Gender Equality

Another thing that's struck me in reading through the (extremely long!) section on Matrimony in St Bonaventure's commentary on the Sentences is his "modern" views on gender equality. For all the stereotypes about mediaeval misogyny Bonaventure is very clear that husband and wife are equal and reciprocal in all the rights and duties of marriage. The husband has no more rights than the wife does and the wife has no more obligations than the husband. St B. frequently appeals to the golden rule: if a husband wouldn't want his wife to do or refuse such-and-such, he shouldn't be allowed to either.

(Side note: one funny thing is just how much attention Bonventure devotes to the question of when it's acceptable for the husband to profess celibacy and when it isn't. One imagines this isn't a question that comes up too often these days. For those interested, the answer is: a) within two months of the wedding ceremony, if the marriage hasn't been consummated - but then he has to make permanent religious vows; or b) with his wife's consent and permission.)

In a section I read recently he's talking about concubinage and divorce, and why there seem to be different rules between the Old Testament and the New. One of his remarks in IV. Dist. XXXIII Art. III Q. III is interesting. An objection asked why under the Mosaic law a husband was allowed to divorce his wife but not vice versa; Bonaventure answers "In the time of the Law husband and wife were not considered equal," and a little later "the mystery of Matrimony was not completely revealed to them, because it was a time of shadow . . ." A few distinctions later, speaking of vows, something similar comes up. The old law said that if a wife made a vow and her husband objected, she was released from the obligation to fulfill it. St Bonaventure adds that the reciprocal is true as well: a husband gives up power over his body to his wife, and so if she objects to a vow, he cannot fulfill it.

Anyway it doesn't seem to me that much of a case for systemic oppression of wives by their husbands could be made of out St B.

Bonavanture and the Counterfactual Incarnation

In IV Sent. Dist. XXVI Art. II Q. II St Bonaventure discusses the sacramental signification of marriage, whereby the relationship between man and wife signifies the relationship of Christ and the Church. One of the objections has this argument:

Sed, si homo non peccasset, Christus incarnatus non esset, secundum communiorem et probabiliorem opinionem; et nihilominus magnum fuisset sacramentum: ergo non tantum coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae est signatum.

But if man had not sinned, Christ would not have been incarnate, according to the more common and more probable opinion; and nevertheless marriage would have been a great sacrament: therefore not only the union of Christ and the Church is signified [in the sarament].

St Bonaventure replies that even if there were no Incarnation and so no Incarnate Christ and no Church, marriage would still signify the relationship between God and the soul. So it has a greater signification now than it would have, but in the counterfactual case it would still have sacramental significance.

My question, though, is about when Scotus' position, now identified with the Franciscan position, that Christ would have been incarnate even if Adam had not sinned, arose in the Franciscans and the Latin Church. It's not in Bonaventure, the Franciscan doctor par excellence before Scotus - where does it come from? Does it originate with Scotus?

Benedictio nuptiarum

Our worthy and esteemed Faber was married two days ago and consequently may not post for some time as he adjusts to his new duties. I offer both Mr and the new Mrs Faber my heartiest congratulations. At the end of my Best Man speech I offered a toast in English which I here present in its original form:

Benedictio nuptiarum

Utinam uxoris scientia et sollertia arte Latine
id mariti praestet semper--

Utinam ea usque irrideat ei,
et semper poenitet--

Et ergo impensam librorum suorum
semper ignoscat.

Exempla pro Fabrum

I. DE DIABOLO QUI DUXIT UXOREM CUIUS LITIGIA NON POTERAT SUSTINERE

Audivi quod quidam daemon in specie hominis cuidam diviti homini serviebat et, cum servitium eius et industria multum placerent homini, dedit ei filiam suam in uxorem et divitias multas. Illa autem omni die ac nocte litigabat cum mario suo nec eum quiescere permittebat. In fine autem anni dixit patri uxoris suae: "Volo recedere et in patriam meam redire." Cui pater uxoris ait: "Nonne multa tibi dedi ita quod nihil desit tibi? Quare vis recedere?" Dixit ille: "Modis omnibus volo repatriare." Cui socer ait: "Ubi est patria tua?" Ait ille: "Dicam tibi et veritatem non celabo; patria mea est infernus, ubi numquam tantam discordiam vel molestiam sustinui quantam hoc anno passus sum a litigiosa uxore mea. Malo esse in inferno quam amplius cum ipsa commorari." Et hoc dicto ab oculis eorum evanuit.

II. DE BACHONE QUI PENDEBAT IN QUADAM VILLA

Aliquando transivi per quandam villa in Francia, ubi suspenderant pernam seu bachonem in platea hoc conditione ut, qui vellet iuramento firmare quod uno integro anno post contractum matrimonium permansisset cum uxore ita quod de matrimonio non paenituisset, bachonem haberet. Et cum per decem annos ibi perpendisset non est una solus inventus qui bachonem lucraretur, omnibus infra annum de matrimonio contracto paenitentibus.

III. EXEMPLUM CONTRA MALITIAM MULIERUM ET DE ILLO CUI PATER DEDIT UXOREM

Ecce quam pauci hodie uxoribus suis adhaerent fide et dilectione sicut instituit Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Ut autem de malitia filiarum Evae aliquid subdam, nolui sub silentio praeterire quod audivi de quodam iuvene, qui rogabat patrem suum ut ei duas uxores daret. Cumque vehementer instaret dedit ei pater unam, promittens quod in fine anni daret alteram. Illa vero adeo primo anno maritum afflixit quod non poterat sustinere sed mallet mori quam vivere. Cumque pater finito anno diceret filio: "Vis habere secundum uxorem?" respondit ille: "Si una me afflixit fere usque ad mortem, quomodo duas ferre possem?" Accidit autem in civitate illa ut caperetur maleficus et latro pessimus, qui multos de civitate illa spoliaverat et occiderat. Cumque cives convenirent et quaereret iudex a singulis ut quilibet consilium suum daret quomodo latro ille magis torqueri valeret, quibusdam dicentibus; "Distrahatur caudis equorum et suspendatur," aliis dicentibus: "Igne cremetur," ceteris vero consulentibus ut vivus excoriaretur, cum perventum fuisset ad illum qui malam habebat uxorem, respondit: "Date illi uxorem meam; non video qualiter ipsum magis affligere valeatis."