive to expiate his guilt by fitting penance, you may compel by ecclesiastical censure after a prior monition. But if perchance he is unwilling to acquiesce in your admonition, you shall bind him and the superinduced woman, all pretext and appeal removed, with the bond of excommunication, and you shall prescribe that, until worthy satisfaction, they be more cautiously avoided by all as excommunicated.

CAP. X. Qui iuravit cum aliqua contrahere, si non subest impedimentum, per censuram ecclesiasticam contrahere compellitur.

CHAPTER 10. He who has sworn to contract marriage with a certain woman, if no impediment is present, is compelled by ecclesiastical censure to contract marriage.

Idem Pictaviensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Poitiers.

Ex literis venerabilis fratri nostri Silvani episcopi accepimus, quod, quum duo nobiles viri sui episcopatus, G. scilicet de Monstra et B. de Mauritania filios et filias impubescentes haberent, et spe pacis inter eos conciliandae ita inter se convenerunt, quod eos mutuis adinvicem matrimoniis copularent. Et hoc tam patres, quam filii sub iuramento se promisere facturos, inter quos siquidem G. filiam alterius, consentiente patre, se semel et iterum iuravit ducere in uxorem. Quo volente ad alia vota migrare, eum episcopus compellere voluit, ut quod iuraverat adimpleret.

From the letters of our venerable brother Silvanus the bishop we have learned that, since two noble men of his bishopric, namely G. of Monstra and B. of Mauritania, had sons and daughters prepubescent, and in the hope of peace to be conciliated between them thus they agreed among themselves that they would couple them to one another in mutual marriages. And this both the fathers and the sons under oath promised they would do, among whom indeed G., with the father consenting, once and again swore to take the other’s daughter to wife. When he wished to migrate to other vows, the bishop wished to compel him to fulfill what he had sworn.

Ipse ad audientiam nostram appellavit, et, altera parte nuncium suum ad nos destinante, ipse nec venit, nec responsalem aliquem pro se transmisit. Quia igitur praedicto G. periculosum est, contra suum iuramentum venire, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, quum exinde fueris requisitus, utramque partem ante tuam convoces praesentiam, et, rationibus hinc inde plenius auditis et agitatis si hoc tibi constiterit, eum moneas, et, si non acquieverit monitis, ecclesiastica censura compellas, ut ipsam, nisi rationabilis causa obstiterit, in uxorem recipiat, et maritali affectione pertractet. Si vero rationabilem causam praetendere voluerit, eam cum omni diligentia et studio audias, et fine canonico omni appellatione cessante decidas. Ceterum si legitime monitus iudicio tuo parere contemserit eum et patrem, si fovere ipsum in sua malitia praesumserit, excommunicationis cinculo astringas et in tota terra ipsorum omnia divina praeter baptisma parvulorum et poenitentias morientium prohibeas officia celebrari.

He himself appealed to our audience, and, while the other party was sending his messenger to us, he neither came himself nor sent any responsal on his behalf. Therefore, since it is perilous for the aforesaid G. to go against his oath, we command your fraternity, by apostolic writings by way of precept, that, when you shall have been required thereupon, you summon both parties before your presence, and, the reasons on this side and that more fully heard and handled, if this shall be established to you, you admonish him, and, if he does not acquiesce to the admonitions, you compel him by ecclesiastical censure to receive her as his wife, unless a reasonable cause should stand in the way, and to treat her with marital affection. But if he should wish to allege a reasonable cause, hear it with all diligence and zeal, and decide with a canonical conclusion, every appeal ceasing. Moreover, if, having been lawfully warned, he should disdain to obey your judgment, him and his father, if he shall presume to favor him in his malice, bind with the cincture of excommunication, and in all their land forbid all divine offices to be celebrated except the baptism of infants and the penances of the dying.

CAP. XI. Per censuram ecclesiasticam pater compellitur restituere filio eius uxorem, quam iniuste detinuit vel detinet.

CHAPTER 11. By ecclesiastical censure the father is compelled to restore to his son the wife whom he has unjustly detained or is detaining.

Idem Archiepiscopis, Episcopis et aliis Praelatis per Angliam constitutis.

The same to the Archbishops, Bishops, and other Prelates established throughout England.

Non est vobis, sicut arbitramur, incognitum, qualiter Henricus illustris rex Anglorum pro discordia, quae inter ipsum et filios suos peccatis exigentibus est suborta, uxores eorum [filias videlicet carissimi in Christo filii nostri Ludovici illustris regis Francorum] detineat, pro quibus sibi restituendis [idem] rex Francorum [et filii praedicti regis Angliae] et generi sui preces sollicitas nobis porrexerunt. Nos itaque [studiosius] attendentes, iustum et honestum esse, ut viri suas petant uxores, et precibus eiusdem [regis Francorum et generorum suorum non solum in his quae ex officii debito tenemur efficere, sed etiam] in omnibus, quae a iustitia non discordant, volentes prompto animo acquiescere, praefatum regem Angliae studiose satis et attente monuimus, eique dedimus in mandatis, ut ad commonitionem [venerabilium fratrum nostorum] archiepiscopi Tarentasiensis et episcopi Claremontensis, et [dilecti filii sui] Carthusiani prioris, vel loco eius prioris de Monte Dei si ipse adesse non poterit, vel duorum ex his, si tret non potuerint interesse, uxores filiis suis infra XL. dies post nostrarum literarum susceptionem restituere non postponat. Si vero eas infra praescriptum terminum viris suis non restituerit, apostolica auctoritate praecipimus, ut tota provincia, infra quam detinentur, et ad quam transferentur, quamdiu ibi fuerint, donec viris suis restituentur, ab omnibus divinis officiis praeter baptisma parvulorum et poenitentia morientiam cesset. Inde est, quod universitati vestrae per apostoliam scripta praecipiendo Mandamus [et mandando praecipimus], quatenus eundem regem Anglorum ad eas restituendas sollicite moneatis et exhortationibus inducatis, proponentes ei, quod non minus expedit sibi eas restituere, quam viris suis ipsas recipere. Et, si iuxta mandetum et commonitionem vestram filiis suis uxores suas infra certum terminum non restituerit, ex tunc, in quacunque provinciarum vestrarum detinentur vel [ad quas] transferuntur, donec ibi fuerint, nulla divina officia praeter baptismum parvulorum et poenitentias morientium celebretis vel permittatis aliquatenus celebrari omni [super his contradictione et] appellatione cessante, scituri pro certo, quia si qui contra interdictum nostrum, quod non credimus, venire tentaverint, suae temeritatis et transgressionis poenam debitam auctore Domino reportabunt.

It is not unknown to you, as we suppose, how Henry the illustrious king of the English, on account of the discord which, sins demanding it, has arisen between him and his sons, is detaining their wives [namely the daughters of our dearest in Christ son Louis, the illustrious king of the Franks], for the restoring of whom to them [the same] king of the Franks [and the sons of the aforesaid king of England] and his sons-in-law have presented to us urgent prayers. Therefore we, [the more studiously] considering that it is just and honorable that men should seek their wives, and willing with ready mind to acquiesce in the prayers of that same [king of the Franks and his sons-in-law not only in those things which by duty of our office we are bound to effect, but also] in all things which do not disagree with justice, have very diligently and attentively admonished the aforesaid king of England, and have given him in command that, at the monition of [our venerable brothers] the archbishop of Tarentaise and the bishop of Clermont, and [his beloved son] the Carthusian prior, or in his place the prior of Mont-Dieu if he cannot be present, or of two of these if three cannot be present, he should not delay to restore the wives to his sons within 40 days after the receipt of our letters. But if he shall not have restored them to their husbands within the prescribed term, by apostolic authority we command that the whole province within which they are detained, and to which they are transferred, so long as they shall be there, until they are restored to their husbands, shall cease from all divine offices except the baptism of infants and the penance of the dying. Hence it is that to your whole body, by apostolic writings in commanding, We command [and by commanding we strictly enjoin] that you diligently admonish that same king of the English to restore them and by exhortations induce him, setting before him that it is no less expedient for him to restore them than for their husbands to receive them. And if, according to our mandate and your monition, he shall not restore their wives to his sons within a fixed term, from then on, in whatever of your provinces they are detained or [to which] they are transferred, so long as they shall be there, you shall celebrate no divine offices except the baptism of infants and the penances of the dying, nor in any way permit them to be celebrated, with every [contradiction concerning these matters and] appeal ceasing, knowing for certain that if any should attempt, which we do not believe, to go against our interdict, they will receive, with the Lord as author, the due penalty of their rashness and transgression.

CAP. XII. Dictum unius, asserentis impedimentum, impedit matrimonium contrahendum non iuratum.

CHAPTER 12. The statement of one person, asserting an impediment, though not sworn, impedes matrimony to be contracted.

Idem Episcopo sanctae Agathae.

The same to the Bishop of Saint Agatha.

Praeterea de muliere, quae a viro impetitur, cuius consanguineus cum ea se deliquisse proponit, sed, hoc publice confiteri recusat propter metum et potentiam mulieris, providentiae tuae taliter respondemus, ut matrimonium ipsum fieri, nisi iuramentum intervenisset, districte prohibeas, ne deterius inde contingat.

Moreover, concerning a woman who is impugned by her husband, whose consanguineous kinsman alleges that he has offended with her, but refuses to confess this publicly because of the fear and power of the woman, we thus respond to your providence, that you strictly prohibit the marriage itself to be effected, unless an oath has intervened, lest something worse arise therefrom.

CAP. XIII. Si mulier invita cum aliquo contrahat, nec in eum postea consentiat, tenet matrimonium, si alteri postea nubit. Ita communiter summatur.

CHAPTER 13. If a woman, unwilling, contracts with someone, and does not afterwards consent to him, the matrimony holds if she afterwards weds another. Thus it is commonly summarized.

Et secundum hunc intellectum esset hic casus apertus, quod matrimonium metu contractum esset ipso iure nullum. Hoc tamen clare non colligitur ex litera.

And according to this understanding this case would be plain, namely that matrimony contracted by fear would be null by the law itself. Yet this is not clearly gathered from the letter.

Idem Procuratori et Canonicis Soranis.

The same to the Procurator and the Canons of Sora.

Veniens ad apostolicam sedem Mariota latrix praesentium supplici nobis insinuatione monstravit, quod, dum esset in adolescentia constituta, quendam adolescentem [E. nomine] adamavit in tantum, quod uterque inter se de matrimonio contrahendo sub trium personarum testimonio praestitit iuramentum. Quod parentes mulieris ipsius ignorantes, eam invitam et reclamantem in uxorem cuidam alii tradiderunt, quem ita exhorruit, quod se ab eo nullo modo cognosci permisit. Quumque publice fateretur, quod a priori viro cognita esset atque iurata, episcopus Soranus, qui tunc erat, eos ante praesentiam suam fecit venire, et, cognito atque probato, quod ita proxima inter eos esset linea consanguinitatis, quod insimul non possunt, nec debent de iure coniungi, ipsos ab invicem separavit.

Coming to the apostolic see, Mariota, bearer of the present (letters), by a suppliant intimation to us showed that, while she was in her adolescence, she loved a certain youth [by the name E.] to such a degree that each of them between themselves, concerning contracting marriage, under the testimony of three persons, furnished an oath. Which thing her parents, being ignorant of, delivered her, unwilling and protesting, as a wife to a certain other man, whom she so abhorred that she allowed herself in no way to be carnally known by him. And when she publicly confessed that she had been known by the prior man and was sworn, the bishop of Sorano, who was then, made them come before his presence, and, having learned and proved that so near a line of consanguinity existed between them, that together they cannot, nor ought they by law, be joined, separated them from one another.

Ceterum quum causa ipsa tractaretur, et viro, cui tradita fuerat a parentibus, consentire nollet, ipse aliam in uxorem traduxit, et illa cuidam viro T. nomine publice in conspectu ecclesiae nupsit. Tandem quum de illo filium genuisset, pater ipsius T., quaerens occasionem divortium faciendi, ei opposuit, quod filium suum non potuit in virum habere eo, quod alii, qui nunc defunctus est, prius desponsata fuisset. Quia vero assertioni eius fidem, sicut nec debuimus, non adhibuimus, nec hoc potuimus sub silentio praeterire, eam ad vos duximus remittendam, et discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo Mandamus, quatenus, huius rei veritate plenius comperta, si inveneritis, quod praedicta mulier a priori viro iudicio ecclesiae fuerit separata, et ab eodem T. sine contradictione ecclesiae in uxorem traducta, et ille, cui a parentibus invita et renitens fuit copulata, de praesenti vita decessit, praedictum T. monitione praemissa compellatis, ut praefatam Mariotam postposita occasione recipiat, et sicut uxorem suam diligere studeat et maritali affectione tractare.

Moreover, when the case itself was being handled, and she was unwilling to consent to the man to whom she had been handed over by her parents, he led another woman into marriage, and she publicly in the sight of the church wedded a certain man by the name T. At length, when she had borne a son by him, the father of this T., seeking an occasion of making a divorce, objected to her that she could not have his son as a husband, because she had previously been espoused to another, who now is deceased. Since in truth we did not extend faith to his assertion, as indeed we ought not to have done, nor could we pass this over in silence, we judged her to be remitted to you, and, by apostolic writings, by enjoining your discretion, We command, to the extent that, the truth of this matter having been more fully ascertained, if you shall find that the aforesaid woman was by the judgment of the church separated from the prior husband, and was by the same T. led into marriage without contradiction of the church, and that he to whom by her parents, unwilling and resisting, she was coupled has departed from the present life, you shall, after monition premised, compel the aforesaid T. to receive the aforesaid Mariota, the pretext set aside, and to take pains to love her as his wife and to treat her with marital affection.

Alioquin eam et superinductam, et patrem etiam eius, si huic rei restiterint, excommunicationi subdatis, et usque ad dignam satisfactionem sententiam ipsam faciatis inviolabiliter observari.

Otherwise, subject her and the superinduced woman, and her father also, if they resist this matter, to excommunication, and cause the sentence itself to be observed inviolably until worthy satisfaction.

CAP. XIV. Si timetur inferri violentia puellae, de cuius matrimonio agitur, debet iudex sibi providere locum tutum et honestum, donec causa terminetur. H. d. et est textus multum allegabilis.

CHAPTER 14. If it is feared that violence may be inflicted upon the girl, about whose marriage the matter is being handled, the judge ought to take care to provide a safe and respectable place for her, until the case is terminated. Here it is said (H. d.), and it is a text very much allegeable.

Idem Papiensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Pavia.

Quum locum non habeat consensus, ubi metus vel coactio intercedit, necesse est, ut, ubi assensus cuiusquam requiritur, coactionis materia repellatur. Matrimonium autem solo consensu contrahitur, et, ubi de ipso quaeritur, plena debet securitate ille gaudere, cuius est animus indagandus, ne per timorem dicat sibi placere quod odit, et sequatur exitus, qui de invitis solet nuptiis provenire. Quocirca fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus puellam, de cuius matrimonio inter Siderios et Canes cives tuos quaestio ventilatur, in domo, in qua eam posuisti ita, quod nihil eam timere oporteat, facias honeste teneri, donec praedicta causa fine canonico terminata fuerit, et sententia sine contradictione cuiusquam valeat exsecutioni mandari.

Since consensus has no place where fear or coaction intervenes, it is necessary that, where the assent of anyone is required, the matter of coaction be repelled. But matrimony is contracted by consent alone, and, where inquiry is made concerning it itself, he whose mind is to be investigated ought to rejoice in full security, lest through fear he say that what he hates pleases him, and the outcome follow which is wont to arise from nuptials made against the unwilling. Wherefore, to your fraternity by apostolic writings by way of precept we command, that you cause the girl, concerning whose matrimony the question is being ventilated between the Siderii and the Canes, your citizens, to be held honorably in the house in which you have placed her, in such wise that she ought to fear nothing, until the aforesaid cause shall have been terminated with a canonical end, and the sentence may be able to be committed to execution without anyone’s contradiction.

CAP. XV. Sponsalia de futuro, si secuta est copula, non solvuntur per sponsalia de praesenti; alias tenent sponsalia de praesenti, nisi per metum, qui potuisset cadere in constantem virum, contracta sint.

CHAPTER 15. Espousals de futuro, if coupling has followed, are not dissolved by espousals de praesenti; otherwise espousals de praesenti hold, unless they have been contracted through fear which could have fallen upon a constant man.

Idem.

The same.

Veniens ad nos G. lator praesentium sua nobis relatione monstravit, quod in domo sua mulierem quandam recepit, de qua prolem habuit, et cui fidem coram pluribus praestitit, quod eam duceret in uxorem. Interim autem, quum apud domum vicini sui pernoctaverit, eius filia nocte illa secum concubuit, quos pater puellae simul in uno lecto inveniens, ipsum eam per verba de praesenti desponsare coegit. Qui nuper in praesentia nostra constitutus nos consuluit, cui potius adhaerere deberet.

Coming to us, G., bearer of these presents, showed us by his own relation that he had received a certain woman into his house, by whom he had offspring, and to whom he pledged his troth before several that he would take her as his wife. Meanwhile, however, when he had spent the night at his neighbor’s house, that man’s daughter lay with him that night; and the girl’s father, finding them together in one bed, compelled him to betroth her to himself by words of the present. Who, having lately appeared in our presence, consulted us as to which one he ought rather to adhere.

Quia vero nequaquam innotuit nobis, utrum post fidem praestitam primam cognoverit, Ideoque mandamus, quatenus rei veritatem diligenter inquiras, et, si inveneris, quod primam post fidem praestitam cognoverit, ipsum cum ea facias remanere; alioquin secundae, nisi metu coactus, qui posset in virum constantem cadere, eam desponsaverit, adhaerere facias ut uxori.

Because indeed it has by no means become known to us whether he knew the first after the pledge of faith was given, Therefore we command that you diligently inquire into the truth of the matter, and, if you find that he knew the first after the pledge of faith was given, you are to make him remain with her; otherwise, if he betrothed the second, unless compelled by fear which could befall a steadfast man, you are to make him adhere to her as to a wife.

CAP. XVI. Qui iuravit cum aliqua contrahere, si vult religionem ingredi, debet primo contrahere, ut iuramentum servetur, et ante copulam carnalem monasterium ingredi poterit.

CHAPTER 16. He who has sworn to contract with some woman, if he wishes to enter religion, ought first to contract, so that the oath may be kept, and before carnal copulation he will be able to enter the monastery.

Idem Exonensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Exeter.

Commissum (Et infra:) Significavit nobis fraternitas tua, quod quidam literatus et nobilis, quum ad eum paterna hereditas devolveretur, cuidam mulieri nobili de contrahendo matrimonio fidem dedit quibusdam praesentibus, et se cum ea infra biennium per verba de praesenti contracturum, praestito iuramento super sacrosancta evangelia firmavit; nunc autem privata lege ductus ad frugem melioris vitae transire suspirat, tuamque super hoc consulens prudentiam, ante matrimonium contractum ad monasticae religionis habitum licite posse transire suspicatur, quia, si contraxisset, ea invita infra duos menses, iuxta veterum canonum statuta nostra constitutione innovata, ad arctioris vitae religionem posset transire. Quia igitur super hoc tua nos duxit fraternitas consulendos, Fraternitati tuae taliter respondemus, quod tutius est ei, religione iuramenti servata, prius contrahere, et postea, si elegerit, ad religionem migrare; si tamen post primam desponsationem copula non dignoscitur intervenisse carnalis.

Committed (And below:) Your fraternity has signified to us that a certain literate and noble man, when the paternal inheritance devolved upon him, gave his pledge of faith to a certain noble woman for contracting marriage with certain persons present, and, an oath having been taken upon the most holy Gospels, he confirmed that he would contract with her within a two-year period by words of the present; but now, led by a private rule, he sighs to pass over to the fruit of a better life, and, consulting your prudence on this, he suspects that he can licitly pass to the habit of monastic religion before the marriage is contracted, because, if he had contracted, with her unwilling, within two months, according to the statutes of the ancient canons renewed by our constitution, he could pass to the religion of a more austere life. Therefore, since on this your fraternity has led us to be consulted, we reply thus to Your Fraternity, that it is safer for him, the religion of the oath being observed, first to contract, and afterwards, if he should choose, to migrate to religion; provided, however, that after the first betrothal no carnal coupling is understood to have intervened.

CAP. XVII. Qui iuravit cum aliqua contrahere, moneri potius debet, quam compelli, ut contrahat. H. d. inhaerendo literae.

CHAPTER 17. He who has sworn to contract with some woman ought rather to be admonished than compelled to contract. This, by adhering to the letter.

Lucius III. Rapalensi Episcopo.

Lucius 3. To the Bishop of Rapallo.

Requisivit a nobis tua fraternitas, qua censura mulier compelli debeat, quae, iurisiurandi religione neglecta, nubere renuit cui se nupturam interposito iuramento firmavit. Quaesivisti etiam, utrum ea, cuius vir matris torum polluit, ad alia vota, quum mater fieri desideret, viro possit vivente transire. Ad quod tibi breviter respondemus, quod mulier, quae se nupturam iuravit, quum libera debeant esse de iure matrimonia, monenda est potius quam cogenda, maxime quum coactiones [huiusmodi] difficiles soleant exitus frequenter habere. Illa sane, cuius vir cum matre adulterium et incestum commisit, nec viro suo coniungi carnaliter, nec eo vivente cum alio matrimonium inire debebit.

Your fraternity has inquired of us by what censure a woman ought to be compelled, who, the religion of the oath neglected, refuses to marry him to whom she confirmed herself as going to be married by an interposed oath. You also asked whether she, whose husband polluted the couch of her mother, can pass over to other vows, when she desires to become a mother, while her husband is living. To which we briefly respond to you, that a woman who swore that she would be married, since marriages ought by law to be free, is to be admonished rather than compelled, especially since coactions [of this kind] are wont frequently to have difficult outcomes. She indeed, whose husband has committed adultery and incest with her mother, ought neither to be joined carnally to her husband, nor, while he is living, to enter into marriage with another.

CAP. XVIII. Litispendentia super matrimonio non impedit secundum matrimonium contrahi, si primum erat nullum.

CHAPTER 18. Lis pendens concerning a marriage does not impede the contracting of a second marriage, if the first was null.

Urbanus III.

Urban III.

Quum in apostolica sede, cui licet immeriti praesidemus, magisterium resideat totius ecclesiasticae disciplinae, dignum est et consonum rationi, ut, quoties circa negotium ecclesiae aliquid dubietatis emerserit, ad ipsius deliberationis arbitrium recurratur. Intelleximus siquidem, quod, quum inter villicum de N. et uxorem eius coram te matrimonii quaestio tractaretur, productis testibus et attestationibus eorum diligenti examine discussis, ante publicationem testium idem villicus reversus ad propria, publice inter se et uxorem suam proposuit sententiam divortii iudicio ecclesiae [esse] promulgatam, et sic, falsitate omnibus suggesta, quandam aliam mulierem facti nesciam sibi copulare praesumpsit. Postmodum vero super prioris matrimonii quaestione literis a sede apostolica impetratis, delegati iudices sententiam divortii protulerunt. Verum quia villicum et mulierem, quam superinduxit, pendente lite prioris uxoris invicem asseris consensisse, tua nos duxit fraternitas consulendos, utrum tales sint ad matrimonia admittendi.

Since in the apostolic see, which, though unworthy, we preside over, the magisterium of all ecclesiastical discipline resides, it is fitting and consonant with reason that, whenever any dubiety shall have arisen concerning an affair of the Church, recourse be had to the judgment of that deliberation. We have understood indeed that, when between the villicus of N. and his wife before you the question of matrimony was being handled, the witnesses having been produced and their attestations examined with diligent scrutiny, before the publication of the witnesses the same villicus, having returned to his own, publicly asserted between himself and his wife that a sentence of divorce had been promulgated by the judgment of the Church [to be], and thus, with falsehood suggested to all, he presumed to couple to himself a certain other woman ignorant of the fact. Afterwards indeed, upon the question of the prior marriage, letters from the Apostolic See having been obtained, the delegated judges brought forth a sentence of divorce. But because you assert that the villicus and the woman whom he superinduced mutually consented to one another while the suit of the prior wife was pending, your fraternity has led us to be consulted, whether such persons are to be admitted to marriages.

Nos igitur auctoritate praesentium Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, imposita viro poenitentia competenti, et infra ipsius poenitentiae tempus carnali commercio interdicto, postmodum in maritali copula poterunt remanere. [Super eo vero etc. cf. c.5.de cond.

We therefore, by the authority of these presents we thus respond to your Consultation, that, a competent penance having been imposed upon the man, and, within the time of the same penance, carnal commerce being interdicted, thereafter they will be able to remain in marital copula. [On that point indeed, etc., cf. ch.5.On cond.

app. IV. 5.]

app. 4. 5.]

CAP. XIX. Uxor, non certificata de morte viri, contrahere non potest, quamvis ignoret, quid sit de marito, qui longo tempore abfuit.

CHAPTER 19. A wife, not certified concerning the death of her husband, cannot contract marriage, although she is ignorant what has become of her husband, who has been absent for a long time.

Clemens III. Caesaraugustensi Episcopo.

Clement III. To the Bishop of Caesaraugusta.

In praesentia nostra positus a nobis quaesivisti, quid agendum tibi sit de quibusdam mulieribus in tua dioecesi constitutis, quae, quum viros suos causa captivitatis vel peregrinationis absentes iam ultra septennium praestolatae fuerint, nec certificari possunt de vita vel de morte ipsorum, licet super hoc sollicitudinem adhibuerint diligentem, et pro iuvenili aetate seu fragilitate carnis nequeunt continere, petentes aliis matrimonio copulari. Quum autem dicat Apostolus: "Mulier tam diu alligata est viro, quam diu vir eius vivit," Consultationi ergo tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quantocunque annorum numero ita remaneant, viventibus viris suis non possunt ad aliorum consortium canonice convolare, nec tu eas auctoritate ecclesiae permittas contrahere, donec certum nuncium recipiant de morte virorum. [Dat.

In our presence presented before us you asked what ought to be done by you concerning certain women established in your diocese, who, since their husbands, absent on account of captivity or pilgrimage, have been now awaited beyond seven years, and they cannot be certified as to the life or death of those men, although they have applied diligent solicitude about this, and on account of youthful age or the frailty of the flesh are not able to contain themselves, asking to be joined in marriage to others. But since the Apostle says: "A woman is bound to a husband as long as her husband lives," to your consultation therefore we answer thus, that, however many years they thus remain, while their husbands live they cannot canonically enter the consortium of others, nor may you them permit, by the authority of the Church, to contract, until they receive certain notice of the death of their husbands. [Dated.

Laterani.]

At the Lateran.]

CAP. XX. Contractus matrimonii cum peccatrice, volente se corrigere, proficit ad remissionem peccatorum.

CHAPTER 20. The contract of matrimony with a sinful woman, being willing to correct herself, profits toward the remission of sins.

Idem.

The same.

Inter opera caritatis, quae imitanda nobis auctoritate sacrae paginae proponuntur, sicut evangelica testatur auctoritas, non minimum est, errantem ab erroris sui semita revocare, ac praesertim mulieres voluptuose viventes et admittentes indifferenter quoslibet ad commercium carnis, ut caste vivant, ad legitimum tori consortium invitare. Hoc igitur attendentes, auctoritate apostolica Statuimus, ut omnibus, qui publicas mulieres de lupanari extraxerint et duxerint in uxores, quod agunt in remissionem proficiat peccatorum. [Dat.

Among works of charity, which are set before us to be imitated by the authority of the sacred page, as the evangelical authority bears witness, it is no small thing to recall the erring from the path of his error, and especially to invite women living voluptuously and admitting indiscriminately whomever to the commerce of flesh, so that they may live chastely, to the lawful consortium of the bed. Therefore, attending to this, by apostolic authority We Decree, that for all who have drawn public women from the brothel and have taken them as wives, what they do may profit to the remission of sins. [Given.

Rom. ap. S. Petr. III.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, 3.

Kal. Maii Pont. nostr.

Kalends of May, of our pontificate.

Ao. I. 1198.]

Year 1. 1198.]

CAP. XXI. Matrimonium, per vim contractum, cohabitatione spontanea convalescit. H. d. et quotidie allegatur.

CHAPTER 21. Marriage, contracted by force, becomes valid through voluntary cohabitation. This is said and is alleged daily.

Idem.

The same.

Ad id, quod per tuas literas nobis intimasti de quadam parochiana tua, quam suus vitricus cuidam Teutonico matrimonialiter copulavit, taliter respondemus, quod, quamvis undecim annos adhuc habens, ab initio invita fuisset ei tradita et renitens, tamen, quia postmodum per annum et dimidium sibi cohabitans consensisse videtur, ad ipsum est cogenda redire. Nec de cetero recipiendi sunt testes, si quos memorata mulier ad probandum, quod non consenserit in eundem, nominaverit producendos, quum mora tanti temporis huiusmodi probationem excludat. Mandamus igitur, ut propter hoc non omittas, quo minus appellatione remota per censuram ecclesiasticam utrumque compellas ad alterum maritali affectione tractandum, nisi forte vellent ad religionem pariter convolare, poenitentia eis iniuncta pro eo, quod ad alienos et illicitos concubitus uterque transivit.

To that which through your letters to us you intimated concerning a certain parishioner of yours, whom her stepfather conjoined matrimonially to a certain Teutonic, we thus respond: although, being still eleven years old, she had from the beginning been handed over to him unwilling and resisting, nevertheless, because afterwards, cohabiting with him for a year and a half, she seems to have consented, she is to be compelled to return to him. Nor hereafter are witnesses to be received, if the aforesaid woman should name any to be produced to prove that she did not consent to the same, since the lapse of so great a time excludes such a proof. We therefore command that on account of this you do not fail, but rather, with appeal removed through ecclesiastical censure, to compel each to treat the other with marital affection, unless perhaps they should wish to fly together into the religious life, penance being enjoined upon them for this, that each has passed over to alien and illicit concubits.

[Dat. Laterani.]

[Given at the Lateran.]

CAP. XXII. Sponsalia de futuro, etiam iurata, solvuntur per secunda sponsalia de praesenti, non autem per secunda de futuro.

CHAPTER 22. Sponsalia for the future, even sworn, are dissolved by second sponsalia in the present, but not by second ones for the future.

Innocentius III. Fernatino Episcopo.

Innocent 3. To the Bishop of Ferentino.

Sicut ex literis tuae fraternitatis accepimus, quum L. parochianus tuus P. mulierem se ducturum in coniugem, in manus patris eiusdem P. iurantis, quod eam sibi traderet in uxorem, proprio firmaverit iuramento, nec per virum steterit, sed per mulierem potius, quo minus inter eos matrimonialis solennitas sit secuta, quatuor postmodum vel quinque annis elapsis, idem L. E. mulierem per verba de praesenti, ut eius consanguinei asserunt, desponsavit, propter quod frater praedictae P. suum deposuit in tua praesentia quaestionem. Quia vero, quid super his agendum sit, nostro postulas responso edoceri, Postulationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si tibi constiterit, quod idem L. P. mulierem per verba de futuro, E. vero desponsaverit per verba de praesenti, imposita ei poenitentia competenti, quia primam fidem irritam fecit, nisi forsan in iuramento suo certum terminum, infra quem dictam P. duceret in uxorem, praefixit, nec per eum stetit, quin ad statutum terminum matrimonium consummaverit, matrimonium secundo loco contractum legitimum iudices, et ad illud servandum, si opus fuerit, ecclesiastica districtione compellas eundem: nisi forsan aliud quid obstiterit, quod ipsum debeat impedire. Quodsi forte per verba de futuro sponsalia cum utraque contraxit, iuramentum primum, sicut licite factum est, ipsum servare compellas, de secundo ei poenitentiam iniuncturus Quodsi de his tibi non constat ad plenum, tamdiu adhuc cognoscas de causa, donec super his sufficienter instruaris. Quod enim in attestationibus quas ad sedem apostolicam destinasti de compaternitate habetur non facit ad causam quum neutra contrahentium sit illa persona qua mediante inter parentes eorum compaternitas est contracta. [Dat.

Just as from the letters of your fraternity we have received, when L., your parishioner, that he would lead P., a woman, into wedlock, in the hands of the father of the same P., who swore that he would hand her over to him as wife, had confirmed by his own oath; and it did not stand through the man, but rather through the woman, that the matrimonial solemnity did not follow between them; four or five years having thereafter elapsed, the same L. betrothed E., a woman, by words de praesenti, as her consanguines assert, on account of which the brother of the aforesaid P. laid his question in your presence. But since you ask to be instructed by our response what ought to be done concerning these things, To your petition we thus respond, that, if it is established to you that the same L. betrothed P., a woman, by words de futuro, but E. by words de praesenti, after competent penance has been imposed upon him, because he rendered void the first troth, unless perhaps in his oath he fixed a certain term within which he would lead the said P. into wifehood, and it did not fail through him to consummate the marriage by the appointed term, you shall judge the marriage contracted in second place legitimate, and you shall compel the same to observe it, if there is need, by ecclesiastical distriction: unless perhaps something else has stood in the way, which ought to impede him. But if by chance he contracted sponsalia by words de futuro with each, you shall compel him to keep the first oath, as it was licitly made, about to enjoin upon him penance for the second. But if concerning these things it does not fully appear to you, you shall still inquire into the case until you are sufficiently instructed concerning them. For what in the attestations which you sent to the apostolic see is held concerning compaternity does not make to the case, since neither of the contracting parties is that person by whose mediation between their parents the compaternity was contracted. [Dated.]

Lat. V. Kal. Martii Pont.

At the Lateran, February 25, in the Pontificate.

nostr. Ao. I. 1198.]

of our year 1. 1198.]

CAP. XXIII. Mutus et surdus, et omnes, qui non prohibentur, matrimonium contrahere possunt.

CHAPTER 23. The mute and the deaf, and all who are not prohibited, can contract matrimony.

Idem Arelatensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Arles.

Quum apud sedem apostolicam, cui, licet immeriti, praesidemus, totius ecclesiasticae disciplinae resideat magistratus, dignum et consonum est rationi, ut, quoties circa negotia varia et diversa quicquam dubitationis emerserit, ad ipsius iudicium recurratur, quae disponente Domino inter omnes ecclesias obtinere meruit principatum. Sane, consuluisti nos per nuncios et literas tuas, utrum mutus et surdus alicui possint matrimonialiter copulari. Ad quod fraternitati tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quum prohibitorium sit edictum de matrimonio contrahendo, ut, quicunque non prohibetur, per consequentiam admittatur, et sufficiat ad matrimonium solus consensus illorum, de quorum quarumque coniunctionibus agitur, videtur, quod, si talis velit contrahere, sibi non possit vel debeat denegari, quum quod verbis non potest signis valeat declarare. [Dat.

When at the apostolic see, over which, although unworthy, we preside, the magistracy of the whole ecclesiastical discipline resides, it is worthy and consonant with reason that, as often as anything of doubt shall have arisen concerning various and diverse affairs, recourse be had to its judgment, which, the Lord disposing, has merited to obtain the principate among all the churches. Indeed, you consulted us through your nuncios and your letters, whether a mute and a deaf person can be matrimonially coupled to someone. To which to your fraternity we thus respond, that, since the edict concerning contracting marriage is prohibitory, so that whoever is not prohibited is by consequence admitted, and the sole consent of those, whose unions are at issue, suffices for marriage, it seems that, if such a one wishes to contract, it cannot nor ought to be denied to him, since what he cannot by words he is able to declare by signs. [Dat.

Rom. ap. S. Petr. Id. Iul. 1198.]

Rome, at St. Peter’s, the Ides of July. 1198.]

CAP. XXIV. Furiosus matrimonium contrahere non potest.

CHAPTER 24. A madman cannot contract marriage.

Idem Vercellensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Vercelli.

Dilectus filius R. miles Alexandrinus proposuit coram nobis, quod Rufinam filiam suam cuidam Opizoni Lancaveclae matrimonialiter copulavit, ignorans, quod Opizo esset furiosus. Unde humiliter postulavit a nobis, ut tam eidem quam ipsius filiae consulere dignaremur. Quum autem eadem mulier cum ipso viro, qui continuo furore laborat, morari non possit, et propter alienationem furoris legitimus non potuerit intervenire consensus, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, inquisita plenius veritate, si rem noveris ita esse, praefatas personas cures sublato appellationis diffugio ab invicem separare. [Dat.

The beloved son R., an Alexandrian knight, set forth before us that he had joined his daughter Rufina in matrimony to a certain Opizo of Lancavecla, not knowing that Opizo was insane. Whence he humbly petitioned from us that we might deign to provide both for himself and for his daughter. But since the same woman cannot remain with the man himself, who labors under continual madness, and because on account of the alienation of madness a lawful consent could not intervene, we command your fraternity through apostolic writings that, the truth having been more fully inquired, if you know the matter to be thus, you take care, the evasion of appeal being removed, to separate the aforesaid persons from one another. [Given.

Rom. ap. S. Petr. V. Kal.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, on the 5th before the Kalends.

Ian. 1205.]

Jan. 1205.]

CAP. XXV. Solo consensu legitimo contrahitur matrimonium, sed verba requiruntur quoad probationem, et intellige: vel alia signa aequipollentia. H. d. secundum intellectum, quem tenet Panormitanus.

CHAPTER 25. Matrimony is contracted by legitimate consent alone, but words are required as to proof; and understand: or other equivalent signs. In this matter, according to the understanding which Panormitanus holds.

Idem Brixiensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Brescia.

Tuae fraternitati (Et infra: [cf. c.10.de eo, qui cogn. IV.13.]) Postulastiinsuper edoceri, utrum ex solis verbis, et ex quibus matrimonium contrahatur, quum ab aliquibus dubitetur spirituale contrahi solis verbis. Nos igitur inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod matrimonium in veritate contrahitur per legitimum viri et mulieris consensum; sed necessaria sunt, quantum ad ecclesiam, verba consensum exprimentia de praesenti. Nam surdi et muti possunt contrahere matrimonium per consensum mutuum sine verbis, et pueri ante annos legitimos per verba sola non contrahunt, quum intelligantur minime consentire.

To your fraternity (And below: [cf. ch. 10. de eo, qui cogn.4. 13.]) You have further requestedto be instructed whether by words alone, and by which words, marriage is contracted, since some doubt that the spiritual bond is contracted by words alone. We therefore respond to your inquiry thus: marriage is truly contracted by the lawful consent of a man and a woman; but, so far as the Church is concerned, words expressing consent in the present are necessary. For the deaf and mute can contract marriage through mutual consent without words, and children before lawful years do not contract by words alone, since they are understood by no means to consent.

[Dat. Romae etc.1206.]

[Given at Rome, etc.1206.]

CAP. XXVI. Si alter contrahentium utitur verbis dubiis, animo decipiendi mulierem, et eam postmodum cognoscit carnaliter, iudicatur pro matrimonio in foro iudiciali; secus in poenitentiali. H. d. secundum verum et communem intellectum.

CHAPTER 26. If one of the contracting parties uses dubious words, with the intent of deceiving the woman, and afterwards knows her carnally, it is adjudged as a marriage in the judicial forum; otherwise in the penitential forum. This holds according to the true and common understanding.

Idem.

The same.

Tua nos duxit fraternitas consulendos (Et infra: [cf. c.7.de cons. et aff. IV.14.]) Consequenterautem quaesivisti, [ut] quum quandam mulierem quidam aliter inducere nequivisset, ut sibi commisceretur carnaliter, nisi desponsasset eandem, nulla solennitate adhibita vel alicuius praesentia, dixit illi: "te Ioannes desponsat," quum ipse Ioannes non vocaretur, sed finxit se vocari Ioannem, non credens esse coniugium eo, quod ipse non vocaretur hoc nomine, nec haberet propositum contrahendi, sed copulam tantum exsequendi carnalem, utrum inter praedictos sit matrimonium celebratum, quum mulier consenserit et consentiat in eundem, et ille dissenserit et dissentiat, nec aliud quicquam egerit, quam [quod] superius est expressum, nisi quod cognoverit eandem.

Your fraternity has led us to be consulted (And below: [cf. ch.7.on cons. and aff.4. 14.]) Consequentlyhowever you asked, [that] since a certain man could not otherwise induce a certain woman to mix with him carnally, unless he had betrothed the same, with no solemnity employed nor anyone’s presence, he said to her: “John betroths you,” although he himself was not called John, but pretended he was called John, not believing it to be a conjugal union for the reason that he himself was not called by this name, nor did he have the intention of contracting, but only of carrying out the carnal coupling, whether a marriage has been celebrated between the aforesaid persons, since the woman consented and does consent to the same man, and he dissented and dissents, nor has he done anything else than [what] is expressed above, except that he has had carnal knowledge of her.

Super quod tibi respondemus, quod, quum praefatus vir praedictam desponsaverit mulierem in propria persona et sub nomine alieno, quo tunc vocari se finxit, et inter eos sit carnalis copula subsecuta, videtur forte pro coniugio praesumendum, nisi tu nobis expresse scripsisses, quod ille nec proposuit, nec consentit illam ducere in uxorem, quod qualiter tibi constiterit non videmus. Nos autem, quid iuris sit rescribentes, [hoc] dicimus, quod, si res ita se habuerit, videlicet, quod ille eam non proposuit ducere in uxorem, nec unquam consensit in praedictam personam, non debet ex illo facto coniugium iudicari, quum in eo nec substantia coniugalis contractus, nec [etiam] forma contrahendi coniugium valeat inveniri, quoniam ex altera parte dolus sollummodo adfuit, et defuit omnino consensus, sine quo cetera nequeunt foedus perficere coniugale. [Tertio quaesivisti etc.

Upon which we respond to you that, since the aforesaid man betrothed the aforesaid woman in his own person and under an alien name, by which at that time he pretended to be called, and a carnal copulation followed between them, it might perhaps be presumed in favor of marriage, unless you had written to us expressly that he neither purposed nor consents to take her to wife—which, by what manner it has been established to you, we do not see. But we, writing back what the law is, [hoc] say that, if the matter stands thus, namely, that he did not propose to take her as a wife, nor ever consented to the aforesaid person, a marriage ought not to be judged from that act, since in it neither the substance of a conjugal contract nor [etiam] the form of contracting marriage can be found, because on the other side there was fraud only, and consent was altogether lacking, without which the rest cannot perfect the conjugal covenant. [Thirdly you asked etc.

cf. c. 19. de hom. V.12.Dat. Lat.

cf. ch. 19. on homicide 5.12.Given at the Lateran.

Id. Febr. Pont. nostr.

The Ides of February, of our pontificate.

Ao. XIV. 1212.]

Year 14. 1212.]

CAP. XXVII. Ad denunciationem unius honesti viri, qui defert consanguinitatem, et de fama vel scandalo docet, impeditur matrimonium contrahendum.

CHAPTER 27. On the denunciation of a single honest man, who reports consanguinity and instructs concerning repute or scandal, the contracting of marriage is impeded.

Idem Episcopo Belvacensi.

The same to the Bishop of Beauvais.

Quum in tua dioecesi (Et infra: [cf. c.36.de decim. III.30.]) Sane, quia contingit interdum, quod, aliquibus volentibus matrimonium contrahere, bannis, ut tuis verbis utamur, in ecclesiis editissecundum consuetudinem ecclesiae Gallicanae, ac nullo contradictore publice comparente, licet fama privatum impedimentum deferat parentelae, quum ex parte contrahentium iuramenta maiorum de sua propinquitate, ut suspicionis tollatur materia, offeruntur, quid tibi sit faciendum in casibus huiusmodi quaesivisti. Ad quod taliter respondemus, quod, si persona gravis, cui fides sit adhibenda, tibi denunciet, quod hi, qui sunt matrimonio copulandi, se propinquitate contingant, et de fama vel scandalo doceat, aut etiam per te ipsum possis certificari de plano, non solum debes iuramenta parentum sponte oblata non recipere, verum etiam eos, qui sic contrahere nituntur, si moniti induci nequiverint, compellere, ut [vel] a tali contractu desistant, vel contra famam huiusmodi secundum tuae discretionis arbitrium iuramenta exhibeant propinquorum.

Since in your diocese (And below: [cf. ch.36.on tithes3. 30.])—indeed, because it happens sometimes that, when certain persons wish to contract matrimony, the banns, to use your words, having been published in the churchesaccording to the consuetude of the Gallican church, and no contradictor publicly appearing, although a private impediment of kindred is borne by report, when on the part of the contracting parties oaths of elders regarding their kinship are offered, that the matter of suspicion may be removed—you have asked what you should do in cases of this sort. To which we thus respond: if a weighty person, to whom faith ought to be given, denounces to you that those who are to be joined in matrimony touch one another in kinship, and informs you of the report or scandal, or even you can certify the matter plainly by your own inquiry, not only ought you not to receive the oaths of parents voluntarily proffered, but you should also compel those who thus strive to contract, if, when warned, they cannot be induced, that [or] they desist from such a contract, or, against such a report, according to the arbitration of your discretion, they exhibit the oaths of their kinsfolk.

Alioquin, si persona denuncians non exstiterit talis, ut diximus, vel de fama vel de scandalo non poterit edocere, ad desistendum monere poteris, non compellere, contrahentes. [Si vero etc. cf. c.6.Qui matrim.

Otherwise, if the denouncing person shall not have been such as we have said, or will not be able to instruct either about the report or about the scandal, you will be able to admonish, not compel, the contracting parties to desist. [If indeed etc. cf. ch.6.Who matrim.

acc. IV. 18. Dat. Lat.

acc. 4. 18. Given at the Lateran.

IV. Kal. Nov. Pont.

4. day before the Kalends of November. Pontificate.

nostr. Ao. XV. 1212.]

our year 15. 1212.]

CAP. XXVIII. Mulieri, quae negat, se in matrimonium consensisse, non creditur marito probante contrarium; secus, si probat, se consensisse per metum, qui potest cadere in constantem virum.

CHAPTER 28. To a woman who denies that she consented to matrimony, no credence is given, the husband proving the contrary; otherwise, if she proves that she consented through fear, which can befall even a constant man.

Honorius III. Episcopo Berguensi.

Honorius III. To the Bishop of Bergen.

Consultationi tuae breviter respondemus, quod mulieres, quae de more veniunt ad valvas ecclesiae benedicendae cum sponsis, et ibi reclamantes affirmant, se nunquam in eorum matrimonium consensisse, audiri sponsis legitime probantibus contrarium non oportet, quum legitimis et idoneis testibus non debeat illarum simplex assertio praevalere. Sane illis, quae benedictione accepta mox a sponsis aufugiunt ante carnis copulam subsecutam, asserentes, se nunquam in illos veraciter consensisse, sed metu illato compulsas verba protulisse consensus, licet animo dissentirent, non statim est audientia deneganda; sed de illato metu est cum diligentia inquirendum; et, si talis metus inveniatur illatus, qui potuit cadere in constantem virum, erunt non immerito audiendae.

We briefly respond to your consultation, that women who, by custom, come to the doors of the church to be blessed with their bridegrooms, and there, protesting, affirm that they have never consented to marriage with them, ought not to be heard, when the bridegrooms legitimately prove the contrary, since their simple assertion ought not to prevail against lawful and fit witnesses. Indeed, as to those who, the blessing having been received, soon flee from their bridegrooms before carnal coupling has followed, asserting that they never truly consented to them, but that, fear having been inflicted, they were compelled to utter the words of consent, although they dissented in mind, a hearing is not at once to be denied; rather, concerning the fear inflicted there must be inquiry with diligence; and, if such fear is found to have been inflicted as could fall upon a steadfast man, they will not without desert be heard.

CAP. XXIX. In matrimoniis et sponsalibus debet esse libertas, unde in eis promissio poenae non obligat.

CHAPTER 29. In marriages and sponsals there ought to be liberty, whence in them a promise of penalty does not bind.

Gregorius IX.

Gregory 9.

Gemma mulier nobis exposuit, quod, quum T. filia eius cum C. contraxit matrimonium, B. de Alferio ea occasione, quod inter P. filium suum et praedictam puellam infra septennium constitutos sponsalia contracta fuerunt, poenam solvendam a parte, quae contraveniret, in stipulatione appositam, ab ipsa nititur extorquere. Quum itaque libera matrimonia esse debeant, et ideo talis stipulatio propter poenae interpositionem sit merito improbanda, mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, eundem B., ut ab extorsione praedictae poenae desistat, ecclesiastica censura compellas.

Gemma, a woman, set forth to us that, when T., her daughter, contracted marriage with C., B. of Alferius, on the occasion that between P., his son, and the aforesaid girl, betrothals had been contracted while they were constituted under seven years, strives to extort from her the penalty to be paid by the party that would contravene, inserted in the stipulation. Since therefore marriages ought to be free, and for that reason such a stipulation, on account of the interposition of a penalty, is deservedly to be disapproved, we command that, in so far as it is so, you compel that same B., by ecclesiastical censure, to desist from the extortion of the aforesaid penalty.

CAP. XXX. Sponsalia de futuro transeunt in matrimonium per carnalem copulam subsecutam, sed non per nisum carnalis copulae tantum. H. d. cum c. fin.

CHAPTER 30. Sponsals de futuro pass into marriage through subsequent carnal copulation, but not by the mere attempt of carnal copulation. On this matter, with the final chapter.

infra eodem.

below in the same.

Idem Episcopo Cenomanensi.

The same to the Bishop of Le Mans.

Is, qui fidem dedit M. mulieri super matrimonio contrahendo, carnali copula subsecuta, etsi in facie ecclesiae ducat aliam et cognoscat, ad primam redire tenetur, quia, licet praesumptum primum matrimonium videatur, contra praesumptionem tamen huiusmodi non est probatio admittenda. Ex quo sequitur, quod nec verum, nec aliquod censetur matrimonium, quod de facto est postmodum subsecutum.

He who has given his pledge to the woman M. concerning the contracting of marriage, with carnal copula ensuing, even if in the face of the Church he leads another and has carnal knowledge of her, is bound to return to the first; because, although the first marriage may appear presumed, nevertheless against a presumption of this kind no proof is to be admitted. Whence it follows that neither true nor any marriage is deemed to be that which afterwards de facto ensued.

CAP. XXXI. Sponsalia de praesenti non solvuntur per sequens matrimonium, etiam carnali copula consummatum; sed sponsalia de futuro etiam iurata solvuntur per sequentia de praesenti.

CHAPTER 31. Sponsalia de praesenti are not dissolved by a subsequent marriage, even if consummated by carnal copulation; but sponsalia de futuro, even sworn, are dissolved by subsequent de praesenti.

Idem.

The same.

Si inter virum et mulierem legitimus consensus interveniat de praesenti ita, quod unus alterum mutuo consensu, verbis consuetis expresso, recipiat, utroque dicenti: "ego te in meam accipio," et: "ego te accipio in meum," vel alia verba consensum exprimentia de praesenti, sive sit iuramentum interpositum sive non: non licet alteri ad alia vota transire. Quod si fecerit, secundum matrimonium de facto contractum, etiamsi sit carnalis copula subsecuta, separari debet, et primum in sua firmitate manere. Verum si inter ipsos accessit tantummodo promissio de futuro, utroque dicente alteri: "ego te recipiam in meam," et: "ego te in meum," sive verba similia, si alius mulierem illam per verba de praesenti desponsaverit, etiamsi inter ipsam et primum iuramentum intervenerit, sicut diximus, de futuro: huiusmodi desponsationis intuitu secundum matrimonium non poterit separari, sed eis est de violatione fidei poenitentia iniungenda.

If between a man and a woman legitimate consensus intervenes of the present, such that each receives the other by mutual consent, expressed by customary words, both saying: "I take you as my own," and: "I take you as my own," or other words expressing consent of the present, whether an oath be interposed or not: it is not permitted for either to pass over to other vows. But if one should do this, the second marriage contracted de facto, even if carnal copula has followed, ought to be separated, and the first to remain in its own firmness. However, if between them there has intervened only a promise of the future, each saying to the other: "I will receive you as my own," and: "I will receive you as my own," or similar words, if another has betrothed that woman through words of the present, even if between her and the first an oath has intervened, as we said, of the future: in view of a betrothal of this kind the second marriage cannot be separated, but to them penance is to be enjoined for the violation of faith.

CAP. XXXII. Nisus ad copulam non facit sponsalia de futuro transire in matrimonium.

CHAPTER 32. An attempt at copulation does not make espousals de futuro pass into marriage.

Idem.

The same.

Adolescens, qui desponsatam sibi per verba de futuro, licet saepe nisus fuerit, carnaliter non cognoscens, cum alia postmodum per verba de praesenti contraxit, non primam, cum qua nec fuit verum matrimonium ex forma contractus, nec praesumptum, quum conatus non habuisset effectum, sed secundam debet habere uxorem.

A young man, who had a woman betrothed to him by words of the future, not knowing her carnally, although he often made an attempt, when afterward he contracted with another by words of the present, ought to have as wife not the first—with whom there was neither a true marriage according to the form of the contract, nor a presumed one, since the attempt had not had effect—but the second.

TITULUS II. DE DESPONSATIONE IMPUBERUM.

TITLE 2. ON THE DESPONSATION OF MINORS.

CAP. I. Pater pro filio impubere sponsalia contrahit, pro pubere vero non, nisi consentiat.

CHAPTER 1. A father contracts sponsals on behalf of his son who is not yet pubescent; but for a pubescent son he does not, unless he consents.

Hormisda Eusebio Episcopo.

Hormisdas to Bishop Eusebius.

Tua nos requisivit fraternitas de filio adulto, quem pater matrimonium vult contrahere, si sine voluntate adulti filii facere potest. Ad quod dicimus, si aliquo modo non consentit filius, fieri non posse; potest autem filium nondum adultum, voluntas cuius discerni non potest, pater cui vult matrimonio tradere. Et postquam filius pervenerit ad perfectam aetatem, omnino debet hoc adimplere.

Your Fraternity has inquired of us about an adult son, whom a father wishes to contract in marriage, whether he can do so without the will of the adult son. To which we say: if in any way the son does not consent, it cannot be done; however, a son not yet adult, whose will cannot be discerned, the father can hand over in marriage to whom he wishes. And after the son has come to perfect age, he must altogether fulfill this.

CAP. II. Impuberes ambo vel alter, nisi pro bono pacis, coniungi non debent.

CHAPTER 2. The underage, both or either one, ought not to be conjoined in marriage, unless for the good of peace.

Nicolaus Papa.

Pope Nicholas.

Ubi non est consensus (Et infra:) Huius ergo decreti auctoritate Districtius inhibemus, ne de cetero aliqui, quorum uterque vel alter ad aetatem legibus vel canonibus determinatam non pervenerit, coniungantur, nisi forte aliqua urgentissima necessitate interveniente, utpote pro bono pacis, talis coniunctio toleretur.

Where there is not consent (And below:) Therefore by the authority of this decree we more strictly forbid, that henceforth any persons, of whom both or one has not arrived at the age determined by the laws or canons, be joined, unless perhaps some most urgent necessity intervenes, as for instance for the good of peace, that such a conjunction be tolerated.

CAP. III. Puberes sunt quoad matrimonium, qui ex habitu corporis concipere et generare possunt.

CHAPTER 3. Pubescent are, as to matrimony, those who by bodily habit are able to conceive and to generate.

Isidorus.

Isidore.

Puberes a pube sunt vocati, id est a pudentia corporis nuncupati: quia haec loca tunc primo lanuginem ducunt. Quidam tamen ex annis pubertatem existimant, id est, eum esse puberem, qui XIV. annos implevit, quamvis tardissime pubescat.

Pubescent persons are called from the pubes, that is, named from the body’s pudency: because these parts then for the first time take on downy hair. Some, however, reckon puberty from years, that is, that he is pubescent who has completed 14 years, although he may ripen into puberty very late.

Certum autem est, eum puberem esse, qui et ex habitu corporis pubertatem ostendit, et generare iam potest. Et puerperae sunt, quae in annis puerilibus pariunt.

Moreover, it is certain that he is pubescent who both shows puberty from the habit of the body, and is already able to beget. And puerperal women are those who give birth in puerile years.

CAP. IV. Ex sponsalibus, contractis cum minore septennio, non oritur impedimentum publicae honestatis; secus, si cum maiore vel minore, consentiente post septennium. Et affinitas sequens dissolvit sponsalia praecedentia de futuro.

CHAPTER 4. From betrothals, contracted with one under the seven-year age, there does not arise an impediment of public honesty; otherwise, if with one older or with a minor, the latter consenting after the seven-year period. And subsequent affinity dissolves preceding betrothals for the future.

Alexander III. Herfordensi Episcopo.

Alexander 3. To the Bishop of Herford.

Literas tuae fraternitatis accepimus, ex quarum tenore perpendimus, quod, quum quidam parochianus tuus A. nomine esset perfectae aetatis, quandam puellam in cunabulis desponsavit; procedente vero tempore idem A. matrem puellae cognovit, et eam in uxorem accepit. Unde quia dubitas, an huiusmodi matrimonium stare debeat, a nobis exinde consilium postulasti. Super quo Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si praefatus vir matrem praefatae puellae, antequam puella ipsa septimum annum complesset, in uxorem accepit, matrimonium ipsum non dissolvas sed eundem virum praefatam mulierem, sicut uxorem, libere tenere permittas, quum desponsationes huiusmodi nullae sint, quae in cunabulis fiunt.

We have received the letters of your fraternity, from the tenor of which we have weighed that, since a certain your parishioner A. by name was of perfect age, he betrothed a certain girl in the cradle; but with time proceeding the same A. knew the girl’s mother, and took her as a wife. Wherefore, because you doubt whether a marriage of this sort ought to stand, you have asked counsel from us thereupon. Upon which we thus respond to your consultation, that, if the aforesaid man took the mother of the aforesaid girl as a wife before the girl herself had completed her seventh year, the marriage itself you are not to dissolve, but you should permit the same man to hold the aforesaid woman, as a wife, freely, since betrothals of this sort are null which are made in the cradle.

Verum si, postquam praefata puella septimum annum complevit, praedictus vir matrem eius accepit in uxorem, quum sponsalia extunc placere consueverint, inter eos sententiam divortii non differas promulgare, nec ipsum filiam seu matrem in uxorem habere permittas.

However, if, after the aforementioned girl completed the seventh year, the aforesaid man took her mother as wife, since from then the sponsals are wont to be in force, do not delay to promulgate a sentence of divorce between them, nor permit him to have the daughter or the mother as wife.

CAP. V. Sponsalia, nulla ex defectu consensus, non creant publicae honestatis iustitiam: sponsalia vero aliqua sic, licet legitimo modo fuerint dissoluta.

CHAPTER 5. Betrothals that are null from a defect of consent do not create the justice of public honesty; but certain betrothals do so, although they may have been dissolved in a legitimate manner.

Idem Eboracensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of York.

Accessit ad praesentiam nostram nobilis vir W. filius G. cum literis tuis, ex quarum tenore perpendimus, quod, quum filiam cuiusdam nobilis viri, dum esset minoris aetatis, desponsasset, et postmodum ipsa assensum in hac parte non praebente, antequam ad nubiles annos pervenisset, celebratum est inter eos divortium. Procedente vero tempore, defuncto patre puellae, matrem eius [praedictus] W. sibi matrimonio copulavit. Quod quidem factum quum sustinere nolles, eum sollicite monuisti, ut ipsam dimitteret, et quia monitis tuis in hac parte noluit acquiescere, ipsum excommunicationis vinculo innodasti.

There came into our presence the noble man W., son of G., with your letters, from the tenor of which we gathered that, when he had betrothed the daughter of a certain noble man, while she was under age, and afterwards she not granting assent in this matter, before she had reached marriageable years, a divorce was celebrated between them. But as time went on, the girl’s father having died, her mother [the aforesaid] W. joined to himself in matrimony. Which deed indeed, since you were unwilling to endure it, you earnestly admonished him to dismiss her; and because he was unwilling to acquiesce to your admonitions in this matter, you bound him with the bond of excommunication.

Tandem, accepta ab eo cautione, quod nostram adiret praesentiam, et super hoc statutum nostrum firmiter observaret, eundem mandato nostro absolutum denunciasti, et cum literis tuis ad praesentiam nostram misisti. Verum praefatus W. in nostra praesentia constitutus sua nobis assertione proposuit, quod puellam ipsam, dum esset infra septimum annum, desponsavit, postea [vero], antequam ad nubiles annos pervenisset, noluit aliquatenus consentire, ut praefatum W. in virum acciperet, et ita cum patre suo, in cuius potestate remanserat, et cum praefato W. ad praesentiam tuam accessit. Et quum ab ore puellae audisses, et per eam cognosceres et per patrem eius, quod memoratum W. in virum nolebat, statim illum in plena synodo ab huiusmodi desponsatione publice absolutum denunciasti.

At length, having received from him a surety that he would approach our presence, and that he would firmly observe our statute on this matter, you declared the same man, by our mandate, to be absolved, and you sent him to our presence with your letters. But the aforesaid W., set in our presence, stated to us by his own assertion that he had betrothed the girl herself while she was under the seventh year, afterwards [indeed], before she had come to marriageable years, she in no way wished to consent to take the aforesaid W. as a husband, and so, with her father, in whose power she had remained, and with the aforesaid W., she came into your presence. And when you had heard from the mouth of the girl, and came to know through her and through her father that she was unwilling to have the aforesaid W. as a husband, straightway in full synod you publicly declared him absolved from a betrothal of this kind.

Elapsis vero pluribus annis post, mortuo etiam patre puellae, carissimus in Christo filius noster H. Anglorum rex matrem supradictae puellae memorato W. tradidit in uxorem, quam idem W., ut discordia orta inter consanguineos suos et consanguineos mulieris sopiretur, accepit et solenniter desponsavit, et sine contradictione ecclesiae duxit, et ex ea liberos procreavit, et puella fuit alteri viro copulata. Verum licet contineatur in literis tuis, quod puella ipsa erat minoris aetatis, quando huiusmodi desponsatio facta fuit, tamen refert, utrum, quum esset minoris aetatis, [fuerit] proxima aetati aptae matrimonio, aut infra septem annos. Ideoque Fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, rei veritate inquisita diligenter et cognita, si tibi constiterit, quod praefata puella non esset septennis, quando praememorato G. desponsata fuit, et postea in eum non consenserit, et quod idem G. ab huiusmodi desponsatione per te fuerit absolutus, matrimonium, inter eundem G. et matrem puellae celebratum, praecipias inviolabiliter observari, et eorum prolem denuncies esse legitimam, quia, sicut discretio tua non ignorat, desponsationes et matrimonia ante septem annos fieri non possunt, praesertim si consensus postea non accedit.

But after several more years had elapsed, with the girl’s father also dead, our dearest son in Christ, H., king of the English, handed over the mother of the aforesaid girl to the aforementioned W. as a wife, whom the same W., in order that the discord arisen between his consanguines and the woman’s consanguines might be lulled, received and solemnly betrothed, and he led her without contradiction of the Church, and from her he procreated children, and the girl was joined to another man. Yet although it is contained in your letters that the girl herself was of lesser age when a betrothal of this sort was made, nevertheless it makes a difference whether, when she was of lesser age, [had been] near to an age apt for marriage, or under seven years. And therefore to your Fraternity, by apostolic writings, by way of command, we order that, the truth of the matter having been diligently inquired into and learned, if it is established to you that the aforesaid girl was not seven years old when she was betrothed to the aforementioned G., and afterwards did not consent to him, and that the same G. was by you absolved from such a betrothal, you shall command that the marriage celebrated between that same G. and the girl’s mother be inviolably observed, and you shall declare their offspring to be legitimate, because, as your discretion does not ignore, betrothals and marriages cannot be made before seven years, especially if consent does not afterwards accede.

Sane, si praefata puella ante [huiusmodi] desponsationem septimum annum compleverat, licet praedictus vir a desponsatione ipsius puellae ipso iure fuerit absolutus, quum ea in eum consentire noluerit, inhonestum tamen videtur, ut matrem eius habeat, cuius filia fuit sibi desponsata. Verum si tibi visum fuerit, ut cum matre puellae remaneat, ne discordia inter utriusque consanguineos olim exorta nunc autem sopita denuo suscitetur id dissimulare poteris et aequanimiter tolerare. Filii autem quos de ipsa suscepit, si eam tolerante ecclesia in uxorem duxit a successione paternae vel maternae, hereditatis prohiberi non possunt.

Indeed, if the aforesaid girl had completed the seventh year before [of this kind] espousal, although the aforesaid man was by the law itself absolved from the espousal of the girl herself, since she was unwilling to consent to him, nevertheless it seems dishonorable that he should have her mother, whose daughter had been betrothed to him. But if it shall have seemed to you that he remain with the girl’s mother, lest the discord once arisen between the kinsfolk of each, but now soothed, be stirred up anew, you can dissemble this and tolerate it with equanimity. But the sons whom he has begotten from her, if he took her as wife with the Church tolerating it, cannot be prohibited from the succession of paternal or maternal inheritance.

CAP. VI. Si impubes, desponsata et traducta, petit licentiam pubes facta alteri nubendi, non auditur, si vir iurat, se eam cognovisse; nec auditur, si nondum pubes, sed proxima pubertati probetur cognita. Et ex sponsalibus, contractis cum impubere maiore septennio, oritur publica honestas.

CHAPTER 6. If an underage girl, betrothed and led over, upon becoming of age asks leave to marry another, she is not heard, if the husband swears that he has known her; nor is she heard, if, though not yet of age, yet next to puberty, she is proven to have been known. And from sponsals, contracted with an underage person older than 7 years, public honesty arises.

Idem Norvicensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Norwich.

Continebatur in literis tuis, quod, quum quaedam puella infra nubiles annos cuidam viro in uxorem tradita fuerit, et ab ipso traducta, suis parentibus asserentibus, eam legitimae aetatis exsistere, haec, ad nubiles annos perveniens, alii nubendi licentiam postulavit, asserens, se in eundem virum nullatenus consensisse. Praedictus vero vir econtra proponit, quod, licet eadem puella nondum forte annum XII. attigisset, quum ei tradita fuisset in uxorem, usque adeo tamen aetati fuit proxima, quod ipsam carnali commixtione cognovit.

It was contained in your letters that, when a certain girl, below marriageable years, had been given in marriage to a certain man and was led over by him, her parents asserting that she was of lawful age, this one, upon reaching marriageable years, asked for license to marry another, asserting that she had by no means consented to the same man. The aforesaid man, on the contrary, puts forward that, although the same girl perhaps had not yet reached year 12 when she had been given to him as a wife, nevertheless she was so near to the age that he knew her by carnal commixture.

Inde est, quod, quum ipsa dicit ab eodem viro se incognitam, et tu nos consuluisti, utrum alii possit nubere, Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quum in decretis habeatur expressum, quod, si vir dixerit, quod uxorem suam cognoverit, et mulier negaverit, viri standum est veritati, unde praefato viro, qui dicit, se mulierem ipsam cognovisse, fides est adhibenda, si id firmaverit iuramento. Si autem fuerit aetati proxima, ut in undecimo vel circa XII. annum, et cum suo assensu et voluntate parentum desponsata et benedicta fuerit, et cognita ab eodem viro, separari non debet, praesertim quum parentes eius ipsam fuisse aetatis legitimae faterentur.

Whence it is that, since she says that she was unknown by the same man, and you consulted us whether she can marry another, we thus respond to your Consultation: that, since it is held expressed in the decrees that, if a man shall say that he has known his wife, and the woman shall deny it, the man’s verity is to be stood by; whence to the aforesaid man, who says that he has known the woman, faith is to be given, if he shall confirm it by an oath. But if she was proximate to age, as in the eleventh year or about the 12th year, and, with her own assent and the will of her parents, she was betrothed and blessed, and known by the same man, she ought not to be separated, especially since her parents confessed that she was of legitimate age.

Si vero puella infra nubiles annos et aetati proxima alicui desponsata fuerit, benedicta atque traducta, non licet alicui de consanguinitate ipsius, cui desponsata fuerit, eam ducere in uxorem, nec fas est eidem sponso de consanguinitate sponsae sibi aliquam [matrimonis] copulare.

If, however, a girl below nubile years and proximate to the age has been betrothed to someone, blessed and conducted, it is not permitted for anyone of the consanguinity of him to whom she was betrothed to take her as a wife, nor is it right for that same betrothed man to couple to himself any woman of the bride’s consanguinity [of marriage].

CAP. VII. Si maiores septennio contrahunt sponsalia, neuter antepubertatem resilire potest. Hoc primo.

CHAPTER 7. If those older than seven years contract betrothal, neither can withdraw before puberty. This first.

Et ille, qui primo it pubes, alterum exspectabit. Hoc secundo. Quod si tempore contractus aliter erat pubes, non ille, sed alter factus pubes resilire potest.

And he who first comes to puberty will await the other. This, secondly. But if at the time of the contract it stood otherwise as to puberty, it is not that one who was already pubescent, but the other, once become pubescent, who can resile.

Hoc tertis.

This, third.

Idem Bathoniensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Bath.

De illis, qui infra annos aptos matrimoniis contrahendis [exsistentes] sponsalia contrahunt, sive uterque sive alter reclamet antequam ad annos matrimoniis contrahendis aptos pervenerint, et postulent separari, non sunt ullatenus audiendi. Si vero alteruter istorum ad annos pubertatis pervenerit, infra eosdem annos altero exsistente, quum eadem sponsalia contrahuntur; si is, qui minoris aetatis est, quum ad annos illos pervenerit, reclamaverit, nec in alterum voluerit consentire, iudicio ecclesiae poterunt ab invicem separari. Mulier autem, quae, postquam annos nubiles attingit, ei, qui nondum ad annos aptos matrimoniis contrahendis venerat, nupsit, quum in eum semel consenserit, amplius non poterit aliquatenus dissentire vel divertere, nisi forte ipse, cui nupsit, postquam ad legitimam aetatem pervenerit, in eam suum omnino negaverit praestare consensum.

Concerning those who, being below the years suitable for contracting marriages [existing] contract betrothals, whether both or either protest before they have arrived at the years suitable for contracting marriages and request to be separated, they are in no way to be heard. But if either of these has reached the years of puberty, the other remaining within those same years, when the same betrothals are contracted; if the one who is of lesser age, when he or she has reached those years, should protest and be unwilling to consent to the other, by the judgment of the church they can be separated from one another. But a woman who, after she reaches marriageable years, married one who had not yet come to the years suitable for contracting marriages, once she has consented to him, will no longer be able in any way to dissent or to depart, unless perhaps he himself, whom she married, after he has reached lawful age, should altogether refuse to render his consent toward her.

CAP. VIII. Impuberes, sponsalia contrahentes, ante pubertatem separari non debent, sed post pubertatem possunt, si contradicunt sponsalibus, nisi copula carnalis intervenerit.

CHAPTER 8. The impuberes, contracting espousals, ought not to be separated before puberty; but after puberty they can, if they contradict the espousals, unless carnal copulation has intervened.

Idem eidem.

The same to the same.

A nobis tua discretio requisivit, utrum iis qui infra annos nubiles matrimonii nomine coniunguntur, vel eorum alteri, antequam ad annos aptos matrimonio perveniant, liceat a matrimonio tali discedere. Ad quod inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod pro eo, quod ante nubiles annos coniugalem consensum de sanctorum Patrum non habent auctoritate, usque ad legitimam aetatem exspectare tenentur, et tunc aut confirmetur matrimonium, aut, si simul esse noluerint, separentur; nisi forte carnalis commixtio ante intervenerit, quum interdum illa tempus anticipare soleat pubertatis. Si vero alter eorum ad annos etc.

Your discretion has inquired of us whether, for those who are joined under the name of matrimony below the marriageable years, or for either of them, it is permitted to depart from such a marriage before they reach years suitable for matrimony. To which we respond thus to your inquiry, that, because before the marriageable years they do not have conjugal consent by the authority of the holy Fathers, they are bound to wait until lawful age, and then either the marriage is to be confirmed, or, if they are unwilling to be together, let them be separated; unless perhaps carnal commingling has intervened beforehand, since sometimes that is wont to anticipate the time of puberty. But if indeed one of them to the years etc.

ut supra prox. c.

as above in the immediately preceding chapter.

CAP. IX. Minores, apti ad matrimonium, ex contractu matrimonii obligantur, nisi violentia intercedat.

CHAPTER 9. Minors, apt for marriage, are obligated by the contract of marriage, unless violence intervenes.

Idem Genuensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Genoa.

De illis autem, qui in minori aetate desponsantur, traduntur et coniunguntur, et processu temporis divortium postulant, minorem allegantes aetatem, aut vim sibi a parentibus factam, hoc inquisitioni tuae praesentibus literis Respondemus, quod, si ita fuerint aetati proximi, quod potuerint copula carnali coniungi, minoris aetatis intuitu ab invicem separari non debent, si unus in alium visus fuerit consensisse, quum in eis aetatem supplevisse malitia videatur. Sed cuiuscunque sint aetatis, se possunt per illatam violentiam excusare, nisi post violentiam consensus accedat. [Illud quoque etc. (cf. c. de praes.

Concerning those, however, who in a lesser age are betrothed, are delivered and conjoined, and with the process of time demand a divorce, alleging lesser age, or force done to them by their parents, to this your inquiry by the present letters we respond, that, if they have been so near to the age that they could be joined by carnal copula, by regard to minority they ought not to be separated from one another, if the one shall have seemed to have consented to the other, since in them malice seems to have supplied age. But of whatever age they may be, they can excuse themselves by the violence inflicted, unless after the violence consent is added. [That also etc. (cf. ch. on prescription

II. 23.)]

2. 23.)]

CAP. X. Contractus ante pubertatem, etiam cum nisu carnalis copulae, non facit matrimonium.

CHAPTER 10. A contract before puberty, even with the effort of carnal copulation, does not make matrimony.

Urbanus III. Cenomanensi Episcopo.

Urban III. To the Bishop of Le Mans.

Attestationes super causa matrimonii, quae inter H. iuvenem et G. mulierem vertitur, a tua nobis fraternitate transmissas accepimus, et, ipsis diligenter inspectis et plenius intellectis, manifeste nobis innotuit, quod praedictus iuvenis nondum duodecimum annum attigerat, quum praefatam G. accepit uxorem. Et licet nisus fuisset, sicut uterque confessus est, ipsam corrumpere, mulier tamen credit, se virginem evasisse. Verum ipse, antequam ad annum XIV.

Attestations concerning the cause of matrimony, which is pending between H., a youth, and G., a woman, transmitted to us by your fraternity we have received; and, the same having been diligently inspected and more fully understood, manifestly it became known to us that the aforesaid youth had not yet reached the twelfth year when he took the aforesaid G. as wife. And although there had been an attempt, as each confessed, to corrupt her, the woman nevertheless believes that she has remained a virgin. But he himself, before he reached the year 14.

pervenisset, a memorata muliere recessit, quem, quum XVII. annos habeat, eadem pro viro sibi vindicare contendit. Sed quum vir XVII.

had reached, he withdrew from the aforementioned woman, whom, since he has 17. years, the same strives to claim for herself as a husband. But since the man 17.

annos habeat, ipsam recipere contradicit. Unde, quia, donec nos super causam ipsam consuleres, non duxisti in prolatione sententiae procedendum, Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si mulier per idoneos testes probare nequiverit, quod post XIV. annum aetatis suae vel circa finem XIV.

being of that age, he refuses to take her back. Wherefore, since, until you consulted us about this very case, you did not deem that one should proceed to the pronouncement of sentence, we thus reply to your Consultation, that, if the woman cannot prove by suitable witnesses that after the 14th year of her age or about the end of the 14.

anni praedictus iuvenis consensisset in eam, ab ipso iuramento recepto, quod, postquam ad legitimam aetatem pervenit, ipsam habere non consensit in uxorem, ab impetitione mulieris eum potes et debes absolvere, et ad alia vota utrique dare licentiam transeundi.

years the aforesaid youth had consented to her, with the oath received from him that, after he reached legitimate age, he did not consent to have her as a wife, you can and ought to absolve him from the woman’s impetition, and give license to each to pass over to other vows.

CAP. XI. Si maior invita contraxit sponsalia cum minore, non tenetur ipsum exspectare, donec veniat ad aetatem adultam.

CHAPTER 11. If a major woman, unwilling, contracted sponsals with a minor, she is not bound to wait for him, until he comes to adult age.

Idem Pisano Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Pisa.

Ex literis tuae fraternitatis accepimus, quod puella quaedam anno XII. iurata fuit et desponsata cuidam puero IX. vel X. annorum, et tempore procedente de voluntate parentum potius, quam de sua, sicut asserit, ad domum patris praedicti pueri adducta, ubi nolens et invita, sicut ab ore ipsius te audisse proponis, et tam persuasionibus quam minis parentum impulsa, moram fecit per annum et amplius, et tandem inde recedens, ad domum propriam est regressa. Commonita vero a matre sua, et a te postmodum, sicut asseris, ad eum redire penitus contradicit, asserens, quod nunquam eum voluit; nec vult in virum habere, sed nubendi alii postulat facultatem. Quum autem iam dictus puer, sicut tuae literae continebant, nondum ad XIV.

From the letters of your fraternity we have received that a certain girl at age 12. was sworn and betrothed to a certain boy of 9. or 10. years, and as time advanced, by the will of the parents rather than by her own, as she asserts, she was led to the house of the father of the aforesaid boy, where, unwilling and reluctant, as you set forth that you heard from her own mouth, and impelled as much by persuasions as by the threats of the parents, she stayed for a year and more, and at length departing from there, returned to her own home. Admonished indeed by her mother, and by you afterward, as you assert, she utterly refuses to return to him, asserting that she never wanted him; nor does she wish to have him as a husband, but she asks the faculty of marrying another. But since the already-mentioned boy, as your letters contained, had not yet reached 14.

annum aetatis suae pervenerit, nec unquam ad eandem puellam carnaliter accessum habuerit, discretioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si memorata puella per te ad hoc studiose commonita, ut, donec compleat idem puer annum XIV. suae aetatis, exspectet, ad commonitionem tuam non duxerit exspectandum, ei secundum ea, quae proposita sunt, accipiendi alium virum in maritum auctoritate nostra liberam tribuas facultatem. Dat.

since he has not yet reached the 14th year of his age, nor has he ever had carnal access to the same girl, we thus respond to your discretion, that, if the aforesaid girl, by you diligently admonished to this, that she wait until the same boy completes the 14th year of his age, does not deem it to be waited for at your admonition, you should grant to her, according to the things that have been proposed, the free faculty of taking another man as a husband by our authority. Given.

Veronae.

At Verona.

CAP. XII. Sponsalia, contracta cum minore septennio, per cohabitationem mutuam post septennium convalescunt, et inducunt publicae honestatis iustitiam; solvuntur tamen per matrimonium de praesenti.

CHAPTER 12. Sponsalia (betrothals), contracted with one under seven years of age, convalesce (become valid) through mutual cohabitation after seven years, and bring about the impediment of public honesty; nevertheless they are dissolved by a marriage de praesenti.

Clemens III.

Clement 3.

Duo pueri Guilielmus et Guilielma in tua dioecesi, quemadmodum accepimus, matrimonialiter sunt coniuncti, puero VI., puella vero VII. annum agente; qui simul per tres annos manserunt. Tunc vero pater puellae, subtrahens eam sponso suo, ipsam alteri, M. nomine, copulavit, cum quo per VII.

Two children, William and Wilhelma, in your diocese, as we have received, were matrimonially conjoined, the boy being 6, but the girl 7 years of age; they remained together for three years. Then indeed the girl’s father, withdrawing her from her own betrothed, coupled her to another, by the name M., with whom for 7.

annos quiete permansit. Ipse vero tunc reliquit eandem, quia credebat, eam alium virum habere, illum scilicet, cui prius fuerat desponsata. Prior autem sponsus, ad annos discretionis perveniens, a P. praedecessore tuo contrahendi cum alia licentiam impetravit, qui quandam nomine S. consobrinam prioris in uxorem accepit, et cum ea per aliquod tempus exsistens, eam tamen, ut ipse fatetur, carnaliter non cognovit, licet illa se ab eo cognitam asseveret.

for years she remained quietly. He himself then left her, because he believed that she had another husband, namely the one to whom she had previously been betrothed. But the former betrothed, on reaching the years of discretion, obtained from your predecessor P. license to contract with another, who took as wife a certain woman named S., the cousin of the former, and, being with her for some time, he however, as he himself confesses, did not know her carnally, although she asseverates that she was known by him.

Quum autem pater memoratae Guilielmae eam vidisset a secundo viro relictam, vi praenominatum Guilielmum, cui prius eam desponsaverat, compulit, ut S. neptem suam omnino dimitteret, et ad Guilielmam suam desponsatam rediret: qui postmodum per biennium cohabitavit eidem, ut fertur. Quia igitur in his quid tibi faciendum sit, postulas edoceri, breviter respondemus, quod impediente puerili aetate matrimonium inter G. et G. non fuit. Et licet idem, postquam illa nupsit alii, potuerit aliam ducere in uxorem, tamen, quia dictam S. duxit consobrinam mulieris eiusdem, sive eam cognoverit sive non, non debet tamen cum eadem S. propter publicae honestatis iustitiam remanere, nec ac primam habere regressum, quia alteri fuit legitime copulata. (Et infra:) Quum vero vir caput sit mulieris, et Guilielmus dicat, se non cognovisse prius S. supra dictam: aliam, si voluerit, poterit ducere in uxorem, et S. viro legitimo copulari; post separationem vero pro vitando populi scandalo utrique ad tempus est poenitentia iniungenda.

When, however, the father of the aforesaid Guilielma saw that she had been left by her second husband, by force he compelled the aforenamed William, to whom he had previously betrothed her, to dismiss altogether S., his niece, and to return to his betrothed Guilielma; who afterwards cohabited with her for two years, as it is said. Because therefore in these matters you ask to be instructed what you should do, we briefly answer that, childish age impeding, there was no matrimony between G. and G. And although the same man, after she married another, could have taken another as wife, nevertheless, because he took the said S., a cousin of that same woman, whether he knew her or not, he ought not, however, to remain with that same S. on account of the justice of public honesty, nor to have a return to the first, because she was legitimately coupled to another. (And below:) But since the man is the head of the woman, and William says that he did not know the aforesaid S. beforehand: another, if he wishes, he can take as wife, and S. be coupled to a legitimate husband; but after the separation, for the avoiding of the people’s scandal, to each for a time penance is to be enjoined.

Si vero legitime constaret, ipsam S. ab eo sive post sive antea cognitam exstitisse, neutri vivente altero dabitur licentia contrahendi. Remanebit ergo Guilielma cum M., imposita tamen ipsi M. ad tempus poenitentia competenti, qui pro sua opinione sola Guilielmam, iudicio ecclesiae non requisito, perniciose dimisit.

If, however, it were legitimately established that S. herself had been known by him, either afterward or before, neither, while the other is living, will be given license to contract marriage. Therefore Guilielma will remain with M., with however a suitable penance imposed for a time upon M. himself, who, on his own opinion alone, without the judgment of the Church being sought, perniciously dismissed Guilielma.

CAP. XIII. Accusari non potest matrimonium, quod non est, ut si cum minori septennio sit contractum; denunciari tamen potest impedimentum, ne contrahatur in posterum.

CHAPTER 13. A marriage which is not cannot be accused, as, for instance, if it has been contracted with one under seven years; nevertheless the impediment can be denounced, lest it be contracted in the future.

Innocentius III. C. et P. quondam filiis Malebrancae.

Innocent III. To C. and P., sons of the late Malebranca.

Ad dissolvendum quod factum fuerat inter I. filium nobilis viri Leonis [de Monumento] et S. filiam quondam Matthaei [de Fortebrachio] super matrimonio contrahendo, in nostra et fratrum nostrorum praesentia fuit ex parte vestra propositum, quod, quum dicta puella nondum ad septennium pervenisset, cum ipsa nec matrimonium contrahi nec sponsalia potuere. Defuit etiam consanguineorum assensus, qui praecipue sunt in talibus requirendi. Quodsi et aetas sufficiens exstitisset, et consanguineorum intervenisset assensus, personae tamen non sunt legitimae ad matrimonium contrahendum, linea consanguinitatis obstante. Accusatione vero, pro puella super consanguinitate proposita, et tam ex parte iuvenis quam ex parte puellae consanguinitatis gradibus computatis, quum eam vellet idoneis testibus comprobare, praefatus I. multas exceptiones proposuit, per quas nitebatur vos ab accusatione multipliciter removere.

For dissolving what had been done between I., son of the noble man Leo [of Monumentum], and S., daughter of the late Matthew [of Fortebrachium], concerning the contracting of matrimony, it was set forth on your part in our presence and in that of our brothers, that, since the said girl had not yet reached seven years, neither could matrimony be contracted with her nor could sponsalia (betrothal) take place. The assent of the kinsmen was also lacking, who are especially to be required in such matters. And if both sufficient age had existed and the assent of the kinsmen had intervened, nevertheless the persons are not legitimate to contract matrimony, the line of consanguinity standing in the way. As to the accusation, however, brought on behalf of the girl concerning consanguinity, and with the degrees of consanguinity computed both on the side of the youth and on the side of the girl, when it was wished to prove it by suitable witnesses, the aforesaid I. put forward many exceptions, by which he strove in many ways to remove you from the accusation.

Quumque super exceptionibus ipsius fuisset utrinque diutius disputatum, auditis et intellectis, quaecunque fuerunt hinc inde proposita, de consilio fratrum nostrorum Interloquendo pronunciamus, inter dictos iuvenem et puellam nec matrimonium, nec sponsalia fuisse contracta, quum constet, puellam nondum ad septennium pervenisse. Quocirca nec accusatio locum habebat, quum non esset quod posset legitime accusari; denunciari tamen poterat consanguinitas, ut interdiceretur matrimonium contrahendum. Ad denunciationem ergo legitime probandam festum omnium Sanctorum, proxime venturum, terminum assignamus salvis exceptionibus, non solum propositis, sed etiam proponendis.

And when there had been longer disputation on both sides about his exceptions, and, the things which had been proposed on either side having been heard and understood, by the counsel of our brothers by an interlocutory pronouncement we declare that between the said youth and girl neither marriage nor betrothal was contracted, since it is established that the girl had not yet reached the seventh year. Wherefore the accusation had no place, since there was nothing that could be legitimately accused; nevertheless consanguinity could be denounced, so that the contracting of marriage might be interdicted. Therefore, for the denunciation to be legitimately proved, the Feast of All Saints, next to come, we assign as the term, saving the exceptions not only proposed, but also to be proposed.

Ne vero quicquam in puellam interim attentetur, auctoritate apostolica interdicimus firmiter, ne in ipso negotio de novo procedatur ulterius, donec vel a denunciatione cessetur, vel ea probata ordine iudiciario procedatur. Quodsi contra interdictum nostrum in praeiudicium ipsius aliquid fuerit attentatum, id irritum esse decernimus et viribus omnino carere.

Lest indeed anything be attempted against the girl in the meantime, by apostolic authority we interdict firmly that in the matter itself there be no proceeding anew further, until either the denunciation ceases, or, once it has been proven, proceedings are taken in judicial order. But if, against our interdict, anything shall have been attempted to her prejudice, we decree that to be null and to lack all force.

CAP. XIV. Si quis per verba de praesenti contrahit cum impubere, in qua aetatem malitia non supplet, intelligitur non matrimonium, sed sponsalia contraxisse, etiamsi subarrhatio intercesserit.

CHAPTER 14. If anyone contracts by words of the present with a minor, in whom malice does not supply age, he is understood to have contracted not matrimony, but sponsals, even if subarrhation has intervened.

Idem Episcopo Abbatensi.

The same to the Bishop of Abbadia.

Tuae nobis exhibitae literae continebant, quod quidam vir nobilis filiam suam, circiter XII. annos habentem, cuidam viro nobili desponsavit, qui subarrhavit eandem consensu mutuo accedente. Sed nuptiis aliquantulum prorogatis, pater puellae viam est universae carnis ingressus.

Your letters, presented to us, contained that a certain noble man betrothed his daughter, about 12 years of age, to a certain man of noble rank, who subarrhed the same, mutual consent intervening. But, the nuptials having been somewhat prorogated, the girl's father entered upon the way of all flesh.

Eo autem rebus humanis exempto, puellae avunculus supra dictae ipsam alteri matrimonio copulavit, et ille, qui prius desponsaverat eandem, cum ipsius matre contraxit. Tuus autem praedecessor attendens, quod cum ea non poterat permanere, cuius filiam legitime desponsaverat, inter eos divortii sententiam promulgavit. Postmodum autem mortuo viro secundo, qui supra dictam puellam duxerat in uxorem, ipsa se tertio copulavit, illo vivente, qui eam primitus desponsarat.

But when he had been exempted from human affairs, the maternal uncle of the aforesaid girl coupled her in matrimony to another; and he who had earlier betrothed the same contracted with her mother. Your predecessor, however, considering that he could not remain with her whose daughter he had lawfully betrothed, promulgated a sentence of divorce between them. Afterwards, when the second husband—who had taken the above-said girl to wife—had died, she joined herself in a third union, while the one who had first betrothed her was still living.

Ceterum tam ipsa, quam idem te duxerunt humiliter consulendum, utrum licite [simul] valeant commorari; tu vero, deliberatione habita, respondisti, quod, sponso primo vivente, alteri non potuit legitime copulari. Sed quia tua ecclesia postulavit, ut super hoc apostolicam sedem consuleres, procedere ulterius distulisti, nobis humiliter supplicans, ut super hoc tibi rescribere dignaremur. Quia vero per ea, quae superius sunt expressa, nobis pro certo constare non potuit, cuius aetatis esset puella, quum eidem viro exstitit desponsata, quum dicatur, quod circiter XII. annos habebat, utrumne prudentia tunc in illa suppleret aetatem: fraternitati tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si puella tunc nubilis erat aetatis, et inter eam et primum virum legitimus intervenit de praesenti consensus, absque dubio inter eos erat legitimum matrimonium contractum, etsi carnalis commixtio non fuerit subsecuta.

Moreover, both she herself and the same man brought you to be humbly consulted, whether they may licitly [together] be able to dwell; but you, deliberation having been held, answered that, with the first betrothed living, she could not be lawfully coupled to another. But because your church requested that you consult the Apostolic See concerning this, you deferred to proceed further, humbly beseeching us that we might deign to write back to you concerning this. But since by the things which are expressed above it could not be established to us for certain of what age the girl was when she stood betrothed to that man, since it is said that she had about 12 years, whether prudence then in her supplied for age: we respond thus to your fraternity, that, if the girl was then of marriageable age, and between her and the first man a legitimate de praesenti consent intervened, without doubt between them a legitimate marriage was contracted, even if carnal commixture had not followed.

Si vero puella nubilis non erat aetatis, quum saepe fatus vir desponsavit eandem, et aetatem in ea prudentia non supplebat, procul dubio inter eos non coniugium, sed sponsalia contracta fuerunt, quamvis ab ipso viro eadem puella fuerit subarrhata. Quocirca, si iuxta primum modum matrimonium cum illo contraxit; eo vivente non potuit rite cum alio foedus contrahere coniugale; quod si iuxta modum secundum sponsalitia solummodo contracta fuerunt coniugium, quod inter illam et alium exstitit celebratum, debet legitimum reputari, dummodo aliud canonicum non obsistat. [Dat. Rom.

If indeed the girl was not of marriageable age, when the oft-mentioned man betrothed her, and prudence did not supply for age in her, beyond doubt there was contracted between them not a marriage but sponsals, although the same girl had been subarrhated by that man. Wherefore, if according to the first manner she contracted marriage with him, while he was living she could not rightly contract a conjugal covenant with another; but if according to the second manner only sponsals were contracted, the marriage which was celebrated between her and another ought to be reckoned legitimate, provided no other canonical matter stands in the way. [Given at Rome.

ap. S. Petr. VI. Id. Maii Ao. IX. 1206.]

at St. Peter’s, May 10, Year 9. 1206.]

TITULUS III. DE CLANDESTINA DESPONSATIONE.

TITLE 3. ON CLANDESTINE BETROTHAL.

CAP. I. Pro clandestino matrimonio non praesumitur, sed illud alleganti incumbit onus probandi.

CHAPTER 1. A clandestine marriage is not presumed, but the burden of proof lies upon the one alleging it.

Ex concilio Arelatensi.

From the Council of Arles.

Si quis clam desponsaverit aliquam, et mulier vel vir negat huiusmodi desponsationem, viro tantum incumbit probatio.

If anyone shall have secretly betrothed a woman, and the woman or the man denies a betrothal of this sort, the burden of proof is incumbent upon the man alone.

CAP. II. Qui matrimonium clandestine contraxerunt, altero negante vel utroque, non apparente legitima exinde probatione, simul cohabitare ab ecclesia non compelluntur; et, si illud publicaverint, tanquam in conspectu ecclesiae factum comprobabitur, nisi rationabilis causa subsit, quae impediat. H. d. literae inhaerendo.

CHAPTER 2. Those who have contracted matrimony clandestinely, with one party denying it or both, no lawful proof thereof appearing, are not compelled by the church to cohabit together; and, if they shall have made it public, it will be approved as though done in the sight of the church, unless a reasonable cause be present to prevent it. This holds by adhering to the letter.

Alexander III. Belvacensi Episcopo.

Alexander III. To the Bishop of Beauvais.

Quod nobis ex tua parte significatum est, ut de clandestinis matrimoniis dispensare deberemus, non videmus, quae dispensatio super his sit adhibenda. Si enim matrimonia ita occulte contrahuntur, quod exinde legitima probatio non appareat, ii, qui ea contrahunt, ab ecclesia non sunt aliquatenus compellendi. Verum si personae contrahentium hoc voluerint publicare, nisi rationabilis et legitima causa praepediat, ab ecclesia recipienda sunt et comprobanda, tanquam a principio in ecclesiae conspectu contracta. Si qui autem etc. (cf. c.9.Qui filii IV.17.)

As to what has been signified to us on your part, that we ought to dispense with respect to clandestine marriages, we do not see what dispensation should be applied in these matters. If indeed marriages are contracted so secretly that no lawful proof appears therefrom, those who contract them are not to be compelled in any way by the church. But if the persons of the contracting parties should wish to make this public, unless a reasonable and legitimate cause prevents, they are to be received and approved by the church, as though contracted from the beginning in the sight of the church. If however any, etc. (cf. c.9. Qui filii 4. 17.)

CAP. III. Quum matrimonia suut contrahenda, debent per presbyteros in ecclesia edicta proponi, assignato termino, infra quem qui voluerit impedire impedimentum opponat, et, si probabilis coniectura fuerit de impedimento, interdicatur testimonium, donec de hoc cognoscatur. Hoc primo usque ad §. Si quis.

CHAPTER 3. When matrimonies are to be contracted, edicts are to be proposed through the presbyters in the church, with a term assigned, within which whoever will to impede may oppose an impediment; and, if there shall be a probable conjecture about an impediment, let the testimony be interdicted, until cognizance be taken of this. This first up to §. If anyone.

- (Si quis etc.:) Si in gradu prohibito matrimonium clandestine vel contra interdictum, de quo supra, contractum fuerit, etiam per ignorantes de impedimento, nati ex illo matrimonio sunt illegitimi. Idem est, si ambo parentes sciunt impedimentum matrimonii, licet in conspectu ecclesiae contrahant. H. d. usque ad §. Sane.

- (If anyone etc.:) If, in a prohibited degree, a marriage is contracted clandestinely or against the interdict mentioned above—even by persons ignorant of the impediment—the children born from that marriage are illegitimate. The same holds if both parents know the impediment to marriage, even though they contract in the sight of the church. This applies up to §. Indeed.

Abbas. - (Sane etc.:) Sacerdos, qui contempserit prohibere matrimonia interdicta, et quilibet clericus etiam regularis, qui interfuit, per triennium a beneficio suspenduntur, et, si culpa exegerit, etiam gravius puniuntur; ipsi etiam contrahentes contra hoc cap. etiam alias licite puniendi sunt, et idem in calumniose denunciantibus.

Abbot. - (Indeed etc.:) A priest who has scorned to prohibit interdicted marriages, and any cleric, even a regular, who was present, are suspended from benefice for three years, and, if the fault shall require, are punished even more gravely; the contracting parties themselves, acting against this chapter, are also otherwise lawfully to be punished, and the same applies to those who denounce calumniously.

H. d. usque ad finem. Abbas.

In this chapter up to the end. The Abbot.

Innocentius III. in concilio generali.

Innocent 3 in the general council.

Quum inhibitio copulae coniugalis sit in ultimis tribus gradibus revocata, eam in aliis volumus districte servari. Unde praedecessorum nostrorum vestigiis inhaerendo, clandestina coniugia penitus inhibemus, prohibentes etiam, ne quis sacerdos talibus interesse praesumat. Quare specialem quorundam locorum consuetudinem ad alia generaliter prorogando statuimus, ut, quum matrimonia fuerint contrahenda, in ecclesiis per presbyteros publice proponantur, competenti termino praefinito, ut infra illum, qui voluerit et valuerit, legitimum impedimentum opponat, et ipsi presbyteri nihilominus investigent, utrum aliquod impedimentum obsistat.

Since the inhibition of the conjugal union has been revoked in the last three degrees, we will that it be strictly observed in the others. Wherefore, adhering to the footsteps of our predecessors, we utterly inhibit clandestine marriages, prohibiting also that any priest presume to take part in such. Therefore, by prorogating to others in general the special custom of certain places, we decree that, when marriages are to be contracted, they be publicly proposed in the churches by the presbyters, with a fitting term preappointed, so that within that term whoever will and shall be able may oppose a legitimate impediment, and the presbyters themselves nonetheless investigate whether any impediment stands in the way.

Quum autem apparuerit probabilis coniectura contra copulam contrahendam, contractus interdicatur expresse, donec, quid fieri debeat super eo, manifestis constiterit documentis. §. 1. Si quis vero huiusmodi clandestina vel interdicta coniugia inire praesumpserit in gradu prohibito, etiam ignoranter, soboles de tali coniunctione suscepta prorsus illegitima censeatur, de parentum ignorantia nullum habitura subsidium, quum illi taliter contrahendo non expertes scientiae, vel saltem affectatores ignorantiae videantur. Pari modo proles illegitima censeatur, si ambo parentes, impedimentum scientes legitimum, praeter omne interdictum, etiam in conspectu ecclesiae contrahere praesumpserunt.

But when a probable conjecture shall have appeared against the conjugal bond to be contracted, let the contract be expressly interdicted, until what ought to be done about it shall have been established by manifest documents. §. 1. But if anyone shall have presumed to enter marriages of this sort, clandestine or interdicted, in a prohibited degree, even ignorantly, the offspring received from such a conjunction is to be deemed utterly illegitimate, to have no assistance from the parents’ ignorance, since they, in contracting in such a manner, seem not to be without knowledge, or at least to be affectators of ignorance. In like manner the offspring is to be deemed illegitimate, if both parents, knowing the lawful impediment, beyond every interdict, even in the sight of the church, presumed to contract.

§. 2. Sane, si parochialis sacerdos tales coniunctiones prohibere contempserit, aut quilibet etiam regularis, qui eis praesumpserit interesse, per triennium ab officio suspendatur, gravius puniendus, si culpae qualitas postulaverit. Sed et his, qui taliter praesumpserint etiam in gradu concesso copulari, condigna poenitentia iniungatur. Si quis autem ad impediendam legitimam copulam malitiose impedimentum obiecerit, canonicam non effugiet ultionem.

§. 2. Indeed, if the parochial priest shall have scorned to prohibit such conjunctions, or any even regular who shall have presumed to be present at them, let him be suspended from office for three years, to be punished more gravely if the quality of the fault shall have required. But also upon those who shall have presumed thus to be coupled even in a permitted degree, let condign penance be enjoined. If, however, anyone, for the purpose of impeding a legitimate coupling, shall have maliciously alleged an impediment, he shall not escape canonical retribution.

TITULUS IV. DE SPONSA DUORUM.

TITLE 4. ON THE BRIDE OF TWO.

CAP. I. Contrahens successive per verba de praesenti cum duabus, tenetur adhaerere primae. Si autem primo contraxit per verba de futuro, secundo per verba de praesenti, adhaerebit secundae.

CHAPTER 1. Contracting successively by words of the present with two, he is bound to adhere to the first. But if first he contracted by words of the future, and second by words of the present, he will adhere to the second.

Augustinus de fide pactionis et consensus.

Augustine on the good faith of paction and of consensus.

Duobus modis dicitur fides pactionis et consensus. Si aliquis alicui mulieri fidem fecerit pactionis, non debet aliam ducere. Si aliam duxerit, poenitentiam debet agere de fide mentita; maneat tamen cum illa, quam duxit.

Faith of paction and of consent is spoken of in two ways. If someone has given his faith of paction to some woman, he ought not to marry another. If he has married another, he ought to do penitence for the feigned faith; yet let him remain with the one whom he married.

Non enim rescindi debet tantum sacramentum. Si autem fecerit fidem consensus, non licet ei aliam ducere. Si autem duxerit, dimittet ipsam, et adhaerebit uxori priori.

For such a sacrament ought not to be rescinded. If, however, he has made a pledge of consent, it is not permitted to him to take another in marriage. If, however, he has taken one, he shall dismiss her and shall cleave to his former wife.

Est autem fides pactionis, quando aliquis promittit alicui fidem, quod eam ducet, si permiserit eum rem secum habere, vel etiam pro consensu. Fides autem consensus est, quando, etsi non stringit manum, corde tamen et ore consentit ducere, et mutuo se concedunt unus alii, et mutuo se suscipiunt.

But the faith of a pact is when someone promises a woman a pledge that he will lead her (marry her), if she permits him to have relations with her, or even in exchange for her consent. But the faith of consent is when, even if he does not clasp the hand, yet in heart and in mouth he consents to lead her, and mutually they concede themselves one to the other, and mutually they receive one another.

CAP. II. Ponit poenitentiam illius, qui alterius sponsam de praesenti sibi accepit in uxorem; nec unquam in uxorem eam habere potest. H. d. iuxta literam.

CHAPTER 2. He sets penitence for him who has taken another’s betrothed “by words of the present” to himself as a wife; nor can he ever have her as a wife. This holds according to the letter.

Ex Brocardo libro XXX. Accepisti illam in uxorem tibi, quam alter sibi desponsatam habuerat. Dimitte illam, quia nunquam potest tibi fieri legitima, et XL. dies in pane et aqua, quod carinam vocant, cum septem sequentibus annis poeniteas.

From the Brocard, book 30. You have taken to wife for yourself her whom another had had betrothed to himself. Dismiss her, because she can never become lawful for you, and do penance—40 days on bread and water, which they call the carina—together with seven subsequent years.

CAP. III. Sponsalia de praesenti non solvuntur per sequens matrimonium, etiam carnali copula consummatum.

CHAPTER 3. Present-tense sponsals are not dissolved by a subsequent marriage, even one consummated by carnal copula.

Alexander III. Salernitano Archiepiscopo.

Alexander III. To the Archbishop of Salerno.

Licet praeter solitum et amplius solito multis simus et variis negotiis praepediti ita, quod non sit nobis facile aliquorum consultationibus respondere, illa tamen speciali gratia, quam ad personam tuam habemus, et caritate cogimur fraterna, quid sentiamus de his, super quibus consuluit nos prudentia tua, tibi, quantumcunque aliis simus intenti, praesentibus literis aperire. Consuluisti nos siquidem, utrum, si inter virum et mulierem, praestito vel non praestito sacramento, legitimus consensus intervenerit de praesenti, carnali copula non secuta, liceat mulieri alii nubere, vel, si nupserit alii, et carnalis fuerit copula subsecuta, an ab ipso debeat separari. Super hoc autem Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si inter virum et mulierem legitimus consensus sub ea solennitate, quae fieri solet, praesente scilicet sacerdote aut etiam notario, sicut etiam in quibusdam locis adhuc observatur, coram idoneis testibus, interveniat de praesenti, ita quidem, quod unus alterum in suo mutuo consensu verbis consuetis expresse recipiat, utroque dicente: "ego te accipio in meam, et: "ego te accipio in meum,"' sive sit iuramentum interpositum sive non, non licet mulieri alii nubere.

Although beyond the usual and more than the usual we are impeded by many and various businesses, such that it is not easy for us to respond to the consultations of some, nevertheless by that special grace which we have toward your person, and we are compelled by brotherly charity, to disclose to you in these present letters what we think concerning those matters about which your prudence has consulted us, however much we are intent on other things. You have indeed consulted us whether, if between a man and a woman, with the sacrament having been given or not given, a legitimate consensus de praesenti has intervened, with no carnal copula following, it is permitted for the woman to marry another; or, if she has married another and a carnal copula has followed, whether she ought to be separated from him. Upon this, however to your Consultation we thus respond, that, if between a man and a woman a legitimate consensus intervenes de praesenti under that solemnity which is wont to be done, namely with a priest present or even a notary, as is still observed in certain places, before suitable witnesses, indeed in such a way that each expressly receives the other in their mutual consensus with the customary words, each saying: “I take you as mine,” and: “I take you as mine,” whether an oath be interposed or not, it is not permitted for the woman to marry another.

Et si nupserit, etiamsi carnalis copula sit secuta, ab eo separari debet, et, ut ad primum redeat, ecclesiastica districtione compelli, quamvis alii aliter sentiant, et aliter etiam a quibusdam praedecessoribus nostris sit aliquando iudicatum. Verum etc. (cf. c.2.de conv. coni.

And if she has married, even if carnal coupling has followed, she ought to be separated from him, and, that she may return to the first husband, to be compelled by ecclesiastical discipline, although others otherwise may opine, and even otherwise it has at times been judged by certain of our predecessors. But, etc. (cf. c. 2. de conv. coni.

III. 32.]

3. 32.]

CAP. IV. Ei, qui appellat in causa matrimoniali, interdici debet, ne aliud matrimonium contrahat lite pendente, et si contraxerit, debet separari.

CHAPTER 4. He who appeals in a matrimonial cause ought to be interdicted, lest he contract another marriage while the suit is pending; and if he has contracted it, he ought to be separated.

Idem Genuensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Genoa.

Tua fraternitas nos consuluit, quid de his agere debeas, qui desponsant aliquas mulieres, et processu temporis, antequam eas ducant vel cognoscant, accipiunt alias in uxores. Super quo utique consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si vir et mulier sese recipiunt expresso consensu de praesenti mutuo, neuter eorum altero superstite poterit ad alia vota transire, etsi possit ad monasterium transmigrare. Verum si inter ipsos non accessit consensus mutuus de praesenti, sed promissio de futuro, videlicet quod uterque dixit alteri: "ego te recipiam in meam," et: "ego te in meum," si alius mulierem illam desponsaverit et traduxerit, etiamsi inter primos iuramentum fuerit, sicut diximus, de futuro, huius desponsationis intuitu secundum non poterit matrimonium separari, sed eis est de violatione fidei poenitentia iniungenda.

Your fraternity has consulted us, what you ought to do concerning those who espouse certain women, and with the process of time, before they take them in marriage or know them, take others as wives. Concerning which we assuredly thus respond to your consultation, that, if a man and a woman receive each other by an express mutual consent de praesenti, neither of them, the other surviving, will be able to pass over to other vows, although one may migrate to a monastery. But if between them there has not come a mutual consent de praesenti, but a promise de futuro, namely that each said to the other: "I will receive you as mine," and: "and I you as mine," if another shall have espoused that woman and led her home, even if between the first there was an oath, as we said, de futuro, in view of this espousal the second marriage cannot be separated, but for the violation of faith penance is to be enjoined upon them.

De his vero, qui coram te super desponsatione, facta per consensum mutuum de praesenti, controversiam movent, et appellatione pendente, quam ante sententiam vel cognitionem causae ad sedem apostolicam interponunt, accipiunt alias in uxores, hoc arbitramur agendum, ut, si amodo in tali casu duxerint appellandum, eis in ecclesia publice interdicas arctius, ne ante decisionem causae aliud contrahant matrimonium. Et si contra interdictum ecclesiae ita publice factum venire praesumpserint, matrimonium tam praesumptuose contractum poteris irritare. [De illis autem etc.

But concerning those who before you raise a controversy about an espousal made by mutual consent in the present, and, with an appeal pending—which they interpose to the Apostolic See before sentence or cognition of the case—take other women as wives, we judge this to be done: that, if henceforth in such a case they shall have determined to appeal, you should publicly in church interdict them more strictly, lest before the decision of the case they contract another marriage. And if they should presume to go against the interdict of the Church thus publicly made, you can annul the marriage so presumptuously contracted. [But concerning those, etc.

cf. c. 9. de desp. imp. IV.2.]

cf. can. 9. on desp. imp. 4.2.]

CAP. V. Qui duas per verba de praesenti desponsat, primam desponsatam habebit in uxorem, etiamsi prius secundam cognoverit: nec valet contraria consuetudo. Et hoc ultimum additur ad cap.

CHAPTER 5. He who betroths two by words of the present will have the first betrothed as wife, even if he has previously known the second: nor does a contrary custom avail. And this last is added to the chapter.

Licet supra eodem.

It is permitted above in the same.

Innocentius III. Mutinensi Episcopo.

Innocent 3. To the Bishop of Modena.

Tuas dudum (Et infra:) De consuetudine, quae diu in Mutinensi obtinuit civitate, ut, si quis iuraret se aliquam ducturum, et citra carnis copulam desponsasset, si consequenter desponsasset aliam et aliam cognovisset, primo cognita adiudicaretur viro, non quae prius exstitit desponsata. (Et infra:) Ne vero turpis sit pars, quae suo non congruit universo, et ecclesia Mutinensis tenere debeat humiliter et servare quod beati Petri sedem et suam metropolim sequi viderit et docere: in matrimoniis de cetero contrahendis illud te volumus observare, ut, postquam inter legitimas personas consensus legitimus intervenerit de praesenti, qui sufficit in talibus iuxta canonicas sanctiones, et, si solus defuerit, cetera, etiam cum ipso coitu celebrata, frustrantur, si personae iunctae legitime cum aliis postea de facto contrahant, quod prius de iure factum fuerat non poterit irritari.

Tuas dudum (And below:) On the custom which for a long time obtained in the city of Modena, that, if someone should swear that he would lead a certain woman in marriage, and had betrothed her short of carnal copula, if thereafter he had betrothed another and had known the other, the one first known would be adjudicated to the man, not she who had previously stood as betrothed. (And below:) Lest, indeed, the part be base which is not congruent with its own whole, and that the Church of Modena ought humbly to hold and to keep what it shall have seen the See of blessed Peter and its own metropolis to follow and to teach: in marriages to be contracted henceforth we wish you to observe this, that, after lawful consent in the present has intervened between lawful persons, which in such matters suffices according to canonical sanctions, and, if it alone be lacking, the rest, even though celebrated with coitus itself, are frustrated, if persons joined legitimately should afterward de facto contract with others, that which had previously been done de iure cannot be nullified.

TITULUS V. DE CONDITIONIBUS APPOSITIS IN DESPONSATIONE VEL IN ALIIS CONTRACTIBUS.

TITLE 5. ON CONDITIONS APPENDED IN BETROTHAL OR IN OTHER CONTRACTS.

CAP. I. Defectus turpis conditionis, in contractu matrimonii appositae, non vitiat matrimonium, sed vitiatur.

CHAPTER 1. The defect of a shameful condition, appended in the contract of matrimony, does not vitiate the matrimony, but is vitiated.

Ex concilio Africano.

From the African council.

Quicunque sub conditionis nomine aliquam desponsaverit, et eam postea relinquere voluerit, dicimus quod frangatur conditio, et desponsatio irrefragabiliter teneatur.

Whoever under the name of a condition has betrothed some woman, and has wished to leave her afterwards, we say that the condition is broken, and the desponsation is to be held irrefragably.

CAP. II. Servus manumissus ea conditione, ut fiat monachus et monasterio serviat, alias in servitutem redeat, si, hoc acceptato, monachus factus sit, manumittentis voluntatem cogitur observare.

CHAPTER 2. A slave manumitted on this condition, that he become a monk and serve the monastery, otherwise return into servitude, if, this having been accepted, he has become a monk, is compelled to observe the will of the manumitter.

Gregorius Episcopo Spoletano.

Gregory to the Bishop of Spoleto.

Quum sit proprium (Et infra:) [Sed] si forte iniuste se excommunicatum quis quaeritur, [fraternitas vestra] subtili indagatione cognoscat; et ita causam cognita veritate disponat, ut [nec iniustitia diu in insontis afflictionem praevaleat,] nec disciplinae vigor [aut] frangi, aut [indiscreta valeat praesumptione] dissolvi (Et infra:) H. presbyter [nobis] conquestus est, diaconum quendam manumisisse duo [iuris sui] mancipia sub hac conditione, ut monachi fierent, et in eo monasterio, ubi ipse fuerat, permanerent, adiiciens, ut, si quis contra faceret, servituti iterum [per omnia] subderetur; atque unum ex his hac conditione despecta monasterium [temerario ausu] deseruisse, et se inter clericos sociasse. Tu ergo, si ita esse repereris, sic te exhibe, ut nec illi monasterium deserendi sit facultas, et manumittentis voluntas nihilominus conservata non valeat praeteriri.

Since it is proper (And below:) [But] if perchance anyone complains that he has been unjustly excommunicated, [your fraternity] should ascertain by subtle investigation; and so dispose the case with the truth known, that [neither may injustice for long prevail to the affliction of an innocent person,] nor the vigor of discipline [either] be broken, or [be able by indiscreet presumption] to be dissolved (And below:) H., a presbyter, [to us] has complained that a certain deacon manumitted two [of his own right] slaves under this condition, that they become monks and remain in that monastery where he himself had been, adding that, if anyone should act contrary, he be subjected again [in all respects] to servitude; and that one of these, this condition being despised, has abandoned the monastery [with rash audacity], and has associated himself among the clerics. You therefore, if you find it to be so, conduct yourself thus, that neither shall he have the faculty of deserting the monastery, and the will of the manumitter, nonetheless preserved, may not be able to be set aside.

CAP. III. Qui iuravit aliquam id uxorem accipere, si centum sibi donaverit, centum non datis, recipere non tenetur, nisi postea pure consenserit, vel eam cognoverit.

CHAPTER 3. He who has sworn to take some woman to wife, if she shall have given him a hundred, the hundred not having been given, is not held to receive her, unless afterward he has purely consented, or has carnally known her.

Alexander III. Panormitano Archiepiscopo.

Alexander 3. To the Archbishop of Palermo.

De illis (Et infra:) [cf. c.5.de spons. IV.1.] Si vero aliquis sub huiusmodi verbis iuramentum alicui mulieri praestiterit: "Ego te in uxorem accipiam, si tantum mihi donaveris," reus periurii non habebitur, si eam, nolentem sibi solvere quodiuramento sibi dari petiit, non acceperit in uxorem, nisi consensus de praesenti aut carnalis sit inter eos commixtio subsecuta.

Concerning those (And below:) [cf. ch.5.on espousals 4.1.] If indeed someone has given an oath to some woman under words of this kind: “I will take you as wife, if you will give me so much,” he will not be held guilty of perjury, if he does not take her as wife, she being unwilling to pay him what he sought to be given to him byoath, unless consent de praesenti or carnal commixture between them has followed.

CAP. IV. Res, donata ecclesiae sub modo, statim est ecclesiae, nec revocatur modo non servato, nisi hoc in contractu sit expressum. H. d. secundum veriorem intellectum, et est textus multum notabilis, et valde allegabilis.

CHAPTER 4. A thing, donated to the church under a mode, is immediately the church’s, nor is it revoked if the mode is not observed, unless this be expressed in the contract. Here it is to be taken according to the truer understanding; and it is a very notable text and very allegeable.

Abbas.

Abbot.

Idem.

The same.

Verum quum alicui ecclesiae possessio quaelibet interposita conditione donatur, a donatore donum postea revocari non potest, nisi forte tali sit conditione collatum, quod, ea cessante, possessio debeat revocari.

But when any possession is donated to some church with an interposed condition, the gift cannot afterwards be revoked by the donor, unless perhaps it has been conferred under such a condition that, that ceasing, the possession ought to be revoked.

CAP. V. Contrahens matrimonium sub conditione non improbata non compellitur matrimonium consummare ante conditionis eventum.

CHAPTER 5. One contracting marriage under a condition not disapproved is not compelled to consummate the marriage before the event of the condition.

Urbanus III.

Urban 3.

Super eo vero, quod a nobis similiter postulasti, utrum ille, qui in quandam mulierem consensit, si pater eius videlicet suum praestaret assensum, sit ad consummandum matrimonium compellendus, nihilominus respondemus, quod, quum consensus liber dici non possit, qui in alieno arbitrio reservatur, ac conditionem ipsam canonica non improbent instituta, quae consonet honestati, nisi voluntas patris postmodum intercedat, nequaquam cogendus est ad matrimonium contrahendum. Nam licet felicis memoriae Alexander Papa antecessor noster in suis consultationibus responderit quod sponsalia, interposita conditione contracta, conditione ipsa non impleta, si consensus de praesenti intercedat, vel carnalis copula subsequatur, dissolvi non debent, sed firmiter observari: nequaquam est nostrae definitioni adversum, quum huiusmodi consensus non sit de praesenti habendus, licet per verba de praesenti evidentius exprimatur, qui in alieno arbitrio, non habito, sed habendo, consistit.

Concerning that, indeed, which you requested likewise from us, whether the man who consented with a certain woman, if her father namely should furnish his assent, is to be compelled to consummate the marriage, we answer nonetheless that, since a free consent cannot be said to be that which is reserved in another’s arbitrium, and since the canonical institutes do not disapprove the condition itself, which is consonant with honesty, unless the will of the father should thereafter intervene, he is by no means to be compelled to contract marriage. For although Pope Alexander of happy memory, our predecessor in his consultations, replied that betrothals contracted with a condition interposed, the condition itself not fulfilled, if a consent de praesenti intervenes, or carnal union follows, ought not to be dissolved but to be firmly observed: it is by no means contrary to our definition, since a consent of this kind is not to be held as de praesenti, although it be more evidently expressed by words de praesenti, which consists in another’s arbitrium, not had, but to be had.

CAP. VI. Qui sub honesta conditione sponsalia contrahit, et ante conditionis eventum desponsatam cognoscit, a conditione recedit.

CHAPTER 6. He who contracts sponsals under an honorable condition, and, before the event of the condition, has carnal knowledge of the betrothed, withdraws from the condition.

Innocentius III. Masicano Episcopo.

Innocent III. To the Bishop of Masica.

Per tuas nobis literas intimasti, quod, quum in praesentia tua quaedam mulier, P. nomine, quendam nomine N. postularet in virum, asserens, inter se mutuum de praesenti consensum intervenisse, et carnalem copulam accessisse, vir ipse, quamvis contracta sponsalia et carnalem copulam non negaret, asserebat tamen, se illam in uxorem ducere non teneri, quia sponsalia inter ipsos sub hac fuerunt conditione contracta, si videlicet pater eius et patruus sponsalibus consentirent, sed ipsi, quam cito noverunt, et sponso contradixerunt et sponsae, quod idem vir idoneis nitebatur testibus comprobare. Verum mulier replicabat, quod, licet fides praestita fuerit ab utroque sub conditione praescripta, non tamen sibi fuerat a patre viri vel patruo aliquando contradictum, et ante tempus contradictionis, expressum a testibus, et post illud dicebat inter se carnalem copulam accessisse. Addebat praeterea, quod, licet a principio conditionaliter contraxissent, temporis tamen processu sine conditionis adiectione pure in matrimonium consenserunt, et hoc asserebat se testibus probaturam. Receptis itaque testibus utriusque, quum attestationes mulieris coram te praesentibus duobus examinatoribus faceres publicari, testes, quorum dicta legebantur, illico proclamaverunt, quod ipsi quae legebantur non dixerant, et quae deposuerant scripta non erant.

Through your letters you intimated to us that, when in your presence a certain woman, named P., was petitioning a certain man by name N. as a husband, asserting that between them a mutual consent de praesenti had intervened, and that carnal copulation had taken place, the man himself, although he did not deny that sponsals had been contracted and carnal copulation, nevertheless asserted that he was not bound to take her as a wife, because the sponsals between them had been contracted under this condition, if, namely, her father and paternal uncle should consent to the sponsals; but they, as soon as they learned of it, objected both to the groom and to the bride, which the same man was striving to prove by suitable witnesses. But the woman replied that, although a pledge had been given by both under the aforesaid condition, yet she had not at any time been gainsaid by the man’s father or paternal uncle, and that before the time of objection, as stated by the witnesses, and after that, she said carnal copulation had taken place between them. She added moreover that, although at the beginning they had contracted conditionally, with the passage of time, without the addition of the condition, they consented purely into marriage, and she asserted that she would prove this by witnesses. Accordingly, the witnesses of both parties having been received, when you were having the woman’s attestations published before you, with two examiners present, the witnesses, whose statements were being read, immediately cried out that they had not said what was being read, and that what they had deposed had not been written.

Sed ab uno examinatorum tunc contra eos fuit fortiter obviatum. Et ob hoc mulier postulabat, ut iidem testes vel alii super iisdem capitulis iterum audirentur. Tu autem, hac novitate commotus, sequentem diem partibus praefixisti, quibus in tua praesentia constitutis, omnes examinatores convocari iussisti, sub interminatione anathematis illos obtestans, ut dicerent, si essent illae verae attestationes, quibus obviaverant testes; qui continuo alias attestationes in medium produxerunt.

Sed by one of the examiners there was then stout opposition against them. And on account of this the woman petitioned that the same witnesses, or others, be heard again upon the same articles. But you, moved by this novelty, prefixed the following day for the parties; and when they had been set in your presence, you ordered all the examiners to be convoked, adjuring them under the threat of anathema to say whether those attestations were true which the witnesses had opposed; who forthwith produced other attestations into the midst.

Quibus quum per advocatum viri fuisset obiectum, sicut prioribus fuerat a testibus obviatum, post allegationes multiplices secundae attestationes a partibus admissae fuerunt, et attestationes viri postea publicatae. Porro mulier illi praecipue articulo insistebat, quod ante renunciationem sponsalium et post idem vir carnaliter eam cognoverat, et ex ea filiam procreaverat; quod proprio nitebatur ostendere iuramento. Quia vero super his non solum opiniones varias, sed contrarias accepisti, ad magisterium sedis apostolicae recurrens, humiliter postulasti, quid sentiendum sit in talibus edoceri.

When, with objection having been raised by the man’s advocate—just as the earlier ones had been met by the witnesses—after multiple allegations the second attestations were admitted by the parties, and the man’s attestations were afterwards published. Moreover, the woman was insisting especially on this article, that both before the renunciation of the sponsals and after, the same man had carnally known her, and had begotten a daughter from her; which she strove to show by her own oath. But because concerning these matters you have received not only various but even contrary opinions, having recourse to the magisterium of the Apostolic See, you humbly asked to be instructed what ought to be held in such cases.

Nos autem, inspectis attestationibus, admissis a partibus, quas nobis tuis misisti literis interclusas, Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quum liquido constet per confessionem tam viri quam mulieris, quod post contracta sponsalia carnalis est inter eos copula subsecuta, pro matrimonio est vehementer quidem praesumendum, quia videtur conditione apposita recessisse. Nam etsi probatum sit utrumque per testes, quod, postquam pater et patruus viri contradixere sponsalibus, idem vir mulierem illam carnali coniunctione cognoverit, non est tamen aliquo modo probatum, quod, antequam ipse cognovisset eandem, pater eius et patruus contradicere curavissent. [Dat.

We, however, the attestations inspected, admitted by the parties, which you sent to us enclosed with your letters, we thus respond to your Consultation, that, since it stands clearly by the confession both of the man and of the woman that, after the betrothal was contracted, a carnal copula followed between them, it is to be indeed vehemently presumed in favor of marriage, because the condition appended seems to have receded. For even if it is proved both by witnesses that, after the father and the paternal uncle of the man objected to the betrothal, the same man knew that woman by carnal conjunction, nevertheless it is in no way proved that, before he had known the same, his father and his paternal uncle had taken care to object. [Given.

Ferentini II. Id. Iul. 1203.]

Ferentino, 2 Ides of July 1203.]

CAP. VII. Si in contractu matrimonii apponitur conditio turpis vel impossibilis, habetur pro non adiecta, nisi sit contra substantiam matrimonii, quia tunc vitiat contractum. H. d. hoc capitulum notabile et multum allegabile.

CHAPTER 7. If in the contract of matrimony a base or impossible condition is appended, it is held as not added, unless it is against the substance of matrimony, because then it vitiates the contract. Here it says: this chapter is notable and much allegeable.

Gregorius IX. Si conditiones contra substantiam coniugii inserantur, puta, si alter dicat alteri: "contraho tecum, si generationem prolis evites," vel: "donec inveniam aliam honore vel facultatibus digniorem," aut: "si pro quaestu adulterandam te tradas," matrimonialis contractus, quantumcunque sit favorabilis, caret effectu; licet aliae conditiones appositae in matrimonio, si turpes aut impossibiles fuerint, debeant propter eius favorem pro non adiectis haberi.

Gregory 9. If conditions are inserted against the substance of marriage, for example, if the one say to the other: "I contract with you, if you avoid the generation of offspring," or: "until I find another more worthy in honor or in resources," or: "if you deliver yourself to adultery for gain," the matrimonial contract, however favorable it may be, lacks effect; although other conditions apposed in marriage, if they should be base or impossible, ought, on account of its favor, to be held as not added.

TITULUS VI. QUI CLERICI VEL VOVENTES MATRIMONIUM CONTRAHERE POSSUNT.

TITLE 6. WHICH CLERICS OR THOSE WHO HAVE VOWED CAN CONTRACT MARRIAGE.

CAP. I. Diaconus vel subdiaconus matrimonium contrahere non possunt et, si contraxerint, etiamsi sint facti irregulares, debent separari.

CHAPTER 1. A deacon or subdeacon cannot contract matrimony, and, if they have contracted it, even if they have been made irregular, they ought to be separated.

Alexander III. Remensi Archiepiscopo.

Alexander 3. To the Archbishop of Reims.

De diacono vero, qui in sabbato sancto quendam alium diaconum vulneravit, et uxorem accepit, hoc tuae prudentiae respondemus, quod, si contrito et humiliato corde ad ecclesiam redire voluerit, dimissa illa, quam accepit in uxorem, et absolutione obtenta, iniuncta sibi poenitentia de utroque excessu, post eam peractam dispensative poteris ei diaconatus officium reddere, et, si perfectae vitae et conversationis fuerit, eum in presbyterum ordinare. Subdiaconum autem, sive hominem interfecerit sive non, matrimonium non posse contrahere, sacrorum canonum censura demonstrat. [Parochianos etc. (cf. c.26.de dec.

Concerning the deacon indeed who on Holy Saturday wounded a certain other deacon and took a wife, this we answer to your prudence: that, if with a contrite and humbled heart he is willing to return to the Church, after dismissing that woman whom he took as wife, and absolution having been obtained, with penance enjoined upon him for both excesses, after it has been completed you will be able, by dispensation, to restore to him the office of the diaconate, and, if he be of perfect life and conduct, to ordain him a presbyter. But that a subdeacon, whether he has slain a man or not, cannot contract matrimony, the censure of the sacred canons demonstrates. [Parishioners etc. (cf. ch.26.on tithes.)

III. 30.)]

3. 30.)]

CAP. II. Subdiaconus matrimonium contrahero non potest.

CHAPTER 2. The subdeacon cannot contract matrimony.

Idem Cenomanensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Le Mans.

Ex literarum tuarum tenore accepimus quod F. lator praesentium, in subdiaconatus officio constitutus, quandam sibi in coniugem copulavit. Unde tu, sicut vir providus et discretus, quam in uxorem duxerat, eundem abiurare fecisti. Super quo facto prudentiam tuam in Domino commendamus, per praesentia tibi scripta mandantes, quatenus, si ad canonicam vel monasticum ordinem transire voluerit, et tibi post laudabilem conversationem ipsius visum fuerit, eum ad maiores ordines promoveri concedas.

From the tenor of your letters we have received that F., the bearer of these presents, established in the office of the subdiaconate, has joined to himself as spouse in marriage a certain woman. Whence you, as a prudent and discreet man, made the same man abjure her whom he had taken to wife. Upon which deed we commend your prudence in the Lord, and by these presents written we mandate you, that, if he should wish to pass over to the canonical or monastic order, and if, to you, after his laudable conversation, it shall seem good, you may permit him to be promoted to the greater orders.

Quod si ad religionem se transferre noluerit, eum neque in subdiaconatu ministrare, neque ad altiores permittas ordines promoveri; in minoribus tamen ordinibus poterit ministrare.

But if he is unwilling to transfer himself to religion, you should not permit him either to minister in the subdiaconate or to be promoted to higher orders; nevertheless, he may be able to minister in the minor orders.

CAP. III. Votum solenne impedit et dirimit matrimonium post contractum; votum simplex tantum impedit contrahendum, sed non dirimit post contractum.

CHAPTER 3. A solemn vow impedes and annuls marriage after it has been contracted; a simple vow only impedes its being contracted, but does not annul it after it has been contracted.

Idem Vigoriensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Worcester.

Meminimus, nos ex parte tua quaestionem huiusmodi audivisse, scilicet utrum illi, qui se ad religionem coram episcopo devoverunt transituros, et habitum religionis suscipiunt, si postmodum uxores duxerint, cogendi sint eas dimittere, et ad ecclesiam, cui se contulerint, redire. Super hoc utique Respondemus quod, si quisquam, qui se religioni devovit, et habitu suscepto professionem fecit, postmodum sibi aliquam copulaverit, est cogendus ab ea recedere, et ad ecclesiam, cui se contulit, debet sine contradictione transire. Verum, si nec habitum suscepit, nec professionem, sed votum solummodo fecit, et se ad religionem transiturum promisit, licet postea matrimonium contraxerit, non est cogendus ad religionem transire, et matrimoniale votum rescindere.

We remember, we on your part to have heard a question of this sort, namely whether those who have devoted themselves to religion before the bishop as about to transfer, and who receive the habit of religion, if afterwards they have taken wives, are to be compelled to dismiss them, and to return to the church to which they had betaken themselves. On this indeed We Respond that, if anyone who devoted himself to religion and, the habit having been received, made profession, has afterwards joined himself in marriage to some woman, he is to be compelled to withdraw from her, and to the church to which he betook himself he ought to pass without contradiction. But if he has neither received the habit nor the profession, but only made a simple vow, and promised that he would transfer to religion, although he afterwards has contracted matrimony, he is not to be compelled to pass over to religion and to rescind the matrimonial vow.

CAP. IV. Susceptio habitus professorum extra religionem a non habente potestatem incorporandi religioni, impedit in dubio matrimonium contrahendum, sed non dirimit contractum. H. d. secundum intellectum, quem tenet Panormitanus.

CHAPTER 4. The reception of the habit of the professed outside religion, by one not having the power of incorporating into a religion, impedes, in case of doubt, a marriage to be contracted, but does not annul one contracted. H. d. according to the understanding which Panormitanus holds.

Idem Lucensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Lucca.

Consuluit nos tua fraternitas, quid faciendum sit de nobili muliere, quae post mortem mariti, vestibus pretiosis abiectis, mutavit habitum, et de manu presbyteri velamen assumpsit, sed non renunciavit propriis, nec intravit claustrum, nec in manu alicuius episcopi, abbatis vel abbatissae, aut super altare professa est, vel obedientiam promisit; postmodum vero, elapso anno, quum multorum iuquietationes ferre non posset, et lapsum incontinentiae formidaret, abiecto religionis habitu, cuidam nobili solenniter per licentiam ecclesiae nupsit. Super hoc itaque Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod sicut simplex votum matrimonium impedit contrahendum, et non dirimit iam contractum, ita habitus, sine professione susceptus, ne contrahatur impedit, sed contractum nequaquam dissolvit. [De cetero etc. (cf. c.11.De homic.

Thy fraternity consulted us, what ought to be done about a noble woman, who, after the death of her husband, with costly garments cast aside, changed her habit, and from the hand of a presbyter took the veil, but did not renounce her own (goods), nor entered a cloister, nor in the hand of any bishop, abbot or abbess, or upon the altar did she profess, or promise obedience; afterward indeed, a year having elapsed, since she could not bear the disquietudes of many, and feared a lapse of incontinence, with the religious habit cast off, she solemnly, by license of the church, married a certain noble. On this matter, therefore we thus respond to thy Consultation, that just as a simple vow impedes marriage from being contracted, and does not sever one already contracted, so a habit, assumed without profession, impedes lest it be contracted, but by no means dissolves one contracted. [As to the rest, etc. (cf. c.11.On homicide.]

V. 12.)]

5. 12.)]

CAP. V. Votum castitatis de praesenti impedit matrimonium contrahendum; ecclesia tamen ex causa matrimonium contrahi quandoque permittit. H. d. inhaerendo literae.

CHAPTER 5. A vow of chastity in the present impedes the contracting of marriage; the Church, however, for cause, sometimes permits marriage to be contracted. Here, by adhering to the letter.

Idem.

The same.

Veniens ad praesentiam nostram M. eremita sua nobis assertione proposuit, quod I. mulier cuidam viro absenti fide data se nupturam promisit, sed postmodum, audiens plura de severitate et inhumanitate ipsius viri, ei noluit copulari. Quum itaque timeret, ne illi nubere cogeretur, in manibus suis simpliciter continentiae votum promisit, non tamen locum aut vestem mutavit. Quo audito praedictus vir aliam sibi copulavit, et ex ea prolem suscepit. Nos itaque, attendentes, tutius esse, ut praefata mulier post fidem et votum simpliciter oblatum matrimonium contrahat, quam fornicationis reatum incurrat, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, si plus non processit, nec vestem aut locum mutavit, nec professionem fecit, sibi de fide mentita et voto violato congruam satisfactionem indicas, et ei, cui vult, nubendi in Domino licentiam tribuere non postponas.

Coming into our presence, M., a hermit, by his own assertion to us set forth that I., a woman, having given faith to an absent man, promised that she would marry him; but afterwards, hearing many things about the severity and inhumanity of that man, she was unwilling to be joined to him. And so, since she feared lest she be compelled to marry him, in her own hands she simply promised a vow of continence, yet she did not change either place or garb. On this being heard, the aforesaid man joined himself to another, and from her received offspring. We therefore, considering it safer that the aforesaid woman, after a pledge and a vow simply offered, should contract marriage rather than incur the guilt of fornication, by apostolic writings, enjoining your fraternity, command you, to the extent that, if it has not proceeded further, and she has neither changed garb or place, nor made a profession, you indicate to her appropriate satisfaction for having lied in her pledge and violated her vow, and that you do not postpone to grant her license to marry in the Lord him whom she wills.

CAP. VI. Votum simplex impedit sponsalia de futuro, non autem dirimit matrimonium sequens; secus in voto solenni.

CHAPTER 6. A simple vow impedes espousals for the future, but does not dissolve the subsequent marriage; otherwise in the case of a solemn vow.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine III.

Rursus quidam, ut dicis, votum castitatis emittens, iuravit, se quandam ducturum postea in uxorem. Unde a fraternitate tua requisiti, consultis viris prudentibus, arbitramur, quod, quum simplex votum apud Deum non minus obliget quam solenne, pro eo, quod iuravit temere, poenitentiam agat, et votum, quod Deo fecit, studeat observare. Quodsi, postquam huiusmodi praestitit iuramentum, ad nuptias iam proprio motu convolasset, quum votum simplex [licet] matrimonium impediat contrahendum, non tamen dirimat iam contractum: nihil ambiguitatis quaestio tua continere videtur.

Again, a certain man, as you say, issuing a vow of chastity, swore that he would afterward lead a certain woman into marriage. Wherefore, having been asked by your fraternity, with prudent men consulted, we judge that, since a simple vow binds before God no less than a solemn one, he should do penance for the fact that he swore rashly, and he should strive to observe the vow which he made to God. But if, after he had made such an oath, he had already of his own motion hurried into nuptials, since a simple vow [albeit] impedes a marriage from being contracted, yet does not dissolve one already contracted: your question seems to contain no ambiguity.

[Ceterum quod etc. cf. c.1.de convers. inf.

[Moreover, as to what, etc., cf. ch.1.on the conversion of the infidels.

III. 33.]

3. 33.]

CAP. VII. Votum solenne impedit et dirimit matrimonium post contractum.

CHAPTER 7. A solemn vow impedes, and, after it has been contracted, dissolves a marriage.

Innocentius III. Ulisbonensi et Colimbriensi Episcopis.

Innocent III. To the Bishops of Lisbon and Coimbra.

Insinuante I. nobili muliere nostro est apostolatui reseratum, quod dudum puella et in annis teneris constituta, M. Sancii accepit in virum, qui ab inimicis crucis Christi fuit parvo post tempore interfectus. Post cuius obitum a quibusdam curialibus fuit regi Legionensi pro ipsius copula supplicatum. Quod quum ad consanguineorum eius notitiam pervenisset, ut maritum acciperet ei sub obtestatione regia suggesserunt.

At the insinuation of I., a noble woman, it was disclosed to our apostolate that formerly, being a girl and in tender years, she accepted M., son of Sancho, as a husband, who was slain a little afterward by the enemies of the cross of Christ. After whose death it was petitioned by certain courtiers to the king of León for her union. When this had come to the knowledge of her kinsmen, they suggested to her under royal adjuration that she should take a husband.

Ipsa vero, quod tunc nollet nubere protestans, consilium accepit ab eis, quod votum emitteret castitatis, quod in manibus cuiusdam de fratribus sancti Augustini fecit, eo adiecto tenore, ut in domo propria cum omni substantia sua remaneret. Sane in eiusdem ordinis habitu biennio post permansit, licet id se invitam fecisse asserat et coactam, non tam metu regio quam parentum. Post haec eidem regi quod fecerat indicavit; quod approbans vetuit, ne quis ea nolente domum intraret ipsius, vel exinde aliquid asportaret.

She herself, protesting that she was unwilling to marry at that time, received counsel from them to emit a vow of chastity, which she made in the hands of a certain one of the brethren of Saint Augustine, with this tenor added: that she should remain in her own house with all her substance. Indeed, in the habit of the same order she remained two years thereafter, although she asserts that she did this unwilling and compelled, not so much by royal fear as by that of her parents. After these things she made known to the same king what she had done; and approving it, he forbade that anyone, she being unwilling, should enter her house or carry anything away from it.

Interim vero, tempore modico elabente, P. curialis, regias literas secum portans, et F. Ferdinandi dictae mulieris domum intrantes, ut ipse P. vi saltem eam duceret in uxorem, acceperunt ab ipsa, quod, si eam idem P. duceret, ipsius manibus interiret. Post haec vero, dimissis domo et omnibus, quae habebat, in domo cuiusdam Iudaei per tres, in ecclesia vero S. Mariae de Veiga per sex latuit septimanas, ita, quod exinde propter necessitates humanas etiam egredi non auderet. Tandem se coactam videns et omnibus destitutam, et attendens nihilominus, quod invita votum emiserit, eo dimisso, de parentum consilio P. Michaëli publice fuit matrimonialiter copulata, de quo quatuor sustulit filios tempore procedente. Verum, quia salutem animae desiderat omnibus anteferre, ac metuens, quod huiusmodi coniunctio licita non exsistat, quid super his tenere debeat, edoceri responso nostro suppliciter postulavit. Nos igitur, attendentes, quod in emissione voti, quod praecessit, nulla vel modica coactio adfuisset, quam patientia et perseverantia sequentis temporis penitus profugavit, et quod sequens coniunctio potius iniqua fuit et violenter extorta, fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, inquisita diligentius veritate, si praemissis veritas suffragatur, praefatam mulierem ad male dimissum religionis habitum resumendum et servandum quod vovit monere et inducere procuretis, et, si opus fuerit, per censuram ecclesiasticam coërcere.

Meanwhile indeed, a short time elapsing, P., a courtier, carrying royal letters with him, and F., of Ferdinand, entering the house of the said woman, in order that P. himself might at least by force take her as wife, received from her that, if that same P. should take her, he would perish by her hands. After these things, however, leaving the house and everything that she had, she hid for three weeks in the house of a certain Jew, and indeed for six in the church of St. Mary of Veiga, such that from there she did not dare even to go out on account of human necessities. At length, seeing herself coerced and destitute of all, and considering nonetheless that she had emitted the vow unwilling, that being dismissed, by the counsel of her parents she was publicly joined in matrimony to P. Michael, by whom in the course of time she brought up four sons. Yet, because she desires to set the salvation of her soul before all things, and fearing that a union of this kind may not exist as licit, she humbly requested to be taught by our answer what she ought to hold concerning these things. We therefore, considering that in the emission of the vow which preceded, no or only slight compulsion had been present, which the patience and perseverance of the subsequent time entirely put to flight, and that the subsequent union was rather iniquitous and violently extorted, we command to your fraternity by apostolic writings that, the truth having been more diligently inquired, if the truth supports the aforesaid, you take care to warn and induce the aforesaid woman to resume the religious habit badly laid aside and to observe what she vowed, and, if there is need, to coerce by ecclesiastical censure.

[Quod si non ambo etc. Dat. Lat.

[But if not both, etc. Given at the Lateran.

Kal. Dec. 1199.]

Kalends of Dec. 1199.]

TITULUS VII. DE EO, QUI DUXIT IN MATRIMONIUM QUAM POLLUIT PER ADULTERIUM.

TITLE 7. ON HIM WHO TOOK IN MATRIMONY HER WHOM HE POLLUTED THROUGH ADULTERY.

CAP. I. Si quis vivente uxore contrahit cum secunda hoc ignorante, prima mortua ad sui petitionem non separabitur a secunda.

CHAPTER 1. If anyone, with his wife living, contracts with a second, she being ignorant of this, after the first has died, at her own petition he will not be separated from the second.

Alexander III. Abbati sancti Albani.

Alexander III. To the Abbot of Saint Alban.

Propositum est nobis, quod vir quidam O. uxorem habens sibi aliam, huiusmodi rei insciam, copulavit, de qua plures filios habuit; sed prima mortua nititur discedere a secunda, asserens, quod uxore sua vivente eam non licuit sibi copulare. Licet autem in canonibus habeatur, ut nullus copulet in matrimonio quam prius polluerat adulterio, et illam maxime, cui fidem dederat uxore sua vivente, vel quae machinata est in mortem uxoris: quia tamen praefata mulier erat inscia, quod ille aliam haberet uxorem viventem, nec dignum est, ut praedictus vir, qui scienter contra canones venerat, lucrum de suo dolo reportet: consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, nisi praedicta mulier divortium petat, ad petitionem viri non sunt aliquatenus separandi, quum ex suo delicto videretur commodum reportare.

It has been set before us that a certain man, O., having a wife, joined to himself another, ignorant of this matter, from whom he had several sons; but, the first having died, he strives to part from the second, asserting that, while his wife was living, it was not permitted for him to be joined to her. Although, moreover, in the canons it is held that no one should couple in marriage with her whom he had previously defiled by adultery, and especially her to whom he had given his pledge while his wife was living, or who machinated the death of the wife: yet because the aforesaid woman was unaware that he had another wife living, nor is it fitting that the aforesaid man, who knowingly had come against the canons, should reap profit from his deceit: we thus respond to your consultation, that, unless the aforesaid woman seeks a divorce, at the petition of the man they are not to be separated in any way, since from his own delict he would seem to reap an advantage.

CAP. II. Si, vivente prima uxore et non cognita, quis contraxit cum secunda scienter, et eam cognovit, etiam mortua prima secundam habere non potest; secus, si prima erat non legitima uxor.

CHAPTER 2. If, with the first wife living and not known, someone knowingly contracted with a second, and knew her, even the first having died, he cannot have the second; otherwise, if the first was not a legitimate wife.

Idem Abbati de Fontibus.

The same to the Abbot of Fountains.

Significavit nobis O. Andegavensis, parochianus Eboracensis ecclesiae, per W. fratrem suum, quod W. de Romar., qui est ex hac luce subtractus, capiens eum tamdiu in vinculis ferreis et carcere tenuit, donec ipsum iurare coëgit, quod H. mulierem duceret in uxorem. Quum autem vincula et carcerem evasisset, aliam in uxorem accepit, de qua filios procreavit. Postea vero idem O. a praefata H. coram venerabili fratre nostro Eboracensi archiepiscopo apostolicae sedis legato tractus in causam, ab eo coactus est iuramento firmare, quod ad illam, quam sponte in uxorem acceperat, non accederet, donec lis esset iudicio ecclesiastico terminata.

It has been signified to us by O. of Anjou, a parishioner of the church of York, through his brother W., that W. de Romar., who has been withdrawn from this light, having seized him, held him for so long in iron bonds and in prison, until he compelled him to swear that he would take H., the woman, in marriage. But when he had escaped the bonds and the prison, he took another as wife, by whom he procreated sons. Afterwards indeed the same O., drawn into a cause by the aforesaid H. before our venerable brother the archbishop of York, legate of the apostolic see, was by him compelled to confirm by oath that he would not approach her whom he had of his own accord accepted as wife, until the lawsuit should be terminated by ecclesiastical judgment.

Ceterum quia, priusquam de causa cognosceretur legitime, praenominata H. diem clausit extremum, praedictus O. ad eam, de qua filios habuit, reverti non audet. Inde est quod discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo Mandamus, quatenus, rei veritate diligenter inquisita et cognita, si vobis constiterit, quod eidem O. tanta vis illata fuerit, ut praedictam H. iuraret in uxorem accipere, et, quod non sponte in primam consenserit, nec post praestitum iuramentum ipsam carnaliter cognoverit, propter hoc non dimittas, quin ad aliam, quam postea in uxorem accepit, revertendi liberam appellatione remota tribuas facultatem. Alioquin sibi, ne ad secundam revertatur, sub interminatione anathematis inhibens, des ei licentiam ducendi aliam, si voluerit, in uxorem.

Moreover, because, before the case was lawfully heard, the aforesaid H. closed her last day, the aforesaid O. does not dare to return to her, by whom he had sons. Therefore it is that to your discretion by apostolic writings by way of precept We command, that, the truth of the matter having been diligently inquired into and known, if it shall have been established to you that such great force was brought upon that same O. that he swore to take the aforesaid H. as wife, and that he did not consent to the first of his own accord, nor after the oath rendered did he carnally know her, on this account do not fail, but grant to him, the appeal removed, the free faculty of returning to the other, whom he afterwards took as wife. Otherwise, forbidding him, under threat of anathema, to return to the second, grant him license to marry another, if he shall wish, as wife.

CAP. III. Non potest quis cum illa contrahere, quam uxore vivente cognovit, si machinata fuit in mortem uxoris.

CHAPTER 3. One cannot contract with her whom he carnally knew while his wife was living, if she machinated the death of his wife.

Idem Baranensi Episcopo.

The same, to the Bishop of Baranum.

Super hoc vero, quod de latore praesentium tuis literis quaesivisti, an liceat alicui cum ea contrahere matrimonium, quam, alia uxore sua vivente, sibi de facto matrimonio copulavit, tuae sollicitudini taliter respondemus, quod, si adultera est in mortem uxoris aliquid machinata, sive iste fidem dederit sive non, quod ea defuncta hanc esset ducturus, secundum canones ab eius consortio perpetuo prohibetur, et haec prohibitio perpetuo est servanda.

Concerning this indeed, which about the bearer of these presents in your letters you asked, whether it is permitted for someone to contract matrimony with her whom, while his other wife was living, he joined to himself de facto by marriage, to your solicitude we thus respond: that, if she, an adulteress, contrived something for the death of the wife, whether this man gave his pledge or not that, once she was dead, he would take this one to wife, according to the canons he is perpetually prohibited from her consortship, and this prohibition is to be observed perpetually.

CAP. IV. Qui, vivente uxore, etiam ab eo separata quoad torum, secundam consciam duxit uxorem, prima mortua separabitur a secunda; sed cum alia contrahere poterit.

CHAPTER 4. He who, with his wife living, even though she be separated from him as to the bed, has married a second wife, a conscious accomplice, when the first is dead shall be separated from the second; but he will be able to contract with another.

Clemens III.

Clement 3.

Ex literarum tuarum insinuatione accepimus, quod T. lator praesentium, parochianus tuus, olim uxorem suam, in adulterio deprehensam, de tui antecessoris assensu abiecit, quae postmodum accepit habitum monachalem; sed dictus T., antequam illa decederet, aliam superinduxit, et cum ea XII. annis vixit, et plures suscepit filios ex eadem. Ceterum quia supra dicta mulier decessit, et quid super secunda copula fieri debeat sedem duxisti apostolicam consulendam, Fraternitati tuae igitur de fratrum nostrorum consilio respondemus, quod illos debes sine delatione abinvicem separare; idem vero vir, indicta ei de adulterio poenitentia, aliam ducere poterit in uxorem.

From the intimation of your letters we have learned that T., the bearer of the present letters, your parishioner, once cast away his wife, detected in adultery, with the assent of your predecessor; she afterwards took the monastic habit; but the said T., before she died, brought in another, and with her he lived for 12 years, and he had several sons by the same. However, because the aforesaid woman has deceased, and as to what ought to be done concerning the second union you have judged the Apostolic See should be consulted, to your Fraternity therefore, by the counsel of our brothers, we reply that you ought, without delay, to separate them from one another; but the same man, penance for adultery having been imposed upon him, will be able to take another to wife.

CAP. V. Qui vivente uxore legitima cum secunda contrahit adultera, etiam prima mortua separabitur a secunda, etiamsi longo tempore ei cohabitavit, et filios ex ea suscepit.

CHAPTER 5. He who, while his legitimate wife is living, contracts with a second, an adulteress, will even with the first dead be separated from the second, even if he cohabited with her for a long time and received sons from her.

Idem.

The same.

Quum haberet uxorem legitimam A. nomine I. lator praesentium, cum M. adulterium perpetravit, quod ipse tibi publica confessione detexit, sicut nobis tuae literae demonstrarunt. Quumque super hoc fuisset in ius vocatus, ipsam M. in iure abiuravit adulteram, et postmodum, iuramento posthabito et contempto, vivente legitima cum ea matrimonium qualecunque contrahere, et ipsi moechae diu cohabitare praesumpsit. Demum, praedicta A. de praesenti luce subtracta, nihilominus memoratus I. cum praefata adultera per decennium est moratus de qua etiam decem filios procreavit. Quia igitur consulis, an praedicti Ioannes et illa simul manere possint, vel, si debeant separari, utrum liceat eis ad alias nuptias convolare: Tale ergo damus consultationi tuae responsum, ut separentur omnino, et competenti eis iniuncta poenitentia, perpetua continentia indicatur, praesertim quum in dies suos ambo processerint, et, tamdiu publice in adulterio et periurio ex certa scientia perdurantes, ecclesiam in gravi scandalo perturbaverint.

When he had a legitimate wife A. by name, I., the bearer of these presents, committed adultery with M., which he himself disclosed to you by public confession, as your letters showed to us. And when he had been called into court on this matter, he abjured M. herself in court as an adulteress, and afterward, his oath having been set aside and despised, while the legitimate wife was living he presumed to contract with her a whatsoever-kind marriage, and to cohabit for a long time with that adulteress. At length, the aforesaid A. having been withdrawn from the present light, nevertheless the said I. with the aforesaid adulteress lived for a decade, from whom he also begot ten sons. Since, therefore, you consult whether the aforesaid John and that woman can remain together, or, if they must be separated, whether it is permitted for them to fly to other nuptials: Therefore we give such an answer to your consultation, that they be altogether separated, and, a competent penance enjoined upon them, perpetual continence is ordered, especially since both have advanced in years, and, for so long persevering publicly in adultery and perjury with certain knowledge, they have disturbed the church with grave scandal.

Nosti enim, quod Leo Papa statuit, ut nullus ducat in matrimonium quam adulterio polluit, et quod hic plus processum fuit, quam si fides praestita duntaxat fuisset adulterae, ut defuncta legitima eam duceret in uxorem, quum, eadem etiam prima vivente, quasi matrimonialiter moechae moechus adhaerere praesumpsit, et sacramentum suum temere violare. Quod utique connubium, ubi etiam nulla intercessit religio iuramenti, tam Gregorius Papa quam Triburiensis synodus detestatur, et utrumque hoc modo coniunctum praecepit publicae poenitentiae subiici, ac perpetuo sine ulla spe coniugii permanere. Nec certe aliquod eisdem I. et M. adminiculum adferunt, ut simul maneant, quod decennio cohabitaverunt adinvicem, ac decem filios susceperunt, quum multiplicitas prolis ita susceptae magis eorum crimen exaggeret, et diuturnitas temporis peccatum non minuat, sed augmentet.

You know, indeed, that Pope Leo decreed that no one may lead into matrimony her whom he has defiled by adultery; and that here more has been carried forward than if faith had only been pledged to the adulteress, so that, the lawful wife being deceased, he might take her as wife, since, with that same first wife still living, the adulterer presumed to cleave to the adulteress as if matrimonially, and rashly to violate his sacrament. That connubial union, moreover, where not even the religious obligation of an oath intervened, both Pope Gregory and the Synod of Tribur detest, and they have commanded both thus joined to be subjected to public penance, and to remain perpetually without any hope of conjugal union. Nor does it surely bring any support to the same I. and M., that they may remain together, that they have cohabited with one another for ten years and have begotten ten children, since the multiplicity of offspring thus begotten rather aggravates their crime, and the length of time does not lessen sin, but increases it.

Sollicitudinis tamen tuae intererit, ut uterque liberis suis procreatis provideat, et secundum quod eis suppetunt falcultates, sustentationi eorum necessaria subministret.

Nevertheless, it will pertain to your solicitude that each provide for his children begotten, and, according as resources are available to them, supply the things necessary for their sustentation.

CAP. VI. Si quis mortua uxore contrahit cum ea, quam vivente uxore sine fidei datione cognoverat, tenet matrimonium, dummodo in mortem defunctae neuter fuerit machinatus.

CHAPTER 6. If anyone, his wife being dead, contracts with her whom, while his wife was living, he had known without a pledge of faith, the marriage holds, provided that neither had machinated against the death of the deceased.

Innocentius III. Episcopo Spoletano.

Innocent III. To the Bishop of Spoleto.

Significasti nobis, quod, quum P. civis Spoletanus quandam mulierem duxisset legitime in uxorem, ea relicta cuidam meretrici adhaesit, et quum ab eius contubernio ad torum non posset legitimum revocari, vos in eum excommunicationis sententiam protulistis. Verum quum medio tempore uxor ipsius esset viam universae carnis ingressa, meretricem, cui adhaeserat, desponsavit. Nos igitur inquisitioni tuae secundum formam canonicam taliter respondemus, quod, nisi alter eorum in mortem uxoris defunctae fuerit machinatus, vel ea vivente sibi fidem dederit de matrimonio contrahendo, legitimum iudices matrimonium supra dictum, excommunicato munus absolutionis, si petierit, iuxta formam ecclesiae impensurus. [Dat.

You have signified to us that, when P., a citizen of Spoleto, had lawfully taken a certain woman as wife, leaving her he adhered to a certain prostitute, and when he could not be recalled from her companionship to the legitimate marriage-bed, you pronounced a sentence of excommunication against him. But when in the meantime his wife had entered the way of all flesh, he betrothed the prostitute to whom he had adhered. We therefore reply to your inquiry according to the canonical form thus, that, unless either of them had machinated in the death of the deceased wife, or, while she was living, he had given to the prostitute his pledge about contracting marriage, you are to judge the aforesaid marriage legitimate, bestowing upon the excommunicated the boon of absolution, if he shall ask it, according to the form of the Church. [Dated.

Rom. ap. S. Petr. VIII.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, 8.

Kal. Maii 1198.]

Kalends of May 1198.]

CAP. VII. Si quis, vivente prima, secundam huius rei insciam duxerit uxorem, mortua prima licite remanet cum secunda, novo consensu interveniente.

CHAPTER 7. If anyone, with the first still living, shall have taken a second wife, ignorant of this matter, once the first has died he lawfully remains with the second, a new consent intervening.

Idem Messanensi Capitulo.

The same to the Chapter of Messina.

Veniens ad praesentiam nostram G. laicus lator praesentium humili nobis insinuatione monstravit, quod, quum olim in civitate Lemovicensi quandam sibi matrimonialiter copulasset, et per biennium cohabitasset eidem, ab ea demum animi levitate recedens Messanam advenit, ubi M. mulierem, insciam penitus, quod idem G. aliam haberet uxorem, sibi solenniter copulavit, ex qua duos filios dignoscitur suscepisse. Verum quum eidem poenitentia fuisset iniuncta, ut ad legitimam rediret uxorem, et ipse propter hoc in suam patriam rediisset, uxorem suam inveniens carnis debita persolvisse, ad Messanam rediit civitatem, et supra dictae M. tanquam legitimae cohabitavit uxori. Nunc autem impositam sibi pro priori excessu poenitentiam agens humiliter et devote, cohabitandi eidem M. a nobis licentiam postulavit. Licet autem praefatus G. vivente uxore legitima praedictam M. sibi copulare nequiverit in uxorem, quia tamen, uxore defuncta, utpote a lege ipsius solutus, in eandem M. de novo potuit matrimonialiter consentire, dummodo non praestiterit fidem adulterae, vel machinatus [non] fuerit in mortem uxoris: [discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta] mandamus, quatermus, si est ita, eidem G. ut supra dictae M. affectu adhaereat coniugali, sublato cuiuslibet contradictionis et appellationis obstaculo licentiam concedatis, non permittentes, eundem super hoc ab aliquibus indebite molestari.

Coming into our presence, G., a layman, bearer of the present letter, by humble to us insinuation showed that, when once upon a time in the city of Limoges he had joined a certain woman to himself matrimonially, and had cohabited with the same for two years, at length, departing from her through lightness of mind, he came to Messina, where he solemnly joined to himself the woman M., utterly unaware that the same G. had another wife, from whom he is recognized to have received two sons. But when penance had been enjoined upon him that he should return to his legitimate wife, and he on that account had returned to his own fatherland, finding that his wife had rendered the conjugal dues, he returned to the city of Messina and cohabited with the above‑said M. as with a legitimate wife. Now, however, humbly and devoutly performing the penance imposed upon him for the earlier excess, he asked from us license to cohabit with the same M. Although the aforesaid G., while his legitimate wife was living, could not have joined the aforesaid M. to himself as a wife, nevertheless, his wife being deceased, as one loosed from her law, he could anew consent matrimonially with the same M., provided that he has not pledged faith to an adulteress, nor [not] plotted in the death of his wife: [to your discretion by apostolic writings] we command, that, if it is so, you grant to the same G. license that he adhere with conjugal affection to the above‑said M., the obstacle of any contradiction and appeal being removed, not permitting him to be unduly molested by any on this matter.

CAP. VIII. Contrahens cum secunda, vivente prima, quam tamen non cognovit nec ante contractum, nec post, mortua prima potest contrahere cum secunda.

CHAPTER 8. Contracting with a second, while the first is living, whom, however, he did not know either before the contract or after, once the first is dead he can contract with the second.

Gregorius IX. Fratri R.

Gregory 9. To Brother R.

Si quis uxore vivente fide data promisit, aliam se ducturum, vel cum ipsa de facto contraxit, si nec ante, nec post legitima eius superstite cognovit eandem, quamvis utrique ipsorum pro eo, quod in hoc graviter deliquerint, sit poenitentia iniungenda, non est tamen matrimonium, quod cum ea contraxit, post uxoris obitum dirimendum. Ceterum tolerari non debet, si prius vel postea, dum vixerit uxor ipsius, illam adulterio polluisset.

If someone, his wife being alive, with pledged faith given promised that he would take another, or de facto contracted with her, if neither before nor after, his legitimate wife surviving, he carnally knew the same woman, although for both of them, because in this they have gravely transgressed, penance should be enjoined, nevertheless the marriage which he contracted with her is not, after the wife’s death, to be dissolved. Moreover, it ought not to be tolerated, if sooner or later, while his wife was living, he had defiled her by adultery.

TITULUS VIII. DE CONIUGIO LEPROSORUM.

TITLE 8. ON THE MARRIAGE OF LEPERS.

CAP. I. Lepra superveniens non dissolvit matrimonium, nec matrimonii effectum, ideo adinvicem maritali affectione coniuncti se tractare debent, aut ad perpetuam continentiam vovendam induci.

CHAPTER 1. Supervening leprosy does not dissolve matrimony, nor the effect of matrimony; therefore, mutually joined by marital affection, they ought to treat one another accordingly, or be induced to vow perpetual continence.

Alexander III. Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo.

Alexander 3. To the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Pervenit ad nos, quod, quum hi, qui leprae morbum incurrunt, de consuetudine generali a communione hominum separentur, et extra civitates et villas ad loca solitaria transferantur, nec uxores viros, nec viri uxores suas taliter aegrotantes sequuntur, sed sine ipsis manere praesumunt. Quoniam igitur, quum vir et uxor una caro sint, non debet alter sine altero esse diutius, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, ut uxores viros, et viri uxores, qui leprae morbum incurrunt, sequantur, et eis coniugali affectione ministrent, sollicitis exhortationibus inducere non postponas. Si vero ad hoc induci non poterunt, eis arctius iniungas, ut uterque altero vivente continentiam servet. Quodsi mandatum tuum servare contempserint, vinculo excommunicationis adstringas.

It has come to us that, when those who incur the disease of leprosy, by general custom, are separated from the communion of men, and are transferred outside cities and villages to solitary places, neither do wives follow husbands, nor do husbands follow their wives their own so ailing, but presume to remain without them. Since therefore, when husband and wife are one flesh, the one ought not to be without the other for longer, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings, by way of precept, that you not postpone to induce, with solicitous exhortations, that wives follow husbands and husbands their wives who incur the disease of leprosy, and minister to them with conjugal affection. But if they cannot be induced to this, you should more strictly enjoin on them that each, while the other lives, observe continence. But if they scorn to keep your mandate, you should bind them with the bond of excommunication.

CAP. II. Coniuges propter lepram separandi non sunt a coniugio, et contrahere possunt matrimonium, et invicem sibi reddere debitam tenentur.

CHAPTER 2. Spouses are not to be separated from conjugal union on account of leprosy, and they can contract matrimony, and are held to render to one another the conjugal due.

Idem Baionensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Bayonne.

Quoniam ex multis auctoritatibus et praecipue ex evangelica veritate nemini licet, excepta causa fornicationis, uxorem suam dimittere: constat, quod, sive mulier lepra percussa fuerit, seu alia gravi infirmitate detenta, non est a viro [suo] propterea separanda, vel etiam dimittenda. Super hoc vero, [quod de latore etc.] (Et infra: [cf. c.3.De eo, qui duxit IV.7.]) Leprosi autem si continere nolunt, et aliquam, quae sibi nubere velit, invenerint, liberum est eis ad matrimonium convolare. Quodsi virum sive uxoremdivino iudicio leprosum fieri contigerit, et infirmus a sano carnale debitum exigat, generaIi praecepto Apostoli quod exigitur est solvendum, cui praecepto nulla in hoc casu exceptio invenitur.

Since from many authorities, and especially from evangelical truth, it is permitted to no one, except in the cause of fornication, to dismiss his own wife: it is agreed that, whether a woman has been stricken with leprosy, or detained by another grave infirmity, she is not on that account to be separated from her [her own] husband, nor even to be dismissed. On this, indeed, [what concerning the bearer, etc.] (And below: [cf. c.3.On him who has married 4.7.]) But if lepers are unwilling to be continent, and find some woman who is willing to marry them, it is free for them to hasten to marriage. But if bydivine judgment it has happened that a husband or a wife become leprous, and the infirm demands from the healthy the carnal debt, by the general precept of the Apostle what is demanded is to be paid, for which precept no exception in this case is found.

CAP. III. Sponsalia de futuro praecise non compellunt ad contrahendum matrimonium cum leproso, lepra post sponsalia superveniente.

CHAPTER 3. Betrothals for the future do not strictly compel to contract marriage with a leper, leprosy supervening after the betrothal.

Urbanus III. Episcopo Florentino.

Urban III. To the Bishop of Florence.

Literas fraternitatis tuae debita benignitate suscepimus, quibus certiores de sinceritate tuae fidei et devotionis effecti, ad honorem et commodum tuum abundantius provocamur. Verum Quia [a nobis] postulasti, utrum, si, post sponsalia de futuro inter aliquas legitimas personas contracta, antequam a viro mulier traducatur, alter eorum leprae morbum incurrat, alius ad consummandam copulam maritalem compelli debeat, vel se possit ad secunda vota transferre, tuae sollicitudini respondemus, quod ad eam accipiendam cogi non debet, quum nondum inter eos matrimonium fuerit consummatum. [De illa vero etc. (cf. c.6.de divort.

We have received the letters of your fraternity with due benignity, by which, made more certain of the sincerity of your faith and devotion, we are more abundantly stirred to your honor and advantage. However Because [from us] you asked, whether, if, after betrothal de futuro has been contracted between some legitimate persons, before the woman is led over by the man, one of them should incur the disease of leprosy, the other ought to be compelled to consummate the marital coupling, or can transfer himself to second vows, to your solicitude we respond, that he ought not to be forced to accept it, since the marriage between them has not yet been consummated. [But concerning that woman indeed etc. (cf. ch.6.on divorce.

IV. 19.)]

4. 19.)]

TITULUS IX. DE CONIUGIO SERVORUM.

TITLE 9. ON THE MARRIAGE OF SLAVES.

CAP. I. Servus, contradicente domino, matrimonium contrahere potest; sed propter hoc non liberatur a servitiis domino debitis.

CHAPTER 1. A slave, even with the lord objecting, can contract matrimony; but because of this he is not liberated from the services due to the lord.

Adrianus Sancteburgensi Archiepiscopo.

Adrian. To the Archbishop of Sancteburg.

Dignum est et a rationis tramite non discordat, quod ea, quae dubietatis in se videntur scrupulum continere, et ad apostolicae sedis iudicium referantur, ut inde Christi fideles in dubiis certitudinem se gaudeant invenire, unde noscuntur magisterium fidei suscepisse. Tua vero fraternitas de servorum coniugiis, quae invitis et contradicentibus dominis contrahuntur, quid fieri debeat, ab apostolatu nostro, si bene meminimus, requisivit; super quo tibi duximus taliter respondendum. Sane, iuxta verbum Apostoli, prout tua discretio recognoscit, sicut in Christo Iesu neque liber, neque servus est, qui a sacramentis ecclesiae sit removendus, ita quoque nec inter servos matrimonia debent ullatenus prohiberi. Et, si contradicentibus dominis et invitis contracta fuerint, nulla ratione sunt propter hoc ecclesiastico iudicio dissolvenda; debita tamen et consueta servitia non minus debent propriis dominis exhiberi.

It is worthy and does not disagree with the path of reason, that those things which seem to contain a scruple of doubt in themselves also be referred to the judgment of the Apostolic See, so that from there Christ’s faithful may rejoice to find certainty in doubtful matters, whence they are known to have received the magisterium of faith. But your fraternity, concerning the marriages of slaves which are contracted with the masters unwilling and contradicting, what ought to be done, from our apostolate, if we remember well, inquired; upon which we have judged to respond to you thus. Truly, according to the word of the Apostle, as your discretion recognizes, just as in Christ Jesus there is neither free nor slave, who ought to be removed from the sacraments of the Church, so also marriages among slaves ought in no way to be prohibited. And, if they have been contracted with the masters contradicting and unwilling, by no reason are they on account of this to be dissolved by ecclesiastical judgment; yet the due and customary services ought nonetheless to be rendered no less to their proper masters.

CAP. II. Separatur matrimonium, quando liber ignoranter cum ancilla contraxerit, nisi postea hoc sciens illam cognovit.

CHAPTER 2. The marriage is separated, when a free man has ignorantly contracted with a handmaid, unless afterwards, knowing this, he knew her.

Alexander III. Praeposito et Priori Mortariensi.

Alexander 3. To the Provost and the Prior of Mortara.

Proposuit nobis M. mulier latrix praesentium, quod quum vir eius cum ea diutius permansisset, notam ei servilis conditionis obiecit, asserens, eam esse ancillam, quam liberam esse credebat, quum eam duxit in uxorem. Quum autem in praesentia venerabilis fratris nostri Astensis episcopi huiusmodi negotium tractaretur, mulier, quia ibi gravari timebat, ad nostram audientiam appellavit. Quia igitur, tam ea quam viro suo vivente, post aliquantulam moram praefatus vir inconcusso lite recessit, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta Mandamus, quatenus, quum propter hoc fueritis requisiti, partes ante vestram praesentiam convocetis, et, veritate super his diligentius inquisita, si vobis constiterit, quod idem vir praefatam mulierem, postquam illam audivit esse ancillam, carnaliter cognovit, ipsum monitione praemissa compellatis, ut eam sicut uxorem accipiat et maritali affectione pertractet.

M., a woman,bearer of the present [letters], set before us that, although her husband had remained with her for a rather long time, he imputed to her the mark of a servile condition, asserting that she was a handmaid, whom he had believed to be free when he took her to wife. However, when a business of this sort was being handled in the presence of our venerable brother, the bishop of Asti, the woman, because she feared to be burdened there, appealed to our hearing. Since, therefore, both she, and—her husband being alive—after a little delay the aforesaid man withdrew, the suit remaining unshaken, to your discretion by apostolic writings we command, that, when you shall have been required on this account, you summon the parties before your presence, and, the truth on these matters having been more diligently inquired, if it is established to you that the same man, after he heard that the aforesaid woman was a handmaid, carnally knew her, you, monition having been premised, compel him to receive her as a wife and to treat her with marital affection.

Si vero aliter fuerit, et sententiam divortii proferri contingat, mulieri pecuniam, quam praefato viro pro dote concessit, sicut iustum fuerit, restitui faciatis.

But if it shall be otherwise, and it should happen that a sentence of divorce be pronounced, you shall cause the money which she granted to the aforesaid man for the dowry to be restored to the woman, as shall be just.

CAP. III. Si consuetudo est in loto, quod partus conditionem patris sequatur, natus ex libero et ancilla liber est, et ut liber matrimonium contrahit.

CHAPTER 3. If the custom is in the place, that the offspring follow the condition of the father, one born from a free man and a handmaid is free, and, as free, contracts marriage.

Urbanus III. Ariminensi Episcopo.

Urban III. To the Bishop of Rimini.

Licet ad ea, super quibus nos fraternitas tua consulere voluit, te sufficere arbitremur, quia tamen ad maiorem certitudinem iudicium nostrum pastorali sollicitudine requiris: nos ad inquisitiones tuas officii nostri debito respondemus. Sane, super eo, quod ex parte tua fuit propositum, an mulier possit divortium postulare, pro eo, quod vir, cum quo suae conditionis ignara contraxit, servus monasterii proponatur, quum econtra idem vir, patrem suum, cuius conditionem secundum leges provinciae sequeretur, tempore mortis pro libero se gessisse, et iam elapso decennio nec patris, nec suo nomine se status controversiam passum, constanter affirmet, videtur nobis ratione temporis et favore libertatis pro parte viri securius iudicandum. [Ad haec etc. (cf. c.4.de rel. dom.

Although for those matters on which your brotherhood wished to consult us, we deem you sufficient; yet because you seek our judgment with pastoral solicitude for greater certainty, we respond to your inquiries by the debt of our office. Indeed, concerning that which on your part was proposed—whether a woman can demand a divorce because the man with whom, being ignorant of his condition, she contracted marriage is put forward as a slave of a monastery—whereas, on the contrary, that same man steadfastly affirms that his father, whose condition according to the laws of the province he would follow, conducted himself as free at the time of his death, and that, now a decade having elapsed, he has suffered no status-litigation either in his father’s name or in his own, it seems to us, by reason of the lapse of time and with favor for liberty, that it should be judged more securely for the man’s side. [To these things, etc. (cf. ch.4.on religious houses

III. 36.)]

3. 36.)]

CAP. IV. Si liber contraxit cum ancilla ignoranter, et, ex quo scivit, non consensit, separatur matrimonium, et cum aliis contrahere poterit.

CHAPTER 4. If a free man contracted with a handmaid unknowingly, and, from the time he learned, did not consent, the marriage is separated, and he will be able to contract with others.

Innocentius III. H. Episcopo.

Innocent 3. To Bishop H.

Ad nostram noveris audientiam pervenisse, quod dilectus filius noster G. tituli sanctae Mariae trans Tiberim presbyter cardinalis apostolicae sedis legatus dilectum filium nobilem virum R. militem a muliere quadam propter conditionis separavit errorem. Ideoque fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus inquiras super his diligentius veritatem, et, si tibi constiterit, quod miles ipse ignoranter contraxit cum ancilla, ita, quod, postquam intellexit conditionem ipsius, nec fato nec verbo consenserit in eandem, propter quod per cardinalem eundem ab eius fuerit consortio separatus, contrahendi cum alia liberam ipsi concedas auctoritate apostolica facultatem.

Know that it has come to our hearing that our beloved son G., presbyter cardinal of the title of Saint Mary across the Tiber, legate of the apostolic see, separated our beloved son, the noble man R., a knight, from a certain woman on account of an error of condition. Wherefore we command to your fraternity through apostolic writings that you inquire more diligently concerning these matters the truth, and, if it has been established to you that the knight himself ignorantly contracted with a handmaid, such that, after he understood her condition, he consented to the same neither by deed nor by word, on account of which by that same cardinal he was separated from her companionship, you grant to him, by apostolic authority, the free faculty of contracting with another.

TITULUS X. DE NATIS EX LIBERO VENTRE.

TITLE 10. ON THOSE BORN FROM A FREE WOMB.

CAP. UN.

CHAPTER ONE.

Natus ex libera vel liberta liber est.

One born from a freewoman or a freedwoman is free.

Gregorius.

Gregory.

Indecens esse credimus, ut progeniti ex liberta sive libera filii ad servitium retrahantur. Propterea tibi [praesenti auctoritate] praecipimus, ut his ipsis documentis, sicut et nos didicimus, [exuto a curis animo] diligenter intendas, quatenus, si documenta nulla sint ab ecclesiae parte, quae documentis huiusmodi debeant obviare, ab eius molestia sine aliqua retractatione compescas eandem. Durum est enim, ut, si alii pro mercede sua libertates tribuunt, ab ecclesia, a qua fueri debent, revocentur.

We believe it to be indecorous, that sons born from a freedwoman or a freewoman be drawn back into servitude. Therefore we command you [by present authority], that to these very documents, just as we have learned, [with a mind stripped of cares] you diligently apply yourself, to the extent that, if there be no documents on the part of the church which ought to oppose documents of this sort, you restrain her from his harassment without any reconsideration. For it is harsh that, if others grant liberties for their own wage, they be recalled by the church, by which they ought to be fostered.

[Iterum ergo etc.]

[Again therefore, etc.]

TITULUS XI. DE COGNATIONE SPIRITUALI.

TITLE 11. ON SPIRITUAL KINSHIP.

CAP. I. Filii duorum compatrum, per quorum neutrum deventum est ad compaternitatem, licite contrahunt, nisi consuetudo repugnet; separantur autem, si per eorum alterum vel utrumque compaternitas est contracta. H. d. cum cap.

CHAPTER 1. The children of two co-godfathers, through neither of whom a compatership has arisen, lawfully contract [marriage], unless custom opposes; however, they are separated, if through either or both of them a compatership has been contracted. This is held with the chapter.

Super eo, infra eod.

Concerning this, below in the same.

Alexander III. Salernitano Archiepiscopo.

Alexander 3. To the Archbishop of Salerno.

Utrum autem filii aut filiae ante vel post compaternitatem geniti possint adinvicem copulari, canones secundum diversorum locorum consuetudines contrarii inveniuntur. Et licet primus canon exinde editus natos post compaternitatem adinvicem copulari prohibeat, alter tamen canon posterius editus primum videtur corrigere, per quem statuitur, ut, sive ante sive post compaternitatem geniti sunt, simul possint coniungi, excepta illa persona duntaxat, per quam ad compaternitatem venitur. Unde tolerabilius nobis videtur, ut secundum posteriorem canonem debeat observari: nisi consuetudo ecclesiae, quae scandalum generet, aliter se habere noscatur.

Whether, however, sons or daughters begotten before or after compaternity can be joined to one another, the canons are found to be contrary according to the customs of diverse places. And although the first canon issued thereupon forbids those born after compaternity to be coupled to one another, yet another canon, issued later, seems to correct the first, by which it is established that, whether they were begotten before or after compaternity, they may be conjoined together, except only that person through whom one comes to compaternity. Whence it seems to us more tolerable that the latter canon ought to be observed, unless the custom of the church, which would generate scandal, is known to stand otherwise.

CAP. II. Compaternitas, scienter vel ignoranter superveniens inter coniuges, coniugium non dissolvit.

CHAPTER 2. Compaternity, supervening between spouses whether knowingly or unknowingly, does not dissolve the marriage.

Idem eidem.

The same to the same.

Si vir vel mulier scienter vel ignoranter filium suum de sacro fonte susceperint, an propter hoc ab invicem separari debeant et alii copulari, quia nos consulere voluisti, Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quamvis generaliter sit institutum, ut debeant separari, quidam tamen, humanius et potius sentientes, aliter statuerunt. Ideoque nobis videtur, quod, sive ex ignorantia sive ex malitia id fecerint, non sunt ab invicem separandi, nec alter alteri debitum debet subtrahere, nisi ad continentiam servandam possint induci: quia, si ex ignorantia id factum est, eos ignorantia excusare videtur; si ex malitia, eis sua fraus non debet patrocinari vel dolus.

If a man or woman, knowingly or unknowingly, have received their son from the sacred font, whether on account of this they ought to be separated from one another and be joined to others, since you wished to consult us, to your Consultation we thus respond: that, although it has been generally instituted that they ought to be separated, yet certain persons, thinking more humanely and rather, have determined otherwise. And therefore it seems to us that, whether they did this out of ignorance or out of malice, they are not to be separated from one another, nor ought the one to withdraw the due from the other, unless they can be induced to keep continence: because, if it was done out of ignorance, ignorance seems to excuse them; if out of malice, their own fraud or guile ought not to plead for them or stand as their defense.

CAP. III. Filii duorum compatrum, per quorum neutrum deventum est ad compaternitatem, licite invicem contrahunt matrimonium; si tamen subest consuetudo, impediens et dirimens talia matrimonia, servanda est loci consuetudo. H. d. secundum intellectum magis communem, attingendo mentem capituli.

CHAPTER 3. The sons of two compaters, through neither of whom has compaternity arisen, licitly contract marriage with one another; if, however, there underlies a custom impeding and diriment of such marriages, the custom of the place is to be observed. This is to be understood according to the more common understanding, touching the intent of the chapter.

Idem Vigiliensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Vigiliensis.

Super eo, quod a nobis tua fraternitas requisivit de duorum compatrum filiis, respondemus, quod si tales filii fuerint, per quorum alterum vel utrumque parentes ad compaternitatem venerunt, eos coniungi nulla ratione sustineas, et coniunctos pontificali auctoritate ab invicem ipsos non differas separare. Ceterum si per neutrum eorum ad compaternitatem ventum fuerit, de his te volumus consuetudinem tuae metropolitanae ecclesiae vel aliarum circumpositarum inquirere et diligentius imitari, ita quidem, quod, si eiusdem ecclesiae consuetudo habeat inter eos non sustinere coniugium fieri, nec factum firmitatis robur habere, tu simili modo in ecclesia tibi commissa coniugium huiusmodi fieri non permittas, et, si quos taliter coniunctos inveneris, iuxta earundem ecclesiarum consuetudinem ipsos separare ab invicem non omittas. Verum si de consuetudine habeatur, ut talia coniugia sustineantur et permittantur, id in ecclesia tua dissimulare poteris ita, quod nec tuum videaris praestare assensum, quia, sicut grave est antiquam consuetudinem circumadiacentium ecclesiarum super his contemnere, sic quoque gravius videtur, si propter eam huiusmodi coniugiis tuum indulges assensum, quum posset sic in exemplum assumi.

On the matter which your fraternity has requested from us about the sons of two co-godfathers, we answer that, if they are such sons through one or the other or both of whom the parents came into co-godparenthood, you should in no way tolerate their being joined, and, if joined, you should not delay, by pontifical authority, to separate them from one another. Moreover, if co-godparenthood has come about through neither of them, we wish you, concerning these, to inquire into the custom of your metropolitan church or of the surrounding ones and to imitate it more diligently, thus indeed, that, if the custom of that same church holds not to sustain that a marriage be made between them, nor that what has been done have the force of validity, you likewise in the church committed to you should not permit a marriage of this sort to be made, and, if you find any so joined, you should not omit, according to the customs of those same churches, to separate them from one another. But if by custom it is held that such marriages are sustained and permitted, you will be able to dissimulate this in your church in such a way that you do not seem to lend your assent; because, just as it is grave to contemn the ancient custom of the neighboring churches in these matters, so too it seems graver if, on account of it, you indulge your assent to marriages of this kind, since it could thus be taken up as an example.

CAP. IV. Inter patrem baptizati et uxorem levantis, prius ab eo cognitam, contrahitur compaternitas efficax ad matrimonium dirimendum.

CHAPTER 4. Between the father of the baptized and the wife of the lifter (from the font), previously carnally known by him, a compaternity is contracted, efficacious for dissolving the matrimony.

Clemens III.

Clement III.

Martinus Bertham duxit in uxorem, Tebergam sibi copulavit Lotharius, qui Berthae et Martini filium de sacro fonte suscepit. L. vero et B. sublatis de medio, M. cum T. praefata contraxit; quaerit a nobis tua fraternitas, utrum tales sint ab invicem separandi. Nos autem consultationi tuae duximus respondendum, quod, quum secundum verbum Domini vir et mulier efficiantur per connubium una caro, liquidum est, Tebergam non posse matrimonialiter copulari Martino, qui compater eius fuerat, cum quo una caro ipsa Teberga noscitur exstitisse. [Super alio etc. (cf. c.5.de eo, qui cogn.

Martin took Bertha as wife; Lothar coupled Teberga to himself, who received from the sacred font the son of Bertha and Martin. But with L. and B. removed from the midst, M. contracted marriage with the aforesaid T.; your fraternity asks of us whether such persons are to be separated from one another. We, however, have deemed it right to respond to your consultation, that, since according to the word of the Lord a man and a woman through connubium become one flesh, it is clear that Teberga cannot be matrimonially joined to Martin, who had been her compater, with whom as one flesh herself Teberga is known to have existed. [On another matter etc. (cf. ch.5.on him who has known

IV. 13.)Dat. Laterani.]

4. 13.)Given at the Lateran.]

CAP. V. Compaternitas, per catechismum contracta, impedit matrimonium contrahendum, sed contractum non dirimit.

CHAPTER 5. Compaternity, contracted through catechism, impedes a marriage to be contracted, but does not dissolve one that has been contracted.

Idem.

The same.

Contracto matrimonio inter P. de Rigale et A. uxorem suam, sicut eiusdem P. nobis conquestio patefecit, quum per biennium insimul habitassent, et filium ex ipsa uxore memoratus P. suscepissset, quidam consanguinei eiusdem A., volentes eam separari a viro, contra matrimonium obiecerunt, asserentes, quod eadem A. in primo sacrati salis pabulo filium quondam concubinae ipsius P. tenuit, quum fuit primum in ecclesia inductus; et propter hoc tuam praesentiam adeuntes dicebant, ipsam debere a viro per tuum iudicium separari. Tua vero fraternitas, sicut accepimus, causa non cognita, iis carnale commercium interdixit, prohibens ipsi P., ne debitum ab uxore requireret. Verum, si constaret ecclesiae, vera esse quae diximus, non ideo tamen contractum matrimonium solveretur, quae res utique vix contrahendo matrimonio impedimentum afferret. Ideoque discretioni tuae per apostolica scripta Mandamus, quatenus praefato P. auctoritate nostra firmiter iniungas, ut memoratam A. sicut uxorem propriam maritali affectione pertractet, et carnale debitum ab ea licenter exigat et persolvat, sive, quod supra dictum est, ipsam A. ante matrimonium contractum cum P., sive postea constiterit hoc egisse; dum tamen, si in fraudem hoc fecerit causa matrimonii separandi, poenitentiam pro praesumptione accipiat, matrimonio in sua firmitate durante.

With a marriage contracted between P. of Rigale and A., his wife, as the complaint of the same P. laid open to us, since for two years they had lived together, and the aforesaid P. had received a son from that very wife, certain consanguines of the same A., wishing her to be separated from her husband, objected against the marriage, asserting that the same A., at the first pabulum of the consecrated salt, held the son of a former concubine of that P., when he was first inducted into the church; and on account of this, approaching your presence, they were saying that she ought to be separated from her husband by your judgment. But your fraternity, as we have learned, the case not known, interdicted to them carnal commerce, forbidding that P. to require the debt from his wife. In truth, if it were established to the Church that the things we have said are true, not even for that reason would the contracted marriage be dissolved; a matter which in any case would scarcely bring an impediment to the contracting of a marriage. And so, to your discretion through apostolic writings We command, that you firmly enjoin upon the aforesaid P. by our authority, that he treat the aforesaid A., as his own wife, with marital affection, and that he licitly exact from her and render the carnal debt, whether, as was said above, that same A. did this before the marriage was contracted with P., or it shall have been established that she did it afterwards; provided, however, that if she did this in fraud for the purpose of separating the marriage, she receive penance for the presumption, the marriage continuing in its firmness.

CAP. VI. Inter patrem baptizati et levantem seu tenentem baptizatum contrahitur cognatio spiritualis valida ad impediendum, et dirimendum matrimonium postcontractum.

CHAPTER 6. Between the father of the baptized and the one lifting or holding the baptized, a spiritual cognation is contracted, valid for impeding, and for dissolving a marriage contracted afterwards.

Innocentius III. Episcopo et Archidiacono Linconiensibus.

Innocent 3. To the Bishop and Archdeacon of Lincoln.

Veniens ad apostolicam sedem C. Anglicus natione nobis exposuit, quod, quum olim in adolescentia constitutus mulieri cuidam adhaesisset, quam quidam alius ante cognoverat, de consilio matris suae factum est, ut eadem mulier quendam puerum, quem de alia soluta ipse susceperat, de sacro fonte levaret ad suspicionem et infamiam utriusque delendam. Deinde vero, quum in eius amorem vehementius exarderet, absque consilio amicorum eam clanculo desponsavit. Quumque prolem ex ea procreare non posset, et increpationes a patre suo gravissimas sustineret, quod eam desponsando deliquerat revolvens in animo, ipsa dimissa, causa orationis Hierosolymam est profectus.

Coming to the Apostolic See, C., an Englishman, by nation, set forth to us that, when once in his adolescence he had adhered to a certain woman, whom another man had previously known, it was done by the counsel of his mother that the same woman should lift from the sacred font a certain boy, whom he himself had received from another unbound (soluta) woman, for the deleting of the suspicion and infamy of them both. Then indeed, as he flamed up more vehemently into love of her, without the counsel of friends he secretly betrothed her. And when he could not procreate offspring from her, and endured most grave reproaches from his father, revolving in his mind that by betrothing her he had done wrong, she having been dismissed, for the sake of prayer he set out for Jerusalem.

Verum quum idem rediens de partibus transmarinis prolem eam suscepisse de alio invenisset, ei noluit adhaerere; sed propter adulterium, quod commisisse taliter videbatur, ea omnino dimissa, ad longinquam se transferens regionem, et ad Eugubinam tandem veniens civitatem, quandam ibidem cum terra competenti et dote decenti sibi matrimonialiter copulavit, de qua prolem se confessus est suscepisse. Ea propter discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta Mandamus, quatenus super his inquiratis diligentius veritatem, et, si constiterit, H. mulierem praedicti viri filium de sacro fonte levasse, antequam eam desponsasset uxorem, vos inter eos divortium, appellatione postposita, celebretis, rei processum nobis per literas vestras fideliter exponentes ut an cum secundo legitime commorari valeat veritate cognita decernere valeamus. [Dat. ap. civitatem Castellanam VIII.

However, when the same man, returning from overseas parts, had found that she had received offspring from another, he did not wish to adhere to her; but, on account of the adultery which she thus seemed to have committed, with her wholly dismissed, transferring himself to a far-off region, and at length coming to the city of Eugubium, he there joined to himself in matrimony a certain woman with suitable land and a decent dowry, from whom he confessed that he had received offspring. Therefore to your discretion by apostolic writings We command, that you inquire more diligently the truth concerning these matters, and, if it shall be established that H., the woman, lifted the son of the aforesaid man from the sacred font before he had betrothed her as wife, you shall celebrate a divorce between them, appeal being set aside, faithfully setting forth to us by your letters the process of the case, so that, the truth being known, we may be able to determine whether he may lawfully cohabit with the second. [Dated at the city of Castellana, 8.

Id. Oct. 1198.]

Ides of October. 1198.]

CAP. VII. Si filii duorum compatrum, per quorum alterum deventum est ad compaternitatem, matrimonium contrahant, separantur, et tempore contractus scientes impedimentum illud denunciare tenentur.

CHAPTER 7. If the sons of two co-godfathers, through one of whom spiritual co-parenthood was entered, should contract matrimony, they are separated, and at the time of the contract those knowing that impediment are bound to denounce it.

Idem Magistro S. Canonico Herfordensi.

The same to Master S., canon of Hereford.

Tua nos duxit discretio consulendos, an natus ante compaternitatem filiam compatris sui vel commatris procedente tempore sibi possit matrimonialiter copulare, et, si cum ea contraxit, et pluribus annis simul permanserit, an postea debeant separari, et an conscii talis matrimonii teneantur illud in publico accusare. Super quo discretioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod huiusmodi personae non matrimonium contrahere, et, si contraxerint, de iuris rigore possunt ab invicem separari, et, qui contractum sciverint, debent ecclesiae illud nunciare. [Dat.

Your discretion has led us to be consulted, whether one born before the compaternity may be able to join to himself matrimonially the daughter of his godfather or godmother in the course of time, and, if with her he has contracted, and has remained together for many years, whether afterward they ought to be separated, and whether those conscious of such a marriage are bound to accuse it in public. Whereupon we reply to your discretion thus, that persons of this sort ought not to contract marriage, and, if they have contracted, by the rigor of the law they can be separated from one another, and those who have known of the contract ought to announce it to the Church. [Dat.

Lat. XV. Kal. Apr. 1202.]

Lateran, March 18. 1202.]

CAP. VIII. Inter baptizatum et filium baptizantis oritur cognatio spiritualis, impediens et dirimens matrimonium inter eos contrahendum. H. d.

CHAPTER 8. Between the baptized person and the son of the baptizer there arises a spiritual cognation, impeding and nullifying a marriage to be contracted between them. Thus decreed.

Gregorius IX. Ex literis vestris accepimus, quod, quum M. mulier coram officiali Cantiuariensi Alanum peteret in virum, et se affidatam ab eo ac carnaliter cognitam per testes idoneos probavisset, dictorum tandem testium depositionibus publicatis, idem A. excipiendo proposuit, quod eam habere non poterat in uxorem pro eo, quod ipsum pater mulieris eiusdem, qui sacerdos exstitit, baptizavit. Sed quum idem officialis, exceptione huiusmodi non admissa, diffinitivam tulerit sententiam contra ipsum, et idem ad sedem apostolicam appellaverit, mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, eundem A. super hoc ab impetitione mulieris absolvatis ipsius, eidem mulieri perpetuum silentium imponentes.

Gregory 9. From your letters we have received that, when M., a woman, before the official of Canterbury was seeking Alan as a husband, and had proven by suitable witnesses that she had been affianced by him and carnally known, after the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses had at length been published, the same A., by way of exception, put forward that he could not have her as a wife, for the reason that he himself had been baptized by the father of that same woman, who was a priest. But when the same official, such an exception not having been admitted, had rendered a definitive sentence against him, and the same had appealed to the Apostolic See, we command that, if it is so, you absolve that same A. in this matter from the woman’s prosecution of him, imposing perpetual silence upon the same woman.

TITULUS XII. DE COGNATIONE LEGALI.

TITLE 12. ON LEGAL KINSHIP.

CAP. UN.

CHAPTER 1.

Inter adoptatum et filiam adoptantis non potest durante adoptione consistere matrimonium.

Between the adopted and the adopter’s daughter, a matrimony cannot subsist during the adoption.

Nicolaus ad consulta Bulgarorum.

Nicholas to the consultations of the Bulgarians.

Si qua per adoptionem mihi soror esse coeperit, quam diu durat adoptio, sane inter me et ipsam nuptiae consistere non possunt. [Si ergo etc.]

If any woman through adoption has begun to be a sister to me, for as long as the adoption endures, indeed nuptials cannot subsist between me and herself. [If therefore etc.]

TITULUS XIII. DE EO, QUI COGNOVIT CONSANGUINEAM UXORIS SUAE VEL SPONSAE.

TITLE 13. ON HIM WHO HAS KNOWN A CONSANGUINEOUS KINSWOMAN OF HIS WIFE OR BETROTHED.

CAP. I. Affinitas, superveniens post matrimonium contractum, non solvit matrimonium, sed exactionem debiti impedit, et crimen incestus inhabilitat quoad matrimonium contrahendum.

CHAPTER 1. Affinity, supervening after a marriage has been contracted, does not dissolve the marriage, but impedes the exaction of the debt; and the crime of incest incapacitates with respect to contracting marriage.

Ex concilio apud Metiam.

From the council at Metz.

Si quis cum filiastra sua scienter fornicatus fuerit, nec a matre debitum petere, nec filiam unquam habere potest uxorem; nec filiastra, nec ille ullo unquam tempore alii se poterunt matrimonio copulare. Attamen uxor eius, si ita voluerit et si se continere non potest, si postea quam cognoverit, quod cum filia vir eius fuit in adulterio, carnale commercium cum eo non habuerit, potest alii nubere.

If anyone has knowingly fornicated with his stepdaughter, he can neither demand the marital debt from the mother, nor can he ever have the daughter as a wife; neither the stepdaughter nor he will ever at any time be able to join themselves in marriage to another. However, his wife, if she so wills and if she cannot contain herself, provided that after she has learned that her husband was in adultery with the daughter she has not had carnal commerce with him, can marry another.

CAP. II. Affinitas, superveniens per illicitum coitum, dissolvit sponsalia de futuro, sed non matrimonium; et incestuosus contrahere non potest.

CHAPTER 2. Affinity, supervening through illicit coitus, dissolves sponsalia de futuro, but not marriage; and an incestuous person cannot contract.

Alexander III. Pictaviensi Episcopo.

Alexander III. To the Bishop of Poitiers.

Veniens ad nos P. praesentium lator nobis fraternitatis tuae literas praesentavit, ex quarum tenore perpendimus, quod quandam duxerat in uxorem, quam quidam dissuaserunt ei per mensem, ex quo eam duxerat, carnaliter cognoscere. Contigit autem, sicut dixit, quod pater iussit uxorem suam, quae sponsae mater erat, in huius lecto iacere, quam diabolo suggerente cognovit. Transacto vero mense tam pater quam alii propinqui coegerunt, ut matrimonium cum sponsa sua consummaret, quod facere noluit, donec tecum super hoc loqueretur.

Coming to us, P., the bearer of the present, presented to us the letters of your fraternity, from the tenor of which we gathered that he had taken a certain woman as wife, whom certain persons dissuaded him, for a month from the time he had taken her, to know carnally. It befell, however, as he said, that the father ordered his own wife, who was the mother of the bride, to lie in this man’s bed, whom, the devil suggesting, he knew. But when the month had elapsed, both the father and other kinsmen compelled him to consummate the marriage with his bride, which he was unwilling to do until he should speak with you about this.

Tu vero audita eius confessione ipsum cum literis tuis ad sedem apostolicam transmisisti, [consulens, si illam habere debet pro uxore, cuius matrem cognoverat, et quae sibi esset poenitentia iniungenda.] Inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si occultum esset huiusmodi peccatum, non posset matrimonium rescindere, quod publice contraxisset. Verum si publicum est, quod matrem sponsae suae cognovit, et sponsae nunquam carnaliter adhaesit, imponenda est ei poenitentia paulo maior quam pro adulterio, qua peracta, vel parte ipsius, poterit ex dispensatione cum alia matrimonium contrahere, et illa alii nubere, et pater sponsae, si vult, potest factum dissimulare. Ceterum si sponsam cognovit antequam matrem vel post, nunquam eam vel aliam potest accipere in uxorem.

But you, having heard his confession, sent him with your letters to the apostolic see, [consulting whether he ought to have her as a wife, whose mother he had carnally known, and what penance ought to be enjoined upon him.] We answer your inquiry thus, that, if such a sin were secret, it could not rescind the marriage which he had publicly contracted. But if it is public that he carnally knew the mother of his betrothed, and he never adhered carnally to the betrothed, a penance is to be imposed upon him a little greater than for adultery; when this has been completed, or in part thereof, he may by dispensation contract marriage with another, and that woman may marry another man, and the father of the betrothed, if he wills, can dissimulate the deed. Moreover, if he knew the betrothed before the mother or after, he can never take her or another as wife.

CAP. III. Non separatur matrimonium ad dictum unius, asserentis, affinitatem inter coniuges praecessisse.

CHAPTER 3. Marriage is not separated on the dictum of a single person, asserting that affinity had preceded between the spouses.

Idem.

The same.

De illo autem, qui uxorem fratris sui, antequam ei matrimonio iungeretur, se proposuit cognovisse, hoc tuae prudentiae respondemus, quod, nisi hoc publicum et notorium fuerit aut idoneis testibus comprobatum, praedictum matrimonium occasione illa ipsum impetere non permittas. Super eo vero, quod asseris, Sarracenum quendam de muliere Christiana, quam per quatuordecim annos retinuerat filios suscepisse discretioni tuae duximus respondendum, quod tam Sarracenus quam mulier pro tanto excessu gravi sunt animadversione plectendi.

Concerning that however, who has set forth that he knew carnally the wife of his brother his own before she was joined to him in matrimony, to your prudence we respond this: that, unless this is public and notorious or proved by suitable witnesses, you should not permit him to impugn the aforesaid marriage on that ground. As to that, indeed, which you assert, that a certain Saracen has begotten sons on a Christian woman, whom he had retained for fourteen years, we have deemed it right to respond to your discretion, that both the Saracen and the woman, for so great an excess, are to be punished with severe animadversion.

CAP. IV. Incestuosus matrimonium contrahere non debet; sed, si contrahit, tenet. Et tunc tenetur reddere, sed non potest debitum exigere; et non minus tenetur uxori necessaria administrare.

CHAPTER 4. An incestuous person ought not to contract matrimony; but, if he contracts it, it holds. And then he is bound to render the marital debt, but he cannot exact the debt; and he is no less bound to administer to his wife the necessities.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine 3.

Transmissae nobis tuae literae demonstrarunt, quod G. lator praesentium, uxore sua defuncta, filiam eius, privignam videlicet propriam, copula carnali cognovit; postmodum vero aliam legitimam accipiens in uxorem, non iam occulte cum privigna praedicta, sed publice, tanquam canis ad vomitum rediens, illicitam rem committere non expavit. Quia vero super his consilium requisisti, de consilio fratrum nostrorum praesenti pagina respondemus, quod suae legitimae uxori cohabitans, et necessaria subministrans, non cognoscat eam, quamdiu vixerit, nisi ab ea fuerit requisitus, et tunc ad ipsam non sine gravi cordis sui dolore accedat; qui etiam pro incestu et adulterio, donec cum ea permanserit, iuxta moderamen tui arbitrii poenitentiam agens, postmodum, si supervixerit ei, perpetuo sine spe coniugii permanebit.

The letters of yours transmitted to us have shown that G., the bearer of the present, his wife having died, knew by carnal coupling her daughter, namely his own stepdaughter; afterwards however, taking another legitimate woman as wife, no longer secretly with the aforesaid, but publicly, like a dog returning to its vomit, he did not shrink from committing the illicit matter. But since you have requested counsel concerning these things, by the counsel of our brothers we respond by the present page, that, cohabiting with his own legitimate wife and supplying the necessities, he shall not know her as long as he shall live, unless he is requested by her, and then let him approach her not without grievous pain of his own heart; and he also, for incest and adultery, so long as he shall have remained with her, doing penance according to the moderation of your judgment, afterward, if he outlives her, will remain perpetually without hope of marriage.

CAP. V. Non separatur matrimonium ad confessionem coniugum, qui dicunt affinitatem processisse, etiamsi rumor viciniae consentiat. Et est casus multum allegabilis et notabilis.

CHAPTER 5. Matrimony is not separated upon the confession of the spouses, who say that affinity has proceeded, even if the rumor of the neighborhood consents. And it is a case very allegable and notable.

Idem.

The same.

Super eo vero, quod postulas, utrum coniugatus, qui ante contractum matrimonium uxoris suae consanguineam vel propinquam carnali commixtione cognovit, quum id fateatur uterque, et aliqua pars viciniae hoc acclamare dicatur, sit ab uxore sua iudicio ecclesiae separandus, tuae fraternitati respondemus, quod, si aliter veritas ordinario iudicio venire non potuerit in lucem, propter eorum confessionem tantum vel rumorem viciniae separari non debeat, quum et quandoque nonnulli inter se contra matrimonium velint colludere et ad confessionem incestus facile prosilirent, si suo iudicio crederent per iudicium ecclesiae concurrendum. Rumor autem viciniae non adeo est iudicandus validus, quod, nisi rationabiles et fide dignae probationes accedant, possit bene contractum matrimonium irritari. [Tertio loco etc. (cf. c.3.de praesumpt.

Concerning this indeed, which you ask—whether a married man who, before the marriage was contracted, knew by carnal commixture his wife’s consanguine or near kinswoman, since both confess this, and some part of the neighborhood is said to acclaim it, is to be separated from his wife by judgment of the Church—we answer to your fraternity that, if otherwise the truth cannot come to light by ordinary judgment, he ought not to be separated on account of their confession alone or the rumor of the neighborhood, since also at times some wish to collude with each other against the marriage, and would readily spring to a confession of incest, if they believed, in their own judgment, that by the judgment of the Church it must be resorted to. Moreover, the rumor of the neighborhood is not to be judged so strong that, unless reasonable and trustworthy proofs are added, a well-contracted marriage can be annulled. [In the third place etc. (cf. c.3.on presumption.

II. 23.)Dat. Laterani.]

2. 23.)Given at the Lateran.]

CAP. VI. Affinitas superveniens non dissolvit sponsalia de praesenti.

CHAPTER 6. Supervening affinity does not dissolve espousals of the present.

Innocentius III. Praeposito Magdeburgensi.

Innocent 3. To the Provost of Magdeburg.

Discretionem tuam in Domino commendamus, quod in his, quae dubia reputas vel obscura, sedem consulis apostolicam, ut in eis de cetero ipsius auctoritate procedas. Sane in audientia nostra ex parte tua fuit propositum, quod quidam [vir] cum muliere quadam legitime per verba de praesenti contraxit, quam postmodum a se incognitam cuidam consanguineo suo tradidit, in quantum potuit renitentem. Ille vero cum ipsa, licet invita, matrimonii solennia celebravit; sed mulier quam cito fuit reddita libertati, aufugit ab eo, et se priori viro vel priorem sibi restitui cum instantia postulavit. Nos igitur inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod et viro pro tam turpi facinore gravis est poenitentia iniungenda, et mulier ipsa propter publicam honestatem est monenda sollicite, ut nec primum repetat, cuius consanguineus eam, licet invitam, cognovit, nec redeat ad secundum, cui non potest propter reatum adulterii commisceri; sed in continentia maneat, donec prior fuerit viam universae carnis ingressus.

We commend your discretion in the Lord, that in those things which you deem doubtful or obscure, you consult the apostolic see, so that in these hereafter you may proceed by its authority. Indeed, in our audience it was set forth on your part, that a certain [man] with a certain woman legitimately contracted by words of the present, whom afterwards, not known by him, he handed over to a certain consanguine of his, she resisting as much as she could. He, however, with her, though unwilling, celebrated the solemnities of matrimony; but the woman, as soon as she was restored to liberty, fled from him, and demanded with urgency that she be restored to her prior husband or that the prior [husband] be restored to herself with urgency. We therefore thus answer to your inquiry, that both to the man, for so foul a crime, a heavy penance is to be enjoined, and the woman herself, for public honesty’s sake, is to be carefully admonished, that she neither seek back the first, whose consanguine knew her, though unwilling, nor return to the second, with whom she cannot be joined on account of the guilt of adultery; but let her remain in continence until the former shall have entered the way of all flesh.

Quodsi forsitan ad id induci nequiverit, vir prior cogatur redire ad ipsam, et maritali eam affectione tractare, quum adulterium ei non possit obiicere, qui eam adulterandam tradidit, praesertim invitam. Nam etsi secundum evangelicam veritatem nunquam, nisi propter fornicationis causam, aut vir uxorem, aut uxor possit dimittere virum: non tamen semper propter causam eandem vel uxor virum, vel vir dimittere potest uxorem, quum possit exceptione vel replicatione legitima impediri. Sed nec affinitas, quae post contractum legitime matrimonium inter virum et uxorem inique contrahitur, ei debet officere, quae huiusmodi iniquitatis particeps non exsistit, quum suo iure non debeat sine sua culpa privari; quanquam a quodam praedecessore nostro dicatur in simili casu fuisse distinctum, utrum videlicet incestus vel adulterium manifestum fuerit, an occultum, aliis asserentibus, inter gradum proximum et remotum esse potius distinguendum.

But if perchance she cannot be induced to this, let the prior husband be compelled to return to her and to treat her with marital affection, since he cannot object adultery to her—he who handed her over to be adulterated, especially being unwilling. For although according to evangelical truth neither a husband may ever dismiss a wife nor a wife the husband, except for the cause of fornication, nevertheless not always for that same cause can either the wife dismiss the husband or the husband dismiss the wife, since it can be impeded by a legitimate exception or replication. But neither ought the affinity, which, after a marriage has been legitimately contracted between husband and wife, is iniquitously contracted, to prejudice her who does not exist as a participant in an iniquity of this sort, since she ought not, without her own fault, to be deprived of her right; although by a certain predecessor of ours it is said to have been distinguished in a like case whether, videlicet, the incest or the adultery had been manifest or occult, others asserting that one ought rather to distinguish between the proximate and the remote degree.

CAP. VII. Copula carnalis, habita cum puella septem annorum, dirimit matrimonium postea contractum cum consanguinea. H. d. secundum unum intellectum.

CHAPTER 7. Carnal copulation, had with a girl of seven years, severs the marriage afterwards contracted with a consanguine kinswoman. Here, according to one interpretation.

Idem Bisuntinensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Besançon.

Fraternitati tuae super tribus capitulis sedem consulenti apostolicam, ad cuius consilium est in rebus dubiis a cunctis fidelibus recurrendum, scriptis praesentibus respondemus. In primo Divortii sententiam approbamus, quam in eum canonice promulgasti, qui illam sibi postea copulare praesumpsit, cuius antea sororem adhuc septennem, contractis sponsalibus, extraordinaria libidine noscitur polluisse. [Presbyteros etc.

To your fraternity, consulting the Apostolic See concerning the three chapters, to whose counsel in doubtful matters it is to be had recourse by all the faithful, we respond by these present writings. In the first we approve the sentence of Divorce, which you canonically promulgated against him who afterwards presumed to couple himself with that woman, whose sister beforehand, still seven years old, with sponsals contracted, he is known to have defiled with extraordinary lust. [Presbyters etc.

cf. c. 6. de cler. exc. V.27.Dat.

cf. ch. 6. on cler. exc. 5.27.Given.

Ferentini XII. Kal. Iun Ao. VI. 1203.]

At Ferentino, May 21, Year 6. 1203.]

CAP. VIII. Affinitas, causata ex copula illicita, rumpit sponsalia praecedentia, et privat facultate contrahendi matrimonium.

CHAPTER 8. Affinity, caused from illicit copulation, breaks preceding espousals, and deprives of the faculty of contracting matrimony.

Idem Episcopo Gerundensi.

The same to the Bishop of Gerona.

Ex literis fraternitatis tuae accepimus, quod G. lator earum, matrem puellae, quam infra nubiles annos desponsaverat in uxorem, carnaliter saepe cognovit, et post carnali commixtione puellam tractavit adultam. Unde ipsius viri animae provideri humiliter postulasti, et utrum mulieri ad secundas nuptias ipso vivente liceat convolare, quum hoc factum publicum et notorium habeatur. Nos autem eidem viro poenitentiam iniungi fecimus pro peccato, consultationi tuae taliter respondentes, quod, si ita res se habet, eis ab invicem penitus separatis, mulier alteri viro non nubat, si postquam novit viri et matris delictum, se carnaliter ei non erubuit commisceri. Vir etiam et mater mulieris ipsius nunquam debent ad alias nuptias convolare, sed semper continentiam servare tenentur, et enorme deflere delictum, quod pro tam nefanda libidine contraxerunt, praesertim si circa personas huiusmodi de lapsu carnis minime timeatur.

From the letters of your fraternity we have gathered that G., the bearer of them, carnally often knew the mother of the girl whom, below marriageable years, he had betrothed as wife, and after the carnal commixture he treated the girl as adult. Wherefore you humbly requested that provision be made for the soul of that man, and whether it is permitted for the woman to fly to second nuptials while he is living, since this deed is held public and notorious. But we caused penance to be enjoined upon the same man for the sin, thus responding to your consultation, that, if the matter so stands, with them utterly separated from one another, the woman is not to wed another man, if, after she learned the sin of the man and of her mother, she did not blush carnally to be commixed with him. The man also and the mother of the woman herself ought never to fly to other nuptials, but are bound always to keep continence, and to bewail the enormous offense which they contracted for so nefarious a lust, especially if, concerning persons of this sort, a lapse of the flesh is in no way to be feared.

[Dat. Ferentini XIII. Kal.

[Given at Ferentino on the 13th before the Kalends.

Iul. 1203.]

July. 1203.]

CAP. IX. Idem quoad titulum dicit, quod decretalis supr. proxima.

CHAPTER 9. As to the title, it says the same as the decretal immediately above.

Idem Archiepiscopo Magdeburgensi.

The same to the Archbishop of Magdeburg.

Veniens ad apostolicam sedem E. laicus, lator praesentium humili nobis confessione proposuit, quod, quum olim tempore infantiae suae de consilio amicorum quandam puellam se ducturum iuraverit in uxorem, quam cito ad legitimam pervenisset aetatem, pater puellae, confoederatione huiusmodi fideiussorum obligatione hinc inde firmata, eum in propria domo recepit, et nutrivit insimul cum puella. Deinde vero ex conversatione diutina, totius domus familiaritatem adeptus sorori puellae, cui se iuraverat fore maritum, instinctu generis seductoris humani carnaliter se coniunxit. Tandem amicorum suorum devictus instantia, quam iuraverat in uxorem accepit, et nuptiis celebratis, quando se illi opportunitas ingerebat, cognoscebat utramque.

Coming to the apostolic see, E., a layman, the bearer of these presents, in humble confession set before us that, when formerly in the time of his infancy, by the counsel of friends he had sworn that he would take a certain girl to wife, as soon as he had come to lawful age, the girl’s father, a confederation of this kind having been made firm by the obligation of sureties on both sides, received him into his own house and brought him up together with the girl. Then indeed, out of long conversation, having acquired the familiarity of the whole house with the sister of the girl, to whom he had sworn he would be husband, at the instigation of the seducer of the human race he joined himself carnally. At length, overcome by the urgency of his friends, he took as wife the one whom he had sworn; and the nuptials having been celebrated, whenever opportunity presented itself to him, he had carnal knowledge of both.

Verum licet in praesentia tua super hoc fuerit accusatus, convinci tamen non potuit, nec suum voluit confiteri delictum; nunc autem reversus ad cor et poenitens de commissis, salutis suae consilium requirit impendi, ne tanquam equus et mulus, quibus nullus est intellectus, in animae suae periculum videatur errare. Quum igitur non tantum a malo, sed etiam ab omni specie mali praecipiat Apostolus abstinere, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, praedicto E. pro huiusmodi enormitatis excessu iniuncta poenitentia competenti, consulas ei, monens illum salubriter et inducens, ut de cetero abstineat ab utraque. [Dat. Anagniae VII.

However, although in your presence he was accused concerning this, nevertheless he could not be convicted, nor was he willing to confess his delict; but now, returned to his heart and penitent for what has been committed, he seeks that counsel for his salvation be expended, lest, like a horse and a mule, which have no understanding, he appear to err to the peril of his soul. Since therefore the Apostle enjoins to abstain not only from evil, but also from every appearance of evil, to your fraternity through apostolic writings we command that, the aforesaid E., a suitable penance having been enjoined for an excess of such enormity, you counsel him, wholesomely admonishing and inducing him, that henceforth he abstain from both. [Given at Anagni 7.

Id. Oct. 1203.]

Ides of October. 1203.]

CAP. X. Affinitas superveniens non dissolvit matrimonium.

CHAPTER 10. Affinity supervening does not dissolve matrimony.

Idem Archiepiscopo Strigoniensi.

The same to the Archbishop of Esztergom.

Tuae fraternitatis devotio postulavit per sedem apostolicam edoceri, utrum is, qui cum sorore legitimae coniugis fornicatur, cum uxore possit postmodum commorari, et exigere debitum ac solvere requisitus, vel propter hoc debeat matrimonium separari. Nos igitur inquisitioni tuae breviter respondemus, quod uxor, ut a commixtione viri abstineat propter publicam honestatem, et in continentia maneat, donec vir viam universae carnis ingressus fuerit, diligentius est monenda. Quodsi forte commonitioni parere recusans talis fuerit, ut de lapsu timeatur ipsius, vir eius poterit et debebit, tamen cum Dei timore, debitum ei solvere coniugale, quum affinitas, post matrimonium inique contracta, illi nocere non debeat, quae iniquitatis particeps non exsistit, unde iure suo non debet sine culpa privari, [quanquam dicatur etc. Consuluisti etc.

The devotion of your fraternity has requested to be instructed through the apostolic see whether he who fornicates with the sister of his lawful spouse can thereafter live with his wife, and exact the debt and, when required, pay it, or whether on account of this the marriage ought to be separated. We therefore briefly to your inquiry respond, that the wife is to be more diligently admonished that, for public honesty’s sake, she abstain from the commixture of her husband and remain in continence until the husband shall have entered the way of all flesh. But if perhaps, refusing to obey the admonition, she should be such that a fall on her part is to be feared, her husband will be able and ought, nevertheless with fear of God, to pay to her the conjugal debt, since the affinity, unjustly contracted after the marriage, ought not to harm her, who does not exist as a participant in the iniquity, whence she ought not without fault to be deprived of her right, [although it is said etc. You have consulted etc.

cf. c. 3. Ut lite non cont. II.6.Dat. Rom.

cf. ch. 3. That the lawsuit not be contested. 2.6.Dated at Rome.

etc. 1206.]

CAP. XI. Summatum est supr. capitulo proximo.

CHAPTER 11. It has been summed up above, in the preceding chapter.

Gregorius IX. Episcopo Pictaviensi.

Gregory 9. To the Bishop of Poitiers.

Iordanae mulieris petitio continebat, quod I. laicus cum ipsa, quae nondum decimum aetatis suae annum compleverat, per verba de futuro contraxit, et, ea infra eiusdem anni spatium carnaliter cognita, matrem ipsius sibi matrimonialiter copulare, et ad damnatae commixtionis amplexus procedere non expavit. (Et infra:) Quare praefata I. supplicavit, ut, quum carnis stimulis resistere nequeat, sibi, ne iure suo sine sua propria culpa fraudetur, providere salubriter dignaremur. Ea propter mandamus, quatenus, si res ita se habet, utrumque ipsorum ad vovendam perpetuam continentiam attente moneas et inducas, et, si ad eam induci nequiverint, memoratum I., iniuncta ei primitus pro commisso incestu poenitentia competenti, ut eidem cohabitet, et coniugale debitum reddat exactus, ecclesiastica censura compellas.

The petition of the woman Jordana contained that I., a layman, with her, who had not yet completed the tenth year of her age, contracted by words of the future, and, she having been carnally known within the space of that same year, he did not shrink from coupling to himself matrimonially her mother, and proceeding to the embraces of a condemned commixture. (And below:) Wherefore the aforesaid I. supplicated that, since he cannot resist the stings of the flesh, we would deign to provide wholesomely for him, lest he be defrauded of his right without his own proper fault. For that reason we command that, if the matter stands thus, you carefully warn and induce both of them to vow perpetual continence, and, if they cannot be induced to it, that you compel the aforesaid I., with suitable penance first enjoined upon him for the incest committed, by ecclesiastical censure to cohabit with the same and to render the conjugal debt, being required.

TITULUS XIV. DE CONSANGUINITATE ET AFFINITATE.

TITLE 14. ON CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY.

CAP. I. Separatur matrimonium, contractum inter affines primi generis et quarti gradus.

CHAPTER 1. A marriage contracted between affines of the first kind and the fourth degree is dissolved.

Alexander III. Cassiensi Abbati.

Alexander 3. To the Abbot of Cassino.

Ex literis tuis ad nos directis accepimus, quod, quum quidam secreto quandam viduam subarrhasset, et carnaliter cognovisset, cohabitasset cum ea per annum, mundualdus virum mulieris traxit in causam, proponens, quod illam, in potestate sua positam, quasi fornicariam cognovisset, tunc vir et mulier iuramento firmaverunt, quod ab anno alter in alterius copulam maritalem consenserat, et de cetero sicut vir et mulier insimul cohabitarunt. Quum autem nec iuramento [iam dictae] mulieris procurator fidem habuerit, exegit eam publice subarrhari. Tandem quum vir paratus esset eam in conspectu ecclesiae subarrhare, surrexerunt duo proponentes, quod iste, qui eam subarrhare volebat, priorem virum quarto gradu consanguinitatis attingit. Unus autem ita se audivisse iuravit; alius autem noluit id iuramento firmare.

From your letters addressed to us we learned that, when a certain man had secretly subarrhated a certain widow and had carnally known her, he had cohabited with her for a year; the mundualdus drew the woman's man into suit, alleging that he had known her, placed in his power, as a fornicatrix. Then the man and the woman confirmed by oath that a year before the one had consented to the other's marital union, and thereafter they cohabited together as husband and wife. But when not even to the oath [already-said] of the woman did the procurator give credence, he required that she be publicly subarrhated. At length, when the man was ready to subarrhate her in the sight of the church, two arose alleging that this man, who wished to subarrhate her, touches the prior husband in the fourth degree of consanguinity. One, however, swore that thus he had heard; the other however did not wish to confirm it by oath.

Et ob hoc, licet ille praefatam mulierem subarrhare distulerit, minime tamen ab eius cohabitatione discessit. Processu vero temporis ad instantiam mundualdi praefatus [vir] publice matrimonium celebravit, et postmodum cum uxore fere per annum permansit. Nunc autem quaestio prima revixit, et iuraverunt duo coram archipresbytero Plumbarolae, velut dicis, quod primus vir fuit superstiti quinto consanguinitatis gradu coniunctus. Unde, quia diversi diversa sentiunt, quid agendum sit in hoc casu, nostris literis quaeris edoceri. Quocirca discretioni tuae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus utramque partem ante tuam praesentiam convoces, et facias testes coram te iurare, [et] adhuc inquiras, a quibus et quando didicerint quod testantur.

And on account of this, although he deferred to betroth the aforesaid woman by subarrhation, nevertheless he by no means departed from cohabitation with her. But in the course of time, at the instance of the mundualdus, the aforesaid [man] publicly celebrated matrimony, and afterward remained with his wife for almost a year. Now however the first question has revived, and two swore before the archpresbyter of Plumbarola, as you say, that the first husband was joined to the survivor in the fifth degree of consanguinity. Whence, because different persons think different things, you seek by our letters to be taught what is to be done in this case. Wherefore we command your discretion by apostolic writings by way of precept, that you convoke both parties before your presence, and cause the witnesses to swear before you, [and] still further inquire, from whom and when they learned what they testify.

Si vero post motam quaestionem didicerint, non est iam dictum matrimonium dissolvendum; similiter nec si ab accusatoribus matrimonii didicerint. Inquisita vero diligentius veritate, si per testes circumspectos et omni exceptione maiores inveneris, quod primus vir superstitem quarto gradu consanguinitatis attingit, non differas divortii sententiam promulgare. Aeque enim, ut canones dicunt, abstinendum est a consanguineis uxoris, ut propriis, usque ad septimum gradum. Ceterum tuam prudentiam volumus non latere, quod personae idoneae nominandae sunt et gradus distinguendi ab utroque latere [et] computandi; non sunt causae matrimonii tractandae per quoslibet, sed per iudices discretos, qui potestatem habeant iudicandi, et statuta canonum super his non ignorent.

But if indeed they learned it after the question was set in motion, the already said marriage is not to be dissolved; likewise not if they learned it from the accusers of the marriage. But the truth having been inquired more diligently, if you find through circumspect witnesses and above all exception that the first husband is connected to the survivor in the fourth degree of consanguinity, do not defer to promulgate the sentence of divorce. For equally, as the canons say, one must abstain from the consanguines of the wife as from one’s own, up to the seventh degree. Moreover, we wish it not to be hidden from your prudence that suitable persons are to be named and the degrees distinguished on either side [and] computed; the causes of matrimony are not to be handled by just any persons, but by discreet judges, who have the power of judging, and do not ignore the statutes of the canons upon these matters.

CAP. II. Affinitas superveniens, de qua saltem constat per famam, solvit sponsalia de futuro.

CHAPTER 2. Supervening affinity, which at least is established by public report, dissolves betrothals for the future.

Urbanus III. Burdegalensi Archiepiscopo.

Urban III. To the Archbishop of Bordeaux.

Super eo, quod iuvenem quendam asseris puellam quandam nondum nubilem fide interposita desponsasse, quae, iam facta nubilis, eum repetit, et ille excipit dicens, se non debere eam ducere pro eo, quod, postquam puellam affidavit eandem, carnaliter propinquam ipsius cognovit, inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si manifestum est, eundem iuvenem cognovisse propinquam praedictae puellae, vel, si non est manifestum, fama tamen loci hoc habet, quum esset sponsa tantummodo de futuro, idem iuvenis ab eius impetitione [potest et] debet absolvi.

Concerning this, that you assert that a certain youth betrothed a certain girl, not yet nubile, with a pledge of faith interposed, who, now having become nubile, demands him back; and he pleads by way of exception, saying that he ought not to take her to wife, for the reason that, after he had affianced that same girl, he carnally knew her kinswoman, to your inquiry we thus reply: that, if it is manifest that the same youth knew the kinswoman of the aforesaid girl, or, if it is not manifest, nevertheless the fame of the place has it thus, since she was only a betrothed de futuro, the same youth from her suit [can also] and ought to be absolved.

CAP. III. Si dispensatur cum aliquo, ut possit contrahere in certo gradu alias prohibito, requiritur, quod uterque contrahentium toto gradu distet a stipite, praesertim si hoc habet cousuetudo.

CHAPTER 3. If a dispensation is made with someone, so that he may contract in a certain degree otherwise prohibited, it is required that each of the contracting parties be a whole degree distant from the stock, especially if custom has this.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine III.

Quod dilectio tua (Et infra:) Quaesivisti, autem a nobis utrum is, qui a stipite per descendentem lineam sexto vel septimo gradu distat, possit ei, quae ex altera parte per lineam descendentem ab eodem stipite secundo vel tertio gradu distat, matrimonialiter copulari, propter indulgentiam felicis memoriae Adriani Papae, tunc Albanensis episcopi, in Norwegiam apostolicae sedis legati, qua permissum est hominibus terrae illius in sexto gradu coniungi. Quod tibi videtur convenienter posse fieri secundum regulam, a quibusdam doctoribus approbatam, qua dicitur: quoto gradu quis distat a stipite, et a quolibet, per aliam lineam descendentium ab eodem, quum tamen de consuetudine terrae, si quando talis casus emerserit incolae terrae propter proximiorem gradum coniunctos separent, et impediant copulari volentes, sicut literarum tuarum series demonstravit. Nos itaque sic consultationi tuae respondemus, quod indulgentia illa sic est intelligenda, quod uterque coniungendorum distet a stipite sexto gradu, cognatione secundum canones computata. Si vero alter sexto vel septimo gradu distat a stipite, alter autem secundo vel tertio gradu, coniungi non debent. Unde in hac parte consultius duximus multitudini et observatae consuetudini deferendum, quam aliud in dissensionem et scandalum populi statuendum, quadam adhibita novitate.

As to what your love (And below:) You have asked, however of us, whether he who is distant from the stock by the descending line in the 6th or 7th degree can be matrimonially conjoined to her who on the other side by the descending line from the same stock is distant in the 2nd or 3rd degree, on account of the indulgence of the of blessed memory Pope Adrian, then bishop of Albano, legate of the apostolic see to Norway, by which it was permitted to the people of that land to be joined in the 6th degree. This seems to you to be able to be done conveniently according to a rule approved by certain doctors, which says: in what degree one is distant from the stock, so also from anyone among those descending by another line from the same—although by the custom of the land, if ever such a case has arisen, the inhabitants of the land, on account of a nearer degree, separate those who have been joined and hinder those wishing to be conjoined, as the series of your letters has shown. We therefore thus to your consultation reply, that that indulgence is to be understood thus: that each of those to be joined is distant from the stock by the 6th degree, kinship computed according to the canons. But if the one is distant from the stock by the 6th or 7th degree, and the other by the 2nd or 3rd degree, they ought not to be joined. Whence in this matter we have judged it more advisable to defer to the multitude and to the observed custom than to establish something else—with a certain novelty applied—into dissension and scandal of the people.

CAP. IV. Infideles, coniuncti in gradu prohibito a lege canonica, post baptismum non separantur.

CHAPTER 4. Infidels, joined in a degree prohibited by the canonical law, are not separated after baptism.

Innocentius III. Archiepiscopo et capitulo Tirensibus.

Innocent 3. To the Archbishop and the Chapter of Tyre.

De infidelibus ad fidem conversis nos consulere voluistis, utrum, si ante conversionem suam secundum legis veteris instituta vel traditiones suas circa gradus consanguinitatis, a canone denotatos, coniuncti fuerint, separari debeant post baptismum. Super hoc igitur Consultationi tuae duximus respondendum, quod matrimonium, sic ante conversionem contractum, non est post baptismi lavacrum separandum, quum a Iudaeis Dominus requisitus, si liceret uxorem ex quacunque causa dimittere, ipsis respondit: "Quos Deus coniunxit homo non separet," per hoc innuens, esse matrimonium inter eos. [Dat.

Concerning infidels converted to the faith, you wished to consult us whether, if before their conversion, according to the institutions of the old law or their traditions regarding degrees of consanguinity denoted by the canon, they had been joined, they ought to be separated after baptism. Therefore upon this we have deemed it proper to respond to your consultation, that a marriage thus before conversion contracted is not to be sundered after the baptismal laver, since, when the Lord was asked by the Jews whether it were lawful to dismiss a wife for any cause whatsoever, he replied to them: "Whom God has joined, let man not separate," thereby intimating that there is matrimony among them. [Given.

Lat. III. Kal.

Lateran, 3 Kalends.

Ian. 1198.]

Jan. 1198.]

CAP. V. Consanguinei mariti cum consanguineis uxoris licite contrahunt. Hoc primo.

CHAPTER 5. The consanguine relatives of the husband lawfully contract with the consanguine relatives of the wife. This first.

In gradibus prohibitis non possunt matrimonia contrahi, etiamsi hoc habeat consuetudo. Hoc secundo.

In prohibited degrees marriages cannot be contracted, even if custom has it so. This second.

Idem Rosanensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Rossano.

Quod super his articulis, qui tibi aliquam dubitationem inducunt, nostrum ducis consilium requirendum, et ad ea exsequenda, quae officium postulant pastorale, apostolicae sedis procuras auxilium invocare, sollicitudinem tuam dignis in Domino laudibus commendamus, et postulationibus tuis grato animo respondemus. Significasti siquidem nobis, quod in dioecesi tua pater et filius matrem et filiam, duo cognati duas cognatas, avunculus et nepos duas sorores ducunt in coniuges, et maritus et uxor simul baptizant puerum alienum. Quidam praeterea tuae dioecesis infra tertium et septimum gradum consanguinitatis se contingentes, adinvicem matrimonium contrahunt, hoc sibi licere de antiqua consuetudine asserentes. [(Et infra:)] Super eo igitur, quod pater et filius cum matre et filia, et duo cognati cum duabus cognatis, avunculus et nepos cum duabus sororibus contrahunt matrimonia, taliter tibi duximus respondendum, quod, licet omnes consanguinei viri sint affines uxoris, et omnes consanguinei uxoris sint viri affines, inter consanguineos tamen uxoris et consanguineos viri ex eorundem, scilicet viri et uxoris, coniugio nulla prorsus affinitas est contracta, propter quam inter eos matrimonium debeat impediri.

Because, concerning these articles, which bring upon you some hesitation, you judge that our counsel should be sought, and you take care to invoke the aid of the Apostolic See for carrying out those things which the pastoral office demands, we commend your solicitude with praises worthy in the Lord, and we respond to your petitions with a grateful mind. For you have indeed signified to us that in your diocese a father and a son take a mother and a daughter as wives, two blood-relatives take two female blood-relatives, an uncle and a nephew take two sisters in marriage, and a husband and wife together baptize another’s child. Moreover certain persons of your diocese, being connected to one another within the third and seventh degree of consanguinity, contract marriage with each other, asserting that this is permitted to them by ancient custom. [(And below:)] Therefore, concerning this, that a father and a son with a mother and a daughter, and two blood-relatives with two female blood-relatives, an uncle and a nephew with two sisters, contract marriages, we have judged that you should be answered thus: that, although all the consanguineous of the husband are the wife’s affines, and all the consanguineous of the wife are the husband’s affines, nevertheless between the wife’s blood-relatives and the husband’s blood-relatives, from the union of those same persons, namely of the husband and wife, no affinity whatsoever is contracted, on account of which marriage ought to be impeded between them.

(Et infra:) Ne autem infra gradus prohibitos matrimonium contrahatur, debes publice inhibere, et praesumptores ecclesiastica districtione punire, non obstante consuetudine, quae dicenda est potius corruptela. [Quum autem etc. Dat.

(Et infra:) But lest a marriage be contracted within the prohibited degrees, you ought to inhibit publicly, and to punish the presumers with ecclesiastical censure, the custom notwithstanding, which ought rather to be called a corruption. [When however etc. Given.

Lat. II. Kal. Ian. 1199.]

Lateran. 2 Kalends of January. 1199.]

CAP. VI. Non valet dispensatio, obtenta a Papa super matrimonio inter consanguineos contracto, si ibi causa falsa sit expressa, nisi postea eam Papa confirmaret. H. d. secundum verum et communem intellectum.

CHAPTER 6. A dispensation, obtained from the Pope upon a marriage contracted between consanguineous persons, is not valid if a false cause be expressed therein, unless afterward the Pope should confirm it. This is said according to the true and common intellect.

Idem.

The same.

Quia circa (Et infra: [cf. c. 6. de bigam. I.21.]) Porro de nobili viro N., pro cuius dispensatione, indulgentia scilicet remanendi cum ea, quae ipsum quinto consanguinitatis gradu contingit, a sede apostolica obtinenda falsa nobis causa fuerat allegata, proles videlicet, quum tamen ante dispensationem obtentam unica filia, quam habeat, viam fuerit universae carnis ingressa, prout tua consultatio continebat, dissimulare poteris, ut remaneat in copula sic contracta, quum ex separatione, sicut asseris, grave videas scandalum imminere. [Tu denique etc.

Since concerning (And below: [cf. c. 6. on bigamy, 1.21.]) Moreover, concerning the noble man N., for whose dispensation, namely the indulgence of remaining with her who touches him in the fifth degree of consanguinity, to be obtained from the apostolic see, a false cause had been alleged to us—namely, issue—although before the dispensation was obtained his only daughter, whom he has, had entered the way of all flesh, as your consultation contained, you can dissimulate, so that he may remain in the copula thus contracted, since from separation, as you assert, you see grave scandal impending. [You finally, etc.

Dat. Signiae V. Non. Oct.

Given at Signia, October 3.

Pont. nostr. Ao. XVI. 1213.]

In the 16th year of our pontificate. 1213.]

CAP. VII. Testes, qui de consanguinitate deponunt, computationem debent a stipite vel germine incipere.

CHAPTER 7. Witnesses, who depose concerning consanguinity, ought to begin the computation from the stock or the germ.

Idem.

The same.

Tua nos duxit fraternitas consulendos, utrum illorum sufficiat testimonium ad matrimonium dirimendum, qui consanguintatis gradus ab avunculo et nepote, videlicet fratris filio vel sororis, quum de fratribus vel superioribus nihil noverint vel audiverint, inceperint computare. Nos igitur inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quum coniugium multum favoris obtineat, testes, qui, ad divortium celebrandum producti, consanguinitatis gradus computant, a stipite debent incipere, id est a parentibus vel germanis, et sic per ordinem distinguere gradus, nominibus propriis vel aequipollentibus indiciis designando personas, praesertim quum saepius testimonium perhibeant de auditu. Quod quia minus est validum, non est in articulo huiusmodi nimium laxanda facultas, quum, qua ratione computationem inciperent a secundo, eadem [ratione] ab ulterioribus inchoarent.

Your fraternity has led us to be consulted as to whether the testimony of those suffices for dissolving a marriage, who begin to compute the degrees of consanguinity from an avunculus and a nephew, namely a brother’s or a sister’s son, when they have known or heard nothing of the brothers or of those above. We therefore reply thus to your inquiry: since the conjugal union obtains much favor, the witnesses who are produced for the celebration of a divorce and who compute the degrees of consanguinity ought to begin from the stock, that is, from the parents or the germane siblings, and so distinguish the degrees in order, designating the persons by their proper names or by equivalent indications, especially since they more often bear testimony from hearsay. And because that is less valid, the faculty is not to be overly relaxed in a case of this kind, since, by the same reason by which they would begin the computation from the second, by that same [reason] they would begin it from those further on.

[Consequenter etc. (cf. c. 26.de spons. IV.1.)Dat. Lat.

[Consequently, etc. (cf. ch. 26.on sponsals 4.1.)Given at the Lateran.

Id. Febr. Pont. nostr.

The Ides of February, of our pontificate.

Ao. XIV. 1212.]

Year 14. 1212.]

CAP. VIII. In secundo et tertio affinitatis genere tollitur prohibitio, quae olim erat in matrimonio contrahendo. Similiter tollitur prohibitio de sobole suscepta ex secundis nuptiis, quae olim non poterat contrahere cum cognatione prioris viri.

CHAPTER 8. In the second and third degree of affinity the prohibition is lifted, which formerly existed in contracting marriage. Similarly the prohibition is lifted concerning the offspring begotten from second nuptials, which formerly could not contract marriage with the cognation of the prior husband.

Et prohibitio coniugii ultra quartum consanguinitatis et affinitatis gradum non extenditur. H. d. iste textus, qui quotidie allegatur, et est singularis in materia sua.

And the prohibition of marriage does not extend beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity. Here, this text, which is cited daily, is singular in its subject-matter.

Idem in concilio generali.

The same in the general council.

Non debet reprehensible iudicari, si secundum varietatem temporum statuta quandoque varientur humana, praesertim quum urgens necessitas vel evidens utilitas id exposcit, quoniam ipse Deus ex his, quae in veteri testamento statuerat, nonnulla mutavit in novo. Quum ergo prohibitiones de coniugio in secundo et tertio affinitatis genere minime contrahendo, et de sobole, suscepta ex secundis nuptiis, cognationi viri non copulanda prioris, et difficultatem frequenter inducant, et aliquando periculum pariant animarum, quum cessante prohibitione cesset effectus: constitutiones super hoc editas sacri approbatione concilii revocantes, praesenti constitutione decernimus, ut sic contrahentes de cetero libere copulentur. Prohibitio quoque copulae coniugalis quartum consanguinitatis et affinitatis gradum de cetero non excedat, quoniam in ulterioribus gradibus iam non potest absque gravi dispendio huiusmodi prohibitio generaliter observari.

It ought not to be judged reprehensible if, according to the variety of times, human statutes are sometimes varied, especially when urgent necessity or evident utility demands it, since God himself changed some of the things which he had established in the Old Testament in the New. Since, therefore, the prohibitions concerning marriage not to be contracted in the second and third degree of affinity, and concerning offspring, taken from second nuptials, not to be joined to the kinship of the former husband, both frequently introduce difficulty and sometimes beget peril of souls—since, the prohibition ceasing, the effect ceases—revoking, with the approval of the sacred council, the constitutions issued on this, by the present constitution we decree that those contracting thus henceforth may be freely joined. Let the prohibition also of the conjugal union not exceed henceforth the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity, since in further degrees such a prohibition can no longer be generally observed without grave detriment.

Quaternarius vero numerus bene congruit prohibitioni coniugii corporalis, de quo dicit Apostolus, quod vir non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed mulier, neque mulier habet potestatem sui corporis, sed vir, quia quatuor sunt humores in corpore, qui constant ex quatuor elementis. Quum ergo iam usque ad quartum gradum prohibitio coniugalis copulae sit restricta, eam ita volumus esse perpetuam, non obstantibus constitutionibus super hoc dudum editis vel ab aliis vel a nobis, ut, si quis contra prohibitionem huiusmodi praesumpserit copulari, nulla longinquitate defendatur annorum, quum diuturnitas temporum non minuit peccatum, sed auget, tantoque sunt graviora crimina, quanto diutius infelicem animam detinent alligatam.

The quaternary number, indeed, well accords with the prohibition of bodily marriage, about which the Apostle says that the man does not have power over his body, but the woman; nor does the woman have power over her body, but the man; because there are four humors in the body, which consist of the four elements. Therefore, since already down to the fourth degree the prohibition of the conjugal copula has been restricted, we will that it be perpetual thus, the constitutions on this long ago issued either by others or by us notwithstanding, so that, if anyone should presume to be coupled contrary to such a prohibition, he be defended by no long distance of years, since the long duration of times does not diminish sin, but increases it, and crimes are the more grievous by so much as they hold the unhappy soul bound for a longer time.

CAP. IX. Distans a stipite quarto gradu vel citeriori, cum distante quinto vel ulteriori contrahere potest. H. d. cum glossa.

CHAPTER 9. One distant from the stock in the fourth degree or nearer can contract with one distant in the fifth or further. This is to be understood with the gloss.

Gregorius IX. Vir, qui a stipite quarto gradu, et mulier, quae ex alio latere distat quinto, secundum regulam approbatam, qua dicitur: quoto gradu remotior differt a stipite, et a quolibet per aliam lineam descendentium ex eodem, licite possunt matrimonialiter copulari.

Gregory 9. A man who is at the fourth degree from the stock, and a woman who on the other side is distant by the fifth, according to the approved rule, which says: by however many degrees the more remote differs from the stock, and from any of those descending from the same through another line, may licitly be matrimonially joined.

TITULUS XV. DE FRIGIDIS ET MALEFICIATIS, ET IMPOTENTIA COEUNDI.

TITLE 15. ON THE FRIGID AND THE BEWITCHED, AND THE IMPOTENCE OF COITION.

CAP. I. Si, marito provocante ad divortium, et se impotentem asserente, mulier hoc idem fatetur, servata solennitate canonica matrimonium indistincte dirimitur. Sed si decipiatur ecclesia, primum matrimonium reparatur.

CHAPTER 1. If, with the husband provoking to divorce and asserting himself impotent, the woman confesses the same, the marriage is dissolved indiscriminately, the canonical solemnity being observed. But if the church be deceived, the first marriage is restored.

Si vero muliere agente vir asserat se potentem, nisi per aspectum corporis vel alio indubitato modo convincatur; mulier non auditur. Sed si vir hoc idem confitetur vel convincitur, matrimonium separatur, et mulieri contrahendi licentia datur. H. d. secundum Hostiensem.

If, however, with the woman acting, the man asserts himself to be potent, unless he be convicted by inspection of the body or by some other indubitable mode, the woman is not heard. But if the man confesses the same or is convicted, the matrimony is separated, and to the woman a license of contracting is given. H. d. according to Hostiensis.

Ex Brocardico libr. XIX. Accepisti mulierem et, per aliquod tempus habuisti, per mensem aut per tres, aut postremo per annum, et nunc primum dixisti, te esse frigidae naturae ita, ut non potuisses coire cum illa, nec cum aliqua alia; et si illa, quae uxor tua esse debuit, eadem affirmat, quae tu dicis, et si probari potest per verum iudicium, ita esse ut dicitis, separari potestis, ea tamen ratione, ut, si tu post aliam acceperis, reus periurii diiudiceris, et iterum post peractam poenitentiam priora connubia reparare debebis.

From the Brocardicum, book 19. You took a woman and, for some time you kept her, for a month or for three, or finally for a year, and now for the first time you have said that you are of a cold nature, such that you could not have intercourse with her, nor with any other; and if she, who ought to have been your wife, affirms the same things that you say, and if it can be proved by a true judgment that it is so as you say, you can be separated, yet on this condition, that, if you afterwards take another, you shall be adjudged guilty of perjury, and again, after penance has been completed, you must restore the former wedlock.

Illa autem, si prior post annum aut dimidium ad episcopum aut ad eius missum se proclamaverit, dicens, quod non cognovisses eam, et negat, aliquam commixtionem inter vos esse, tu autem contrarium affirmas, tibi credendum est eo, quod caput es mulieris, quia, si se proclamare voluit, cur tamdiu tacuit? Cito enim et in parvo tempore scire mulier potuit, si secum coire potuisses. Si autem se statim in ipsa novitate, post mensem aut postremum post duos, ad episcopum aut ad eius missum proclamaverit, dicens: volo esse mater, volo filios procreare, et ideo maritum accepi, sed vir, quem accepi, frigidae naturae est, et non potest illa facere, propter quae illum accepi: si probari potest per rectum iudicium, separari potestis, et illa, si vult, nubat in Domino.

But she, if first after a year or a half-year she shall have proclaimed herself to the bishop or to his envoy, saying that you had not known her, and and denies that there is any commixture between you, but you affirm the contrary, you are to be believed for this reason, that you are the head of the woman, because, if she wished to proclaim herself, why did she keep silent so long? For quickly and in a short time the woman could know whether you had been able to have intercourse with her. But if she immediately, in the very newness, after a month or at the latest after two, shall have proclaimed herself to the bishop or to his envoy, saying: I wish to be a mother, I wish to procreate children, and for that reason I took a husband, but the man whom I took is of a frigid nature, and cannot do those things on account of which I took him: if it can be proved through a right judgment, you can be separated, and she, if she wishes, may marry in the Lord.

CAP. II. Impotens ad copulam est impotens ad contrahendum matrimonium, sive sit impedimentum aetatis sive naturae.

CHAPTER 2. Impotent for copulation is impotent for contracting marriage, whether the impediment be of age or of nature.

Alexander III. Ambianensi Episcopo.

Alexander 3. To the Bishop of Amiens.

Quod sedem apostolicam consulis super his, quae tibi dubia exsistunt, gratum gerimus et acceptum, et tua exinde fraternitas non parum commendanda videtur. Ex tua siquidem parte nobis est intimatum, quod quaedam mulier tui episcopatus cuidam viro nupsit, ignorans, quod propter utriusque inguinis rupturam genitalia eius essent abscissa, nec ab eo cognita fuisset, qui utique modo factus leprosus se pariter et sua domui reddidit infirmorum. Mulier vero, ad domum paternam reversa, sicut iuvenis alii viro nubere desiderat et coniugali faedere coniungi.

That you consult the apostolic see concerning these things which seem doubtful to you, we hold as pleasing and acceptable, and your fraternity for that reason appears by no means little commendable. Indeed it has been intimated to us on your part that a certain woman of your bishopric wedded a certain man, not knowing that on account of a rupture of both groins his genitals had been cut off, nor had she been known by him—who, indeed, now having become leprous, has consigned himself and his belongings alike to the house of the infirm. The woman, however, having returned to her father’s house, as a young woman desires to marry another man and to be joined by the conjugal bond.

Verum licet Romana ecclesia non consueverit propter naturalem frigiditatem aut propter alia maleficia legitime coniunctos dividere, si tamen consuetudo generalis Gallicanae ecclesiae habet, ut huiusmodi matrimonia dissolvantur, nos patienter tolerabimus, si secundum illam consuetudinem eidem mulieri cui voluerit nubendi in Domino concesseris facultatem. Sicut enim puer, qui non potest reddere debitum, non est aptus coniugio: sic quoque qui impotentes sunt minime apti ad contrahenda matrimonia reputantur. [Sane de canonico etc. cf. c.10.de regul.

However, although the Roman church has not been accustomed, on account of natural frigidity or on account of other malefices, to divide those legitimately conjoined, nevertheless, if the general custom of the Gallican church has it that matrimonies of this sort are dissolved, we will tolerate it patiently, if according to that custom you grant to the same woman the faculty of marrying in the Lord whom she wishes. Just as indeed a boy who cannot render the debt is not apt for conjugal union, so also those who are impotent are by no means reckoned apt for contracting matrimonies. [Indeed about the canon etc., cf. c.10.on the rule.

III. 31.]

3. 31.]

CAP. III. Naturale impedimentum ad coitum, irreparibile arte medicorum, matrimonium impedit.

CHAPTER 3. A natural impediment to intercourse, irreparable by the art of physicians, impedes marriage.

Idem.

The same.

Ex literis tuis accepimus, quod quidam sedecim annorum vel eo amplius quandam annorum tredecim duxit in uxorem, qui quum debitum reddere deberet, et non posset, mulier tam gravem infirmitatem contraxit, ut omnino viro sit facta inutilis, et instrumentum eius sit impeditum ita, quod vir ei commisceri non potest. Respondemus igitur, quod, si vitium illud mulier a natura contraxit, nec ope medicorum poterit adiuvari viro aliam accipiendi liberam tribuas facultatem. Si vero ex culpa viri hoc provenit, licet non sit tutum indulgeri ei, ut aliam accipiat: tamen sub dissimulatione poteris sustinere, quia tutius est unam tamquam uxorem habere, quam cum multis peccare.

From your letters we have learned that a certain man of sixteen years of age or even more took a certain girl of thirteen years of age as his wife, who, when he ought, and could not, to render the conjugal debt, the woman contracted so grave an infirmity that she has been made altogether useless to the man, and her instrument is impeded in such a way that the husband cannot have intercourse with her. We therefore respond that, if the woman contracted that defect from nature, nor can she be helped by the aid of physicians, you should grant to the man the free faculty of taking another. But if this came about from the fault of the husband, although it is not safe to indulge him that he take another, nevertheless under dissimulation you will be able to tolerate it, because it is safer to have one as if a wife than to sin with many.

CAP. IV. Contrahens scienter cum impotenti ad copulam, ab ea non separatur.

CHAPTER 4. Contracting knowingly with one impotent for copulation, he is not separated from her.

Lucius III.

Lucius 3.

Consultationi tuae, qua nos consuluisti, utrum feminae clausae, impotentes commisceri maribus, matrimonium possint contrahere, et, si contraxerint, an debeat rescindi, taliter respondemus, quod, licet incredibile videatur, quod aliquis cum talibus contrahat matrimonium, et quamvis de huiusmodi expressum canonem non habeamus, sacrosancta Romana tamen ecclesia consuevit in consimilibus iudicare, ut quas tanquam uxores habere non possunt habeant ut sorores. Verumtamen talibus artificio aliquando consuevit succurri, ut valeant apte reddere debitum et accipere.

To your consultation, by which you consulted us, whether women closed up, impotent to commingle with males, can contract matrimony, and, if they have contracted it, whether it ought to be rescinded, we respond thus: that, although it may seem incredible that someone would contract matrimony with such persons, and although concerning this kind we do not have an express canon, the sacrosanct Roman church nevertheless is accustomed to judge in similar cases, that those whom they cannot have as wives they should have as sisters. Nevertheless such persons are sometimes wont to be succored by artifice, so that they may be able aptly to render the due and to receive it.

CAP. V. Si de impotentia coeundi constet, statim matrimonium separatur; alias cohabitabunt coniuges per triennium. Et si cum septima manu propinquorum iurant, quod dederunt operam carnali copulae, et non potuerunt coniungi: statim separantur.

CHAPTER 5. If it is established concerning impotence of coition, the marriage is immediately separated; otherwise the spouses will cohabit for three years. And if, with the seventh hand of their kinsmen, they swear that they have applied themselves to carnal copulation and were not able to be joined, they are immediately separated.

Ita communiter summatur.

Thus it is commonly summed up.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine 3.

Laudabilem (Et infra: [cf. c.2.Ut lite pend. II.16.])Sollicite quoque ad ultimum Requisisti, quantum tempus indulgendum sit naturaliter frigidis ad experientiam copulae nuptialis, in qua si defecerint, separantur. Nos vero, quamvis in antiquis tam canonibus quam legibus super hoc diversa tempora concedantur, id tamen in praesenti consultatione sentimus, ut, si naturaliter frigidus non potest illa, quam duxit, uti pro coniuge, a tempore celebrati coniugii, si frigiditas prius probari non possit, secundum authenticum legale cohabitent per triennium. Quo elapso, si nec tunc cohabitare voluerint, et iuxta decretum Gregorii mulier, si per iustum iudicium de viro probare potuerit, quod cum ea coire non possit, accipiat alium; si autem ille aliam acceperit, separentur.

Praiseworthy (And below: [cf. c.2.While the suit is pending,2. 16.])Diligently also at the end you Inquired, how long a time ought to be indulged to those naturally frigid for the experience of the nuptial coupling, in which, if they should fail, they are separated. But we, although in the ancients, as much in canons as in laws, diverse times are granted on this, yet in the present consultation think this: that, if a naturally frigid man cannot use her whom he has taken, as a spouse, from the time of the marriage celebrated, if the frigidity cannot be proved earlier, according to the authentic legal statute they are to cohabit for a triennium. When this has elapsed, if not even then they shall have been willing to cohabit, then according to the decree of Gregory the woman, if through a just judgment she shall have been able to prove concerning the man that he cannot have intercourse with her, may take another; but if that man shall have taken another, let them be separated.

Quod si ambo consentiant simul esse, vir eam, etsi non ut uxorem, saltem habeat ut sororem. Si autem, quod nunquam se invicem cognoverint, ambo fatentur, cum septima manu propinquorum vel vicinorum bonae famae, si propinqui defuerint, tactis sacrosanctis evangeliis uterque iureiurando dicat, quod nunquam per carnis copulam una caro effecti fuissent, et tunc videtur, quod mulier valeat ad secundas nuptias convolare. Verum si ille aliam duxerit, tunc hi, qui iuraverant, rei periurii teneantur, et peracta poenitentia cogantur ad connubia priora redire.

But if both consent to be together, let the man have her, even if not as a wife, at least as a sister. If, however, both confess that they have never known one another, then, with seven hands of kinsmen, or of neighbors of good fame if kinsmen should be lacking, the sacrosanct Gospels being touched, let each by oath declare that they had never through the copula of flesh been made one flesh; and then it seems that the woman is able to hasten to second nuptials. But if he should take another, then those who had sworn are to be held liable for perjury, and, penance having been performed, they are to be compelled to return to their prior connubia.

[Denique etc. cf. c.1.de except.II.25.]

[Finally etc. cf. ch.1.on exceptions. 2.25.]

CAP. VI. Propter arctationem mulieris, si apparet, quod praeter divinum miraculum absque periculo corporali habilis reddi non potest, separatur matrimonium, redintegratur tamen, si postea appareat, ecclesiam fuisse deceptam.

CHAPTER 6. On account of the constriction of the woman, if it appears that, apart from a divine miracle, she cannot be made able without bodily peril, the marriage is separated; nevertheless it is redintegrated, if afterward it appear that the Church had been deceived.

Innocentius III. Altissiodorensi Episcopo.

Innocent III. To the Bishop of Auxerre.

Fraternitatis tuae literas recepimus, continentes, quod O. mulier cuidam viro matrimonialiter nupsit, cum quo per multos annos morata, non potuit carnaliter ab ipso cognosci. Licet autem per archipresbyterum tuum super hoc fuisses edoctus, tu tamen, volens super hoc habere certitudinem pleniorem, quasdam matronas suae parochiae providas et honestas ad tuam praesentiam evocasti, districte illis iniungens sub periculo animarum, ut mulierem ipsam prudenter inspicerent, et perquirerent diligenter, utrum idonea esset ad viriles amplexus; quae tandem in fide sua tibi asseruere constanter, quod eadem mulier nunquam poterat esse mater aut coniux, tanquam cui naturale deerat instrumentum. Unde inter ipsam et virum illum divortium celebrasti, mulierem ipsam inducens, ut ad religionem aliquam se transferret perpetuam continentiam servatura, et viro licentiam tribuisti, ut uxorem duceret in nomine Domini, quia pater fieri cupiebat.

We received the letters of your fraternity, containing that O., a woman, married a certain man matrimonially, with whom, having lived for many years, she could not be carnally known by him. And although you had been instructed by your archpresbyter on this, yet you, wishing to have a fuller certitude on this, summoned certain prudent and honorable matrons of her parish to your presence, strictly enjoining them under peril of souls to inspect the woman prudently and to inquire diligently whether she were suitable for the embraces of men; who at last affirmed to you steadfastly upon their faith that the same woman could never be either mother or spouse, as one to whom the natural instrument was lacking. Wherefore you celebrated a divorce between her and that man, inducing the woman herself to transfer herself to some religious order, to keep perpetual continence, and you granted the man license to take a wife in the name of the Lord, because he desired to become a father.

Contigit autem postea, quod mulier eadem invenit qui seras huiusmodi reseravit, et abiiciens continentiam, quam promisit, et quae alium virum habuerat, G. latori praesentium supernupsit, pro quibus humiliter supplicasti, ut cum eis misericorditer ageremus. Quamvis igitur semiplene nobis expresseris, quomodo dicta mulier se promiserit continentiam servaturam, utrum videlicet simplici verbo, an voto solenni, utrumve ad religionem transierit, ut promisit, an contra promissionem suam in domo remanserit, et qualiter seras illas fecerit reserari, utrum videlicet artificio medici, an concubitu viri, seu alio quolibet modo: nos tamen, perspicaciter attendentes, quod impedimentum illud non erat perpetuum, quod praeter divinum miraculum per opus humanum absque corporali periculo potuit removeri, sententiam divortii per errorem, licet probabilem, novimus esse prolatam, quum pateat ex postfacto, quod ipsa cognoscibilis erat illi, cuius simili commiscetur, et ideo inter ipsam mulierem et primum virum dicimus matrimonium exstitisse. Quare inter eam et praefatum G. matrimonium non esse censemus, eosque praecipimus ab invicem separari. Et si praedicta mulier ad religionem transivit, sicut asserit promisisse, primus vir, qui non cognovit eandem, cum ea remaneat, cum qua postmodum ecclesiae auctoritate contraxit; alioquin idem vir, ea dimissa, quam postea superduxit, debet ad illam redire, cum qua primo contraxit nisi se voto mulier illa constrinxerit ad continentiam observandam, ut intelligatur per hoc cum praefato G. fornicata fuisse, vel nisi se fornicario modo alii viro miscuerit, ut primus vir praetextu fornicationis, quam [ipsa] commisit, eius velit consortium declinare.

It happened, however, afterwards, that the same woman found someone who unlocked locks of this sort, and, casting off the continence which she had promised, and who had had another husband, married over G., the bearer of these presents, for which you have humbly supplicated, that we might deal mercifully with them. Although therefore you have expressed to us only half-fully how the said woman promised herself that she would observe continence, namely whether by a simple word or by a solemn vow, and whether she passed over to a religious order, as she promised, or, contrary to her promise, remained in the house, and how she had those locks unlocked—whether by the art of a physician, or by the concubitus of a man, or by any other mode—yet we, keenly considering that that impediment was not perpetual, which, apart from a divine miracle, could by human work be removed without bodily peril, know that the sentence of divorce was pronounced by error, although a probable one, since it is clear from the post fact that she was capable of being known by him with whom one of like kind is commingled; and therefore between the woman herself and the first husband we say that marriage existed. Wherefore between her and the aforesaid G. we judge there is no marriage, and we command them to be separated from one another. And if the aforesaid woman went over into religion, as she asserts she promised, the first husband, who did not know the same, shall remain with her with whom he afterwards contracted by authority of the Church; otherwise the same man, dismissing her whom he afterwards took over, ought to return to that one with whom he first contracted, unless that woman bound herself by a vow to observe continence, so that by this it is understood that she was fornicata with the aforesaid G., or unless she mingled herself in a fornicarious manner with another man, so that the first husband, under the pretext of fornication, which [she] committed, may wish to decline her consortium.

Nam si tantum simplici verbo se promisit continentiam servaturam, et postea in conspectu ecclesiae nupsit memorato G., quamdiu articulus iste dubitabilis erat, praesumi non debet, quod fornicaretur cum illo, sed amodo non debet cum illo aliquatenus remanere. Per haec autem quaestionem illam noveris esse solutam, qua quaeritur, utrum ea, quae adeo arcta est, ut nulli possit carnaliter commisceri, nisi per incisionem aut alio sibi modo violentia inferatur, non solummodo levis, sed forte tam gravis, ut ex ea mortis periculum timeatur, ad matrimonium contrahendum debeat idonea perhiberi. Similiter illa, quae viro, cui nupserat, adeo arcta est, ut nunquam ab eo valeat deflorari, si ab eo sit per iudicium ecclesiae separata, et nubat alteri [viro], cui arcta non sit, et per frequentem usum secundi reddatur etiam apta primo, utrum ad eum redire debeat, cum quo prius foedus inierat coniugale.

For if she promised only by a simple word that she would observe continence, and afterwards in the sight of the Church married the aforesaid G., so long as this point was doubtful, it ought not to be presumed that she was fornicating with him; but from now on she ought not at all to remain with him. By these considerations, moreover, you should know that that question is solved, in which it is asked whether she who is so constricted that she can have carnal intercourse with no one, unless by incision or in some other way violence be inflicted upon her—a violence not only slight, but perhaps so grave that from it peril of death is feared—ought to be held fit for contracting marriage. Likewise, as to that woman who is to the husband to whom she was married so constricted that she can never be deflowered by him: if she is separated from him by judgment of the Church, and marries another [man], to whom she is not constricted, and through frequent intercourse with the second is rendered even apt for the first, whether she ought to return to him with whom she had previously entered into the conjugal covenant.

De talibus autem non est facile iudicandum, quum finale iudicium pendeat ex futuro. Tu ergo, secundum quod superius est distinctum, facias quod decrevimus per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione postposita firmiter observari. [Dat. Ferentini V. Non.

Concerning such cases, however, it is not easy to judge, since the final judgment hangs upon the future. You, therefore, according to what has been distinguished above, shall cause what we have decreed to be firmly observed through ecclesiastical censure, the appeal being set aside. [Dated at Ferentino on the 5th of the Nones

Iul. Ao. IX. 1206.]

Jul. Year 9. 1206.]

CAP. VII. Si uxor dicit, virum, cui cohabitavit per triennium, non habere potentiam coeundi, eis hoc iurantibus cum septima manu propinquorum, matrimonium separatur. H. d. inhaerendo verbis literae.

CHAPTER 7. If the wife says that the husband with whom she has cohabited for three years does not have the potency of having intercourse, upon their swearing this with the seventh hand of their kinsfolk, the matrimony is separated. Here, by adhering to the words of the letter.

Honorius III.

Honorius 3.

Literae vestrae nobis exhibitae continebant, quod, quum causa matrimonii, quae inter M. mulierem et A. eius virum Atrebatensis dioecesis vertitur, vobis fuisset a bonae memoriae Innocentio Papa praedecessore nostro commissa, dicta M. proposuit, coram vobis, quod, quum iam octo annis elapsis dicto A. fuisset matrimonialiter copulata, et diu cohabitasset eidem, nunquam tamen, licet esset viripotens, ab eo cognita fuerat, sed adhuc integra permanebat, eo, quod praedictus vir eius non habebat potentiam coeundi; quare petebat, inter eos divortium celebrari. Praedictus vero A. nihilominus fatebatur, quod illam nunquam cognoverat, licet ad eius obsequium se facilem exhibuerit et paratam, sed tamen se habere potentiam cognoscendi alias asserebat. Vos vero, ne id forte confiterentur in fraudem, a matronis bonae opinionis, fide dignis ac expertis in opere nuptiali, dictam fecistis inspici mulierem, quae perhibuerunt testimonium, ipsam adhuc virginem permanere.

Your letters presented to us contained that, since the matrimonial cause which is in dispute between M., the woman, and A., her husband, of the Atrebatensian diocese, had been committed to you by Innocent the Pope, our predecessor, of happy memory, the said M. set forth, before you, that, already with eight years having elapsed, she had been matrimonially joined to the said A., and had long cohabited with him, nevertheless, although she was of marriageable age, she had never been known by him, but she still remained intact, because her aforesaid husband did not have the power of coition; wherefore she was asking that a divorce be celebrated between them. But the aforesaid A., nonetheless, admitted that he had never known her, although he had shown himself compliant to her service and ready, yet he asserted that he had the power of knowing others. You, however, lest they perhaps confess this fraudulently, caused the said woman to be inspected by matrons of good repute, worthy of faith and experienced in the nuptial work, who bore witness that she still remains a virgin.

Postmodum per presbyterum, de cuius parochia vir praedictus exstitit, fecistis diligenter inquiri, utrum vir ipse aliquam cognovisset, nec per inquisitionem ipsam vobis constare potuit, aliquam esse carnaliter cognitam ab eodem. Muliere autem instanter requirente divortium, et dicente, quod mater esse volebat, et filios procreare, proponente vero viro, quod paratus erat stare consilio et voluntati ecclesiae, iniunxistis eisdem, ut humiliter reciperent et agerent poenitentiam de commissis, et sic forte placeret Deo, qui matrimonii fuit institutor et auctor, ut opus matrimonii consummarent; qui post plures terminos, ad commanendum sibi a vobis indultos, ad vestram reversi praesentiam, consona voce dixerunt, quod non poterant carnaliter commisceri. Propter quod de ipsorum consensu causam huiusmodi apostolico duxistis iudicio relinquendam. Quocirca vobis iterato per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si ita est, et constiterit vobis, praefatum virum et mulierem infra praedictos annos per continuum triennium insimul habitasse, ipsis cum septima propinquorum manu firmantibus iuramento, se commisceri carnaliter nequivisse, proferatis divortii sententiam inter eos.

Afterwards, through the presbyter, of whose parish the man aforesaid belonged, you caused to be diligently inquired whether the man himself had known any woman; nor through that inquiry could it be established to you that any had been carnally known by the same. But the woman, urgently requesting a divorce and saying that she wished to be a mother and to procreate children, while the man, for his part, proposed that he was ready to stand by the counsel and will of the Church, you enjoined the same, that they should humbly receive and perform penance for what had been committed, and so perhaps it would please God, who was the institutor and author of marriage, that they might consummate the work of marriage; who, after several terms, for cohabiting to themselves by you granted, having returned to your presence, with one voice said that they could not be carnally commixed. Wherefore, with their consent, you judged that a case of this kind should be left to apostolic judgment. Therefore to you again through apostolic writings we command that, if it is so, and it has been established to you that the aforesaid man and woman, within the aforesaid years, lived together for a continuous three years, they themselves, with the seventh hand of their relatives confirming by oath that they were not able to commix carnally, you should pronounce a sentence of divorce between them.

TITULUS XVI. DE MATRIMONIO CONTRACTO CONTRA INTERDICTUM ECCLESIAE.

TITLE 16. ON MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST THE INTERDICT OF THE CHURCH.

CAP. I. Matrimonium, contra interdictum ecclesiae vel iudicis factum seu contractum, propter hoc solum non dirimitur, imponitur tamen poenitentia sic contrahentibus, et separantur, donec cognoscatur de causa interdicti. H. d. in effectu totus iste titulus.

CHAPTER 1. Matrimony, made or contracted contrary to an interdict of the Church or of a judge, is not for this reason alone dissolved; nevertheless penance is imposed upon those contracting thus, and they are separated until it is ascertained concerning the cause of the interdict. On this point, in effect, lies the whole of this title.

Alexander III. Paduano Episcopo.

Alexander 3. To the Bishop of Padua.

Literae, quas tua nobis fraternitas destinavit, expresse declarant, quod, quum quidam parochianus tuus sororem suam iam nubilem cuidam se daturum in uxorem, ea praesente et consentiente, praestito iuramento firmasset, et illa, non post multos dies dona et munera viri secundum morem terrae sponte suscipiens, ipsum tanquam proprium virum saepe amplexata fuisset, tandem mortuo fratre a proprio viri sui fratre se desponsari permisit, et, quod ab illo cognita fuisset, mendaciter asseverat. Quumque ei prohibuisses publice, ne cui illorum vel alicui se copularet: ipsa, spretis monitis tuis, alii nubere non expavit. Demum quum utrumque ante te convocasses, et mulieri praecepisses, ut ad domum matris rediret, ipsa ad nostram audientiam appellavit.

The letters which your brotherhood directed to us expressly declare that, when a certain your parishioner had, she being present and consenting, confirmed by an oath that he would give his sister, now of marriageable age, to a certain man in marriage, and she, not many days later, freely receiving the gifts and presents of the man according to the custom of the land, had often embraced him as her proper husband, finally, her brother having died, she allowed herself to be betrothed by the brother of her own husband, and she falsely asserts that she had been “known” by him. And when you had publicly forbidden her to couple herself to any of those men or to anyone at all, she, despite your warnings, did not fear to marry another. At length, when you had summoned both before you, and had ordered the woman to return to her mother’s house, she appealed to our audience.

Verum quoniam sollicitudini nostrae incumbit excessus et enormitates aliorum corrigere, et ad modum et ad formam rectitudinis revocare, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, ut superius est enarratum, praefatam mulierem, ne mandatum tuum contemptible esse videatur, ad domum matris omni appellatione et excusatione cessante redire compellas, et, imposita sibi de tanto excessu poenitentia condigna, postquam ea in domo materna per mensem steterit, ad tertium reverti permittas, et legitime sibi coniungi.

Yet since it lies upon our solicitude to correct the excesses and enormities of others, and to recall them to the mode and form of rectitude, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings, that, if it is so, as has been above narrated, you compel the aforesaid woman, lest your mandate seem to be contemptible to be, to return to the house of her mother, all appeal and excuse ceasing, and, a condign penance having been imposed upon her for so great an excess, after she has remained in her mother’s house for a month, you permit her to return to the third, and to be lawfully joined to him.

CAP. II. Sponsalia de futuro, cum una etiam contra interdictum ecclesiae contracta, non habent dirimere matrimonium, postea contractum cum alia.

CHAPTER 2. Betrothals de futuro, even when one has also been contracted against the interdict of the Church, do not have the force to dissolve a marriage, afterwards contracted with another.

Idem Vigoriensi et Baronensi Episcopis.

The same to the Bishops of Vigor and Baron.

Ex literis venerabilis fratris nostri Cantuariensis archiepiscopi apostolicae sedis legati ad nos pervenit, quod, quum G. de sancto Leodegario M. filiam suam absentem cuidam iuveni, R. nomine, desponsasset, postmodum, quibusdam ipsius mulieris consanguineis procurantibus, memoratus R. cum ea praesente per verba praesentis temporis contraxit, sicut dicitur, matrimonium; fide hinc inde corporaliter praestita, quod vir mulierem sicut uxorem legitimam de cetero exhiberet, et ipsa reverenter ei sine contradictione sicut viro legitimo obediret, nihilque defuit, nisi solennitas in facie ecclesiae celebranda, quae propter tempus quadragesimae tunc non potuit effectui mancipari. Postea orta suspicione, quod praefatus R. ad alia desideraret vota transire, ad examen fuit iam dicti archiepiscopi causa perlata, qui sub anathematis interminatione prohibuit, sicut ex literis ipsius accepimus, ne, antequam de praescripto negotio plene constaret, vir ad secunda vota transiret. Sed ipse, praescripta prohibitione contempta, filiam V. Matildam nomine in facie ecclesiae sibi solenniter copulavit uxorem. Postmodum vero duabus mulieribus et viro coram archiepiscopo constitutis, praefatus R. publice confessus est, se cum Maria, sicut superius dictum est, matrimonium contraxisse, et aliam, scilicet Matildam, prava quorundam suggestione seductum postmodum accepisse.

From the letters of our venerable brother the archbishop of Canterbury, legate of the Apostolic See, it has come to us that, when G. of Saint Leodegarius had betrothed his absent daughter M. to a certain youth, by name R., afterwards, certain kinsmen of the woman in question procuring it, the aforesaid R., with her present, contracted, as it is said, matrimony by words of the present tense; with faith on both sides corporally pledged, that the man would henceforth treat the woman as a lawful wife, and that she would reverently obey him without contradiction as a lawful husband, and nothing was lacking except the solemnity to be celebrated in the face of the church, which on account of the season of Lent could not then be carried into effect. Afterwards, suspicion arising that the aforesaid R. desired to pass over to other vows, the case was brought to the examination of the already said archbishop, who, under the threat of anathema, forbade, as we have gathered from his letters, that, before it was fully established concerning the aforesaid business, the man should pass to second vows. But he, the aforesaid prohibition despised, solemnly joined to himself as wife in the face of the church the daughter of V., by the name Matilda. Afterwards indeed, with two women and a man set in the presence of the archbishop, the aforesaid R. publicly confessed that he had contracted matrimony with Mary, as was said above, and that the other, namely Matilda, he had afterwards taken, seduced by the depraved suggestion of certain persons.

Maria vero constanter asseruit, quod pater eius non moverat de voluntate eius querelam, adiiciens, quod inter ipsam et praefatum R., excepta sola fide de contrahendo matrimonio, nulla obligatio intercesserat, quam, quia ipse non servaverat, servare minime tenebatur, et ideo, quia eam, quam secundo acceperat, relinquebat. Quum autem praefatum R. illa tanquam proprium virum restitui postularet, et archiepiscopus vellet de matrimonio primo cognoscere, ob id maxime, quia mulieres dicebantur sese consanguinitate contingere, ac per hoc tam adulterii quam incestus vitium timebatur, dicta M. ad sedem apostolicam appellationis vocem emisit, et festum circumcisionis proxime praeteritum terminum appellationi praefixit. Cuius appellationi archiepiscopus deferens, eidem Mariae sub periculo animae et excommunicationis interminatione districtius interdixit, ne cui nuberet, donec causa ipsa coram nobis, vel coram delegatis ab apostolica sede iudicibus finem debitum sortiretur. Ipsa tamen, de remedio appellationis confisa, cuidam alii, V. nomine, nihilominus nupsit. Et super hoc citata coram archiepiscopo noluit propter appellationem, quam obiecerat, apparere.

But Mary steadfastly asserted that her father had not brought a complaint with her consent, adding that between herself and the aforesaid R., except for the sole pledge about contracting marriage, no obligation had intervened, which, because he had not kept it, she was in no way bound to keep, and therefore, because he was leaving the one whom he had taken second. When however she was demanding that the aforesaid R. be restored to her as her proper husband, and the archbishop wished to take cognizance concerning the first marriage, above all for this reason, because the women were said to be related to each other by consanguinity, and through this the fault both of adultery and of incest was feared, the said M. issued an appeal to the Apostolic See, and appointed as the term for the appeal the feast of the Circumcision just past. Deferring to which appeal, the archbishop more strictly forbade the same Mary under peril of her soul and the threat of excommunication, that she marry no one until the case itself should obtain its due end before us, or before judges delegated by the Apostolic See. She herself, however, trusting in the remedy of the appeal, nevertheless married another, named V., nonetheless. And when she had been cited on this matter before the archbishop, she was unwilling to appear on account of the appeal which she had put forward.

Quum igitur absentibus partibus non videretur nobis negotium finiendum, ipsum experientiae vestrae, de qua plene confidimus, committentes, praesentium auctoritate Mandamus, quatenus, partibus ante vestram praesentiam convocatis, inquiratis diligentius veritatem, et, si nihil constiterit, quod impediat, praeter consensum de futuro, qui inter praefatos R. et M. asseritur praecessisse, secunda matrimonia inviolabiliter observanda sublato appellationis obstaculo iudicetis. Licet enim contra interdictum ecclesiae ad secunda vota transire non debuerit, non est tamen conveniens, ut ob id solum sacramentum coniugii dissolvatur. Alia tamen poenitentia eis debebit imponi, quia contra prohibitionem ecclesiae hoc fecerunt.

Since, therefore, with the parties absent, it did not seem to us that the business should be brought to an end, committing it to your experience, in which we fully confide, by the authority of these presents We command, that, the parties having been convoked before your presence, you inquire more diligently into the truth, and, if nothing shall have been established that impedes, besides the consent for the future which is asserted to have preceded between the aforesaid R. and M., you judge that the second marriage is to be inviolably observed, the obstacle of the appeal being removed. For although he ought not to have passed to second vows against the interdict of the church, nevertheless it is not fitting that for this alone the sacrament of marriage be dissolved. Yet another penance ought to be imposed upon them, because they did this against the prohibition of the church.

[Dat. Non. Febr.]

[Given on the Nones of February.]

CAP. III. Si hi, qui dicebantur consanguinei, contraxerunt contra praeceptum iudicis, debent separari, donec de causa cognoscatur.

CHAPTER 3. If those who were said to be consanguineous have contracted marriage contrary to the precept of the judge, they ought to be separated, until the case is investigated.

Idem Paduano Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Padua.

De muliere (Et infra: [cf. c.6.de spons. IV.1.]) Illos autem, qui pro consanguinitate prohibentur coniungi, et post contra interdictum ecclesiae se receperint, excommunicationi debes subiicere, donec tamdiu separentur, quousque legitime cognoscatur, utrum eorum matrimonium possit et debeatde iure stare.

Concerning a woman (And below: [cf. c.6.on sponsals 4.1.]) Those, however, who on account of consanguinity are prohibited to be conjoined, and afterwards, against the interdict of the Church, have taken each other back, you ought to subject to excommunication, until they are separated for so long a time as until it is lawfully ascertained whether their marriage can and oughtde right to stand.

TITULUS XVII. QUI FILII SINT LEGITIMI.

TITLE 17. WHICH SONS ARE LEGITIMATE.

CAP. I. Naturalis, ex soluto genitus et soluta, legitimatur per subsequens parentum coniugium, etiam quoad hereditatem.

CHAPTER 1. A natural child, begotten of an unbound man and an unbound woman, is legitimated through the subsequent marriage of the parents, even as regards inheritance.

Alexander III.

Alexander 3.

Conquestus est nobis H. lator praesentium, quod, quum quandam mulierem neptem R. in uxorem acceperit, praefatus R. patruus mulieris ipsam exheredare conatur eo, quod ante desponsationem matris suae nata fuerit, licet postea, prout dicitur, pater mulieris praefatae matrem ipsius acceperit in uxorem. Ideoque fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, nullius contradictione vel appellatione obstante, eam legitimam esse iudicetis, praedicto R. ex nostra et vestra parte inhibentes, ne saepe dictae mulieri et heredibus suis hac occasione super heredidate paterna molestiam inferat vel gravamen. Si autem contra hoc venire praesumpserit, eum sublato appellationis remedio severitate ecclesiastica percellatis.

H., bearer of these presents, has made complaint to us that, since he took a certain woman, niece of R., as his wife, the aforesaid R., the woman’s paternal uncle, is trying to disinherit her on the ground that she was born before her mother’s betrothal, although afterwards, as is said, the father of the aforesaid woman took her mother as his wife. Therefore we by apostolic writings, by way of precept command your fraternity that, if it is so, with no contradiction or appeal standing in the way, you judge her to be legitimate, inhibiting the aforesaid R., on our and on your part, lest he inflict annoyance or burden upon the oft-mentioned woman and her heirs on this occasion concerning the paternal inheritance. But if he shall presume to act against this, you shall strike him, the remedy of appeal being removed, with ecclesiastical severity.

CAP. II. Separato matrimonio in facie ecclesiae contracto, filii, geniti vel concepti ante sententiam, sunt legitimi.

CHAPTER 2. When a marriage contracted in the face of the Church is separated, children, begotten or conceived before the sentence, are legitimate.

Idem.

The same.

Quum inter I. Veterem concivem vestrum et T. mulierem divortii sententia canonice sit prolata, filii eorum, qui ante sententiam ipsam nati fuerunt, et ille, qui tunc conceptus erat, non debent exinde sustinere iacturam, quum parentes eorum publice et sine contradictione ecclesiae matrimonium inter se contraxisse noscantur. Ideoque sancimus, ut filii eorum, quos ipsi ante divortium habuerunt, et qui concepti fuerant ante latam sententiam, non minus habeantur legitimi, et quod in bona paterna hereditario iure succedant, et de parentum facultatibus nutriantur. Quocirca universitati vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus praefatos filios memorati I. et praedictae mulieris succedere in bona paterna, et exinde nutriri non prohibeatis, nec occasione divortii inter parentes eorum eis a quoquam molestiam vel gravamina sustineatis inferri.

When, between I. Vetus, your fellow-citizen, and T., a woman, a sentence of divorce has been canonically promulgated, their children, who were born before that sentence itself, and the one who at that time was conceived, ought not therefore to sustain any loss, since their parents are known to have contracted marriage with one another publicly and without contradiction by the church. And so we sanction that their children, whom they themselves had before the divorce, and who had been conceived before the sentence was delivered, be held no less legitimate, and that they succeed to the paternal goods by hereditary right, and be maintained from the parents’ resources. Wherefore we command to your whole community by apostolic writings that you do not forbid the aforesaid children of the aforesaid I. and the aforesaid woman to succeed to the paternal goods and to be nourished therefrom, nor on the occasion of the divorce between their parents allow molestation or burdens to be inflicted on them by anyone.

CAP. III. Statur verbo viri et mulieris, qui negant aliquem filium, nisi indiciis et testibus probetur contrarium.

CHAPTER 3. The word of the man and the woman, who deny any child, is accepted, unless the contrary is proven by indicia and witnesses.

Idem Rothomagensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Rouen.

Transmissae nobis tuae literae continebant, quod, quum N. civis tuus usque ad iuventutem quendam puerum nutrivisset, uxore sua M. tunc non desponsata sibi cohabitante, postmodum ipsam, sicut dicitur, legitime desponsavit, et filios sustulit ex eadem. Quibus paternam hereditatem petentibus, praedictus iuvenis contradicit, gerens se filium et heredem, quamvis a vicinia, quae ipsum filium eorum esse credebat, spurius diceretur. Praedicti vero N. et uxor eius Matilda praefatum iuvenem spurium suum aut legitimum filium esse negabant, sed dicebant, quod eum pietatis intuitu nutrivissent.

Your letters transmitted to us contained that, when N., your citizen, had nourished up to youth a certain boy, his wife M., then not yet betrothed to him, cohabiting with him, afterwards he, as it is said, lawfully betrothed her, and raised up sons from the same. When these were seeking the paternal inheritance, the aforesaid youth contradicts, claiming himself to be son and heir, although by the neighborhood, which believed him to be their son, he was called a bastard. But the aforesaid N. and his wife Matilda denied that the aforesaid youth was their bastard or their legitimate son, but said that they had nourished him out of a motive of piety.

Quum autem quaestio coram te mota esset, et praedictus iuvenis pro eo, quod iuri stare nolebat, vinculo sit excommunicationis adstrictus, quid de hoc agere debeas, nos consulere voluisti. Super hoc itaque Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod in tali casu standum est verbo viri et mulieris, nisi certis indiciis et testibus tibi constiterit, esse filium iuvenem memoratum.

But when the question had been raised before you, and the aforesaid youth, for the fact that he was unwilling to stand to the law, was bound by the bond of excommunication, you wished to consult us what you ought to do about this. Therefore upon this to your Consultation we thus respond, that in such a case the word of the man and the woman is to be abided by, unless by sure indices and witnesses it has been established to you that the aforesaid youth is the son.

CAP. IV. Illegitima proles est, quam viro vivente uxor ex adulterio concepit, sive cum adultero sive cum viro moretur.

CHAPTER 4. Illegitimate issue is that which a wife conceived from adultery while the husband was living, whether she dwells with the adulterer or with the husband.

Idem Exoniensi et Vintoniensi Episcopis, et Abbati Herfordensi.

The same to the Bishops of Exeter and Winchester, and to the Abbot of Hereford.

Causam, quae (Et infra: cf. c.17.de off. iud. del.

The cause, which (And below: cf. ch.17.on the office of the delegated judge.

I. 29.) Si,partibus ante praesentiam vestram convocatis, legitime vobis constiterit, quod saepe dicta Agatha de Anelina muliere, tempore Alani viri sui, ipsa cum eo tanquam cum viro suo morante, vel R. patre dictae Agathae, ipsam A. adhuc habente virum, publice tenente, nata fuit, eam non fuisse legitimam eiusdem R. filiam iudicetis, quia non potuit esse uxor, quae viri sui torum maculans, [et] alii, dum ille viveret, copulari et cohabitare praesumpsit. Ceterum etc. (cf. c.3.de dol. et cont.

1. 29.) If,the parties having been convened before your presence, duly to you it has been established, that often-said Agatha from the woman Anelina, at the time of Alan her husband, she herself staying with him as with her husband, or of R., the father of the said Agatha, publicly keeping the same A., she still having a husband, was born, you should judge her not to have been the legitimate daughter of the same R., because she could not be a wife who, staining the bed of her husband, [and] with another, while he was living, presumed to be coupled and to cohabit. Moreover, etc. (cf. ch.3.de dol. et cont.

II. 14.)

2. 14.)

CAP. V. Quaestio nativitatis, opposita petenti hereditatem coram iudice sacculari, est ad ecclesiasticum iudicem transmittenda. H. d. et est textus multum notabilis et allegabilis.

CHAPTER 5. The question of nativity, when opposed to one seeking an inheritance before a secular judge, is to be transmitted to the ecclesiastical judge. In this matter it is a text very notable and allegeable.

Idem Exoniensi Episcopo et Abbati Herfordensi.

The same to the Bishop of Exeter and to the Abbot of Hereford.

Lator praesentium R., non sine multo discrimine sui corporis ad nostram accedens praesentiam, sua nobis conquestione proposuit, quod, quum avus suus uxores duos habuerit, de quarum una eius pater processit, de altera Hug. patruum suum sustulit, idem [Hug.] XL. acras terrae, quae ipsum et patrem eiusdem R. contigerunt, per violentiam detinet, nec eidem R., qui succedere in bonis paternis debet, debitam partem vult exhibere. Quum autem idem R. H. coram saeculari iudice super hereditate avi eiusdem R. patris dicti H. traxisset in causam, ille sibi praesumpsit obiicere, quod pater eius non fuit de legitimo matrimonio natus, et ideo de hereditate quondam avi sui nihil posset [sibi] iure successorio vendicare. Tandem vero, quum super quaestione nativitatis coram venerabili fratre nostro Norvicensi episcopo diu tractatum fuisset, ad nostram exstitit audientiam appellatum.

The bearer of these presents, R., not without great peril to his own body approaching our presence, set forth to us by his complaint that, when his grandfather had had two wives, from one of whom his father proceeded, from the other he brought forth Hug., his uncle, the same [Hug.] holds by violence 40 acres of land, which befell him and the father of the same R., nor is he willing to exhibit to the same R., who ought to succeed in the paternal goods, the due share. But when the same R. had drawn H. into a case before a secular judge concerning the inheritance of the grandfather of the same R., the father of the said H., he presumed to object on his own behalf that his father was not born of a legitimate marriage, and therefore from the inheritance of his late grandfather he could vindicate nothing [for himself] by the right of succession. At length, indeed, when there had been long discussion on the question of birth before our venerable brother the bishop of Norwich, an appeal was made to our audience.

Sed, eo veniente, altera pars per se vel per alium suam nobis exhibere praesentiam contempsit. Ideoque, nolentes causam ipsam diutius protrahi, eam experientiae vestrae committentes, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus utramque partem ante vestram praesentiam convocetis, et, rationibus hinc inde plenius auditis et cognitis, ipsam causam super quaestione nativitatis patris eiusdem B. infra duos menses post harum susceptionem literarum sublato appellationis obstaculo terminetis. Si vero infra duos menses praefatus H. non poterit probare legitime quod ei de paterna hereditate obiecit, extunc saeculari domino, sub cuius iudicio de hereditate causa vertitur intimetis, ut pro quaestione nativitatis non dimittat, quin causam super hereditate audiat et decidat.

But, upon his coming, the other party disdained to present its presence to us either in person or through another. Therefore, unwilling that the case itself be drawn out longer, committing it to your experience, we command to your discretion by apostolic writings with a precept, to the effect that you summon both parties before your presence, and, the reasons on this side and that more fully heard and known, the same case concerning the question of the birth of the father of the same B., within two months after the receipt of these letters, with the obstacle of appeal removed, you terminate. But if within two months the aforesaid H. cannot lawfully prove what against him concerning the paternal inheritance he has objected, then you are to intimate to the secular lord, under whose judgment the case concerning the inheritance is pending, that he should not desist on account of the question of birth, but that he hear and decide the case concerning the inheritance.

CAP. VI. Naturales legitimantur per subsequens parentum coniugium, spurii vero non. H. d. inhaerendo verbis literae, et est capitulum famosum, et quotidie allegatur in utroque foro.

CHAPTER 6. Natural children are legitimated through the subsequent marriage of the parents, but spurious ones are not. This holds, by adhering to the words of the letter; and it is a famous chapter, and is cited daily in both forums.

Idem Exoniensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Exeter.

Tanta est vis matrimonii, ut qui antea sunt geniti post contractum matrimonium legitimi habeantur. Si autem vir vivente uxore sua aliam cognoverit, et ex ea prolem susceperit, licet post mortem uxoris eandem duxerit, nihilominus spurius erit filius, et ab hereditate repellendus; praesertim si in mortem uxoris prioris alteruter eorum aliquid fuerit machinatus, quoniam matrimonium legitimum inter se contrahere non potuerunt.

So great is the force of matrimony that those who were begotten before are held as legitimate after the marriage has been contracted. But if a man, while his wife is living, has known another woman and has received issue from her, although after the death of his wife he may have married that same woman, nevertheless the son will be spurious and is to be repelled from the inheritance; especially if either of them contrived anything toward the death of the former wife, since they were not able to contract a legitimate marriage between themselves.

CAP. VII. De causa civili inter laicos non cognoscit ecclesia; cognoscit tamen, an quis sit de legitimo matrimonio natus.

CHAPTER 7. On a civil cause among laymen the church does not take cognizance; yet it does take cognizance whether someone is born from a legitimate marriage.

Idem Londonensi et Vigoriensi Episcopis.

The same to the Bishops of London and Worcester.

Causam, quae inter R. et F. super eo, quod mater iam dicti R. dicitur non fuisse de legitimo matrimonio nata, agitari dignoscitur, vobis iam pridem commisimus terminandam. Verum quia in literis nostris inseri fecimus, ut saepe fato R. possessionem [eorum] omnium, quorum possessor exstitit, quando avus suus proficiscendi Hierosolymam iter arripuit, ante principalis causae ingressum faceretis appellatione cessante restitui, si eadem possessione fuisset per violentiam spoliatus: nos attendentes, quod ad regem pertinet, non ad ecclesiam de talibus possessionibus iudicare, ne videamur iuri et dignitati carissimi in Christo filii nostri Henrici regis, Anglorum [principis], detrahere, qui, sicut accepimus, motus est et turbatus, quod de possessionibus scripsimus, quum ipsarum iudicium ad se asserit pertinere, volumus et fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus regi possessionum iudicium relinquentes, de causa principali, videlicet utrum mater praedicti R. de legitimo sit matrimonio nata, plenius cognoscatis, et causam huiusmodi secundum aliarum literarum nostrarum tenorem appellatione remota terminetis; licet incongruum videatur, ut matrimonium genetricis praefati R. impetatur, quod ea vivente non fuit, ut dicitur, impetitum.

The case which is recognized to be being litigated between R. and F. over this, that the mother of the already-said R. is said not to have been born from a legitimate marriage, we long since committed to you to be terminated. But because in our letters we caused it to be inserted that you should, before the entry of the principal cause, have the possession of the oft-said R. [of the things] of all which he stood as possessor when his grandfather took up the journey of setting out to Jerusalem, restored with the appeal ceasing, if he had been despoiled of the same possession by violence: we, considering that it pertains to the king, not to the church, to judge concerning such possessions, lest we seem to detract from the right and the dignity of our dearest in Christ son Henry, king of the English [prince], who, as we have received, has been moved and disturbed that we wrote concerning the possessions, since he asserts the judgment of them to pertain to himself, we will and we mandate to your fraternity, by apostolic writings commanding, that, leaving to the king the judgment of the possessions, you take fuller cognizance of the principal cause, namely whether the mother of the aforesaid R. was born from a legitimate marriage, and you terminate a cause of this kind according to the tenor of our other letters, the appeal removed; although it may seem incongruous that the marriage of the genitrix of the aforesaid R. be impugned, which, while she was living, was not, as it is said, impugned.

CAP. VIII. Si mulier, per iudicium ecclesiae separata a primo, vivente illo contrahit cum secundo, legitima erit proles, quam ex illo suscepit.

CHAPTER 8. If a woman, separated from the first by the judgment of the church, while he is living contracts with a second, the offspring which she has conceived from him shall be legitimate.

Idem Episcopo et Archidiacono Vincentino.

The same to the Bishop and the Archdeacon of Vicenza.

Perlatum est ad audientiam nostram, quod, quum H. filius quondam Lazari, ad partes Constantinopolitanas transisset, et ibi moram per decennium et amplius faciens, ad I. uxorem suam non rediens, ipsa apud bonae memoriae I. quondam Vincentinum episcopum adversus eum querelam deposuit, et quod eum non posset diutius exspectare, nihilominus allegavit. Episcopus vero, sicut vir providus et discretus, parentibus praedicti viri mandavit, ut pro eo mitterent, et ipsum ad propria revocarent. Quumque, elapso longi temporis spatio, vir praedictus non remearet ad propria, episcopus in conspectu ecclesiae, auditis rationibus mulieris, inter eos sententiam divortii promulgavit, et mulieri, ut alium virum duceret, plenariam facultatem indulsit.

It has been brought to our hearing that, when H., son of the late Lazarus, had crossed over to the Constantinopolitan parts, and, making a stay there for a decade and more, did not return to I., his wife, she lodged a complaint against him before the bishop of Vicenza, of good memory, the late I., and nonetheless alleged that she could no longer await him. But the bishop, as a provident and discreet man, commanded the parents of the aforesaid man that they send for him and recall him to his own. And when, a long span of time having elapsed, the aforesaid man did not return to his own, the bishop, in the sight of the church, after hearing the woman’s grounds, promulgated a sentence of divorce between them, and granted to the woman plenary faculty to take another husband.

Ideoque quia huius rei veritas nobis non constat, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus rem ipsam diligenter investigetis, et, si vobis constiterit, quod episcopus inter eos sententiam divortii tulerit, filios eius, quos sustulit de alio, ad cuius copulam auctoritate praedicti episcopi sine quaestione et contradictione ecclesiae migravit, legitimos iudicetis, eos hac occasione ab hereditate non patientes excludi. Et si quis contra hoc niti voluerit, ei auctoritate apostolica silentium penitus imponatis.

And therefore, because the truth of this matter is not evident to us, by enjoining your discretion through apostolic writings we command, that you diligently investigate the matter itself, and, if it is established for you that the bishop has delivered a sentence of divorce between them, you shall judge the children hers, whom she has brought forth by another, to whose union by authority of the aforesaid bishop she moved without question and contradiction of the church, to be legitimate, not allowing them on this occasion to be excluded from inheritance. And if anyone shall wish to strive against this, you shall utterly impose silence upon him by apostolic authority.

CAP. IX. Filii, nati ex matrimonio clandestino per ecclesiam approbato, sunt legitimi. H. d. inhaerendo literae.

CHAPTER 9. Children, born from a clandestine marriage approved by the Church, are legitimate. On this matter: by adhering to the letter.

Idem Belvacensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Beauvais.

Quod nobis (Et infra: [cf. c.2.de cland. desp. IV.3.]) Si qui autem de clandestino matrimonio, postmodum ab ecclesia comprobatoet rato habito, generati fuerint, eos legitimos iudices filios et heredes.

Which to us (And below: [cf. ch.2.on clandestine betrothals4. 3.]) If any, however, from a clandestine marriage, afterwards approved by the church andheld as ratified, shall have been begotten, we judge them legitimate sons and heirs.

CAP. X. Nati ex matrimonio, contracto contra publicae honestatis iustitiam, illegitimi sunt, et ab hereditate parentum excludendi. Et tene menti hunc casum, quia saepe per ignorantiam accidit.

CHAPTER 10. Those born from a marriage contracted against the justice of public honesty are illegitimate, and are to be excluded from the inheritance of their parents. And keep this case in mind, because it often happens through ignorance.

Coelestinus III. Eboracensi Archiepiscopo.

Celestine 3. To the Archbishop of York.

Referente nobis (Et infra:) Fraternitati tuae taliter respondemus, quod, publicae honestatis iustitia prohibente, matrimonium inter eos contrahi non potuit, et contractum debuit separari, ac per hoc, quum filii nec per ecclesiae permissionem, nec per paternam ignorantiam excusentur, ad successionem bonorum paternorum non videntur aliquatenus admittendi.

Reported to us (And below:) we respond thus to your Fraternity, that, the justice of public honesty prohibiting, a marriage between them could not be contracted, and the contracted one ought to have been separated; and through this, since the sons are excused neither by the Church’s permission nor by paternal ignorance, they do not seem in any way to be admitted to the succession of the paternal goods.

CAP. XI. Ad docendum prolem illegitimam non sufficit probare impedimentum matrimonii, si fuit in facie ecclesiae contractum.

CHAPTER 11. To demonstrate illegitimate progeny it does not suffice to prove an impediment of matrimony, if the marriage was contracted in the face of the church.

Idem.

The same.

Pervenit sane ad nos ex insinuatione L. viduae, quod, quum inter G. patrem suum, et A. matrem illius matrimonium fuisset legitime celebratum, et, quamdiu vixerunt, quiete permanserunt, post illorum decessum quidam asserentes, eam de non legitimo matrimonio fuisse susceptam, a paterna hereditate tanquam illegitimam amovere conantur. Mandamus itaque discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta, quatenus, si est ita, dictam viduam auctoritate nostra legitimam nuncietis.

It has indeed come to us by the insinuation of L., a widow, that, since between G., her father, and A., her mother, a marriage had been legitimately celebrated, and, as long as they lived, they remained quietly, after their decease certain persons, asserting that she was conceived from a not-legitimate marriage, are trying to remove her from the paternal inheritance as if illegitimate. We therefore mandate to your discretion through apostolic writings, that, if it is so, you proclaim the said widow, by our authority, legitimate.

CAP. XII. Statur dicto testium, qui probant aliquem legitimum, licet fama viciniae et tractatus parentum habeat contrarium.

CHAPTER 12. The testimony of witnesses, who prove someone legitimate, stands, although the fame of the neighborhood and the treatment by the parents holds the contrary.

Innocentius III.

Innocent III.

Per tuas nobis literas intimasti, quod R. ex muliere quadam, quam secundum opinionem maioris partis viciniae in concubinam habebat, prole suscepta, quandam post, et aliam, ea defuncta, duxit in uxorem, et ea, de qua prolem susceperat, virum sibi alium copulavit. Processu vero temporis idem R. in praesentia multorum firmavit proprio iuramento, quod eam, quam habere visus fuerat concubinam, prius affidaverat in uxorem, quam ex ea filium genuisset, et postea, quum per sex annos et ultra vixisset, dum ageret in extremis, eum, quem ex ea susceperat, in testamento heredem instituens, legitimum filium appellavit. Quum autem tuae inquisitioni et decisioni fuisset commissum, an filius sic susceptus legitimus esset heres ipsius R. et ad eius patrimonium admittendus, tu praeter id, quod ex quadam decretali bonae memoriae Alexandri Papae praedecessoris nostri standum esse super hoc verbo viri et mulieris credebas, receptis testibus, a filio eiusdem R. productis, quibus legitime comprobavit, praedictum R. matrem suam in capella sancti Sergii affidasse, eum ipsius R. heredem esse legitimum iudicasti.

Through your letters to us you intimated that R., from a certain woman whom, according to the opinion of the greater part of the neighborhood, he kept as a concubine, having had issue, afterwards took one woman to wife, and, she having died, another; and the one by whom he had had the issue joined herself to another husband. In the course of time, however, the same R., in the presence of many, affirmed by his own oath that her whom he had seemed to have as a concubine he had previously affianced as a wife before he had begotten a son from her; and afterwards, when he had lived for six years and more, while he was at the point of death, appointing as heir in his testament him whom he had had from her, he called him a legitimate son. But when it had been committed to your inquisition and decision whether the son thus begotten was the legitimate heir of R. and to be admitted to his patrimony, you—besides that you believed from a certain decretal of Pope Alexander of good memory, our predecessor, that in this matter one should stand by the word of the man and the woman—having received witnesses produced by the son of the same R., by which he lawfully proved that the aforesaid R. had affianced his mother in the chapel of Saint Sergius, judged him to be the legitimate heir of the same R.

Nos autem attendentes, quod plus est quod in veritate agitur, quam quod simulate concipitur, licet iam dictus R., quum, ea dimissa, quam ut concubinam habuerat, ad alia vota transiverit, videatur ex ipso facto matrimonium, quod inter eos celebratum fuerat, denegasse, quia tamen desponsatio, per testes legitimos comprobata, eos matrimonialiter fuisse coniunctos ostendit, sive desponsatio ipsa fuerit de praesenti, ut per consensum legitimum, per verba de praesenti expressum, copula matrimonii inter eos fuerit celebrata, sive per verba de futuro, carnali copula subsecuta, non tam decretali dicti praedecessoris nostri, quae in casu dissimili loquitur, quam inductis probationibus innitentes, te processisse legitime respondemus, sententiam tuam auctoritate apostolica confirmantes, et praesentis scripti patrocinio communimus auctoritate apostolica tibi praesentium iniungentes ut sententiam ipsam facias monitione praemissa per censuram ecclesiasticam inviolabiliter observari. [Dat. Reate III. Non.

We, however, considering that what is done in truth is more than what is conceived in simulation, although the already-mentioned R., when, having dismissed her whom he had had as a concubine, he passed over to other vows, seems by the very fact to have denied the marriage which had been celebrated between them, yet because the desponsation, proved by lawful witnesses, shows that they had been conjoined matrimonially—whether the desponsation itself was de praesenti, so that by lawful consent, expressed by words of the present, the copula of marriage was celebrated between them, or by words of the future, a carnal copula having followed—relying not so much on the decretal of our aforesaid predecessor, which speaks in a dissimilar case, as on the proofs adduced, we reply that you have proceeded legitimately, confirming your sentence by apostolic authority, and we fortify it with the patronage of the present writing, by apostolic authority enjoining upon you by these presents that you cause that sentence, with monition premised, to be inviolably observed through ecclesiastical censure. [Given at Rieti 3 Nones.

Aug. 1198.]

CAP. XIII. In terris ecclesiae Papa potest libere illegitimos legitimare, in terris vero alienis non, nisi ex causis multum arduis, vel nisi in spiritualibus; tunc tamen indirecte et per quandam consequentiam intelligitur legitimare etiam quoad temporalia. Hoc tamen ultimum non est sine scrupulo.

CHAPTER 13. In the lands of the Church the Pope can freely legitimate the illegitimate, but in foreign lands he cannot, unless for very arduous causes, or unless in spiritual matters; then, however, indirectly and by a certain consequence he is understood to legitimate even with respect to temporals. This last point, however, is not without scruple.

H. d. secundum intellectum, qui placet Panorm. et est cap. difficile et multum famosum.

This decretal, according to the understanding which pleases Panorm., is a difficult and very famous chapter.

Idem nobili viro G. Montis Pessulani.

The same to the noble man G. of Montpellier.

Per venerabilem fratrem nostrum, Arelatensem archiepiscopum, ad sedem apostolicam accedentem, tua nobis humilitas supplicavit, ut filios tuos legitimationis dignaremur titulo decorare, quatenus eis, quo minus tibi succederent, natalium obiectio non noceret. Quod autem super hoc apostolica sedes plenam habeat potestatem, ex illo videtur, quod, diversis causis inspectis, cum quibusdam minus legitime genitis, non naturalibus tantum, sed adulterinis etiam dispensavit sic ad actus spirituales illos legitimans ut possint in episcopos promoveri. Ex quo verisimilius creditur et probabilius reputatur, ut eos ad actus legitimare valeat saeculares, praesertim si praeter Romanos Pontifices inter homines superiorem alium non cognoscant, qui legitimandi habeat potestatem; quia, quum maior in spiritualibus tam providentia quam auctoritas et idoneitas requiratur, quod in maiori conceditur licitum esse videtur et in minori.

Through our venerable brother, the archbishop of Arles, approaching the apostolic see, your humility petitioned us that we would deign to adorn your sons with the title of legitimation, to the end that the objection of birth might not harm them as a reason why they should the less succeed to you. But that in this matter the apostolic see has full power appears from this: that, the diverse causes having been inspected, it has dispensed with certain persons begotten less legitimately, not only natural but even adulterine, thus legitimating them for spiritual acts so that they can be promoted into bishops. Whence it is more plausibly believed and more probably reckoned that it is able to legitimate them for secular acts, especially if, besides the Roman Pontiffs, among men they recognize no other superior who has the power of legitimating; because, since in spiritual things greater providence as well as authority and suitability are required, what is conceded in the greater seems to be licit also in the lesser.

Per simile quoque id videtur posse probari, quum eo ipso, quod aliquis ad apicem episcopalis dignitatis attollitur, eximitur a patria potestate. Praeterea etiamsi simplex episcopus scienter servum alterius in presbyterum ordinaret, licet ordinator satisfacere domino iuxta formam canonicam teneretur, ordinatus tamen iugum evaderet servitutis. Videretur siquidem monstruosum, ut, qui legitimus ad spirituales fieret actiones, circa saeculares actus illegitimus, remaneret.

By a similar [argument] this too seems able to be proved, since by that very fact that someone is lifted to the apex of episcopal dignity, he is exempted from paternal power. Moreover, even if a simple bishop knowingly were to ordain another’s slave into a presbyter, although the ordainer would be bound to satisfy the master according to the canonical form, nevertheless the ordained would escape the yoke of servitude. For it would indeed seem monstrous that he who becomes legitimate for spiritual actions should remain illegitimate with respect to secular acts.

Unde, quum in spiritualibus dispensetur, consequenter intelligitur in temporalibus dispensatum. Id autem in patrimonio beati Petri libere potest apostolica sedes efficere, in quo et summi Pontificis auctoritatem exercet, et summi principis exsequitur potestatem. Quum ergo videatur ex his legitimandi auctoritas non tantum in spiritualibus sed in temporalibus etiam penes Romanam ecclesiam residere, ut super hoc filiis tuis gratiam faceremus ob tua et progenitorum tuorum merita, qui semper in devotione sedis apostolicae perstitistis, humiliter ex parte tua idem archiepiscopus requirebat. Videbatur autem ex eo trahere maiorem audaciam postulandi, quod non longe petere cogebatur exemplum, sed in favorem petitionis huiusmodi quod nos ipsos in causa simili fecisse dicebat poterat allegare. Quum enim carissimus in Christo filius noster Philippus rex Francorum illustris carissimam in Christo filiam nostramI.Francorum reginam illustrem dimiserit, et ex alia postmodum superducta puerum susceperit et puellam, et tu similiter exclusa legitima superduxeris aliam, ex qua filios suscepisti: sicut cum filiis regis eiusdem, sic cum tuis credebatur de benignitate apostolicae sedis dispensandum, praesertim quum maior id necessitas suaderet, et tu nobis specialius sis subiectus: siquidem rex Francorum ex inditae recordationis regina Francorum olim legitimum suscepit heredem, qui ei optatur et creditur in regni solis successurus; tu vero, ex legitima coniuge masculinum non habes heredem, qui tibi et in devotione nostra et propria hereditate succedat.

Whence, when a dispensation is granted in spiritual matters, it is consequently understood that there is dispensation in temporal matters. Moreover, the apostolic see can freely effect this in the patrimony of blessed Peter, wherein it both exercises the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and executes the power of the supreme prince. Since, therefore, from these points the authority of legitimating seems to reside with the Roman church not only in spirituals but also in temporals, the same archbishop, on your behalf, humbly requested that over this matter we might bestow grace upon your sons on account of your merits and those of your progenitors, you who have always persisted in devotion to the apostolic see. He seemed, moreover, to draw greater boldness for petitioning from this, that he was not compelled to seek an example far off, but could, in favor of a petition of this sort, allege that we ourselves were said to have done the same in a similar case. For when our dearest son in Christ Philip, the illustrious king of the Franks, dismissed our dearest daughter in ChristI.,the illustrious queen of the Franks, and afterwards, having taken another to wife, received a boy and a girl, and you likewise, your legitimate wife excluded, have taken another, from whom you have received sons: just as it was believed that by the benignity of the apostolic see a dispensation should be made with the children of that same king, so with yours, especially since a greater necessity urged it, and you are more particularly subject to us: for the king of the Franks from the queen of the Franks of pious memory once received a legitimate heir, who is desired and believed to be about to succeed him to the sole rule of the kingdom; you, however, from your legitimate spouse have no male heir who may succeed you both in our devotion and in your own inheritance.

Insuper, quum rex ipse in spiritualibus nobis subiaceat, tu nobis et in spiritualibus et in temporalibus es subiectus, quum partem terrae tuae ab ecclesia Magalonensi possideas, quam ipsa per sedem apostolicam temporaliter recognoscit, quare Magalonensi ecclesia mediante nobis idem archiepiscopus asserebat temporaliter subiacere. Verum, si veritas diligenter inspicitur, non res similis, sed valde dissimilis invenitur. Nam rex ipse a praedicta regina per bonae memoriae Remensem archiepiscopum, apostolicae sedis legatum, fuit per sententiam separatus; tu vero uxorem tuam a te, sicut dicitur, temeritate propria separasti. Ipse quoque, priusquam ad eum prohibitio de non contrahendo cum altera pervenisset, aliam superduxit, ex qua prolem geminam noscitur suscepisse; sed tu in contemptum ecclesiae aliam superinducere attentasti, propter quod ipsa in te gladium exercuit ecclesiasticae ultionis. Praeterea rex ipse praedictae reginae contra matrimonium impedimentum affinitatis obiecit, et coram praefato archiepiscopo testes induxit, cuius sententia quia cassata fuit solummodo propter iudiciarium ordinem non servatum, nos ei post restitutionem [praefatae] reginae super hoc alios cognitores duximus deputandos.

Moreover, since the king himself is subject to us in spiritual matters, you are subject to us both in spiritual and in temporal matters, since you possess a part of your land from the Church of Maguelonne, which itself recognizes it temporally through the Apostolic See, wherefore, with the Church of Maguelonne mediating, the same archbishop was asserting that you were temporally subject to us. In truth, if the truth is carefully inspected, not a similar case, but a very dissimilar one is found. For the king himself was by sentence separated from the aforesaid queen by the archbishop of Reims of blessed memory, legate of the Apostolic See; but you, as it is said, separated your wife from yourself by your own temerity. He also, before the prohibition not to contract with another had reached him, took another to wife, from whom he is known to have received twin offspring; but you, in contempt of the Church, attempted to bring in another, on account of which she exercised upon you the sword of ecclesiastical vengeance. Moreover, the king himself alleged against the aforesaid queen the impediment of affinity against the marriage, and produced witnesses before the aforesaid archbishop; whose sentence, because it was quashed solely on account of the judicial order not having been observed, we, after the restoration of the [aforesaid] queen, judged that other cognitors should be deputed for him in this matter.

Tu vero uxori tuae nihil, quod divortium induceret, sicut asseritur, obiecisti, quum, etsi fides tori sit unum de tribus bonis coniugii, non tamen ipsius violatio coniugale vinculum violasset. De filiis ergo eiusdem regis, utrum legitimi vel illegitimi fuerint, quamdiu pendet quaestio affinitatis obiectae, potest non immerito dubitari. Nam si affinitas fuerit comprobata, praedictam reginam non esse regis coniugem apparebit, et per consequens alia videbitur sibi legitime copulata, et filios ei legitimos peperisse.

But you, to your wife, objected nothing that would induce divorce, as is asserted, since, although the faith of the bed is one of the three goods of marriage, nevertheless the violation of it would not have violated the conjugal bond. Concerning the sons therefore of that same king, whether they were legitimate or illegitimate, so long as the question of the alleged affinity hangs pending, it can not without reason be doubted. For if the affinity shall have been proven, it will appear that the aforesaid queen is not the king’s spouse, and consequently the other will seem to have been lawfully coupled to him and to have borne him legitimate sons.

De tuis vero, quod sint legitimi nati, nec tu ipse proponis, nec ulla praesumitur ratione. Insuper quum rex ipse superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscat, sine iuris alterius laesione in eo se iurisdictioni nostrae subiicere potuit et subiecit. In quo forsitan videretur aliquibus, quod per se ipsum, non tanquam pater cum filiis, sed tanquam princeps cum subditis potuit dispensare. Tu autem nosceris aliis subiacere. Unde sine ipsorum forsan iniuria, nisi praestarent assensum nobis, in hoc subdere te non posses, nec eius auctoritatis exsistis, ut dispensandi super his habeas facultatem. Rationibus igitur his inducti regi gratiam fecimus requisiti, causam tam ex veteri quam ex novo testamento trahentes, quod non solum in ecclesiae patrimonio, super quo plenam in temporalibus gerimus potestatem, verum etiam in aliis regionibus, certis causis inspectis, temporalem iurisdictionem casualiter exercemus, non quod alieno iuri praeiudicare velimus, vel potestatem nobis indebitam usurpare, quum non ignoremus, Christum in evangelio respondisse: "Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo.

But as to your own [children], that they are legitimately born, neither do you yourself propose it, nor is it presumed by any reasoning. Moreover, since the king himself in temporals acknowledges no superior, without injury to another’s right he could submit himself to our jurisdiction in that matter and did submit. In which perhaps it might seem to some that he could dispense by himself, not as a father with his sons, but as a prince with his subjects. But you are known to be subject to others. Whence, without perhaps wrong to them, unless they should grant assent to us, you could not subject yourself to us in this, nor do you stand possessed of such authority as to have the faculty of dispensing concerning these matters. Therefore, induced by these reasons, at his request we showed favor to the king, drawing the case both from the Old and from the New Testament, that not only in the Church’s patrimony, over which we bear full power in temporals, but also in other regions, with certain causes inspected, we casually exercise temporal jurisdiction, not that we wish to prejudice another’s right, or to usurp a power undue to us, since we do not ignore that Christ in the Gospel answered: "Render the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar, and the things that are God’s to God.

Propter quod postulatus, ut hereditatem divideret inter duos, quis," inquit, "constituit me iudicem super vos?" sed, quia, sicut in Deuteronomio continetur; "Si difficile et ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris, inter sanguinem et sanguinem, causam et causam, lepram et non lepram, et iudicium inter portas tuas verba videris variari:" surge et adscende ad locum, quem elegerit Dominus Deus tuus, venies ad sacerdotes Levitici generis, et ad iudicem, qui fuerit illo tempore, quaeresque ab eis, qui indicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem, et facies quaecunque dixerint, qui praesunt loco, quem elegerit Dominus, sequerisque eorum sententiam nec declinabis ad dexteram vel ad sinistram. Qui autem superbierit, nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio, qui eo tempore ministrat Domino Deo tuo, decreto iudicis morietur, et auferes malum de Israel." Sane, quum Deuteronomium lex secunda interpretetur, ex vi vocabuli comprobatur [in hoc], ut quod ibi decernitur in novo testamento debeat observari. Locus enim, quem elegit Dominus, apostolica sedes esse cognoscitur sic, quod eam Dominus in se ipso [e] lapide angulari fundavit. Quum enim Petrus urbem fugiens exivisset, volens eum Dominus ad locum, quem elegerat, revocare, interrogatus ab eo: "Domine, quo vadis?" respondit: "venio Romam iterum crucifigi," quod intelligens pro se dictum, ad locum ipsum protinus est reversus. Sunt autem sacerdotes Levitici generis fratres nostri, qui nobis iure Levitico in exsecutione sacerdotalis officii coadiutores exsistunt.

For which cause, when he was asked to divide an inheritance between two, “Who,” he says, “has appointed me judge over you?” but, because, as is contained in Deuteronomy; “If you should perceive a judgment to be difficult and ambiguous for you, between blood and blood, case and case, leprosy and not leprosy, and you should see the words of judgment vary within your gates:” rise up and go up to the place which the Lord your God shall choose, you shall come to the priests of Levitical stock, and to the judge who will be at that time, and you shall inquire from them, who will point out to you the truth of the judgment, and you shall do whatever they shall say, who preside at the place which the Lord shall choose, and you shall follow their sentence, and you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left. But whoever shall have acted arrogantly, unwilling to obey the command of the priest who at that time ministers to the Lord your God, by the decree of the judge shall die, and you shall remove evil from Israel.” Surely, since Deuteronomy is interpreted as the second law, by force of the word it is confirmed [in this], that what is decreed there ought to be observed in the New Testament. For the place which the Lord chose is recognized to be the apostolic see, thus, that the Lord in himself [out of] the cornerstone founded it. For when Peter, fleeing the city, had gone out, the Lord, wishing to recall him to the place which he had chosen, being asked by him, “Lord, where are you going?” replied: “I am coming to Rome to be crucified again,” which, understanding as said for himself, he immediately returned to that very place. Moreover, the priests of Levitical stock are our brothers, who by Levitical right exist as coadjutors to us in the execution of the sacerdotal office.

Is vero super eos sacerdos sive iudex exsistit, cui Dominus inquit in Petro: "Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcunque solveris super terram erit solutum et in coelis." Eius vicarius, qui est sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, constitutus a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. Tria quippe distinguit iudicia: primum inter sanguinem et sanguinem, per quod criminale intelligitur et civile; ultimum inter lepram et lepram, per quod ecclesiasticum et criminale notatur; medium inter causam et causam, quod ad utrumque refertur, tam ecclesiasticum quam civile, in quibus quum aliquid fuerit difficile, vel ambiguum, ad iudicium est sedis apostolicae recurrendum, cuius sententiam qui superbiens contempserit observare mori praecipitur et auferri malum de Israel, id est, per excommunicationis sententiam, velut mortuus, a communione fidelium separari. Paulus etiam, ut plenitudinem potestatis exponeret, ad Corinthios scribens ait: "nescitis, quoniam angelos iudicabitis, quanto magis saecularia?" Porro saecularis officium potestatis interdum et in quibusdam per se, nonnunquam autem et in nonnullis per alios exsequi consuevit. Licet igitur cum filiis saepe dicti regis Francorum, de quibus, an fuerint legitimi ab initio, dubitatur, duxerimus dispensandum: quia tamen tam lex Mosaica quam canonica sobolem susceptam ex adulterio detestatur, testante Domino, quod manzeres et spurii usque in decimam generationem in ecclesiam non intrabunt, canone vero vetante tales ad sacros ordines promoveri, saecularibus quoque legibus non solum repellentibus eos a successione paterna, sed negantibus ipsis etiam alimenta: petitioni tuae non duximus annuendum, donec, si fieri poterit, et culpa levior et iurisdictio liberior ostendatur, licet personam tuam specialis delectionis brachiis anplexemur et in quibus cum Deo et honestate possumus specialem tibi velimus gratiam exhibere.

But there is over them a priest or judge, to whom the Lord says in Peter: "Whatever you bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven." His vicar, who is a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek, has been constituted by God judge of the living and the dead. He distinguishes, indeed, three judgments: the first between blood and blood, by which the criminal and the civil are understood; the last between leprosy and leprosy, by which the ecclesiastical and the criminal are marked; the middle between cause and cause, which is referred to both, both ecclesiastical and civil—in which, when anything is difficult or ambiguous, one must have recourse to the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose sentence whoever, in pride, has scorned to observe is commanded to die and to remove the evil from Israel, that is, to be separated, as though dead, from the communion of the faithful by the sentence of excommunication. Paul also, in order to set forth the plenitude of power, writing to the Corinthians says: "Do you not know that you will judge angels? how much more secular matters?" Moreover, the office of secular power is accustomed sometimes and in certain matters to execute by itself, but sometimes also and in some things to execute through others. Although, therefore, with the sons of the oft-mentioned king of the Franks, concerning whom it is doubted whether they were legitimate from the beginning, we have judged that there should be dispensation, yet because both the Mosaic and the canonical law detest offspring conceived from adultery, the Lord bearing witness that mamzers and bastards up to the tenth generation shall not enter the church, while the canon forbids such to be promoted to sacred orders, and the secular laws likewise not only repel them from paternal succession but even deny them support: we have not judged your petition to be granted, until, if it can be done, both the fault be shown lighter and the jurisdiction freer, although we embrace your person with the arms of special affection, and in those matters in which, with God and with honor, we can, we wish to exhibit to you special favor.

CAP. XIV. Si coniugatus, vivente prima, in facie ecclesiae contrahit cum secunda hoc ignorante, legitima erit eorum proles.

CHAPTER 14. If a married man, with the first (wife) living, contracts in the face of the Church with a second, the latter being ignorant of this, their progeny will be legitimate.

Idem H. et R. Canonicis Beneventanis.

The same to H. and R., Canons of Benevento.

Ex tenore literarum vestrarum nobis innotuit, quod, quum G. vidua hereditatem R., quondam mariti sui a Landulfo de Granno et nepotibus suis cum fructibus inde perceptis, in praesentia vestra, qui ex delegatione nostra de causa cognoscebatis eadem, sibi et pupillo filio suo restitui postularet, pars adversa petitionem eius nitebatur excludere, pro eo, quod eundem R. maritum ipsius viduae de adulterio genitum asserebat, proponens, quod dicti Roberti pater, vivente uxore legitima, quandam aliam, Maruciam nomine, superduxit, ex qua praefatum Robertum maritum ipsius viduae generavit. E contra vero pars viduae respondebat, quod, quum praefata Marucia, nesciens, quod dicti Roberti pater aliam haberet uxorem, cum ipso in ecclesiae facie contraxisset, filius, quem suscepit ex ea, legitimus debebat haberi, quum non debeant illegitimi reputari qui de adultera conscia non nascuntur. Quumque diutius super hoc in vestra fuisset praesentia litigatum, et nos nullorum prudentum sententia, quorum consilium requisistis, in hoc invicem discordaret, sedem duxistis apostolicam consulendam.

From the tenor of your letters it became known to us that, when G., a widow, was demanding that the inheritance of R., her once husband, from Landulf of Granno and his nephews, together with the fruits therefrom perceived, in your presence, who by our delegation were taking cognizance of the same cause, be restored to herself and to her pupil son, the opposing party strove to exclude her petition, on the ground that the same R., the widow’s husband, was asserted to have been begotten of adultery, alleging that the father of the said Robert, while his lawful wife was living, took to himself another woman, by name Marucia, from whom he generated the aforesaid Robert, the widow’s husband. But on the contrary the widow’s party replied that, since the aforesaid Marucia, not knowing that the father of the said Robert had another wife, had contracted with him in the face of the church, the son whom she received from him ought to be held legitimate, since those who are not born of an adulteress who is conscious ought not to be reputed illegitimate. And when for a longer time there was litigation on this before you, and since the opinion of none of the prudent men, whose counsel you sought, in this was at variance with one another, you judged that the Apostolic See should be consulted.

Nos igitur, intellectis his et aliis, quae per vestras nobis literas intimastis, habito cum fratribus nostris diligenti tractatu, Intelligentes, quod pater praedicti R. matrem ipsius in facie ecclesiae, ignaram penitus, quod ipse aliam sibi matrimonialiter copulasset, duxerit in uxorem, et dum ipsa coniux ipsius legitima putaretur, dictum R. susceperit ex eadem, in favorem prolis potius declinamus, memoratum R. quoad hoc legitimum reputantes. Ideoque discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus [et] vos eum legitimum reputetis in ceteris iuxta tenorem literarum nostrarum ratione praevia processuri. [Dat. Rom.

Therefore we, these things and others having been understood, which you intimated to us through your letters, a diligent tractate having been held with our brothers, understanding that the father of the aforesaid R. took his mother as wife in the face of the church, utterly ignorant that he had matrimonially coupled himself to another, and that, while she was considered his lawful spouse, he begot the said R. from the same, we incline rather in favor of the progeny, reckoning the aforesaid R. as to this legitimate. Therefore by apostolic writings we command to your discretion, to the extent that [and] you reckon him legitimate in the rest, proceeding, with due reasoning beforehand, according to the tenor of our letters. [Given at Rome.

ap. S. Petr. Id. Oct. 1205.]

at St. Peter’s, on the Ides of October. 1205.]

CAP. XV. Proles infidelium, qui postea convertuntur, legitima est, etiamsi parentes sunt in gradu prohibito lege canonica.

CHAPTER 15. The offspring of infidels, who afterwards are converted, is legitimate, even if the parents are in a degree prohibited by canon law.

Idem Episcopo Tib.

The same to the Bishop of Tibur.

Gaudemus (Et infra: [cf. b.8.de divort. IV.19.]) Ceterum prolem, de infidelium coniunctionibus natam, qui secundo, tertio vel ulteriore gradu secundum opinionem illorum matrimoniali contraxerunt affectu, post fidem receptam, utilitate publica suadente, legitimam volumus reputari. [Qui autem etc.

We rejoice (And below: [cf. b.8.de divort. 4.19.]) Moreover, we will that the offspring born from the conjunctions of unbelievers, who in the second, third, or more remote degree, according to their opinion, have contracted with matrimonial affection, after the faith has been received, with public utility persuading, be reckoned legitimate. [But he who etc.

cf. c. 8. de divort. IV.19.]

cf. ch. 8. on divorce. 4.19.]

TITULUS XVIII. QUI MATRIMONIUM ACCUSARE POSSUNT, VEL CONTRA ILLUD TESTARI.

TITLE 18. WHO CAN ACCUSE A MARRIAGE, OR TESTIFY AGAINST IT.

CAP. I. Quum agitur de foedere matrimonii, reo absente contumaciter, possunt super impedimento matrimonii recipi testes, dummodo sint legitimi; et ad dicta eorum fertur sententia.

CHAPTER 1. When the covenant of matrimony is at issue, the defendant being contumaciously absent, witnesses can be received concerning an impediment of matrimony, provided that they are legitimate; and sentence is delivered according to their statements.

Alexander III. Parisiensi Episcopo.

Alexander III. To the Bishop of Paris.

Relatum est nobis ex parte tua, quod, quum pater cuiusdam puellae eam cuidam civi Parisiensi nuptui tradidisset, maritus post aliquot annos, quibus cum uxore permansit, propter homicidium, quod commisit, de civitate timore mortis exivit. Nunc autem dicitur et videtur legitime posse probari, quod pater praedictae puellae ad Christianitatem iuvenem tenuit, et, quod est amplius, eum de sacro fonte levavit; sed literis tuis quaesitus nondum potuit inveniri, licet quinquennium sit transactum. Ceterum quia super hoc tua nos duxit fraternitas consulendos, consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si iuvenis et puella aliquot annis sine quaestione fuerunt [simul], qui praescriptum matrimonium nunc accusant non videntur suspicione carere.

It has been reported to us on your part, that, when the father of a certain girl had given her in marriage to a certain citizen of Paris, the husband, after some years during which he remained with his wife, on account of the homicide which he committed, departed from the city in fear of death. Now, however, it is said, and it seems legitimately able to be proved, that the father of the aforesaid girl held the youth to Christianity, and, what is more, lifted him from the sacred font; but, though sought by your letters, he has not yet been able to be found, although a five-year period has elapsed. Moreover, because upon this your fraternity has led us to be consulted, we thus reply to your consultation, that, if the youth and the girl were for some years without question [together], those who now accuse the prescribed marriage do not seem to be free from suspicion.

Ceterum si manifestum est quod asseritur, aut legitimi accusatores et testes appareant omni exceptione maiores, postquam iuvenis fuerit cum omni diligentia requisitus, etiamsi nequiverit inveniri, testes recipere poteris, et fine canonico iudicium terminare. Tu tamen ita procedas, quod amorem aliquem aut commodum temporale nequaquam praeponere iustitiae videaris. Sane illi quibus scientibus et tacentibus matrimonium est contractum non sunt contra ipsum ulterius audiendi.

Moreover, if it is manifest what is asserted, or if legitimate accusers and witnesses appear beyond every exception, after the young man has been sought with all diligence, even if he has not been able to be found, you can receive witnesses and bring the judgment to an end with a canonical conclusion. You, however, should proceed thus, that you may by no means seem to prefer any affection or temporal profit to justice. Truly, those with whose knowledge and silence the marriage was contracted are not to be heard further against it.

CAP. II. Accusatio et testimonium in causa matrimoniali personaliter, et non per literas, fieri debent.

CHAPTER 2. Accusation and testimony in a matrimonial cause ought to be made in person, and not by letters.

Clemens III.

Clement 3.

A nobis est ex parte ecclesiae vestrae quaesitum, utrum aliqui, super accusatione matrimonii nihil voce propria depromentes, debeant per solam chartulae conscriptionem admitti. Ad hoc respondemus, quod in talibus, nisi quantum ad praesumptionem, nullius momenti est conscriptio quoad sententiam proferendam, nisi alia legitima adminicula suffragentur. Praeterea, quia et hoc consultationi fuit additum, proinde respondemus, quod, qui sponsalibus interfuerunt et tacuere quaesiti, non sunt postea recipiendi, si velint contra matrimonium aliqua confiteri, nisi de his aliqua velint dicere quae in veritate postea didicerunt, de quibus quum constet, eos nihil factae interrogationis tempore cognovisse, qualiter ab his qui accusant matrimonium vel aliquid protestantur recipiendum sit sacramentum et post quot annos sint aliqui in accusatione matrimonii audiendo praesentibus literis non duximus annectendum.

It has been asked of us on the part of your church whether some persons, in the matter of an accusation of matrimony, bringing forth nothing with their own voice, ought to be admitted by the mere conscription of a little document. To this we respond that in such cases, save only so far as pertains to presumption, the conscription is of no moment with respect to pronouncing a sentence, unless other lawful supports should undergird it. Moreover, because this too was added to the consultation, accordingly we respond that those who were present at the sponsals and kept silence when questioned are not thereafter to be received, if they wish to confess anything against the matrimony, unless they wish to say something about those matters which afterwards in truth they learned; and since it is established that they knew nothing at the time when the interrogation was made, how the oath is to be received from those who accuse the matrimony or make any protest, and after how many years some are to be heard in an accusation of matrimony, we have not deemed to annex to these present letters.

Quia forma huius sacramenti paene in omnibus patet canonibus diligenter expressa et quia per varietatem casuum et diversitates personarum certa de annorum spatio his non possit meta praefigi. [Dat. Laterani.]

Because the form of this sacrament is carefully expressed in almost all the canons, and because, through the variety of cases and the diversities of persons, a definite limit as to the span of years cannot be set for these. [Given at the Lateran.]

CAP. III. In causa matrimoniali super consanguinitate et contractu testificari possunt consanguinei et parentes.

CHAPTER 3. In a matrimonial cause with respect to consanguinity and the contract, consanguines and parents can testify.

Clemens III. Papa Florentino Episcopo.

Clement III, the Pope, to the Bishop of Florence.

Videtur nobis, quod secunda, quam contra prohibitionem ecclesiae duxit, non sit uxor, etsi primam non haberet desponsatam. Nam quod contra interdictum et ordinem ecclesiae factum est, ratum non haberi tanquam inordinatum, tam divinae quam humanae legis auctoritas proclamat. Quia igitur ea, quam inordinate superduxit, prohibitione renitente uxor non est, cogendus est eam recipere, quam iuravit et desponsavit, atque ex ea prolem genuit, ut iuramenti religio non vilipendatur, et fides promissa adinvicem conservetur, et proles in cultu Dei nutriatur et educetur, et alii exinde occasionem peierandi et alias decipiendi assumere non valeant. Quod autem parentes, fratres et cognati utriusque sexus in testificatione suorum ad matrimonium coniungendum vel dirimendum admittantur, tam antiqua consuetudine quam legibus approbatur, et tam divinis quam humanis legibus similiter adprobatur. Ideo enim maxime parentes recipiuntur, et, si defuerint parentes, proximiores admittuntur, quoniam unusquisque suam genealogiam cum testibus et chartis, tum etiam ex recitatione maiorum scire laborat.

It seems to us, that the second woman, whom he took against the prohibition of the church, is not a wife, even if he did not have the first betrothed. For that which has been done against the interdict and the order of the church, as being inordinate, is not held valid, as the authority of both divine and human law proclaims. Therefore, since she whom he has inordinately superinduced, with the prohibition resisting, is not a wife, he must be compelled to receive her whom he swore and betrothed, and from whom he begot offspring, so that the religion/obligation of the oath be not slighted, and the pledged faith be preserved mutually, and the offspring be nourished and educated in the worship of God, and that others may not be able from this to take an occasion of perjuring and of deceiving in other ways. But that parents, brothers, and cognates of both sexes be admitted in the testification on behalf of their own for joining or dissolving marriage, is approved both by ancient custom and by the laws, and likewise is approved by both divine and human laws. For this reason, therefore, chiefly the parents are received, and, if the parents are lacking, the nearer relatives are admitted, since each person labors to know his genealogy with witnesses and charters, and also from the recitation of his ancestors.

Quia igitur aliis melius sciunt, ideo maxime admittuntur. Similiter recipiuntur in testificatione matrimonii gratia coniungendi. Qui enim melius recipi debent, quam illi, qui melius sciunt, et quorum est interesse, ita, ut, si non interfuerint, et consensum non adhibuerint, secundum leges nullum fiat matrimonium? Quod vero legitur: "pater non recipiatur in causa filii, nec filius in causa patris," in criminalibus causis et contractibus verum est, in matrimonio vero coniungendo et disiungendo ex ipsius coniugii praerogativa, et quia favorabilis res est, congrue admittuntur.

Because therefore others know better, for that reason they are most of all admitted. Similarly they are received in the testimony of matrimony for the sake of being conjoined. For who ought to be received better than those who know better, and whose concern it is—so that, if they have not been present and have not applied consent, according to the laws no matrimony is made? But what is read: "let the father not be received in the cause of the son, nor the son in the cause of the father," is true in criminal causes and in contracts; but in matrimony being conjoined and disjoined, by the prerogative of the conjugal bond itself, and because it is a favorable matter, they are congruously admitted.

CAP. IV. Invita desponsata, postea sponte cognita, contra matrimonium non auditur.

CHAPTER 4. A betrothed woman, unwilling, afterwards known of her own accord, is not heard against the marriage.

Idem.

The same.

Insuper adiecisti, quod aliquis, cum quadam innubili puella contraxit, quae, tandem aetatis metas attingens, et ab illo pluries cognita, post quatuor aut quinque annos, a praefata aetate decursos, contra matrimonium proclamavit, asserens, se semper ab initio dissensisse ab illo, et quod dicit per testes probat fama et conversatione praeclaros. In hoc itaque casu sentimus, quod adversus matrimonium audiri non debet, quae, ante cognitionem sui legitimum annum attingens, quum potuit, minime reclamavit. Sicut enim ante legitimum consensum, qui in duodecimo anno spectatur, secundum ius canonicum potuit dissentire: sic, postquam legitimo tempore accedente semel etiam copulae carnali consensit, ex ratihabitione sibi super hoc silentium non ambigitur indixisse.

Moreover you added that someone contracted with a certain unmarried maiden, who, at length reaching the bounds of age, and having been known by him many times, after four or five years, elapsed from the aforesaid age, proclaimed against the marriage, asserting that she had always from the beginning dissented from him, and what she says she proves by witnesses distinguished in fame and way of life. In this case, therefore, we are of the opinion that she ought not to be heard against the marriage, who, before the knowing of herself, on attaining her lawful year, when she could, by no means protested. For just as before the lawful consent, which is looked for in the twelfth year, according to canon law she could dissent: so, after, with the lawful time approaching, she once even consented to the carnal coupling, from ratihabition it is not doubted that she imposed silence upon herself in this matter.

[Rursus quidam etc. cf. c.6.Qui cler. vel vov.

[Again, some, etc.; cf. ch.6.Who are clerics or the vowed.

IV. 6.]

4. 6.]

CAP. V. Repellitur accusans matrimonium propter quaestum.

CHAPTER 5. The one accusing matrimony on account of gain is repelled.

Innocentius III. Archiepiscipo, Praeposito et Priori sanctae Mariae de Albanen. Genuensibus.

Innocent III. To the Archbishop, the Provost, and the Prior of Saint Mary of Albanen. To the Genoese.

Significante M. de Canula cive Ianuensi nostro est apostolatui declaratum, quod, quum ipse N. duxisset legitime in uxorem, S. mater mulieris ipsius nisa est matrimonium accusare, ut ab eo pecuniam extorqueret. Et licet intellectui suo prava non possint opera respondere, nihilominus tamen vult habere pecuniam, ut a matrimonii eiusdem [de cetero] accusatione desistat. Quum igitur non sit malitiis hominum indulgendum, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, ipsam mulierem ab accusatione ipsius matrimonii repellentes, eidem super hoc silentium imponatis.

With M. de Canula, a Genoese citizen, making it known, it has been declared to our Apostolate, that, when he himself, N., had lawfully taken her as wife, S., the mother of the woman herself, strove to accuse the marriage, in order to extort money from him. And although depraved works cannot correspond to her intellect, nonetheless however she wishes to have money, so that she may desist from the accusation of the same marriage [henceforth]. Since therefore the malices of men are not to be indulged, we mandate to your discretion through apostolic writings, that, if it is so, repelling the woman from the accusation of the same marriage, you impose silence upon her in this matter.

[Tu frater etc. Dat. Lat.

[You, brother, etc. Given at the Lateran.

XVII. Kal. Iul.

June 15.

1204.]

CAP. VI. Repellitur ab accusatione matrimonii qui denunciationis tempore tacuit, nisi denunciationem probabiliter ignoravit, vel iuret de novo didicisse, et quod non obiicit illam malitiose.

CHAPTER 6. He is repelled from an accusation against the marriage who kept silent at the time of the denunciation, unless he credibly was ignorant of the denunciation, or swears that he learned of it anew, and that he does not object to it maliciously.

Idem.

The same.

Quum in tua dioecesi (Et infra: [cf. c.30.de dec. III.30.]) Si vero post contractum matrimonium aliquis appareat accusator, quum non prodierit in publicum, quando banna secundum consuetudinem in ecclesiis edebantur, utrum vox suae debeat accusationis admitti, merito quaeri potest. Super quo sic duximus distinguendum, quod, si tempore denunciationis praemissae is, qui iam coniunctos impetit, extra dioecesim exsistebat, vel alias denunciatio non potuit ad eius notitiam pervenire, ut puta, si nimiae infirmitatis fervore laborans sanae mentis patiebatur exsilium, vel in anniserat tam teneris constitutus, quod ad comprehensionem talium eius aetas sufficere non valebat, seu alia causa legitima fuerit impeditus, eius accusatio debet audiri.

When in your diocese (And below: [cf. c.30.de dec. 3.30.]) If, however, after the marriage has been contracted some accuser should appear, when he did not come forth into the public when the banns were being published in the churches according to custom, it can rightly be asked whether the voice of his accusation ought to be admitted. On which we have judged that it should be distinguished thus: if at the time of the aforesaid denunciation the one who attacks the already conjoined was outside the diocese, or otherwise the denunciation could not come to his knowledge—for instance, if, laboring under the heat of excessive infirmity, he was suffering a banishment from a sound mind, or he had been constituted in years so tender that his age could not suffice for the comprehension of such matters, or he was hindered by another legitimate cause—his accusation ought to be heard.

Alioquin, quum rationabiliter praesumatur, quod denunciationem publice factam idem exsistens in ipsa dioecesi minime ignoravit, tanquam suspectus est procul dubio repellendus, nisi proprio firmaverit iuramento, quod postea didicerit ea, quae obiecerit, et ad hoc ex malitia non procedat, quia tunc, etiamsi didicisset ab illis, qui denunciationis tempore siluerunt, claudi non debet eidem aditus accusandi, quoniam, etsi ab impetitione huiusmodi culpa de silentio tali contracta illos excluderet, iste tamen amoveri nequiret, quum culpabilis non exsistat. [Utrum autem etc. cf. c.44.de test.

Otherwise, when it is reasonably presumed that, the denunciation having been made publicly, he, being present in that very diocese, was by no means ignorant of it, he is, as a suspect, without doubt to be repelled, unless he shall have confirmed by his own oath that afterwards he learned the things which he has objected, and that he does not proceed to this out of malice; because then, even if he had learned from those who kept silence at the time of the denunciation, access to accusing ought not to be closed to him, since, although from an impetition of this kind the fault contracted from such silence would exclude those men, yet this man could not be removed, since he is not culpable. [But whether, etc. cf. ch.44.on witnesses.

II. 22.Dat. Lat. IV. Kal.

2. 22.Given at the Lateran, on the 4th day before the Kalends.

Nov. Pont. nostr.

Nov. of our Pontificate.

Ao. XV. 1212.]

Year 15. 1212.]

TITULUS XIX. DE DIVORTIIS.

TITLE 19. ON DIVORCES.

CAP. I. Homicidium necessarium non privat spe coniugii, sed machinatio in mortem coniugis sic.

CHAPTER 1. Necessary homicide does not deprive of the hope of marriage, but a machination for the death of a spouse does so.

Ex concilio apud Wormaciam.

From the council at Worms.

Si qua mulier in mortem mariti sui cum aliis [hominibus] consiliata est, et ipse vir aliquem illorum se defendendo occiderit, et hoc probare [potest], potest ipse vir ipsam uxorem dimittere, et post mortem uxoris, si voluerit, aliam ducere. Ipsa autem insidiatrix poenitentiae absque spe coniugii stet subiecta.

If any woman has taken counsel with others [men] for the death of her husband, and the husband himself, in defending himself, has killed some one of them, and to prove this [he can], he himself can, the husband dismiss his own wife, and after the death of the wife, if he wishes, take another. But the plotter herself shall stand subjected to penance without hope of marriage.

CAP. II. Coniuges propter alterius crimen non separantur, nisi spiritualiter fornicentur, et tunc durat coniugium, eis etiam separatis.

CHAPTER 2. Spouses are not separated on account of the other’s crime, unless they fornicate spiritually, and then the marriage endures, even with them separated.

Alexander III.

Alexander 3.

Quaesivit a nobis tua fraternitas, utrum mulier pro latrocinio aut quolibet alio crimine a viro suo debeat separari, et alii nubere, et de viro simili modo quaestionem proposuisti, utrum pro quolibet flagitio possit a coniuge dividi, et aliam sibi legitime matrimonio copulare. Nos itaque taliter respondemus, quod mulier pro furto vel alio crimine viri sui, nisi ipse eam ad maleficia sua trahere nitatur, et fidei suae religionem corrumpere velit, ab eo separari non debet, nec alii aliqua ratione copulari. Verum si coniugem suam ad infidelitatis maleficium traxerit, mulier a viro recedere poterit et separari, ita, quod ei nubere alii non licebit, quia, licet separentur, semper tamen coniuges erunt. In viris quoque praesentis sententiae forma servetur.

Your brotherhood has inquired of us, whether a woman ought to be separated from her husband on account of brigandage or any other crime, and to marry another; and you have proposed a like question concerning the man, whether for any disgraceful crime he can be divided from his spouse, and lawfully couple another to himself in marriage. We therefore answer thus, that a woman ought not to be separated from her husband on account of theft or another crime of her husband, unless he himself strives to draw her into his malefactions, and wishes to corrupt the religion of her faith; she ought not to be separated from him, nor to be coupled to another for any reason. Truly, if he has drawn his spouse into the malefaction of infidelity, the woman will be able to withdraw from her husband and to be separated, such that it will not be permitted her to marry another, because, although they are separated, nevertheless they will always be spouses. In the case of men also, let the form of the present sentence be observed.

CAP. III. Vir non potest dimittere uxorem sine iudicio ecclesiae, etiam propter impedimentum parentelae notorium. Si fama refert impedimentum coniugii, etiam nemine opponente, episcopus ex officio suo potest de eo inquirere.

CHAPTER 3. A man cannot dismiss his wife without the judgment of the Church, even on account of a notorious impediment of consanguinity. If public report relates an impediment of the marriage, even with no one opposing, the bishop, ex officio, can inquire into it.

Si vero impedimentum est notorium, potest episcopus ex officio suo matrimonium separare.

If, however, the impediment is notorious, the bishop can, by his office, separate the marriage.

Idem Ambianensi Episcopis.

The same to the Bishops of Amiens.

Porro de comite Pontini, qui filiam B. de sancto Valerico uxorem suam absque iudicio ecclesiae dimisit propterea, quia eam cognatam fuisse uxoris defunctae proponit, haec prudentia tua cognoscat, quod, si etiam parentela esset publica et notoria, absque iudicio ecclesiae ab ea separari non potuit, quare ipsum ad eam recipiendam, quae petit restitutionem ipsius, districte compellas. Quam si recipere noluerit, eum et superinductam vinculo excommunicationis adstringas. Si qui autem apparuerint, qui matrimonium ipsum legitime velint et possint impetere, causam audias, et eam fine debito decidas. Praeterea de H. qui filiam Adelmi, cognatam suam, duxit [in] uxorem, si hoc publicum est et manifestum, nec apparet aliquis, qui matrimonium velit impetere, id tibi respondemus, quod, non apparentibus accusatoribus, et parentela manifesta seu publica exsistente, quod credibile non est, nisi essent consobrini in primo gradu vel secundo, tui officii interest, matrimonia illa adhibita gravitate dissolvere, quae illicite contracta noscuntur.

Moreover concerning the count of Ponthieu, who dismissed the daughter of B. of Saint-Valery, his wife, without the judgment of the Church, for this reason, because he alleges that she was a kinswoman of his deceased wife, let this your prudence know: that, even if the kinship were public and notorious, he could not be separated from her without the judgment of the Church; wherefore strictly compel him to receive her, who seeks her restoration to him. If he is unwilling to receive her, bind him and the woman superinduced with the chain of excommunication. If any should appear who wish and are able lawfully to impugn that marriage itself, hear the cause, and decide it with the due end. Furthermore, concerning H., who took the daughter of Adelmus, his kinswoman, [in] to wife, if this is public and manifest, and no one appears who wishes to impugn the marriage, this to you we answer: that, no accusers appearing, and the kinship being manifest or public—which is not credible, unless they were consobrini in the first degree or the second—it pertains to your office, with due gravity applied, to dissolve those marriages which are known to have been illicitly contracted.

[Ad haec etc. cf. c.15.de dec. III.30.]

[To these things, etc. cf. ch.15.on tithes 3.30.]

CAP. IV. Repellitur uxor, petens restitutionem mariti, si notorie fornicata est, et maritus continuit.

CHAPTER 4. The wife is repelled, seeking restitution of her husband, if she has notoriously fornicated, and the husband has maintained continence.

Idem.

The same.

Significasti nobis, quod quidam miles in provincia tua, uxore sua sine iudicio ecclesiae [et auctoritate] dimissa pro eo, quod suggestum sibi fuerat, ipsam incestum cum quodam consanguineo suo commisisse, vinculo fuit propter hoc excommunicationis adstrictus. Verum mulier ipsa non continuit, sed sobolem de alio viro suscepit; nec minus postulat viro restitui, asserens, se ab ipso iniuste [fuisse] dimissam, et eundem virum sibi materiam adulterandi dedisse. Unde, quia nos consuluisti, utrum mulier ipsa debeat viro [suo] restitui, et vir ad eius receptionem compelli, Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si notorium est, mulierem ipsam adulterium commisisse, ad eam recipiendam praefatus vir cogi non debet, nisi constaret, ipsum cum alia adulterium commisisse.

You have signified to us that a certain soldier in your province, his wife having been dismissed without the judgment of the church [and authority] on account of this, that it had been suggested to him that she had committed incest with a certain kinsman of hers, was for this bound by the bond of excommunication. But the woman herself did not keep continence, but received offspring by another man; nor does she the less demand to be restored to her husband, asserting that she was unjustly [was] dismissed by him, and that the same husband gave her the material occasion for committing adultery. Whence, because you consulted us, whether the woman herself ought to be restored to her [own] husband, and the husband be compelled to receive her, we thus respond to your consultation: that, if it is notorious that the woman herself has committed adultery, the aforesaid husband ought not to be compelled to receive her, unless it were established that he himself committed adultery with another woman.

CAP. V. Matrimonium separatur propter adulterium mulieris, et, si vir postea fornicetur, redintegratur. Et est bonus casus et multum allegabilis.

CHAPTER 5. Matrimony is separated on account of the adultery of the woman, and, if the husband afterwards fornicates, it is reintegrated. And it is a good case and much allegeable.

Idem.

The same.

Ex literis tuis accepimus, quod lator praesentium, V. nomine, olim de tua dioecesi quandam duxit, videlicet Luciam, in uxorem, qui, maligno spiritu instigante, paucis temporibus fuere concordes. Proponebat enim idem V., quod illam per violentiam sibi illatam, metu etiam mediante duxisset. Tu vero una cum capitulo tuo, quum tam minis quam admonitionibus inter eos saepe pacem reformare studeres, ei eos temere segregatos pariter reconciliari coegisses: Tandem vir uxorem suam super crimine fornicationis in iure convenit, quae, nescitur quo ducta spiritu, coepit publice confiteri, quod, quum vir negaret ei in debitis et necessariis providere, crimen compulsa est incurrere memoratum.

From your letters we have learned that the bearer of these presents, V. by name, once from your diocese, took a certain woman, namely Lucia, as his wife, who, with malign spirit instigating, were in concord for a short time. For that same V. was alleging that he had taken her to wife when she had been brought upon him by violence, fear also intervening. But you, together with your chapter, when you were striving, as much by threats as by admonitions, to reform peace between them, had compelled them, rashly separated, to be reconciled together: At length the husband arraigned his wife in law on the charge of fornication, who, it is unknown by what spirit led, began publicly to confess that, since the husband was refusing to provide for her in what was owed and necessary, she was compelled to incur the aforesaid crime.

Quumque diligentius a te fuisset admonita, ne ad suggestionem alicuius vel iniquum consilium illud tam turpe contra se proponeret, ipsa id manifestius asserebat. Sane, tu, convocato capitulo tuo et aliis viris discretis, quum ex eorundem consilio utrique privatim continentiam firmiter iniunxeris observandam, ita, quod caste viverent ab invicem segregati, et ex relatione quorundam perceperis, quod aliam memoratus V. intenderet ducere in uxorem, licet ipsum, ne hoc facere aliquatenus attentaret, monueris diligenter, ipse nihilominus extra civitatem furtim cum alia sponsalia et nuptias temere celebravit. Verum quum factum inquirere laborares, ut secundum illud procederes, supra dictus V. rei seriem, prout factum fuerat, explicans et exponens, ad audientiam nostram dicitur appellasse.

And when she had been more diligently admonished by you, that she should not, at someone’s suggestion or iniquitous counsel, put forward that so disgraceful a thing against herself, she asserted it more manifestly. Indeed, you, having convened your chapter and other discreet men, when by the counsel of the same you had enjoined upon each privately the continence to be observed firmly, such that they should live chastely, separated from one another, and from the report of certain persons you perceived that the aforesaid V. intended to take another in marriage, although you diligently warned him that he should not in any way attempt to do this, nevertheless he, outside the city secretly with another rashly celebrated betrothal and nuptials. But when you were laboring to inquire into the deed, that you might proceed according to that, the aforesaid V., explaining and expounding the sequence of the matter, as it had been done, is said to have appealed to our audience.

Unde fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si res ita processit, praetaxatum virum appellatione remota ad legitimam uxorem per excommunicationis sententiam redire compellas, et, iniuncta eidem poenitentia de commisso adulterio cum secunda, priorem maritali affectione ab ipso facias pertractari. [Capellanum etc. cf. c.1.de sec. nupt.

Whence we command your fraternity through apostolic writings, that, if the matter has so proceeded, you compel the aforesaid man, with appeal set aside, to return to his lawful wife through the sentence of excommunication, and, with penance enjoined upon him for the adultery committed with the second, you cause the former to be treated by him with marital affection. [Chaplain etc. cf. c.1.on second marriages.

IV. 21.Dat. Laterani.]

4. 21.Given at the Lateran.]

CAP. VI. Si uxor a viro, lapso in haeresim, propria auctoritate divertit, ad eum reversum redire compellitur; secus, si per iudicium ecclesiae ab eo fuisset separata.

CHAPTER 6. If a wife, from a husband lapsed into heresy, departs by her own authority, she is compelled to return to him once he has returned; otherwise, if she had been separated from him by the judgment of the Church.

Urbanus III. Florentino Episcopo.

Urban 3. To the Bishop of Florence.

De illa vero, quae, viro suo labente in haeresim, ipsius consortium sine iudicio ecclesiae declinavit, utrum, revertente illo ad catholicam unitatem, ad redintegrandum matrimomium sit cogenda, videtur nobis, quod mulier, maxime si ea intentione decessit, ut lapsus in haeresim taedio pariter et confusione affectus se ab errore suo converteret, ei, quum reversus fuerit, est reddenda, quae, etiamsi reverti noluerit, compellatur. Si vero iudicio ecclesiae ab eo sine spe matrimomii redintegrandi recessit, ad recipiendum eum nullatenus eam dicimus compellendam. [De uxore vero etc.

Concerning that woman indeed, who, her husband slipping into heresy, declined his consortium without the judgment of the Church, whether, when he returns to catholic unity, she is to be compelled to reintegrate the matrimony, it seems to us that the woman—especially if she departed with this intention, that the one lapsed into heresy, affected by tedium and likewise by confusion, might convert himself from his error—when he shall have returned, is to be restored to him, and, even if she should be unwilling to return, she is to be compelled. But if by the judgment of the Church she withdrew from him without hope of reintegrating the matrimony, we say that she is by no means to be compelled to receive him. [Of the wife indeed etc.

cf. c. 7. de sepult. III.28.]

cf. ch. 7. on burial 3.28.]

CAP. VII. Vinculum coniugale non dissolvitur altero coniugum fidelium in haeresim lapso. Sed si unus infidelium coniugum convertatur ad fidem, et alter noluit sibi cohabitare, vel non sine blasphemia, vel sine peccato mortali, solvitur coniugium, et conversus contrahere poterit.

CHAPTER 7. The conjugal bond is not dissolved when one of the faithful spouses lapses into heresy. But if one of the infidel spouses is converted to the faith, and the other is unwilling to cohabit with the convert, or cannot do so not without blasphemy or without mortal sin, the marriage is dissolved, and the converted person will be able to contract [a new one].

Innocentius III. Ferrariensi Episcopo.

Innocent 3. To the Bishop of Ferrara.

Quanto te magis novimus in canonico iure peritum, tanto fraternitatem tuam amplius in Domino commendamus, quod in dubiis quaestionum articulis ad sedem apostolicam recurris, quae disponente Domino cunctorum fidelium mater est et magistra, ut opinio, quam in eis quondam habueras, dum alios canonici iuris peritiam edoceres, vel corrigatur per sedem apostolicam vel probetur. Sane tua nobis fraternitas suis literis intimavit, quod, altero coniugum ad haeresim transeunte, qui relinquitur ad secunda vota desiderat convolare et filios procreare, quod, utrum possit fieri de iure, per tuas nos duxisti literas consulendos. Nos igitur consultationi tuae de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio respondentes, distinguimus, licet quidam praedecessor noster sensisse aliter videatur, an ex duobus infidelibus alter ad fidem catholicam convertatur, vel ex duobus fidelibus alter labatur in haeresim, vel decidat in gentilitatis errorem. Si enim alter infidelium coniugum ad fidem catholicam convertatur, altero vel nullo modo, vel saltem non sine blasphemia divini nominis, vel ut eum pertrahat ad mortale peccatum, ei cohabitare volente: qui relinquitur, ad secunda, si voluerit, vota transibit.

The more we know you to be skilled in canonical law, the more we commend your fraternity in the Lord, because in doubtful points of questions you have recourse to the apostolic see, which, by the Lord’s disposing, is the mother and teacher of all the faithful, so that the opinion which you once held in them, while you were instructing others in the expertise of canonical law, either may be corrected by the apostolic see or approved. Truly your fraternity has intimated to us by its letters that, when one of the spouses passes over to heresy, the one who is left desires to hasten to second vows and to beget children; and you have led us by your letters to be consulted as to whether this can be done by law. Therefore, responding to your consultation by the common counsel of our brothers, we distinguish—although a certain predecessor of ours seems to have thought otherwise—whether, from two infidels, one be converted to the Catholic faith, or from two faithful, one fall into heresy, or fall down into the error of gentilism. For if one of the unbelieving spouses be converted to the Catholic faith, with the other either in no way willing to cohabit, or at least not without blasphemy of the divine name, or so as to drag the convert into mortal sin, then the one who is left, if he wishes, will pass to second vows.

Et in hoc casu intelligimus quod ait Apostolus: "Si infidelis discedit, discedat. Frater enim vel soror non est servituti subiectus in huiusmodi," et canonem etiam, in quo dicitur, quod "contumelia creatoris solvit ius matrimonii circa eum, qui relinquitur." Si vero alter fidelium coniugum vel labatur in haeresim, vel transeat ad gentilitatis errorem, non credimus, quod in hoc casu is, qui relinquitur, vivente altero possit ad secundas nuptias convolare, licet in hoc casu maior appareat contumelia creatoris. Nam etsi matrimonium verum quidem inter infideles exsistat, non tamen est ratum.

And in this case we understand what the Apostle says: "If the infidel departs, let him depart. For the brother or the sister is not subject to servitude in such matters," and also the canon, in which it is said, that "contumely of the Creator dissolves the right of matrimony with respect to the one who is left." But if one of the spouses among the faithful either slips into heresy, or passes over into the error of paganism, we do not believe that in this case the one who is left, while the other lives, can fly to second nuptials, although in this case the greater contumely of the Creator appears. For although a true marriage does indeed exist among infidels, nevertheless it is not ratified.

Inter fideles autem verum quidem et ratum exsistit, quia sacramentum fidei, quod semel est admissum, nunquam amittitur; sed ratum efficit coniugii sacramentum, ut ipsum in coniungibus illo durante perduret. Nec obstat, quod a quibusdam forsan obiicitur, quod fidelis relictus non debeat iure suo sine culpa privari, quum in multis casibus hoc contingat, ut si alter coniugum incidatur. Per hanc autem responsionem quorundam malitiae obviatur, qui in odium coniugum, vel quando sibi invicem displicerent, si eas possent in tali casu dimittere, simularent haeresim, ut ab ipsa nubentibus coniugibus resilirent.

Among the faithful, however, a marriage both true indeed and ratified exists, because the sacrament of faith, which once has been admitted, is never lost; but the sacrament of marriage makes it ratified, so that it may endure in the spouses while that endures. Nor is there force in what perhaps is objected by some, that the faithful party left behind ought not to be deprived of his right without fault, since in many cases this happens, as for instance if one of the spouses be cut off. By this however response the malice of certain persons is countered, who, out of hatred of their spouses, or when they might be displeasing to one another, if they could dismiss them in such a case, would simulate heresy, so as to spring back from the very spouses to whom they had been joined in marriage.

Per hanc ipsam responsionem illa solvitur quaestio, qua quaeritur, utrum ad eum, qui [vel] ab haeresi vel infidelitate revertitur, is, qui permansit in fide, redire cogatur. [Dat. Lat.

By this very response that question is solved, in which it is asked whether to him who [or] returns from heresy or infidelity, the one who has remained in the faith is compelled to return. [Given at Lat.

Kal. Maii 1199.]

Kalends of May 1199.]

CAP. VIII. Pagani, iuncti in gradu prohibito lege canonica tantum, conversi ad fidem non separantur. Hoc primo.

CHAPTER 8. Pagans, joined in a prohibited degree by canonical law only, when converted to the faith are not separated. This first.

Si paganus prius plures uxores habeat, post fidem susceptam adhaerebit primae. Hoc secundo. Et, si repudiata uxore cum secunda contraxerit, etiam post baptismum dimittet secundam, et adhaerebit primae repudiatae, etiamsi repudiata cum alio contraxisset; secus is fornicata fuisset.

If a pagan previously have several wives, after the faith has been received he will adhere to the first. This second. And, if, his wife having been repudiated, he has contracted with a second, even after baptism he shall dismiss the second, and shall adhere to the first, the repudiated one, even if the repudiated woman had contracted with another; otherwise she would have fornicated.

Hoc tertio.

This, third.

Idem Tiberiadensi Episcopis.

The same to the Bishops of Tiberias.

Gaudemus in Domino et in potentia virtutis ipsius, et Patri luminum, a quo est omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum, uberes gratiarum exsolvimus actiones, quod, sicut nobis tuis literis intimasti, diebus istis novissimis ille, qui non vult mortem peccatoris, sed ut convertatur et vivat, ut ad Christianam venirent fidem, multorum paganorum cordibus inspiravit. Utrum pagani uxores accipientes in secundo vel tertio, vel ulteriori gradu sibi coniunctas, sic coniuncti debeant post conversionem suam insimul remanere, vel ab invicem separari, edoceri per scriptum apostolicum postulasti. Super quo fraternitati tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quum sacramentum coniugii apud fideles et infideles exsistat, quemadmodum ostendit Apostolus, dicens: "Si quis frater infidelem habet uxorem, et haec consentit habitare cum eo, non illam dimittat," et in praemissis gradibus a paganis quoad eos matrimonium licite sit contractum, qui constitutionibus canonicis non arctantur, ("quid enim ad nos," secundum Apostolum eundem, "de his, quae foris sunt, iudicare?") in favorem praesertim Christianae religionis et fidei, a cuius perceptione per uxores, se deseri timentes, viri possunt facile revocari, fideles huiusmodi matrimonialiter copulati libere possunt et licite remanere coniuncti, quum per sacramentum baptismi non solvantur coniugia, sed crimina dimittantur. Quia vero pagani circa plures insimul feminas affectum dividunt coniugalem, utrum post conversionem omnes, vel quam ex omnibus retinere valeant, non immerito dubitatur.

We rejoice in the Lord and in the power of His might, and to the Father of lights, from whom is every best gift and every perfect gift, we render abundant acts of thanks, because, as you intimated to us by your letters, in these most recent days He who does not will the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live, has inspired the hearts of many pagans to come to the Christian faith. Whether pagans taking wives joined to them in the second or third, or a further degree, thus conjoined ought after their conversion to remain together, or to be separated from one another, you requested to be instructed by apostolic writing. Upon which to your fraternity we thus reply: since the sacrament of conjugal union exists among the faithful and the unfaithful, as the Apostle shows, saying: "If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to dwell with him, let him not dismiss her," and since in the aforesaid degrees among pagans, as regards them, marriage is lawfully contracted—who are not constrained by canonical constitutions—("for what is it to us," according to the same Apostle, "to judge those who are outside?"), especially in favor of the Christian religion and faith, from the reception of which husbands, fearing to be deserted by their wives, can easily be recalled through the wives, the faithful thus matrimonially coupled can freely and lawfully remain conjoined, since by the sacrament of baptism marriages are not loosed, but crimes are forgiven. But because pagans divide the conjugal affection among several women at once, it is not without reason doubted whether after conversion they may retain all, or which one among all they may retain.

Quia vero tam patriarchae quam alii iusti viri ante legem pariter et post legem multas uxores insimul habuisse leguntur, nec contrarium apparet in evangelio vel lege praeceptum, neque pagani subiiciuntur canonicis institutis post inventis, quemadmodum est praemissum: videtur, quod nunc etiam iuxta ritum suum licite contrahant cum diversis, quorum coniunctiones legitimas unda sacri baptismatis non dissolvit, et ita patriarcharum exemplo ad fidem Christi conversi pagani coniugiorum pluralitate gaudebunt. Verum absonum hoc videtur et inimicum fidei Christianae, quum ab initio una costa in unam feminam sit conversa, et scriptura divina testetur, quod propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una; non dixit: "tres vel plures," sed: "duo," nec dixit: "adhaerebit uxoribus," sed: "uxori." Unde Lamech, qui plures simul uxores legitur habuisse, reprehenditur in scripturis eo, quod ipse primus reprobandam bigamiae speciem introduxit. Licet autem de his non quaesieris, volentes tamen tam te quam alios super his etiam reddere certiores, et quod veritas praevaleat falsitati, sine dubitatione qualibet protestamur, quod Nec ulli unquam licuit insimul plures uxores habere, nisi cui fuit divina revelatione concessum, quae mos quandoque, interdum etiam fas censetur, per quam, sicut Iacob a mendacio, Israelitae a furto et Samson ab homicidio, sic et patriarchae et alii viri iusti, qui plures leguntur simul habuisse uxores, ab adulterio excusantur. Sane veridica haec sententia probatur etiam de testimonio veritatis, testantis in evangelio: "Quicunque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur." Si ergo, uxore dimissa, duci et alia de iure non potest, fortius et ipsa retenta; per quod evidenter apparet, pluralitatem in utroque sexu, quum non ad imparia iudicentur, circa matrimonium reprobandam.

Because indeed both the patriarchs and other just men, before the Law and likewise after the Law, are read to have had many wives at the same time, and neither in the Gospel nor in the Law does a contrary precept appear, nor are pagans subjected to canonical institutes discovered afterward, as was premised: it seems that now also, according to their rite, they may licitly contract with various women, whose legitimate conjunctions the wave of sacred baptism does not dissolve, and thus, by the example of the patriarchs, pagans converted to the faith of Christ will rejoice in a plurality of marriages. But this seems discordant and inimical to the Christian faith, since from the beginning one rib was turned into one woman, and divine Scripture bears witness that “for this cause a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh;” it did not say “three or more,” but “two,” nor did it say “he shall cleave to wives,” but “to wife.” Whence Lamech, who is read to have had several wives at once, is reproved in the Scriptures for this, that he himself first introduced a reprovable form of bigamy. And although you did not inquire about these matters, wishing nevertheless to render both you and others more certain on these as well, and that truth may prevail over falsity, we protest without any doubt that Never has it been permitted to anyone to have several wives at the same time, unless it was granted to him by divine revelation—which is sometimes accounted a custom, sometimes even a lawful allowance—through which, just as Jacob from lying, the Israelites from theft, and Samson from homicide, so also the patriarchs and other just men, who are read to have had several wives at once, are excused from adultery. Truly this truthful sentence is proved also by the testimony of Truth, bearing witness in the Gospel: “Whoever shall dismiss his wife unless on account of fornication, and shall have married another, commits adultery.” If therefore, with the wife dismissed, another cannot in law be taken to wife, much less with her retained; whereby it clearly appears that plurality in either sex, since they are not judged by unequal standards, is to be reprobated with respect to marriage.

Ceterum etc. (cf. c.15.Qui fil. sint leg.

Moreover, etc. (cf. ch.15.Who the sons are that are legitimate.

IV. 17) Qui autem secundum ritum suum legitimam repudiavit uxorem, quum tale repudium veritas in evangelio reprobaverit, nunquam ea vivente licite poterit aliam, etiam ad fidem Christi conversus, habere, nisi post conversionem ipsius illa renuat cohabitare cum ipso, aut etiamsi consentiat, non tamen absque contumelia creatoris, vel ut eum pertrahat ad mortale peccatum. In quo casu restitutionem petenti, quamvis de iniusta spoliatione constaret, restitutio negaretur, quia secundum Apostolum frater aut soror non est in huiusmodi subiectus servituti. Quodsi conversum ad fidem et illa conversa sequatur, antequam propter causas praedictas legitimam ille ducat uxorem, eam recipere compelletur.

IV. 17) But he who, according to his own rite, has repudiated his legitimate wife, although such a repudiation the Truth in the Gospel has reprobated, can never, while she lives, licitly have another, even if converted to the faith of Christ, unless after his conversion she refuses to cohabit with him, or even if she consents, yet not without contumely of the Creator, or so as to drag him into mortal sin. In which case, to the one seeking restitution, although it were evident that there had been unjust spoliation, restitution would be denied, because, according to the Apostle, a brother or a sister is not subjected to servitude in such matters. But if, the man having been converted to the faith and she also converted, she follows, before he, for the aforesaid causes, marries a legitimate wife, he will be compelled to receive her back.

Quamvis quoque secundum evangelicam veritatem qui duxerit dimissam moechatur, non tamen dimissor poterit obiicere fornicationem dimissae pro eo, quod nupsit alii post repudium, nisi alias fuerit fornicata.

Although also, according to evangelical truth, he who has married a dismissed woman commits adultery, nevertheless the dismisser will not be able to impute to the dismissed woman fornication on the ground that she married another after the repudiation, unless she has otherwise fornicated.

CAP. IX. Non licet relictam fratris in uxorem accipere, et de facto ducta separanda est, nisi aliter ecclesia dispenset.

CHAPTER 9. It is not permitted to take the brother’s widow to wife, and one taken de facto must be separated, unless the Church dispenses otherwise.

Idem Livoniensi Episcopo, et eis, qui cum ipso sunt fratribus.

The same to the Livonian Bishop, and to the brothers who are with him.

Deus, qui ecclesiam suam (Et infra: [cf. c.11.de vita et hon. III.1.]) Quiavero in matrimoniis contrahendis dispar est ritus in Livoniensium ecclesia de novo ad fidem catholicam conversorum a nostro, quum in consanguinitate vel affinitate distinctionem canonicam non attendant, et relictas fratrum indistincte sibi consueverint copulare: ne propter hoc a bono proposito retrahantur, quum nec quidam eorum voluerint credere, nisi relictas fratrum eos pateremini retinere, nec vos eos, nisi tales dimitterent, recipere volueritis ad baptisma, propter novitatem et infirmitatem gentis eiusdem concedimus, ut matrimoniis contractis cum relictis fratrum utantur; si tamen, fratribus decedentibus sine prole, ut semen defuncti iuxta legem Mosaicam suscitarent, cum talibus contraxerunt; ne tales sibi de cetero, postquam ad fidem venerint, copulent, prohibentes. [Ad haec] sanctae memoriae beati Gregorii papae, praedecessoris nostri, vestigiis adhaerentes, ne populus Livoniensis a bono, quod coepit, austeriora metuendo recedat, ut in quarta et ulterius generatione matrimonium contrahant, donec in fide plenius solidentur, cum eis auctoritate apostolica dispensamus; non ea intentione concedentes hoc ipsis, ut, postquam firma radice in fide fuerint solidati, talibus coniungantur; nam secundum apostoli verbum, dicentis: "lac dedi vobis potum, non escam," illis modo, non posteris temporibus tenenda concessimus, ne, quod absit, exuratur bonum, quod adhuc infirma est radice plantatum, sed firmetur potius et usque ad perfectionem fideliter conservetur.

God, who his church (And below: [cf. c.11.de vita et hon. 3.1.]) Sincetruly in the contracting of marriages the rite among the church of the Livonians, newly converted to the catholic faith, is different from ours, since in consanguinity or affinity they do not attend to the canonical distinction, and have been accustomed indiscriminately to couple to themselves the brothers’ relicts (widows): lest on account of this they be drawn back from a good purpose, since certain of them were unwilling to believe unless you would allow them to retain the brothers’ relicts, nor were you willing to receive them to baptism unless they would dismiss such, on account of the novelty and weakness of that same nation we grant that they may use the marriages contracted with the brothers’ relicts; provided, however, that, the brothers having died without offspring, they contracted with such in order to raise up the seed of the deceased according to the Mosaic law; forbidding that henceforth, after they shall have come to the faith, they couple themselves to such. [To these things] adhering to the footsteps of the holy memory of blessed Pope Gregory, our predecessor, lest the Livonian people, by fearing harsher things, depart from the good which it has begun, we dispense with them by apostolic authority that they may contract marriage in the fourth and further generation, until they are more fully solidified in the faith; not with this intention granting this to them, that, after they shall have been solidified with a firm root in the faith, they be joined with such; for according to the word of the apostle, saying: “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food,” we have granted this to be held by them for now, not in later times, lest—far be it!—the good be burned up which has been planted with a root still weak, but rather let it be strengthened and be faithfully preserved unto perfection.

Quum autem sacramentum coniugii apud fideles et infideles exsistat, quemadmodum apostolus protestatur: "Si quis, inquiens, frater infidelem habuit uxorem et haec consentit habitare cum eo, non eam dimittat;" et a paganis, qui constitutionibus canonicis non arctantur (quid enim ad nos secundum eundem apostolum de iis, qui foris sunt, iudicare), in secundo et tertio gradu quoad eos licite contrahatur: in favorem Christianae religionis et fidei a cuius receptione per uxores se deseri timentes, viri possunt facile revocari, fideles, in hoc gradu in infidelitate sibi matrimonialiter copulati, libere possunt et facile remanere coniuncti, quum per sacramentum baptismatis non dissolvantur coniugia sed crimina dimittantur. Ceterum etc. [cf. c.7.de poenit. V.38.Dat.

Since, moreover, the sacrament of conjugal union exists among the faithful and the infidels, just as the apostle testifies: "If, says he, any brother has had an unbelieving wife, and she consents to dwell with him, let him not dismiss her;" and among the pagans, who are not constrained by canonical constitutions (for what is it to us, according to the same apostle, to judge those who are outside), it is licitly contracted, as regards them, in the second and third degree: in favor of the Christian religion and faith—men who, fearing to be deserted by their wives because of its reception, can be easily recalled—the faithful, who in this degree were matrimonially coupled to them while in infidelity, can freely and easily remain conjoined, since by the sacrament of baptism marriages are not dissolved but crimes are remitted. The rest, etc. [cf. c.7.on penance 5.38.Given.

XIII. Kal. Mai.

April 19.

Ao. IV. 1201.]

Year 4. 1201.]

TITULUS XX. DE DONATIONIBUS INTER VIRUM ET UXOREM, ET DE DOTE POST DIVORTIUM RESTITUENDA.

TITLE 20. ON DONATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND ON THE DOWRY TO BE RESTORED AFTER DIVORCE.

CAP. I. Separato licite matrimonio dos restituenda est.

CHAPTER 1. When the marriage has been licitly separated, the dowry is to be restored.

Ex concilio habito apud Wormaciam.

From the council held at Worms.

Mulieres vero, quum pro aliqua licita causa a propriis viris fuerint separatae, totam dotem praecipimus sibi reddi, quam in die nuptiali receperunt et post expletum annum accipiant alium virum, si voluerint; similiter et vir uxorem.

Women indeed, when for some licit cause they shall have been separated from their own husbands, we prescribe that the whole dowry be returned to them, which they received on the nuptial day; and after a completed year let them take another husband, if they will; similarly also the husband a wife.

CAP. II. Soluto matrimonio cogitur vir dotem restituere, et bona dividere, quae communiter eis obvenerunt.

CHAPTER 2. With the matrimony dissolved, the husband is compelled to restore the dowry, and to divide the goods which have accrued to them in common.

Urbanus III. Decano, Cantori et Capitulo Lexonensibus.

Urban 3. To the Dean, the Cantor, and the Chapter of Lisieux.

Significavit nobis P. mulier, quod H. quem loco viri tenebat, divortio inter eos solenniter celebrato, dotem suam illicite detinet et reddere contradicit, possessiones etiam, quae ipsis, dum simul viverent, cuiuscunque contractus titulo communiter obvenerunt, ea prorsus exclusa sibi nititur vindicare. Ideoque discretioni tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si ita est, et non est aliud quod obsistat, ipsum ad restitutionem dotis, et ad divisionem eorum, quae olim communiter habuerunt, districtione ecclesiastica compellatis.

It has been signified to us by the woman P. that H., whom she held in the place of a husband, with a divorce solemnly celebrated between them, unlawfully detains her dowry and refuses to return it; also the possessions which accrued to them in common, under the title of whatsoever contract, while they were living together, he strives to vindicate for himself, she being altogether excluded. Therefore we mandate to your discretion through apostolic writings that, inasmuch as it is so and there is nothing else to stand in the way, you compel him, by ecclesiastical constraint, to the restitution of the dowry, and to the division of those things which they formerly held in common.

CAP. III. Delegatus ad causam matrimonii, si ferat sententiam divortii, pronunciare debet dotem restitui. Et est casus multum allegabilis.

CHAPTER 3. A delegate for the cause of matrimony, if he should bear a sentence of divorce, ought to pronounce that the dowry be restored. And it is a case very much allegeable.

Clemens III.

Clement 3.

De prudentia vestra valde miramur, quod, quum vobis causam matrimonii, quae vertebatur inter H. Pisanum civem et M. mulierem commisissemus canonice terminandum, et vos, consanguinitatem inter eos in sexto vel septimo gradu invenientes, sententiam divortii tulissetis, de dote, quam a viro mulier repetebat, quicquam statuere distulistis. Quia igitur secundum iura vos, qui de matrimonio principaliter cognovistis, et de dote, quae est causa incidens, accessorie cognoscere valuistis et sententialiter diffinire, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus praedictum H. monitione praemissa cogatis, ut praedictae M. totam dotem suam, sicut canonicum fuerit, restituere non moretur.

We marvel greatly at your prudence, that, when we had committed to you the matrimonial cause which was pending between H., a Pisan citizen, and M., a woman, to be terminated canonically, and you, finding consanguinity between them in the sixth or seventh degree, had rendered a sentence of divorce, you deferred to determine anything concerning the dowry which the woman was demanding back from the man. Since therefore, according to the laws, you, who took principal cognizance of the marriage, were also competent to know accessorially about the dowry, which is an incidental cause, and to define it by sentence, we mandate to your discretion by apostolic writings that you compel the aforesaid H., after monition has been given, not to delay to restore to the aforesaid M. the whole dowry that is hers, as shall be canonical.

CAP. IV. Mulier, propter adulterium a viro separata, perdit dotem.

CHAPTER 4. A woman, separated from her husband on account of adultery, loses the dowry.

Clemens III.

Clement 3.

Plerumque accidit, ut proponis, quod in parochia tua mulieres a viris suis causa fornicationis recedunt, et sic usque ad mortem ipsorum permanere noscuntur; ipsis vero defunctis, quum a consanguineis, ad quos hereditates eorum perveniunt, dotem suam cum dotalitio suo repetunt, eis audientiam denegant, et nolunt restituere quod reposcunt, ob hanc causam, quia eo ipso se indignas fecisse putantur, quod a viris suis causa fornicationis duxerint recedendum. [Praeterea etc. cf. c.2.de dilat. II.8.]Quia igitur quid agendum sit in utroque casu apostolico responso desideras edoceri,] in hoc itaque respondemus, quod, Si mulier ob causam suae fornicationis iudicio ecclesiae aut propria voluntate a viro suo recesserit, nec reconciliata postea sit eidem, eo defuncto dotem vel dotalitium suum repetere non valebit.

For the most part it happens, as you set forth, that in your parish women withdraw from their husbands for the cause of fornication, and are known to remain thus until their husbands’ death; but when they themselves being deceased, when they seek to recover their dowry along with their dotal portion from the consanguines to whom their inheritances come, they are denied a hearing, and they are unwilling to restore what they demand, for this reason: because by that very fact they are thought to have made themselves unworthy, in that they judged they ought to withdraw from their husbands for the cause of fornication. [Moreover etc. cf. ch.2.on dilat.2.]Since therefore you desire to be taught by an apostolic response what is to be done in each case,] in this therefore we reply that, If a woman on account of her own fornication, by judgment of the church or by her own will, has withdrawn from her husband, and has not afterward been reconciled to him, he being deceased she will not be able to recover her dowry or her own dotal portion.

[In secundo etc. (cf. c.2.de dilat. II.8.)Dat. Lat.

[In the second etc. (cf. ch.2.on delays 2.8.)Given at the Lateran.

Ao. III. 1190.]

In the year 3. 1190.]

CAP. V. Cogitur mulier ex officio iudicis, donata sibi a viro propter nuptias pro conservatione illiciti matrimonii relaxare, si talis donatio praestet impedimeutum dissolutioni talis matrimonii. H. d. secundum intellectum, qui plus placet Panormitano.

CHAPTER 5. A woman is compelled by virtue of the judge’s office to release the things donated to her by the man on account of the nuptials, for the preservation of an illicit marriage, if such a donation presents an impediment to the dissolution of such a marriage. Here determined according to the interpretation which pleases the Panormitan more.

Innocentius III. Compostellano Archiepiscopo et universis Episcopis in regno Legionensi constitutis.

Innocent III. To the Archbishop of Compostela and to all the Bishops established in the kingdom of León.

Etsi necesse sit [ut scandala veniant, vae tamen est homini illi, per quem scandalum venit. Quot enim turbationes et scandala diebus nostris orbi supervenerint universo, hodie plus experimur in facto, quam scriptum reperiamus in libro. Necesse est autem ut veniant scandala, non solum scilicet inevitabile, sed et utile: quoniam in quo deficit malus proficit bonus, et aurum in fornace probatur.

Although it be necessary [that scandals come, yet woe to that man through whom the scandal comes. For how many perturbations and scandals in our days have supervened upon the whole world, today we experience more in deed than we find written in a book. Now it is necessary that scandals come, not only, to wit, unavoidable, but also useful: since in that wherein the evil man is deficient the good man profits, and gold is proved in the furnace.

Inter cetera vero, in quibus scandalizatur hodie populus Christianus, praecipuum est persecutio paganorum, quae tam in oriente quam in occidente peccatis exigentibus invaluit ultra modum; contra quam utrobique simile quodammodo putaverunt remedium invenire; sed quia Deum ante suum non proposuere conspectum, quod inventum est in remedium in periculum est conversum. Sane in oriente una duobus fuit incestuose coniuncta, in occidente vero unus sibi duas praesumpsit iungere per incestum. Et incestui quidem in oriente commisso non solum consensus, sed et auctoritas clericorum ibi consistentium intercessit.

Among the rest, indeed, in which the Christian people is scandalized today, the chief thing is the persecution of pagans, which, sins demanding it, has prevailed beyond measure both in the Orient and in the Occident; against which in both places they thought to find a remedy somehow similar; but because they did not set God before their sight, what was found as a remedy has been turned into peril. Truly, in the Orient one woman was incestuously joined to two men, while in the Occident one man presumed to join to himself two women through incest. And for the incest committed in the Orient not only the consent, but even the authority of the clerics abiding there intervened.

Sed in detestabili copula in occidente contracta, licet non absque quorundam ecclesiasticorum virorum assensu fuerit forsitan attentata, auctoritas tamen ecclesiastica nullatenus intervenit. Volens autem Deus maius peccatum vindicare celerius, et a similibus alios deterrere, tam Conradum quondam marchionem, qui ” reginae Hierosolymitanae prius adhaeserat per incestum, gladio, quam Henricum quondam Campaniae comitem, qui ei et in culpa quodammodo et in poena successit, praecipitio, utrumque vero morte impraevisa peremit. Nondum autem in huius iniquitatis auctores in occidente suam exercuit ultionem.

Sed in the detestable coupling contracted in the West, although perhaps it was attempted not without the assent of certain ecclesiastical men, nevertheless ecclesiastical authority in no way intervened. Wishing, moreover, God to vindicate the greater sin more swiftly, and to deter others from similar things, both Conrad, once a marquis, who had previously adhered to the queen of Jerusalem through incest, by the sword, and Henry, once the count of Champagne, who in a certain manner succeeded him both in the fault and in the penalty, by a precipice—he slew both with unforeseen death. However, he has not yet exercised his vengeance upon the authors of this iniquity in the West.

Sed quanto longanimius sustinet, tanto forsitan severius vindicabit. Licet autem apostolica sedes quod super hoc fuerat in oriente commissum propter malitiam temporis et persecutionem urgentem dissimulare sit visa, ad vindicandum tamen quod in occidente fuerat attentatum rigore canonicae districtionis est usa. Nam quum ad bonae memoriae Coelestini Papae praedecessoris nostri audientiam pervenisset, quod rex Legionensis filiam carissimi in Christo filii nostri Portugalliae regis illustris incestuose sibi praesumpserat copulare, tam regem ipsum Portugalliae quam incestuose coniunctos excommunicationis sententia innodavit, et Legionense ac Portugalliae regna sententiae supposuit interdicti, unde quod illegitime factum fuerat est penitus revocatum.

But the more long-sufferingly he endures, by so much perhaps the more severely will he avenge. Although the Apostolic See seemed to dissimulate what had been committed on this matter in the East on account of the malice of the times and the urgent persecution, nevertheless, for avenging what had been attempted in the West, it used the rigor of canonical discipline. For when it had come to the audience of Pope Celestine of good memory, our predecessor, that the king of León had incestuously presumed to couple to himself the daughter of our dearest in Christ son, the illustrious king of Portugal, he bound both the king himself of Portugal and those incestuously conjoined with the sentence of excommunication, and he subjected the kingdoms of León and of Portugal to the sentence of interdict, whence what had been done illegitimately was utterly revoked.

Verum dictus rex Legionensis ad deteriora manum extendens, sicut is, de quo dicit scriptura: "Vae homini illi, qui post se trahit peccatum quasi longam vestem, et impius, quum venerit in profundum vitiorum, contemnit," filiam carissimi in Christo filii nostri regis illustris Castellae, neptem videlicet propriam, impudenter sibi contra interdictum ecclesiae copulare praesumpsit. Quod quum ad nostram notitiam pervenisset, dilectum filium fratrem Rainerium, virum scientia et religione pariter reverendum, Deo et hominibus obtentu scientiae et honestatis acceptum, in Hispaniam duximus destinandum, ut iuxta verbum propheticum dissolveret colligationes impietatis; solveret fasciculos deprimentes; qui per Dei gratiam ab omni munere manus excussit ita, ut quod legitur de ipso possit vere referri: "Non fuit qui ditaverit Abraham." Ipse igitur quum in Hispaniam pervenisset, dictum regem Legionensem semel et iterum ex parte nostra commonuit diligenter, ut a tam detestabili et nefanda copula resiliret, universis colligationibus dissolutis, quae fuerant pro ipsa copula consummanda contractae. Sed quum apud eum nihil prorsus monitis profecisset, certum ei diem assignavit et locum, et quum ipsum etiam ultra terminum exspectasset, in eum se contumaciter absentantem iuxta formam mandati nostri excommunicationis sententiam promulgavit, et regnum Legionense interdicto generali conclusit.

But the said king of León, stretching forth his hand to worse things, like the one of whom Scripture says: "Woe to that man who drags sin after him as a long garment, and the impious man, when he has come into the depth of vices, despises," presumptuously dared to couple to himself, against the Church’s interdict, the daughter of our dearest son in Christ, the illustrious king of Castile—namely his own niece. And when this had come to our knowledge, we resolved to send into Spain our beloved son Brother Rainerius, a man equally to be revered for knowledge and for religion, acceptable to God and to men by reason of his learning and honesty, that, according to the prophetic word, he might dissolve the bonds of impiety; might loose the bundles that press down; who by the grace of God shook his hands free from every gift, so that what is read of him may truly be said: "There was not one who enriched Abraham." He, therefore, when he had come into Spain, carefully admonished once and again, on our behalf, the said king of León, that he should recoil from so detestable and nefarious a union, all the bonds dissolved which had been contracted to consummate that union itself. But since with him the admonitions had profited nothing at all, he assigned to him a definite day and place; and when he had even awaited him beyond the term, upon him, obstinately absenting himself, he promulgated the sentence of excommunication according to the form of our mandate, and he shut up the kingdom of León under a general interdict.

In memoratum vero regem Castellae vel terram suam in nullo processit, quum idem rex se mandatis eius exponeret, et quod reciperet filiam suam, si sibi redderetur, proponeret assertive. Quod utrum ex animo fecerit, ille plenius novit, qui scrutator est cordium et cognitor secretorum. Nuper autem venerabiles fratres nostri Toletanus archiepiscopus et episcopus Palentinus ex parte ipsius regis Castellae, et ex parte Legionensis venerabilis frater Zamorensis episcopus, ad sedem apostolicam accedentes, postulabant, ut cum eodem rege Legionensi et filia dicti regis Castellae deberemus super tam incestuosa copula dispensare; propter quod, nisi specialis illa gratia, quam ad devotionem dicti regis Castellae habemus, motum nostri animi temperasset, in ipsos ita curassemus severitatem ecclesiasticam exercere, quod nulli de cetero temporibus nostris ad nos repudiatas toties et damnatas petitiones afferrent; quum ipsi etiam noverint, quod id ab eodem praedecessore nostro saepius postulatum fuerit, et ab eo inhibitum, non indultum.

But against the aforesaid king of Castile or his land he proceeded in nothing, since the same king exposed himself to his mandates, and asserted that he would receive his daughter, if she were returned to him. Whether he did this from the heart, He knows more fully who is the Searcher of hearts and Knower of secrets. Recently, however, our venerable brothers the archbishop of Toledo and the bishop of Palencia on behalf of that king of Castile, and on behalf of the Leonese the venerable brother the bishop of Zamora, approaching the apostolic see, were petitioning that we ought to dispense with the same king of León and the daughter of the said king of Castile concerning so incestuous a copula; on account of which, unless that special grace which we have toward the devotion of the said king of Castile had tempered the movement of our mind, we would have taken care to exercise ecclesiastical severity upon them in such wise that no one henceforth in our times would bring to us petitions so often repudiated and condemned; since they themselves also know that this had been frequently requested from that same predecessor of ours, and by him inhibited, not indulged.

Tandem vero intelligentes archiepiscopus et episcopi memorati, quod non solum indulgentiam super hoc a nobis, sed vix etiam possent a nobis audientiam impetrare, interdictum in terram regis Legionensis prolatum tandem a nobis postulavere remitti, asserentes, quod ex eo triplex toti regno periculum ab haereticis, Sarracenis et Christianis etiam imminebat. Ab haereticis: quia, quum per interdictum ipsum clausa essent in partibus illis ora pastorum, non poterant fideles per eos contra haereticos instrui, et ad resistendum eis aliquatenus informari; unde, cum ex hoc, tum quia rex Legionensis ab ecclesia se asserens aggravatum, eis minime resistebat, invalescebant contra fideles haeretici, et in regno ipso haereses variae pullullabant. A Sarracenis: quoniam, quum per exhortationes et remissiones ecclesiae Hispaniarum populus consuevisset ad expugnationem paganorum induci, cessante praedicatorum officio populi etiam devotio tepescebat, quia, quum se cum principe suo quoad interdictum eidem videret poenae subiectum, a culpa, cui vel tacendo consenserat, forte se non credebat immunem, propter quod minus circa debellationem Sarracenorum fervebat, ne decederet in peccato.

At length, indeed, the aforesaid archbishop and bishops, understanding that they could obtain from us not only no indulgence in this matter, but could scarcely even secure an audience from us, at last asked that the interdict pronounced upon the land of the king of León be remitted by us, asserting that from it a triple peril threatened the whole kingdom, from heretics, Saracens, and even Christians. From the heretics: because, since by that interdict the mouths of the pastors were shut in those regions, the faithful could not be instructed by them against the heretics, nor be in any measure informed for resisting them; whence, both from this and because the king of León, alleging himself to be aggrieved by the Church, was by no means resisting them, the heretics were growing strong against the faithful, and in the kingdom itself various heresies were sprouting. From the Saracens: since, as by the exhortations and remissions of the Church the people of Spain had been accustomed to be induced to the expugnation of the pagans, with the office of the preachers ceasing the devotion of the people also was growing tepid, because, as to the interdict, when he saw himself subjected to the same penalty with his prince, he perhaps did not believe himself immune from the fault to which, even by keeping silent, he had consented; on account of which he was less fervent regarding the debellation of the Saracens, lest he should depart in sin.

A catholicis: quia, quum clerici laicis spiritualia ministrare non possent, laici clericis temporalia subtrahebant, oblationes, primitias et decimas detinentes, unde, quum clerici ex his pro maiori parte in partibus illis consueverint sustentari, eis subtractis non solum mendicare, sed fodere, et servire Iudaeis in ecclesia et totius Christianitatis opprobrium cogebantur. Videbatur autem difficile petitioni eorum annuere, et sententiam ex animo, ordine et causa latam canonice sine satisfactione congrua relaxare. Ex animo siquidem: quia, sicut Deus perhibet testimonium conscientiae nostrae, ad hoc non nisi iustitiae et honestatis obtentu processimus, quum ex contrario potius contra nos oriri praesumptio potuisset, si tam detestabile facinus duxissemus in patientia tolerandum.

From Catholics: because, when clerics could not minister spiritual things to the laity, the laity were subtracting temporalities from the clerics, detaining the oblations, first-fruits, and tithes; whence, since the clerics in those parts have for the greater part been accustomed to be sustained from these, with them withdrawn they were compelled not only to beg, but to dig, and—to the reproach of the Church and of all Christendom—to serve Jews. It seemed, however, difficult to assent to their petition, and to relax canonically, without fitting satisfaction, a sentence pronounced from conviction, order, and cause. As to “from conviction,” indeed: because, as God bears witness to our conscience, we proceeded to this for no motive save the claim of justice and honesty, since on the contrary a presumption might rather have arisen against us, if we had deemed that so detestable a crime should be tolerated with forbearance.

Ex ordine: quia dictus frater R. post commonitiones et dilationes legitimas, tandem districtione percussit ecclesiastica contumacem. Ex causa: exemplo, divino videlicet et humano. Divino: quia, quum David in populi numeratione peccasset, Dominus in populum vasa sui furoris effudit, unde idem David dixisse legitur, peccatum Domino confitendo: "Ego sum qui peccavi, ego qui inique egi.

From order: because the said brother R., after lawful admonitions and delays, at length struck the contumacious with ecclesiastical distraint. From cause: by example, namely divine and human. Divine: because, when David had sinned in the numbering of the people, the Lord poured out upon the people the vessels of his fury, whence the same David is read to have said, confessing the sin to the Lord: "I am the one who has sinned, I who have acted iniquitously."

Isti, qui oves sunt, quid fecerant? Auferatur, obsecro, facies tua, Domine, ex populo tuo." Humano: quum iam dictus praedecessor noster (ut non longe petantur exempla) in praedictos Portugalliae et Legionensem reges et regna ipsorum praedictas sententias curaverit promulgare. Esset insuper res mali exempli, quia, si forsan in alia regna similem nos contingeret promulgare sententiam, similis a nobis gratia peteretur, quam si forsitan negaremus, apud nos esse videretur acceptio personarum.

These, who are sheep, what had they done? "Let your face be taken away, I beseech, from your people, O Lord." Human: since our aforesaid predecessor (so that examples may not be sought far away) took care to promulgate the aforesaid sentences against the aforesaid kings of Portugal and León and their realms. It would moreover be a matter of evil example, because, if perhaps it should befall us to promulgate a similar sentence in other kingdoms, a similar grace would be asked of us; which, if perhaps we were to deny, there would seem to be with us an acceptance of persons.

Ex hoc etiam de nobis posset apud aliquos oriri suspicio, praesumentibus forte quibusdam, quod ad id moveremur ex causa latenti. Licet igitur ex causis praemissis non videretur dicta petitio admittenda, quia tamen ubi est multitudo in causa, detrahendum est aliquid severitati, ut maioribus malis sanandis caritas sincera subveniat, in eo ad petitionem praedictorum archiepiscopi et episcoporum gratiam de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio duximus faciendam, ex quo videbantur impedimenta expressa superius provenire. Relaxavimus ergo non in totum, sed in una parte solummodo interdictum, nec perpetuo, sed ad tempus, quamdiu scilicet nobis placuerit et viderimus expedire, ut probemus interim spiritus, si ex Deo sint, et an (sicut iidem archiepiscopus et episcopi asseverant) sperata inde utilitas sequeretur; sic videlicet, ut in regno ipso divina celebrentur officia, sed decedentium corpora sepulturae ecclesiasticae non tradantur.

From this also there could arise among some a suspicion about us, certain persons perhaps presuming that we were moved to that by a latent cause. Although therefore from the aforesaid causes the said petition would not seem to be admissible, yet because, where there is a multitude in the case, something must be subtracted from severity, so that sincere charity may come to the aid for the healing of greater evils, in this matter, at the petition of the aforesaid archbishop and bishops, by the common counsel of our brothers, we judged that a grace was to be granted, from which the impediments expressed above seemed to arise. We have therefore relaxed the interdict not in whole, but only in one part, and not perpetually, but for a time, namely as long as it shall please us and we shall see it to be expedient, so that meanwhile we may prove the spirits, whether they are from God, and whether (as the same archbishop and bishops assert) the hoped-for utility would follow therefrom; namely thus: that in the kingdom itself the divine offices be celebrated, but that the bodies of the deceased not be handed over to ecclesiastical sepulture.

In quo tamen clericis gratiam facimus specialem, in eo videlicet, ut in coemeterio ecclesiastico cessante solennitate solita tumulentur. Quod licet aliquibus posset absonum forte videri, ut officio restituto sepultura ecclesiastica denegetur, quia, iuxta canonicas sanctiones, cui communicavimus vivo communicare deberemus et mortuo: recte tamen intelligentibus nihil ex hoc incongruitatis occurrit, quum iuxta Lateranensis instituta concilii decedentes ex torneamentis, etsi per poenitentiam reconcilientur ecclesiae, Christiana tamen sepultura priventur. Ut autem non remittere poenam, sed commutare potius videamur, dictum regem Legionensem et memoratam filiam regis Castellae ac omnes principales eorum consiliarios et fautores excommunicationis curavimus sententia innodare, mandantes, ut ad quamcunque civitatem, oppidum vel villam devenerint, nullus ibidem eis praesentibus divina praesumat officia celebrare.

In which, however, we grant to clerics a special grace, namely, that they be interred in the ecclesiastical cemetery, the customary solemnity ceasing. Which, although to some it could perhaps seem out of tune, that, with the office restored, ecclesiastical sepulture be denied—because, according to canonical sanctions, him with whom we have communicated while living we ought to communicate also when dead—nevertheless, to those understanding rightly, nothing incongruous occurs from this, since, according to the institutes of the Lateran Council, those who die from tournaments, even if through penitence they are reconciled to the Church, are nevertheless deprived of Christian sepulture. And that we may seem not to remit the penalty, but rather to commute it, we have taken care to bind by the sentence of excommunication the said king of León and the aforesaid daughter of the king of Castile, and all their principal counselors and favorers, commanding that, to whatever city, town, or village they shall come, no one there, in their presence, presume to celebrate the divine offices.

Dicto autem rege Castellae et carissimae in Christo filiae nostrae reginae uxori eius dabimus in mandatis, ut, quod stent mandatis nostris, iuratoriam exhibeant cautionem, et vel exprimant in iuramento, quod ad dissolvendam tam illegitimam copulam dent operam efficacem, vel id nos eis faciemus praestito iuramento mandari; nec credimus, quod super hoc se aliquatenus exhibeant contumaces, quum, quod starent mandatis ecclesiae, in manibus praedicti fratris R. (sicut ex literis eiusdem regis apparet) firmiter promisissent, et impendissent causam sufficientem ad copulam huiusmodi consummandam. Quod si forsan (quod non credimus) mandatis nostris noluerint obedire, ipsos et principales eorum consiliarios et fautores excommunicari mandabimus, et quocunque devenerint, divina prohibebimus officia celebrari, ut sic saltem ad mandatum ecclesiae revertantur, iuxta quod legitur in Psalmista: "Imple facies eorum ignominia, et quaerent nomen tuum, Domine."] Quia vero castra quaedam, quae idem rex Legionensis dictae filiae regis Castellae in dotem tradidisse proponitur ita, ut, si eam aliqua occasione relinqueret, ipsa cederent in ius eius, impedimentum praestare videntur huiusmodi copulae dissolvendae, quum castra ipsa non tam ob turpem, quam ob nullam potius causam sint data, utpote, quum inter eos matrimonium non exsistat, et ideo nec dos, nec donatio propter nuptias: ne ad commodum ei cedat quod debet in poenam eius potius retorqueri, castra ipsa restitui volumus, et ad id puellam ipsam per excommunicationis sententiam coarctari, auctoritate apostolica decernentes, ut, si ex tam incestuosa et damnata copula proles est vel fuerit quaecunque suscepta, spuria et illegitima penitus habeatur, quae secundum statuta legitima in bonis paternis nulla prorsus occasione succedat. Quod si nec [sic] praedictis rex Legionensis et filia regis Castellae a se invicem iuxta mandatum apostolicum discedere maturaverint in eos districtionem curabimus gravissimam exercere quam ad cautelam praesentibus non duximus literis explicandam. [Ideoque fraternitati etc.

Moreover, to the said king of Castile and to his wife, our dearest daughter in Christ, the queen, we shall give orders, that, in order that they stand by our mandates, they present sworn security, and either express in an oath that they will give effective effort to dissolving so illegitimate a union, or we will have this enjoined upon them with an oath administered; nor do we believe that on this point they will show themselves contumacious in any degree, since, that they would stand by the mandates of the Church, into the hands of the aforesaid brother R. (as appears from the letters of that same king) firmly they had promised, and had put forward sufficient cause for consummating a union of this kind. But if perchance (which we do not believe) they should be unwilling to obey our mandates, we shall order them and their principal counselors and favorers to be excommunicated, and wherever they may come we shall forbid the divine offices to be celebrated, so that thus at least they may return to the mandate of the Church, according as it is read in the Psalmist: "Fill their faces with ignominy, and they will seek your name, O Lord."] But because certain forts which the same king of León is asserted to have handed over as a dowry to the said daughter of the king of Castile, in such a way that, if by any occasion he should leave her, they would pass into her right, seem to furnish an impediment to dissolving a union of this kind, since those forts were given not so much for a base cause as rather for no cause at all, to wit, since between them marriage does not exist, and therefore neither dowry nor a donation on account of nuptials: lest there should fall to her advantage what ought rather to be turned back into his penalty, we will that the forts themselves be restored, and that to this the girl herself be constrained by sentence of excommunication, decreeing by apostolic authority that, if from so incestuous and condemned a union any offspring has been or shall be conceived, it be held utterly spurious and illegitimate, which according to lawful statutes shall by no occasion at all succeed to paternal goods. But if not even [thus] the aforesaid king of León and the daughter of the king of Castile shall have hastened to part from one another according to the apostolic mandate, we shall take care to exercise against them a most severe coercion, which for caution we have not deemed it proper to explain in these present letters. [Therefore to your fraternity etc.

Dat. Lat. VIII.

Given at the Lateran, 8.

Kal. Iun. 1199.]

Kalends of June 1199.]

CAP. VI. Usufructuarius, donans sine consensu domini rem ipsam uxori propter nuptias, non transfert in eam plus iuris quam ipse habebat; idem de eo, qui sub conditione adimente habet rem in hereditatem vel in feudum.

CHAPTER 6. A usufructuary, donating without the consent of the lord the thing itself to his wife on account of marriage, does not transfer to her more right than he himself had; the same [holds] of one who holds a thing in inheritance or in fief under a resolutive (removing) condition.

Idem Archidiacono S. Andrea de Scotia.

The same to the Archdeacon of St. Andrews of Scotland.

Nuper a nobis tua discretio requisivit, si aliqua terra data fuerit alicui non in hereditatem vel feudum, sed tantum sibi, quoad vixerit, possidenda, et ipse postmodum tertiam partem uxori suae in dotem concesserit, utrum eo defuncto praefatam dotem uxor, dum vixerit, habere debeat et tenere, quum ecclesia dotes protegere teneatur viduarum. Postulasti praeterea nostris literis edoceri, si qua terra data fuerit alicui et heredi, quem de uxore legitima procrearet, in heriditatem vel feudum, et ipse, uxori suae quadam parte ipsius in dotem concessa, decesserit postmodum sine prole, an ipsa mulier dotem eandem de iure posset habere, et utrum ecclesia pro ipsa stare debeat in hoc casu, an viro defuncto terra illa sine onere in bona redire debeat concedentis. Nos autem consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, quum regulariter nullus plus iuris in alium transferre possit, quam eum constet habere, vir, cui terra praedicto modo conceditur, non potest uxori relinquere quod ei non licuit, nisi quoad vixerit, possidere. Nec licet uxori suae partem illius terrae in donationem propter nuptias ex viri concessione tenere, nisi forte donationi illius ille, ad quem spectat dominium illius terrae, voluerit consentire.

Recently your Discretion inquired of us, whether if some land were given to someone not in inheritance or fief, but only to himself, to be possessed as long as he lived, and he afterwards had granted a third part to his wife as dowry, whether, he being deceased, the wife ought to have and hold the aforesaid dowry while she lived, since the Church is bound to protect the dowries of widows. You further asked to be instructed by our letters, whether if some land were given to someone and to the heir whom he would beget from a lawful wife, in inheritance or fief, and he, with some part of the same granted to his wife as dowry, should afterwards die without issue, whether the woman herself could by right have that same dowry, and whether the Church ought to stand for her in this case, or, the husband being dead, that land ought to return without burden into the goods of the grantor. We, however, reply thus to your consultation: that, since as a rule no one can transfer more right into another than he is known to have, the man to whom land is conceded in the aforesaid manner cannot leave to his wife what it was not permitted to him to possess except so long as he lived. Nor is it permitted to his wife to hold a part of that land as a donation propter nuptias by the husband’s concession, unless perhaps to that donation he to whom the dominion of that land pertains should wish to consent.

Quod autem de prima consultatione dicimus, hoc respondemus etiam de secunda. Nam licet ecclesia in causis viduarum se favorabilem debeat exhibere, contra iustitiam tamen non est eis favor ecclesiasticus concedendus. Illud vero te nolumus ignorare, quod uxor dare dicitur viro dotem, vir autem uxori donationem facere propter nuptias secundum legitimas sanctiones.

But what we say about the first consultation, this we also answer concerning the second. For although the Church ought to show itself favorable in the causes of widows, nevertheless ecclesiastical favor is not to be granted to them against justice. Moreover, we do not wish you to be ignorant of this: that the wife is said to give a dowry to the husband, but the husband makes to the wife a donation propter nuptias according to the legitimate sanctions.

CAP. VII. Vir, agens pro dote, non omnino excluditur ex eo, quod vergat ad inopiam, nec praecise cogitur satisdare ultra facultatem propriam; sed dos sibi assignatur sub cautione, quam praestare potest. Et si per illam cautionem non esset sufficienter provisum consumptioni dotis, deponetur dos apud mercatorem, ut de honesto lucro vir sustineat onera matrimonii.

CHAPTER 7. The man, acting for the dowry, is not altogether excluded on the ground that he is verging toward indigence, nor is he strictly compelled to give surety beyond his own means; but the dowry is assigned to him under a security which he can furnish. And if by that security sufficient provision would not be made for the consumption of the dowry, the dowry shall be deposited with a merchant, so that from honest profit the husband may sustain the burdens of marriage.

H. d. secundum intellectum, quem tenet Panorm. inhaerendo verbis literae, et est casus notabilis et quotidianus.

Here, according to the understanding which the Panormitan holds by adhering to the letter’s words, and it is a notable and everyday case.

Idem Archiepiscopo et Archidiacono Genuensibus.

The same. To the Archbishop and Archdeacon of Genoa.

Per vestras nobis literas intimastis, quod, quum magistrum R. super quadam summa pecuniae Ianuensis monetae pro H. paupere, latore praesentium, auctoritate nostra curaveritis convenire, quam idem H. pro dote uxoris suae requirebat ab eo, dictus R. exceptionem opposuit contra ipsum, quod videlicet uxorem suam a se repulerat, et quod tacita veritate super hoc nostras literas impetraverat; quia, quum super eadem dote iam alia vice coram vestrae civitatis consulibus quaestio mota esset, ipsi iuxta consuetudinem terrae pronunciaverunt, ut, quoniam idem H. ad inopiam vergere videbatur, dos illa non assignaretur eidem, nisi cautionem idoneam de ipsa non peritura praestaret; unde vos, communicato prudentum virorum consilio, ei, ut de salvanda dote caveret et uxorem suam reciperet, praecepistis, et, donec id posset facere, dos ipsa deponeretur, si vellet, in secretario ecclesiae Ianuensis. Quod quum implere non posset, ad instantiam eius nobis haec rescribere curavistis. Quum ergo satis possit ei modicum credi dotis, cui creditum est corpus uxoris, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus dotem assignari faciatis eidem sub ea quam potest cautione praestare, vel saltem alicui mercatori committi, ut de parte honesti lucri dictus vir onera possit matrimonii sustentare, ne occasione dotis detentae uxor a viro dimissa, seu vir, qui dimisit uxorem, adulterii reatum incurrat. [Dat.

Through your letters to us you made known that, when by our authority you took care to convene Master R. concerning a certain sum of money in Genoese money on behalf of H., a poor man, the bearer of these presents, which the same H. was demanding from him for his wife’s dowry, the said R. opposed an exception against him, namely that he had driven his wife away from himself, and that, the truth being kept silent, he had obtained our letters about this; because, when concerning the same dowry a question had already on another occasion been raised before the consuls of your city, they, according to the custom of the land, pronounced that, since the same H. seemed to be verging toward indigence, that dowry should not be assigned to him unless he provided suitable security that it would not be lost; wherefore you, after counsel had been taken with prudent men, commanded him to provide surety for safeguarding the dowry and to receive back his wife, and, until he could do that, the dowry itself should be deposited, if he wished, in the treasury of the church of Genoa. Since he could not fulfill this, at his instance you took care to write back these things to us. Since therefore a small portion of the dowry can well be entrusted to him to whom the body of the wife has been entrusted, we command to your discretion by apostolic writings that you have the dowry assigned to him under such security as he can furnish, or at least be committed to some merchant, so that from a portion of the honest profit the said husband may be able to sustain the burdens of marriage, lest, on the occasion of the dowry being detained, the wife dismissed by the husband, or the husband who dismissed the wife, incur the charge of adultery. [Given.

Rom. ap. S. Petr. VIII.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, 8.

Id. Mart. Pont. nostr.

On the Ides of March, of our pontificate.

Ao. IX. 1206.]

Year 9. 1206.]

CAP. VIII. Haec decretalis satis se ipsam summat.

CHAPTER 8. This decretal sufficiently sums itself up.

Gregorius IX. Donatio, quae constante matrimonio inter coniuges dicitur esse facta, ex qua alter locupletior, et pauperior alter efficitur, firmitatem non habet, nisi donatoris obitu confirmetur; quae tamen penitus evanescit, si revocetur ab eo tacite vel expresse, vel qui donatum accepit prius debitum naturae persolvat. Sane soluto matrimonio, sicut dos ad mulierem, sic et donatio propter nuptias redit ad virum, nisi de consuetudine secus obtineat, vel ex pacto de lucranda dote vel donatione propter nuptias, quod aequale sit, quum hinc inde contrarium inducatur.

Gregory 9. A donation, which is said to have been made between spouses while the matrimony stands, from which the one becomes more wealthy and the other poorer, has no firmness (validity) unless it is confirmed by the donor’s decease; yet it utterly vanishes if it is revoked by him tacitly or expressly, or if the one who received the thing donated first pays the debt of nature. Indeed, with the matrimony dissolved, just as the dowry returns to the woman, so too the donatio propter nuptias returns to the man, unless by custom it obtains otherwise, or by a pact concerning gaining the dowry or the donatio propter nuptias—which is equivalent—since on either side the contrary is introduced.

TITULUS XXI. DE SECUNDIS NUPTIIS.

TITLE 21. ON SECOND NUPTIALS.

CAP. I. Secundae nuptiae non benedicuntur, et benedicens puniendus est.

CHAPTER 1. Second nuptials are not blessed, and the one blessing them is to be punished.

Alexander III. Capellanum nihilominus, quem benedictionem cum secunda tibi constiterit celebrasse, ab officio beneficioque suspensum cum literarum tuarum testimonio appellatione cessante ad sedem apostolicam nullatenus destinare postponas. [Dat.

Alexander 3. The chaplain, nevertheless, whom it shall have been established has celebrated the benediction at a second marriage for you, you should by no means postpone to send, suspended from office and benefice, with the testimony of your letters, to the apostolic see, appeal ceasing. [Given.

Laterani.]

at the Lateran.]

CAP. II. Dubitans de morte coniugis, nisi prius certificetur, contrahere non debet, et, si contraxit, reddat, sed non exigat debitum. Et si postmodum sciat primam vivere, dimittat secundam.

CHAPTER 2. Doubting about the death of a spouse, unless he is first certified, he ought not to contract; and, if he has contracted, let him render, but not exact, the debt. And if afterwards he learns that the first wife lives, let him dismiss the second.

Abbas Siculus.

The Sicilian Abbot.

Lucius III. universis Christianis in captivitate Sarracenorum positis.

Lucius 3. to all Christians placed in the captivity of the Saracens.

Dominus ac redemptor noster (Et infra:) Sane, super matrimoniis, quae quidam ex vobis nondum habita obeuntis coniugis certitudine contraxerunt, id vobis auctoritate apostolica respondemus, ut nullus ex vobis amodo ad secundas nuptias migrare praesumat, donec ei firma certitudine constet, quod ab hac vita migraverit coniux eius. Si vero aliquis vel aliqua id hactenus non servavit, et de morte prioris coniugis adhuc sibi existimat dubitandum: ei, quae sibi nupsit, debitum non deneget postulanti, quod a se tamen noverit nullatenus exigendum. Quodsi post hoc de prioris coniugis vita constiterit, relictis adulterinis illicitisque complexibus ad priorem sine dubio coniugem revertatur.

Our Lord and Redeemer (And below:) Indeed, concerning marriages which some of you have contracted, the certainty of the departing spouse not yet being had, this we answer you by apostolic authority, that none of you henceforth presume to migrate to second nuptials, until it stands for him with firm certainty that his spouse has departed from this life. But if any man or woman has not hitherto observed this, and still judges that there is reason to doubt concerning the death of the prior spouse: let him not deny to her who has married him the conjugal debt when she asks for it—though he should know that it is in no way to be exacted by himself. But if after this it is established regarding the life of the prior spouse that he or she lives, leaving adulterous and illicit embraces, let him return without doubt to the prior spouse.

CAP. III. Si unus ex coniugibus fuit alias benedictus, non debent coniuges de novo benedici.

CHAPTER 3. If one of the spouses has previously been blessed, the spouses ought not to be blessed anew.

Urbanus III. Vigiliensi Episcopo.

Urban III. To the Bishop of Vigilia.

Vir autem vel mulier, ad bigamiam transiens, non debet a presbytero benedici, quia, quum alia vice benedicti sint, eorum benedictio iterari non debet.

A man or a woman, passing to bigamy, ought not to be blessed by a presbyter, because, since they were blessed on another occasion, their benediction ought not to be iterated.

CAP. IV. Mulier, nubens infra annum lugubrem, infamiam non incurrit. H. d. cum sequenti Abbas Siculus.

CHAPTER 4. A woman, marrying within the mourning year, does not incur infamy. This decree, with the following, [is by] the Sicilian Abbot.

Idem Exonensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Exeter.

Super illa vero quaestione, qua quaesitum est, an scilicet mulier possit sine infamia nubere infra tempus luctus secundum leges diffinitum, sollicitudini tuae respondemus, quod, quum Apostolus dicat: "mulier, viro suo mortuo, soluta est a lege viri sui" et "in Domino nubat cui voluerit" per licentiam et auctoritatem Apostoli eius infamia aboletur.

On that indeed question, in which it was asked whether, namely, a woman can without infamy marry within the time of mourning defined according to the laws, we respond to your solicitude that, since the Apostle says: "the woman, her husband being dead, is released from the law of her husband" and "let her marry whom she will in the Lord," by the licence and authority of the Apostle her infamy is abolished.

CAP. V. Summatur ut praecedens.

CHAPTER 5. Let it be summed up as the preceding.

Innocentius III. P. nobili mulieri.

Innocent 3. Pope. to a noble woman.

Quum secundum Apostolum mulier, mortuo viro suo, ab eius sit lege soluta, et nubendi cui vult, tantum in Domino, liberam habeat facultatem: non debet legalis infamiae sustinere iacturam, quae, licet post viri obitum infra tempus luctus, scilicet unius anni spatium, nubat, concessa sibi tamen ab Apostolo utitur potestate, quum in his praesertim saeculares leges non dedignentur sacros canones imitari. Quum igitur ad secunda disponas vota transire, sciens, quod nubere melius est quam uri, tuum in Domino propositum commendamus, et ne id tibi vel ei qui te duxerit in iacturam vel infamiam ab aliquo imputetur auctoritate praesentium expressius inhibemus, quum concessam tibi ab apostolo nubendi tantum in Domino liberam habeas facultatem.

Since, according to the Apostle, a woman, her husband having died, is released from his law, and has the free faculty of marrying whom she wills, only in the Lord, she ought not to sustain the loss of legal infamy, who, although she marries after her husband’s death within the time of mourning, namely the space of one year, nevertheless uses the power granted to her by the Apostle, since in these matters especially the secular laws do not disdain to imitate the sacred canons. Therefore, since you are arranging to pass to second vows, knowing that it is better to marry than to burn, we commend your purpose in the Lord, and, lest this be imputed as a loss or infamy to you or to him who takes you by anyone, by the authority of these presents we expressly forbid it, since you have the free faculty of marrying—only in the Lord—granted to you by the Apostle.

FINIS LIBRI QUARTI.

END OF BOOK FOUR.