Liber II, Pars I — Quod omnes cives et maxime reges, et principes debent suis coniugibus indivisibiliter adhaerere. Cap. VIII.

Liber II, Pars I — Quod omnes cives et maxime reges, et principes debent suis coniugibus indivisibiliter adhaerere. Cap. VIII.

Philosophers argue that marriages should be indivisible. To demonstrate this, we can present two approaches that philosophers have discussed. The first approach is taken from the perspective of faith or from the perspective of natural friendship that should exist between a husband and wife. The second approach comes from the perspective of offspring. The first approach is clear. For if no one can truly be a friend to another unless they maintain their mutual fidelity, if we want to preserve the rightful faith between a husband and wife, or a faithful friendship, so that there is no violation of faith, it is necessary for the husband to adhere indivisibly to his wife, and vice versa. For since there is a natural friendship between a husband and wife, as is proven. In ethics, since there is no natural friendship among people unless they observe their rightful fidelity to one another; for marriage to be according to nature, and for there to be a natural friendship between a husband and wife, they must keep faith with each other, so that they do not depart from one another. This reasoning seems to be addressed by Valerius Maximus in his book on memorable saints, in the chapter about ancient institutions, where he states that from the time the city of Rome was founded until the twenty-fifth hundredth year, there was no divorce between husband and wife. The first person who divorced his wife for the sake of sterility was Spurius Carvilius. Although this action seemed to have a tolerable justification, it was not without criticism, because everyone believed that the desire for children should not take precedence over marital fidelity. Therefore, according to Valerius Maximus, the fidelity that a husband owes to his wife, and vice versa, seems to be one reason why marriage should remain indivisible and unrepudiated. Thus, all citizens should be united with their wives indivisibly and without repudiation; this is especially true for kings and princes, as fidelity should shine even more brightly in them, along with other virtues. The second way to investigate this same matter is taken from the perspective of offspring. For although marriage should remain indissoluble even if it is sterile, because the desire for children should not take precedence over marital fidelity, if there is a good reason for offspring, since children are a common good that unites husband and wife, it is fitting that the wife should adhere to her husband, and vice versa, indivisibly. For we see that a common good (since it is common) always unites those who participate in that good. Just as a city unites and holds its citizens together, so that they don't drift away from their civic duties because it represents a common good for them, children unite and hold their parents together, so that they don't separate from each other, since they are a common good for both: for it is always the nature of the common good to unite, connect, and join, just as the nature of the private good is to divide and distinguish. This reasoning is touched upon by the Philosopher. Ethic. He says that because it contains and unites a common good, children, since they are a common good for both parents, make marriage seem to be the reason why it should be a union. From this, it is stated that the sterile are more easily dissolved. However, he says that the sterile are more quickly dissolved, not because the dissolution of marriage is lawful, even if there is no fertility of children present, as the higher reasoning had shown more fully. Yet if there is a good of offspring in marriage, not only do the spouses incline towards each other to adhere inseparably because of the faith that must be kept in marriage, but also so that they may remain indivisibly in friendship, they are inclined by the offspring itself, which is their common good. In fact, because some are friends of one another, they have a certain inclination to be friends among themselves, parents who naturally love their offspring, through the natural affection they have for it, their natural friendship is increased. But since all love expresses a certain unifying force, the love that grows because of the children born to them also strengthens their intention to remain inseparably together. Therefore, it is clear that all citizens, not only for the sake of the good of marital faith but also for the sake of the children themselves, to whom marriage is oriented, should live inseparably with their wives. This is especially true for kings and princes, as they should have a greater concern for the children they have received than for any others. For the negligence regarding royal offspring can cause more harm to the kingdom than the negligence of any other person; thus, if love and diligence concerning children create a greater bond in marriage, how much more care and diligence should be given to royal children than to others, so it is even more fitting for kings and princes, as long as their wives live, to remain inseparably attached to them.