title: Pars 4, Cap. 9

source_text:
<!-- page 249 -->

### Capitulum IX. *De passione Christi quantum ad modum patiendi.*

De *modo* autem *patiendi* hoc tenendum est, quod Christus passus est passione *generalissima*, passione *acerbissima*, passione *ignominiosissima*, passione *interemptoria*, sed *vivificativa*. — Passione, inquam, *generalissima* quantum ad naturam humanam, non solum secundum omnia membra corporis principalia, verum etiam secundum omnem animae potentiam, licet nihil pati posset secundum divinam naturam. — Passus est etiam passione *acerbissima*, quia non solum *dolendo*, ut patiens per vulnera, sed etiam *condolendo*, ut compatiens propter nostra delicta. — Passus est etiam passione *ignominiosissima* et propter patibulum crucis, quae erat supplicium pessimorum, et propter consortium iniquorum, videlicet latronum, *cum quibus fuit deputatus*[^p249-7]. — Passus est etiam passione *interemptoria* per separationem animae a corpore, salva tamen unione utriusque cum Deitate. Anathema enim est qui dicit, Dei Filium naturam, quam semel assumserat, aliquando reliquisse.

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia reparativum principium, sicut ordinate produxit, sic et ordinate reparare debuit genus humanum. Sic igitur reparare debet, ut salva sit *libertas arbitrii*, salvus sit nihilominus *honor Dei*, salvus sit etiam *ordo regiminis universi*[^p249-8]. — Quia ergo reparare debuit, salva *libertate arbitrii*, reparavit dando exemplum efficacissimum; exemplum autem illud efficacissimum est, quod *invitat* et *informat* ad culmen virtutum. Nihil autem magis *informat* hominem, ad virtutem quam exemplum tolerandi mortem propter iustitiam et obedientiam divinam, mortem, inquam, non quamcumque, sed poenalissimam. Nihil vero magis *incitat* quam tanta benignitas, qua *pro nobis* altissimus Dei Filius absque nostris meritis, immo cum multis nostris demeritis *posuit animam suam*[^p250-1]; quae benignitas tanto maior ostenditur, quanto pro nobis graviora et abiectiora sustinuit vel pati voluit. Deus *enim proprio Filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum; quomodo non etiam cum illo omnia nobis donavit?* Ex quo invitamur ad ipsum amandum et amatum imitandum.

<!-- page 250 -->

Rursus, quia reparare debuit, salvo *honore Dei*, ideo reparavit offerendo obsequium satisfactorium. « Est autem *satisfacere* honorem Deo debitum rependere[^p250-2] ». Honor autem Deo subtractus per superbiam et inobedientiam respectu rei, ad quam homo astringitur, nullo modo melius restituitur quam per *humiliationem* et *obedientiam* ad eam rem, ad quam nullatenus tenebatur. Quoniam ergo Christus Iesus in quantum Deus aequalis erat Patri *in forma Dei*; in quantum homo innocens nullatenus erat debitor mortis; dum *semetipsum exinanivit* et *factus est obediens usque ad mortem*[^p250-3], exsolvit Deo quae non rapuit per obsequium satisfactionis perfectae, et obtulit sacrificium suavitatis summae pro perfecta Dei placatione.

Postremo, quia reparare debuit, salvo *ordine regiminis universi*, ideo per remedium convenientissimum reparavit. Convenientissimum autem est, ut contraria contrariis curentur[^p250-4]. Quia ergo homo, volens esse sapiens ut Deus, peccavit, in ligno vetito volens delectari, ita quod inclinatus est ad *libidinem*, erectus in *praesumtionem*; ac per hoc totum genus humanum infectum est et perdidit immortalitatem et incurrit debitam mortem: hinc est, quod ad hoc, quod homo repararetur convenienti remedio, Deus factus homo voluit *humiliari* et in ligno *pati*: et contra universalem infectionem pati passione *generalissima*, contra libidinem passione *acerbissima*, contra praesumtionem passione *ignominiosissima*, contra mortem debitam et invitam pati voluit mortem non meritam[^p250-5], sed *voluntariam*.

Quia ergo generalitas corruptionis in nobis infecerat non solum corpus et animam, sed etiam omnem corporis partem et omnem animae potentiam[^p250-6]; hinc est, quod Christus passus est in omni corporis parte et in omni potentia animae et in superiori portione rationis, quae summe in Deo *delectabatur* ut *ratio* et propter unionem sui ad superius, et summe *patiebatur* ut *natura* et propter coniunctionem ad inferius, quia Christus erat *viator* et *comprehensor* simul.

Rursus, quia libido vehementer infecerat in nobis animam et carnem et quantum ad carnalia et quantum ad spiritualia peccata[^p250-7]; hinc est, quod Christus et acerbissima passione *passus* est in *carne* et amarissima *compassus* est in *anima*. Et quia in *carne* erat maxima aequalitas complexionis et perfecta vivacitas sensuum, in *anima* vero summa caritas ad Deum et summa pietas ad proximum; hinc est, quod uterque dolor fuit intensissimus.

Amplius, quia tumor superbiae aliquando consurgit interius ex *praesumtione*, aliquando exterius ex *ostentatione* et *aliena laude*; ideo ad remediandum omnem superbiam Christus passus est utrumque genus ignominiae et in *se patiente* et in *comitatu*, quem habuit in passione.

Postremo, quia haec omnia non attingebant divinam naturam impassibilem, sed solum humanam; hinc est, quod in morte Christi sic facta est divisio animae a carne, ut tamen salva esset unitas personae et unio tam carnis quam animae cum Deitate. — Et quia unio animae cum corpore facit *hominem* et facit *vivum*; hinc est, quod Christus non fuit *homo* in illo triduo, licet anima et caro essent unitae cum Verbo[^p250-8]. Unde quia mors in *humana natura* non potuit mortem inducere in *personam*, quae semper fuit viva; ideo mortua est mors in vita, et per Christi mortem *absorpta est mors in victoria*[^p250-9], et princeps mortis devictus, ac per hoc homo a morte et causa mortis per meritum mortis Christi tanquam per medium efficacissimum liberatus.

---

english:
### Chapter IX. *On the passion of Christ as regards the manner of suffering.*

Now concerning the *manner of suffering* this is to be held: that Christ suffered with a *most general* passion, with a *most bitter* passion, with a *most ignominious* passion, with a *death-dealing* passion, yet a *life-giving* one. — With a *most general* passion, I say, as regards human nature, not only according to all the principal members of the body, but also according to every power of the soul, although he could suffer nothing according to the divine nature. — He suffered also with a *most bitter* passion, because not only by *grieving*, as one suffering through wounds, but also by *grieving-with*, as one suffering-with on account of our offences. — He suffered also with a *most ignominious* passion, both on account of the gibbet of the cross, which was the punishment of the worst men, and on account of the fellowship of the unrighteous, namely of thieves, *with whom he was deputed*[^p249-7]. — He suffered also with a *death-dealing* passion through the separation of the soul from the body, the union of both with the Deity nevertheless remaining unimpaired. For let him be anathema who says that the Son of God at any time abandoned the nature which he had once assumed.

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the reparative principle, just as it produced in an ordered way, so also had to repair the human race in an ordered way. Thus therefore it must repair in such a way that the *freedom of choice* be preserved, that the *honour of God* be nonetheless preserved, that the *order of the government of the universe* be preserved also[^p249-8]. — Since therefore it had to repair with the *freedom of choice* preserved, it repaired by giving a most efficacious example; and that example is most efficacious which *invites* and *informs* unto the summit of the virtues. But nothing more *informs* a man, unto virtue, than the example of enduring death for the sake of justice and of divine obedience — death, I say, not of any sort whatever, but the most penal. And nothing more *incites* than so great a kindness, by which *for us* the most high Son of God, without any merits of ours, nay rather with many demerits of ours, *laid down his own soul*[^p250-1]; which kindness is shown to be so much the greater, the heavier and the more abject the things he sustained or willed to suffer for us. For God *spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all; how has he not also, with him, given us all things?* From which we are invited to love him and, having loved him, to imitate him.

Again, since he had to repair with the *honour of God* preserved, therefore he repaired by offering a satisfactory homage. « Now to *make satisfaction* is to repay the honour owed to God[^p250-2] ». But the honour withdrawn from God through pride and disobedience in respect of a thing to which man is bound is in no way better restored than through *humiliation* and *obedience* in respect of that thing to which he was in no way held. Since therefore Christ Jesus, in so far as he was God, was equal to the Father *in the form of God*; and in so far as he was an innocent man was in no way a debtor of death; while *he emptied himself* and *was made obedient unto death*[^p250-3], he paid back to God what he had not seized, through the homage of a perfect satisfaction, and he offered a sacrifice of the highest sweetness for the perfect appeasing of God.

Lastly, since he had to repair with the *order of the government of the universe* preserved, therefore he repaired through a most fitting remedy. And it is most fitting that contraries be cured by contraries[^p250-4]. Since therefore man, willing to be wise as God, sinned, willing to take delight in the forbidden tree, so that he was inclined to *lust* and raised up into *presumption*; and through this the whole human race was infected and lost immortality and incurred the death that was owed: hence it is that, in order that man might be repaired by a fitting remedy, God made man willed to be *humbled* and to *suffer* on a tree: and against the universal infection to suffer with a *most general* passion, against lust with a *most bitter* passion, against presumption with a *most ignominious* passion, and against the death that was owed and unwilling he willed to suffer a death not merited[^p250-5], but *voluntary*.

Since therefore the generality of the corruption in us had infected not only the body and the soul, but also every part of the body and every power of the soul[^p250-6]; hence it is that Christ suffered in every part of the body and in every power of the soul and in the higher portion of reason, which was supremely *delighted* in God as *reason* and on account of its union with what is above, and supremely *suffered* as *nature* and on account of its conjunction with what is below — since Christ was *wayfarer* and *comprehensor* at once.

Again, since lust had vehemently infected in us both soul and flesh, both as regards carnal and as regards spiritual sins[^p250-7]; hence it is that Christ both *suffered* with a most bitter passion in the *flesh* and *suffered-with* most grievously in the *soul*. And because in the *flesh* there was the greatest evenness of complexion and a perfect vivacity of the senses, while in the *soul* there was the highest charity toward God and the highest tenderness toward the neighbour; hence it is that each pain was the most intense.

Further, since the swelling of pride arises sometimes inwardly from *presumption*, sometimes outwardly from *ostentation* and *the praise of others*; therefore, to remedy all pride, Christ suffered both kinds of ignominy, both in *himself suffering* and in the *company* which he had in the passion.

Lastly, since all these things did not reach the impassible divine nature, but only the human; hence it is that in the death of Christ the division of the soul from the flesh was so made that the unity of the person and the union both of the flesh and of the soul with the Deity nevertheless remained unimpaired. — And because the union of the soul with the body makes a *man* and makes a thing *living*; hence it is that Christ was not a *man* in that three-day space, although the soul and the flesh were united with the Word[^p250-8]. Hence, since death in the *human nature* could not induce death into the *person*, which was always living; therefore death died in life, and through the death of Christ *death was swallowed up in victory*[^p250-9], and the prince of death was overcome, and through this man was freed from death and from the cause of death through the merit of Christ's death as through a most efficacious means.

---

la: Isai. 53, 12: Cum sceleratis reputatus est. Marc. 15, 28. et Luc. 22, 37: Cum iniquis reputatus [Luc. deputatus] est. — De poena Christi generalissima et acerbissima cfr. III. Sent. d. 16. per totam; de passione interemptoria vide ibid. d. 21. per totam, in qua a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 1. legitur: Augustinus et Damascenus: Anathema sit qui dicit, Verbum deposuisse quod semel assumsit. — Superius pro *delicta* A *debita*.

en: Isaiah 53, 12: He was reputed with the wicked. Mark 15, 28 and Luke 22, 37: He was reputed [Luke: deputed] with the unrighteous. — On the most general and most bitter penalty of Christ cf. III *Sent.*, d. 16, throughout; on the death-dealing passion see ibid., d. 21, throughout, in which, at a. 1, q. 1, fundamentum 1, one reads: Augustine and Damascene: Let him be anathema who says that the Word laid down what it once assumed. — Above, for *delicta* A has *debita*.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5. — Superius pro *debet* D E H *debuit*, et pro *libertas arbitrii* S *veritas liberi arbitrii*. Inferius post *et informat* Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *hominem*.

en: See III *Sent.*, d. 20, q. 5. — Above, for *debet* D E H have *debuit*, and for *libertas arbitrii* S has *veritas liberi arbitrii*. Below, after *et informat*, the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 add *hominem*.

la: Epist. I. Ioan. 3, 16. — Seq. locus est Rom. 8, 32: Qui etiam proprio etc. — Superius pro *incitat* D *invitat*. Inferius fide A D E S T supplevimus *sustinuit vel*, pro quo 2 *sufficienter*. Immediate post plurimi codd., exceptis A K et edd. variata interpunctione, legunt: *pati voluit Deus. Qui enim* etc. Pro *abiectiora* H N *acerbiora*.

en: Epistle I John 3, 16. — The following passage is Romans 8, 32: *Qui etiam proprio* etc. — Above, for *incitat* D has *invitat*. Below, on the faith of A D E S T we have supplied *sustinuit vel*, in place of which 2 has *sufficienter*. Immediately after, most codices, A K excepted, and the editions, with altered punctuation, read: *pati voluit Deus. Qui enim* etc. For *abiectiora* H N have *acerbiora*.

la: Secundum Anselm., l. Cur Deus homo, c. 11. et 20. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 1. et p. II. a. 1. q. 1; in primo loco cit. pro *rependere* cum T substituitur *reddere*; in secundo cum I N *impendere*. Inferius pro *tenebatur* A D K et 2 *tenetur*.

en: According to Anselm, in the book *Cur Deus homo*, cc. 11 and 20. Cf. IV *Sent.*, d. 15, p. I, q. 1, and p. II, a. 1, q. 1; in the first place cited, for *rependere*, together with T, *reddere* is substituted; in the second, together with I N, *impendere*. Below, for *tenebatur* A D K and 2 have *tenetur*.

la: Phil. 2, 6-8. — Immediate post respicitur Ps. 68, 5: Quae non rapui tunc exsolvebam. Cfr. August. in hunc loc., ex quo quaedam referuntur II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXII. c. 4.

en: Philippians 2, 6–8. — Immediately after, Psalm 68, 5 is looked to: What I did not seize, then I was paying back. Cf. Augustine on this passage, from which certain things are reported in the text of the Master, II *Sent.*, d. XXII, c. 4.

la: Vide supra pag. 123, nota 4. — De seqq. vide supra p. III. c. 3. et 4. — Inferius Vat., 1, 3 *in praesumtione*, refragantibus codd. et 2.

en: See above, p. 123, note 4. — On what follows see above, Pars III, cc. 3 and 4. — Below, the Vatican edition and 1, 3 have *in praesumtione*, the codices and 2 opposing.

la: Edd., excepta 2, *non invitam*, P *non debitam*.

en: The editions, 2 excepted, have *non invitam*; P has *non debitam*.

la: Cfr. supra p. III. c. 5. seq.

en: Cf. above, Pars III, c. 5 and following.

la: Vide supra p. III. c. 8. — Inferius post *amarissima* A I addunt *compassione*.

en: See above, Pars III, c. 8. — Below, after *amarissima*, A I add *compassione*.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 22. q. 1.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 54. — Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. per totum. — Superius post *mortua est* A addit *semper*.

en: Epistle I Corinthians 15, 54. — Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 19, a. 1, throughout. — Above, after *mortua est*, A adds *semper*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 249–250, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A CHAPTER HEADING.** `Cap. IX. / De passione Christi quantum ad modum patiendi.` stands **part-way down p. 249's RIGHT column**, immediately below Cap. VIII's last line (`…sed pacata ordinatio et tranquillitas ordinata.`), exactly where `bon-brev-p4-c8` fixed it, so there was **no incoming body-text seam to reconstruct**. Cap. IX fills the rest of p. 249's right column to `…quod *invitat* et *informat* ad`, breaks across the leaf on a **STRANDED PREPOSITION GOVERNING NOTHING** (`ad` / `culmen virtutum`) into the head of **p. 250's LEFT column**, fills that whole column, crosses p. 250's gutter **at a HYPHENATED MID-WORD BREAK inside the page's last body line** (`in-` / `fecerat`), and closes **part-way down p. 250's RIGHT column** at `…tanquam per medium efficacissimum liberatus.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. X. / De passione Christi quantum ad exitum passionis.` heading standing immediately below it in the same right column** — the heading, its display subtitle, its first sentence (`De *exitu* autem passionis Christi et *fructu* haec indubitanter tenenda sunt, quod anima Christi post`) and its first marginal gloss (`Thesis 1.`) were all read on the band. **Cap. IX touches no left column on p. 249 and runs to roughly two thirds of p. 250's right column.**

**★★ WHERE CAP. X FALLS, AND WHAT `bon-brev-p4-c10` MUST EXPECT.** `Cap. X.` — **the LAST capitulum of Pars IV** — opens **part-way down p. 250's RIGHT column** and gets only two body lines on that page before the column foot; it therefore certainly runs onto **p. 251**, which must be extracted and auto-measured fresh. **p. 250's footer register carries NO Cap. X note**, so Cap. X's apparatus begins on p. 251. ★ **`PARS QUINTA / De gratia Spiritus sancti` is very unlikely to land on p. 250 or p. 251**: Cap. X has yet to state its theses (only *Thesis 1.* is glossed at the p. 250 foot) and the eight preceding capitula of this pars have each run 1½–2 printed columns, so the part opening should fall on p. 251's right column at the very earliest and more probably p. 252. **A part opening carries a full-width display heading; if it falls inside the measured rows it destroys that page's gutter measurement (CLAUDE.md § gutter rule, and method note 9 — `PARS QUARTA` crossed p. 241's gutter without breaking it, so a part opening is a warning, not a guarantee of failure).** Watch for it.

**★★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE FOURTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF, AND IT WAS READ ONLY FROM A BAND.** p. 250's head reads `BREVILOQUII PARS IV. C. X.` on a page whose first two thirds are still Cap. IX; p. 249's read `PARS IV. C. IX.` on a page whose first two thirds were still Cap. VIII. **The "behind" direction still has no attestation anywhere in Pars IV.** No claim in this chunk rests on the head; the `Cap. X.` heading in the body is what closed the span.

**★ A FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH BREAK SHAPE: A STRANDED PREPOSITION AT THE LEAF, A HYPHENATED MID-WORD BREAK AT THE GUTTER.** The p. 249/250 leaf break falls after `ad`, a preposition with **no object at all on its own leaf** — the tail `…quod *invitat* et *informat* ad` is not even a complete phrase, and p. 249 n. 8's own lemma (`post et informat Vat., 1 et 3 addunt hominem`) shows that the editions supply a word at exactly that point. p. 250's gutter then breaks **mid-word and hyphenated** inside `infecerat` (`in-` / `fecerat`), on the very last line of the left column. **The shape of a break still carries no information about whether the unit continues** — eleven leaves, and now a twelfth kind.

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE NEAREST PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY BELOW THE BREAK — EIGHTH CONSECUTIVE OCCURRENCE, AND AGAIN WITH THE NEW PAGE'S ANCHOR ABOVE THE MARKER.** The p. 249/250 break falls inside the *Ratio*'s first answering period, which runs from p. 249's right column across the leaf and closes on p. 250 at `…amatum imitandum.` The nearest paragraph boundary **below** the break is therefore that paragraph's end, and `<!-- page 250 -->` sits there — with **p. 250's note 1 anchoring ABOVE the marker** (`posuit animam suam¹`). Do not move the marker up. **The page-qualified labels absorb it; the true break position is recorded here.**

**Gutters.** **p. 249 = 1182**, carried from `bon-brev-p4-c8`'s ink-profile settlement and **re-confirmed visually here on freshly cut bands** (`colcrop.py vol5 249 1182`): at 1182 the right column is captured whole, `Cap. IX.` and its subtitle are centred in the right band, and both of this chunk's p. 249 anchors read cleanly. **p. 250 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH, with no constant.** `colcrop.py vol5 250` returned **`split_x=1390, low-ink run 64 px`** — unflagged, and **64 px sits at the top of the 58–64 px band that marks a sound measurement on this volume**, the first p. 24x/25x leaf whose default run has been sound outright. It was nevertheless re-profiled over **sixteen** row windows, because the last two leaves both hid an obstruction inside the gutter: 45–92 % **1390/64** · 50–85 % **1390/64** · 50–92 % **1390/64** · 55–80 % **1390/64** · 60–90 % **1390/64** · 45–80 % **1390/64** · 35–75 % **1390/63** · 15–85 % **1390/62** · 20–80 % **1390/62** · 30–70 % **1390/63** · 40–65 % **1390/63** · 20–60 % **1390/63** · 25–55 % **1389/64** · 15–45 % **1390/62** · 10–45 % **1390/62** · 12–40 % **1390/62**. **All sixteen agree to within one pixel and every run falls in 62–64 px — including the upper-page windows that failed on p. 249 at 1197/83 px. This is what a genuinely sound page looks like on this quire, and it is the first in four leaves.** ★ **The per-column ink profile was printed anyway, and it shows THE OBSTRUCTION IS STILL THERE — THIRD CONSECUTIVE LEAF.** Over the body rows the blank gutter runs **x = 1358–1423** (66 columns at 1–4 rows of ink) with a **narrow ink island standing INSIDE it at x = 1389–1391**, peaking at **663 rows of ink at x = 1390** against 3 on either side. **The midpoint of the full blank band 1358–1423 is 1390.5, and the island's own peak is 1390 — the two agree, which is why the windowing did not fork as it did on pp. 248 and 249: here the island sits almost exactly at the band's centre, so whichever half a window lands in gives the same answer.** ★★ **That is the real lesson of this leaf: the obstruction is a constant feature of this quire (pp. 248, 249, 250 — three consecutive leaves, both parities), and whether it corrupts the measurement depends on WHERE IN THE BLANK BAND IT SITS, not on whether it is present. A sound-looking 64 px run is not evidence the obstruction is absent. Print the profile on every remaining leaf of this quire.** Adopted and confirmed visually on all six bands. Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361 · 1186 · 1367 · 1201 · 1345 · 1209 · 1391 · 1182 · **1390**. **★ p. 250's 1390 sits 1 px below p. 248's 1391, at the top of an even cluster that now spans 1331–1391 over ten leaves, while the odd cluster spans 1182–1228 over ten. Parity remains spent as a predictor — the two clusters are 154 px apart at their nearest edges and 209 px apart at their widest, and no page in this pars has been predictable from its neighbour. Measure every page.**

**Apparatus (11 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 249 nn. 7–8** and **the whole of p. 250 nn. 1–9**. Every anchor was read on the band at 450 dpi and **re-derived from scratch**; none was adopted from the hand-off, from raw anchor glyphs, or from which footer block holds a note.
- p. 249 n. **7** on `cum quibus fuit deputatus`⁷ — **RIGHT** column, on the last words of the *Thesis 4* member (*passione ignominiosissima*), inside the italic scriptural tag. (Hand-off verified the COLUMN and the TEXT but explicitly **declined** to verify the position, offering two independent derivations — the raw's `fuit deputatus` line, and the entry's own `Superius pro delicta A debita`, which requires `delicta` to stand above the anchor. **Both derivations were right**: `propter nostra delicta` closes the *Thesis 3* member two lines above, and the anchor stands on `deputatus`.)
- p. 249 n. **8** on `salvus sit etiam *ordo regiminis universi*`⁸ — **RIGHT** column, closing the threefold *Sic igitur reparare debet…* period, with the marginal gloss `Primus.` beside the next line. (Hand-off verified POSITION and COLUMN; both hold, including the gloss.)
- p. 250 n. **1** on `posuit animam suam`¹ — **LEFT** column, on the italic I John tag, **above the `<!-- page 250 -->` marker**.
- p. 250 n. **2** on `honorem Deo debitum rependere`² — **left** column, **inside the guillemets and before the closing one**, on the last word of the Anselm definition.
- p. 250 n. **3** on `factus est obediens usque ad mortem`³ — **left** column, on the last words of the Philippians quotation.
- p. 250 n. **4** on `contraria contrariis curentur`⁴ — **left** column, on the maxim that opens the *Postremo* paragraph's argument.
- p. 250 n. **5** on `mortem non meritam`⁵ — **left** column, **between `meritam` and `sed voluntariam`**, which is what the entry requires: it records that the editions read `non invitam` and P `non debitam` at exactly that phrase.
- p. 250 n. **6** on `omnem animae potentiam`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, closing the *Pro thesi 2* premise, four lines below the column head.
- p. 250 n. **7** on `quantum ad spiritualia peccata`⁷ — **right** column, closing the *Pro thesi 3* premise; the entry's `Inferius post amarissima A I addunt compassione` points three lines BELOW the anchor, confirming the direction.
- p. 250 n. **8** on `unitae cum Verbo`⁸ — **right** column, in the *Corollarium* on the triduum.
- p. 250 n. **9** on `absorpta est mors in victoria`⁹ — **right** column, on the italic I Corinthians tag, six lines above the end of the capitulum.

**★ THE HAND-OFF HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR, AND ITS ONE DECLARED INFERENCE HELD TOO — FOR THE THIRD CONSECUTIVE CHUNK.** `bon-brev-p4-c8` forwarded p. 249 nn. 7–8 with ownership and column verified for both, position verified for n. 8, and **n. 7's position explicitly NOT verified but reasoned to from two independent constraints**. Both ownerships, both columns and both positions confirm here on the bands, and n. 7's anchor is exactly where both of the hand-off's constraints put it. Its forwarded transcriptions of nn. 7 and 8 held **in every digit and every siglum**, including all eight readings it flagged as unsettled (`53, 12` · `15, 28` · `22, 37` · `d. 16` · `d. 21` · `a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 1` · `d. 20. q. 5` · `1 et 3`) and including its `D E H` siglum call. **Running score: forwarded OWNERSHIP has now held EIGHT times in EIGHT; forwarded DETAIL has failed twice in eight, and both failures came from hand-offs that said the detail was unverified.** ★ The sharpened pattern from `p4-c8` holds again: **a hand-off that names which claims it checked has been reliable on those, and one that ALSO says how it reached the claims it did not check has been reliable on those too.** It remains no licence to skip re-derivation — **two of the eight flagged readings had to be fixed against the RAW here** (`Marc. 15, 28` for raw `13, 28`; `q. 5` for raw `q. 6`), and no hand-off could have made those calls for the reader.

**★★ p. 250 IS A NEW CONFIGURATION: A PAGE WHOSE CAPITULUM BOUNDARY FALLS ON THE PAGE BUT OUTSIDE THE REGISTER ENTIRELY.** p. 250's register is **nine** numbered notes, and **all nine anchor in Cap. IX** even though Cap. X opens part-way down the right column — Cap. X gets two body lines and no note. So for the first time in Pars IV **the capitulum line falls BELOW the whole register**, and a page split by capitulum is nonetheless owned by a single chunk. Its anchors divide **5 / 4** across the gutter (nn. 1–5 left, nn. 6–9 right). Its footer blocks divide **2½ / 6½**: the left block carries nn. 1–2 **and the opening of n. 3**, and the right block opens with **n. 3's unnumbered continuation** before running nn. 4–9. **So the block line stands TWO NOTES ABOVE the anchor line and the capitulum line stands BELOW BOTH — three lines, three positions, and the widest spread yet seen.** Adding to the catalogue: overrun (pp. 220, 221, 226, 233, 239) · underrun (pp. 234, 237) · coincidence (pp. 231, 232, 235, 240, 246, 247) · split-inside-a-note (pp. 236, 238, 240, 243, 244, 248, 249, **250**) · both at once (p. 239) · split by PARS (p. 241) · split by CAPITULUM (pp. 242–249) · anchor/block mismatch of one note (p. 243) · of two notes with the block break BELOW the anchor break (p. 244) · of two notes with the block break ABOVE the anchor break (p. 245, **250**) · a page whose footer opens unnumbered yet whose anchors and blocks still coincide (p. 247) · a page whose block split falls INSIDE the note whose anchor stands first in the second column (p. 248) · a page whose block split falls inside a note whose anchor is ALREADY in the second column (p. 249) · **a page on which a capitulum boundary falls but the whole register belongs to the OUTGOING capitulum (p. 250)**.

**★ NEITHER SIGNATURE APPEARS ON p. 250.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` and the quire signature `32` both fell on p. 249 (recorded by `p4-c8`); p. 250 carries neither, so the printer's signature's ~8-leaf cadence points to roughly p. 257. Neither is ever an entry. **The unnumbered continuation heading p. 250's right block is p. 250 n. 3's own tail and is NOT a separate entry** — p. 250's register is nine, band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`.

**Runover findings — ONE NEGATIVE CLOSED FROM THE SIDE IT WAS OWED ON, ONE POSITIVE CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES, ONE FORWARDED.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 249 → p. 250 — **NEGATIVE**, and CLOSED HERE FROM THE p. 250 SIDE, as owed.* `p4-c8` established that p. 249's right block ends **complete** at n. 8 (`…Inferius post et informat Vat., 1 et 3 addunt hominem.`) and left the p. 250 side open because n. 8 is a Cap. IX note owned here. p. 250's left footer block was read **from its first character at high zoom** and opens **NUMBERED**: `¹ Epist. I. Ioan. 3, 16.` The test is closed negative from both sides and is logged as a negative on this chunk's ledger line.
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 250 — **POSITIVE**, run from both sides here, at a WORD BOUNDARY INSIDE A QUOTED VERSE.* p. 250's left block breaks off **inside n. 3**, at `Immediate post respicitur Ps. 68, 5: Quae` — a clean word boundary, but one that stops **in the middle of the Vulgate verse it is quoting**. p. 250's right block opens **UNNUMBERED**: `non rapui tunc exsolvebam. Cfr. August. in hunc loc., ex quo quaedam referuntur II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXII. c. 4.` — then `⁴ Vide supra pag. 123, nota 4.` **The join is verified by the strongest of the four tests, the one p. 248 n. 5 earned: the broken entry was quoting a verse, so the two halves must meet exactly where the Vulgate says they meet — and they do, at `Quae` / `non rapui`, giving Ps. 68, 5 *Quae non rapui, tunc exsolvebam* word for word.** It is corroborated three further ways: the grammar completes; the continuation's `Cfr. August. in hunc loc.` refers to the psalm verse the broken half names; and no numeral stands anywhere in the continuation. **Sense seals it independently — the anchor's own sentence is `exsolvit Deo quae non rapuit`, which is the verse.** Rendered joined under the p. 250 n. 3 label. **Logged as `p.250 n.3:gutter` on this chunk's ledger line. This is the THIRD break in four leaves to fall inside a quoted verse** (p. 248 n. 5's `omnia enim` / `opera nostra`, p. 249's body break at `Non mea vo-` / `luntas`, and now this).
- *Page-crossing, p. 250 → p. 251 — **NEGATIVE from the p. 250 side**, and left open for `bon-brev-p4-c10`.* p. 250's right block ends **complete** at n. 9 (`…Superius post mortua est A addit semper.`), with clear white paper below it. **n. 9 is a Cap. IX note owned here, but p. 251 has not been imaged and its side of the test cannot be run from p. 250 alone; following the precedent `p4-c8` set for the p. 249 → p. 250 test, the test is NOT logged on this chunk's line** — `p4-c10` must close it from the p. 251 side.
- *The p. 249 gutter-crossing test (positive, inside p. 249 n. 6) and the p. 248 → p. 249 page-crossing test (negative) were both closed and logged by `p4-c8` and are not re-logged here.*

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; both registers re-read under direct high-factor zoom, and every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **★ All eight readings the hand-off flagged as unsettled CONFIRM as forwarded — the second consecutive chunk in which a whole flagged set has survived re-derivation unchanged. Two entries are nevertheless FIXES AGAINST THE RAW, and both are in the `3`/`5` class.**
- **★★ `Marc. 15, 28` (p. 249 n. 7) — A FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `13, 28`, AND A CLEAN `3`/`5` CONTRAST ON ONE LINE.** The line sets `Isai. 53, 12` and `Marc. 15, 28` eleven words apart. In `53` the second glyph shows **two stacked bowls and no bar** — a `3`; in `15` the second glyph shows a **flat top bar over a single lower bowl** — a `5`. **The same line therefore supplies its own contrast set, exactly as method note 13 prescribes.** Sense settles it decisively and independently: **Mark 15, 28 IS *Et cum sceleratis reputatus est*, the verse the entry is quoting**, while Mark 13 is the apocalyptic discourse and contains nothing of the kind. Luke 22, 37 (*Et cum iniquis deputatus est*) is the third witness and reads clean.
- **★★ `III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5` (p. 249 n. 8) — A SECOND FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `q. 6`, AND ANOTHER `5`.** At maximum zoom the glyph after `q.` carries the **flat top bar over a single lower bowl** of a `5`, not the closed upper loop of a `6`; `d. 20.` on the same line supplies a true `0` and a true `2` for scale. Sense: III *Sent.* d. 20 is the distinction on **the mode of the redemption — whether God could have freed man otherwise, and what the most fitting mode was** — which is precisely the anchor's threefold *salva sit libertas arbitrii / salvus sit honor Dei / salvus sit ordo regiminis universi*.
- **★★ `D E H` (p. 249 n. 8) — TWO UPRIGHTS WITH NO CROSSBAR, AND ALL THREE RULES AGREE, AS THE HAND-OFF PREDICTED.** At maximum zoom the siglum is **two full-height uprights with slab serifs top and bottom and no bar between them**. **(a) Two uprights may be `H`** — the rule forbids only ONE upright from being one; **(b) alphabetical position after `D E` admits `H` and nothing else in this apparatus's run**; **(c) the grammar `pro debet <witnesses> debuit` requires witnesses, and `II` is not a witness anywhere here.** The raw gave `D E H` correctly for once, which is corroboration and not evidence.
- **★★ `H N` (p. 250 n. 1) — THE SAME CROSSBAR-LESS `H`, ON THE FACING LEAF, AND THE RAW GOT THIS ONE WRONG (`II N`).** Two uprights, alphabetical position between the entry's own `A D E S T` and `A K` runs, and the grammar `Pro abiectiora <witnesses> acerbiora` again requires a witness. **Ninth, tenth and eleventh instances of the crossbar-less `H` in five pages.**
- **★★ `I N` (p. 250 n. 2) — ONE UPRIGHT, AND RULE (a) DECIDES IT OUTRIGHT.** `in secundo cum I N impendere` sets a **single** upright before `N`; **one upright is NEVER `H`**. Alphabetical order (`I N`) admits it, and `I` is a codex elsewhere in this very apparatus. Set beside `H N` in n. 1, four lines above, the two make the stroke-count rule visible on one page.
- **★★ `IV. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 1. et p. II. a. 1. q. 1` (p. 250 n. 2) — A THIRD FIX AGAINST THE RAW (`d. 13.`), AND THE `1`/`I` SPLIT SET FOUR TIMES IN ONE LINE.** `15` shows the flagged `1` (angled top flag, closed stem, no lower serif) against a flat-top-barred `5`, while `p. I.` and `p. II.` set symmetric slab-serifed romans and `q. 1.` and `a. 1.` set the flagged arabic — **four species in fourteen characters, the tightest set since p. 247 n. 5.** Sense: **IV *Sent.* d. 15 IS *de satisfactione*, and the anchor is the definition of *satisfacere*** — the same distinction p. 248 n. 5 cited two leaves back for the same doctrine, which is an independent corroboration of the numeral.
- **`Anselm., l. Cur Deus homo, c. 11. et 20.` (p. 250 n. 2) — `11` not `44`, and the abbreviation is set as printed.** Both glyphs of `11` show the angled flag and closed stem of the flagged `1`, contrasted against the true `4` of `nota 4.` in n. 4 two entries below. Sense: **Anselm, *Cur Deus homo* I, 11 is the chapter defining satisfaction (`Hoc est satisfacere Deo`) and I, 20 the chapter on its measure** — exactly the two the anchor's quotation and its sequel need. ★ The editors write `l. Cur Deus homo` with **no book numeral after `l.`**, unlike their usual `l. I.`; **preserved as printed, not completed.**
- **★★ `Epist. I. Cor. 15, 54` (p. 250 n. 9) — A FOURTH FIX AGAINST THE RAW (`15, 34`), AND THE `3`/`5` CLASS AGAIN.** `54` sets a flat-top-barred `5` against a crossbarred `4`; the raw's `34` would need two stacked bowls, which are not there. **Sense is decisive: I Cor. 15, 54 IS *absorpta est mors in victoria*, which is the body's italic quotation at the anchor**, while 15, 34 is *Evigilate iusti et nolite peccare*.
- **`Ps. 68, 5`, `Phil. 2, 6-8` (p. 250 n. 3), `pag. 123, nota 4` and `p. III. c. 3. et 4.` (n. 4), `p. III. c. 5. seq.` (n. 6), `p. III. c. 8.` (n. 7), `III. Sent. d. 22. q. 1.` (n. 8), `III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1.` (n. 9) — all read clean and all sense-checked.** Phil. 2, 6–8 supplies *in forma Dei*, *semetipsum exinanivit* and *factus obediens usque ad mortem*, the three italic tags the anchor's sentence is built from; Ps. 68, 5 supplies *quae non rapui tunc exsolvebam* against the anchor's *exsolvit Deo quae non rapuit*; **III *Sent.* d. 22 is the distinction on whether Christ was a man in the triduum — which is n. 8's anchor sentence verbatim**; III *Sent.* d. 19 is on the effect of the passion; Breviloquium Pars III cc. 3, 5 and 8 are on the corruption of sin, which every one of nn. 4, 6 and 7 invokes as the thing the passion answers.
- **`II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXII. c. 4.` (p. 250 n. 3's continuation) — TWO UPRIGHTS, AND HERE THEY ARE A ROMAN BOOK NUMERAL, NOT A SIGLUM.** The stroke count is two, against the **three** uprights of `p. III.` on the next line of the same block — the direct contrast the page supplies for itself. Sense: **Lombard's *Sentences* II, d. XXII treats Adam's sin and quotes Augustine on the seizure in paradise**, which is what `ex quo quaedam referuntur` asserts. ★ **The same glyph pair means `H` in nn. 1 and 8 and `II` here; only the grammatical slot decides. Never read the crossbar, and never read the stroke count without the slot.**
- **`A D E S T`, `A K`, `A D K`, `A I`, `P`, `T`, `S`, `D`, `A`, `Vat.`, `Edd.`, `1`, `2`, `3` read clean and alphabetical throughout both registers.** No single upright stands ambiguously in any run except the two settled above.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★ A COMMA AFTER `hominem` WHERE THE SENSE ASKS FOR NONE — PRESERVED.** p. 250's left column opens `Nihil autem magis *informat* homi-nem, ad virtutem quam exemplum tolerandi mortem` — the plate sets a **comma between the direct object and the prepositional phrase that qualifies the verb**, splitting a construction that wants no pointing at all. The mark is unambiguous on the band at maximum zoom (a comma's descending tail, not a battered point). **Set as printed and mirrored in the English with a comma in the same place.** It joins p. 248's `merita nostra;` (battered sort, rendered whole) and p. 249's `multiformium. nec` (sound sort in a place the sense would not choose) as the third pointing oddity in three leaves — and it is of the p. 249 kind, not the p. 248 kind. **Do not collapse the two rules.**
- **★ TWO BATTERED SORTS IN ONE SENTENCE, RENDERED WHOLE.** In the *Thesis 5* member the initial `A` of `Anathema` has lost most of its left stroke on the plate (the raw reads `1 nathema`) and the `m` of `quam` in `quam semel assumserat` is half-inked (raw `quaic`). **Both are battered sorts, not variant readings** — the letterforms' remaining strokes are unambiguous, the grammar admits nothing else, and p. 249 n. 7 quotes the identical sentence from III *Sent.* d. 21 (`Anathema sit qui dicit, Verbum deposuisse quod semel assumsit`), which settles both words independently. **Rendered whole and recorded here.**
- **★ `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` carries the COLON — TWELFTH consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–IX). p. 237's full stop remains the one-off. Here the formula is followed by `quia reparativum principium, sicut … sic et …`, a *sicut/sic* correlative rather than the *cum/ideo* chain of Cap. VIII — **the first time in Pars IV that the *Ratio* opens on a comparison instead of a causal period.**
- **★★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION TAKES AN EIGHTH DISTINCT DISTRIBUTION IN EIGHT ADJACENT CAPITULA, AND IT IS THE EXACT INVERSE OF CAP. VIII'S.** Cap. IX puts **FOUR** dashes in its opening thesis paragraph, marking members 2–5 of the fivefold division (`— Passione, inquam, generalissima` · `— Passus est etiam passione acerbissima` · `— Passus est etiam passione ignominiosissima` · `— Passus est etiam passione interemptoria`), with the first member following the colon undashed — the Cap. VII shape. It then puts **TWO** in the *Ratio*, one before `Quia ergo reparare debuit` and one before `Et quia unio animae cum corpore` on p. 250's right column, and **none at all** in the four intervening answering paragraphs, which open bare with `Rursus` · `Postremo` · `Quia ergo` · `Rursus` · `Amplius` · `Postremo`. **Against Cap. VIII, whose thesis paragraph carried NO dash and whose four dashes all fell in the *Ratio*, Cap. IX inverts the habit exactly.** ★ And note that the **five** members of the division are marked by **four** dashes while the answering *Ratio* uses two — **the dash count matches neither the member count nor the answer count.** Transcribed, never regularised, and never counted from the number of members.
- **★ THE GUILLEMETS MARK A SINGLE FOUR-WORD DEFINITION AND ARE SET EXACTLY AS PRINTED.** `« Est autem *satisfacere* honorem Deo debitum rependere »` is Anselm's definition, quoted whole with the note-2 anchor standing **inside** the guillemets, on `rependere`, before the closing mark. Cap. IX quotes nothing else in guillemets — unlike Cap. VIII, which set both a four-word Augustine phrase and a six-line Hugh block. Preserved; the English keeps them.
- **The italics are selective and were set exactly as printed.** In the opening thesis *modo*, *patiendi*, *generalissima*, *acerbissima*, *ignominiosissima*, *interemptoria*, *vivificativa* are italic while the repeated `passione` is roman throughout — **the differentia is italic and the genus is not**, the same habit p. 248 showed with the three wills. *dolendo* / *condolendo* are italic as a contrasted pair, `patiens` and `compatiens` roman beside them. `cum quibus fuit deputatus` is italic entire as a scriptural tag, while the *Anathema* sentence — also a quotation, and named as one by n. 7 — **is set ROMAN**. In the *Ratio* the three *respectus* (*libertas arbitrii*, *honor Dei*, *ordo regiminis universi*) are italic and repeated italic in the answers; *invitat*, *informat*, *incitat* are italic as the twofold effect. On p. 250 `Deus` stands **roman** and the Romans 8, 32 quotation begins at *enim* — the plate italicises the verse from the second word, leaving the subject outside the quotation. *satisfacere*, *humiliationem*, *obedientiam*, *in forma Dei*, *semetipsum exinanivit*, *factus est obediens usque ad mortem*, *libidinem*, *praesumtionem*, *humiliari*, *pati*, *voluntariam*, *delectabatur*, *ratio*, *patiebatur*, *natura*, *viator*, *comprehensor*, *passus*, *carne*, *compassus*, *anima*, *praesumtione*, *ostentatione*, *aliena laude*, *se patiente*, *comitatu*, *hominem*, *vivum*, *homo*, *humana natura*, *personam*, *absorpta est mors in victoria* are italic; `contraria contrariis curentur`, `ignominiae`, `unitas personae`, `princeps mortis` are roman although each is as much a formula as the italic members beside it. **The plate's italic is not a rule that may be completed.**
- **`Deus`, `Christus`, `Christi`, `Deo`, `Deitate`, `Dei`, `Patri`, `Iesus`, `Verbo`, `Filius`, `Filium`, `Anathema` are capitalised as printed**, and `princeps mortis` is not; the English follows.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The **FIVEFOLD** division of the *modus patiendi* — *generalissima* · *acerbissima* · *ignominiosissima* · *interemptoria* · *sed vivificativa* — stated once in the opening sentence and then taken up member by member. ★ **The fifth member is a PAIR, not a single term** (*interemptoria, sed vivificativa*), and the plate glosses only *interemptoria* as `Thesis 5.`; do not read the division as sixfold. Within the members: the **twofold** scope of the *most general* passion (all the body's principal members / every power of the soul), against which stands the **one** thing he could not suffer in (the divine nature); the **twofold** bitterness (*dolendo* as *patiens* / *condolendo* as *compatiens*); the **twofold** ignominy (the gibbet of the cross / the fellowship of thieves). In the *Ratio*: the **THREEFOLD** *respectus* the reparation must preserve — *libertas arbitrii* · *honor Dei* · *ordo regiminis universi* — glossed `Primus.` · `Secundus.` · `Tertius.` and answered in that order; under the first, the **twofold** effect of the perfect example (*invitat* / *informat*), each expanded (nothing informs more than the example of enduring death; nothing incites more than such kindness); under the second, the **twofold** mode of restoring the honour (*humiliatio* / *obedientia*) matched to the **twofold** ground of its withdrawal (superbia / inobedientia); under the third, the **twofold** sin and its **twofold** remedy (*libido* → *praesumtio*, answered by the fourfold contrary passion). Then the four answering paragraphs: the **twofold** infection of body and soul answered by suffering in every part and power, with the **twofold** state of the higher reason (*delectabatur ut ratio* / *patiebatur ut natura*, the *viator*/*comprehensor* pair again); the **twofold** infection by lust (carnal / spiritual sins) answered by the **twofold** suffering (*passus in carne* / *compassus in anima*), grounded in a **twofold** perfection (evenness of complexion and vivacity of sense in the flesh / highest charity and highest tenderness in the soul); the **twofold** rise of pride (*praesumtio* inwardly / *ostentatio et aliena laus* outwardly) answered by the **twofold** ignominy (*in se patiente* / *in comitatu*); and finally the corollary on the triduum with its **twofold** effect of the soul-body union (*facit hominem et facit vivum*). **★ The fivefold division of the passion and the threefold division of the *respectus* are NOT parallel and must not be aligned: the first divides the manner of the suffering, the second the constraints the reparation had to honour, and the plate's own glosses keep them apart (`Thesis 1.–5.` against `Primus./Secundus./Tertius.`).**

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 249 R — "Thesis 1. generalis." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Thesis 4." · "Thesis 5." · "Ratio." · "Pro thesi generali." · "Triplex respectus." · "Primus." · "Duplex effectus." p. 250 L — "Secundus." · "Duplex modus." · "Tertius." · "Duplex peccatum et remedium." p. 250 R — "Pro thesi 2." · "Pro thesi 3." · "Pro thesi 4." · "Pro thesi 5." · "Corollarium." Nineteen glosses across nine paragraphs — **the densest gloss series in Pars IV**, and a **ninth distinct form**. ★★ **THE SERIES IS COMPLETE BUT ITS FIRST ANSWER IS NAMED, NOT NUMBERED.** `Thesis 1.` is glossed with a compound (`Thesis 1. generalis.`) and is answered not by a `Pro thesi 1.` but by **`Pro thesi generali.`** — the editors substituting the thesis's NAME for its NUMBER, then resuming the numbers at `Pro thesi 2.` So a reader counting `Pro thesi N.` glosses finds **four** against **five** theses and would wrongly conclude one answer is missing. ★ **AND THE NUMBERED SERIES IS INTERRUPTED BY A WHOLE SUB-SERIES OF ITS OWN**: between `Pro thesi generali.` and `Pro thesi 2.` stand six unnumbered structural glosses (`Triplex respectus.` heading `Primus.` · `Secundus.` · `Tertius.`, with `Duplex effectus.`, `Duplex modus.` and `Duplex peccatum et remedium.` subdividing each), so the *Ratio*'s threefold argument runs to eleven glosses before the answering series resumes. Cap. VIII broke its parallel series twice with single unnumbered glosses; **Cap. IX breaks its series with an entire second, differently-organised series, and then completes it.** The whole of the `Thesis` series and the opening of the *Ratio* fall on p. 249's right column; the `Primus./Secundus./Tertius.` series is split across the leaf (`Primus.` on p. 249, the rest on p. 250 L); the whole `Pro thesi N.` series falls on p. 250's right column. **Never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's, and never check a member count against a gloss count in either direction.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Six readings could have carried one — `Marc. 15, 28` against the raw's `13, 28`, `q. 5` against the raw's `q. 6`, `d. 15` against the raw's `d. 13`, `15, 54` against the raw's `15, 34`, the crossbar-less `H` in `D E H` and `H N`, and the two-upright `II.` of `II. Sent.` — and each is settled positively on the band, by stroke count or by a same-line glyph contrast, and every one is independently corroborated by the cited text checking itself against the anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag. The two body oddities (`hominem,` and the battered `Anathema`/`quam`) are a plate reading preserved as printed and two battered sorts rendered whole — neither is an ambiguity.

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.** The bodies were re-set line-by-line from the bands; the raw was consulted only as a cross-check and is graded here for the next chunk's benefit.
- **p. 249, right column, Cap. IX's portion — GOOD, and a clear step BELOW the same column's Cap. VIII lines eleven rows above.** `Dc modo autcm paticndi`, `(piod`, `yenera/miwia` (**`generalissima` destroyed**), `acerhissima`, `ignominiosis.sima`, `passionc`, `naluram`, `.secundum omnem`, `eliam`, `hissima`, `condolemlo`, `iostra delicla`, `suppUcium` (**ligature error**), `cum quihus fuit depu-latus`, `inte?-emploria` (**a question mark spliced into a word — new**), `1 nathema` (**the initial `A` destroyed**), `dicrt`, `quaic semijl` (**two words damaged in three**), `intclligentiam`, `baec`, `bu-iii;Hium` (**`humanum` destroyed across a line break**), `repararc dclict`, `nt salva sit`, `ft'-bertas arbilrii` (**`libertas` destroyed**), `nihiloniinus /wnor Dei`, `salvus sitetiam` (**lost interior space**), `0/7/0 regiminis universi` (**`ordo` rendered as digits and slashes**), `Ouia ergo`, `lihertate arhilrii`, `daiido`, `cfTicacissimum`, `eflicacissimum`, `qiiod invitat et infnrmat`. **About thirty-five garbles in thirty printed lines, with FOUR words destroyed outright, one spliced question mark and one lost interior space.** ★ **This is a full grade below the same column's Cap. VIII stretch, which `p4-c8` graded GOOD with about twenty-five garbles in eleven lines and one word destroyed — the raw's grade moved WITHIN A SINGLE COLUMN, across a chapter heading. That is a finer-grained shift than any recorded so far.** The `Cap. IX.` heading prints **CLEAN** (`Cap. IX.`) while its subtitle is garbled (`De pa.mone Chrisli fiuantum ad modum patiendi.`) — confirmed. **All ten right-margin glosses are damaged and every numeral in them destroyed** (`Thcsisi.gc-`, `ihcsis 2.`, `Thcsis 3.`, `nem 4.` — the word `Thesis` itself replaced — `Tbosis s.`, `itaiio.`, `Prothesige-`, `Tripiei re-`, `crimns.` for `Primus.`, `oupiei ene-ctus.`).
- **p. 249 footer, right block, nn. 7–8 (the two owned here) — GOOD, and holding the grade `p4-c8` recorded for the same block.** `Isai. 53, 12` clean, `.Marc. 13, 28.` (**ONE WRONG DIGIT — the only one in either entry**), `rcpulatus`, `depulatus`, `Chrisli gencralissima`, `d. 16. per totain` clean, `intcrcmptoria`, `ibid. d. 21.` clean, `\u'V lulrini` (**`per totam` destroyed**), `a. 1. q. 1. fundam. I.` clean but for the final numeral set as roman, `Augnstinns`, `Damasccnus.:` (**a spurious point before the colon**), `.\nalhema`, `(juod semel assumsit` , `debila`; `d. 20. ([. 6.` (**ONE WRONG DIGIT and one destroyed abbreviation**), `D E H` **correct**, `debuil`, `libertas arbitrii S veritas liberi arbilrii` clean, `Infcrius`, `post et iiiformat Vat., 1 ct 3 addunt hominem` clean. **Roughly twenty garbles in eleven printed lines, TWO wrong digits (both `3`/`5`-class or its neighbour), one destroyed phrase, one spurious point — and every siglum right.** ★ Against p. 249's LEFT block, which `p4-c8` graded as having **not one** wrong digit or siglum, this block carries two wrong digits in two entries. **Two blocks, one page, one register, and the digit reliability differs — grade the block, not the page.**
- **p. 250, left column — GOOD, and a step ABOVE p. 249's right column across the leaf, reversing the direction again.** `virlutuni`, `auteni`, `infonnat liorai-nem.ad` (**lost interior space AND a spurious period, in one word**), `exeniplum`, `incital`, `benignilas`, `Fihus`, `siiam`, `sustinuil ve)` (**a parenthesis for `l`**), `patl`, `Deus mim` (**`enim` destroyed**), `invitanmr`, `jdeo` , `satisfaeere`, `.dere` (**a spurious leading point**), `astrin-gitui'`, `milialioncm et obedientiani`, `nullalenus`, `usqae`, `Teriius.` (gloss), `rcgiminis`, `praesumtionmn`, `tolum`, `huinanum infectmn`, `immortaiitatein`, `hgno paft'` (**`pati` destroyed**), `univers;ilem`, `jiassione`. **Roughly thirty garbles in fifty printed lines — well under one per line — with TWO words destroyed, one lost interior space, one spurious period and one spurious leading point.** ★ **Density LOW, severity MODERATE — the inverse of p. 249's left column, which `p4-c8` graded high-density/low-severity. The two axes have now moved independently on four consecutive columns.** **All four left-margin glosses are damaged** (`secunaiis.`, `DQpiei mo-`, `Teriius.`, `Dap\ex peo … mediom.`).
- **p. 250, right column — GOOD.** `feceral non soluin corpus et animain`, `omnein corporis parlem et oninem animae poten-liain`, `binc est`, `corjjoris`, `aiiimae`, `Clirislus`, `carnaha`, `maxiina aequahLas`, `suinina`, `Amiihus`, `pracsumtione`, `alicna`, `omiiem`, `patienle`, `comi-tatu^` (**the anchor glyph fused to the word — the known cascade at an anchor, and note there is NO note on `comitatu`**), `iiaec oinnia non altingebant`, `naluram`, `s;ilva`, `persoiiae`, `aniniae`, `late` (**`Deitate` truncated**), `homi-imn` (**`hominem` destroyed**), `viuum`, `inortua`, `absorpla`, `'■'` (the n. 9 anchor as punctuation), `lanquam`. **Roughly thirty garbles in forty printed lines, one word destroyed, one truncated, and one spurious anchor glyph fused to a word that carries no note — a live trap, since the raw's anchor positions are a hint and never evidence.** The `Cap. X.` heading and its subtitle print **CLEAN** in the raw (`Cap. X.` / `De passione Christi quanlum ad exitum passionis.`) — **the tenth chapter heading in Pars IV and the seventh to print clean, against three damaged. Still no pattern. Set every heading from the band.** **All five right-margin glosses print with their numerals INTACT** (`it» ihesi 2.`, `pro ihesi 3.`, `Pro thesi 4.`, `Pro thesi :..`, `coroiiariom.`, `ihesis 1.`) — **the first gloss run in Pars IV whose numbers survive, against p. 249's, ten rows away, where every one was destroyed.**
- **p. 250 footer — GOOD in both blocks, and the digit failures are concentrated, not spread.** Left: `loaii, 3, 16.` (**a comma for a point**), `Rom. 8, 32` clean, `Superlus`, `incilat D invital` clean, `ADEST` (**interior spaces lost across a siglum run**), `suslimit`, `sulficien-ie)\`, `pkirimi`, `exceplis A K et edd.` clean, `intcrpunctione`, `abiectiora II N ncerbiora` (**siglum wrong — the crossbar-less `H` read as two I's**); `Secunduin Anselm., I. Cur Dens liomo, c. 11. et 20.` clean in every digit, `C£i'. IV. Sent. d. 13.` (**ONE WRONG DIGIT**), `p. I. q. 1. et p. II. a. 1. q. 1` clean, `pio`, `subslituitur rcddere`, `I N impendere` clean, `lenebatur A D K et 2 ienetur`; `Pliil. 2, 6-8.` clean, `Inimcdiate post rcspiuitur Ps. 68, 5` clean. Right: `nou rapiii tunc exsolveb.im`, `liunc I09.` (**`loc.` destroyed**), `II. Sent. lit. Magislri, d. XXII. c. 4.` clean, `pag. 123, nota 4.` clean, `p. III. c. 3. et 4.` clean, `Vat., 1, 3` clean, `non invilam, P non debilam` clean, `p. III. c. 5. seq.` clean, `p. III. c. 8.` clean, `A I addunt compassione` clean, `III. Scnt. d. 22. q. 1.` clean, `I. Cor. 15, 34.` (**ONE WRONG DIGIT**), `IH. Sent. d. 19. a. I. per totum` clean but for one roman/arabic slip, `sempe)-`. **Roughly twenty-five single-letter garbles across twenty printed lines, with exactly TWO wrong digits and ONE wrong siglum in eleven entries — and both wrong digits are `3`-for-`5` substitutions, the same class as p. 249 n. 7's `13` for `15`.** ★ **Three `3`/`5` failures in one leaf's two registers is not noise: on this quire the raw reads `5` as `3` far more readily than it confuses `1` and `4`, and every `5` in a Pars IV register should be treated as a fresh reading.**