site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 5, Cap. 8

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 261 -->

### Capitulum VIII. *De exercitio gratiae respectu diligendorum.*

De *diligendis* autem haec tenenda sunt, quod licet omnia opera divina sint *valde bona*[^p261-6], quatuor tamen proprie sunt ex caritate diligenda, scilicet *Deus* aeternus, quod *nos* sumus, *proximus noster* et *corpus nostrum*. — In quorum dilectione servandus est *ordo* et *modus*, ut *Deus* diligatur primo et super omnia et propter se; secundo, quod *nos sumus* sub Deo et pro Deo; tertio, *proximus noster*, sicut et nos; quarto, *corpus nostrum* infra nos et infra proximum tanquam bonum minus praecipuum. — Ad hoc autem exsequendum datur *unus caritatis habitus* et *duplex mandatum*, in quo pendet universitas Legis et Prophetarum[^p261-7], non solum quantum ad vetus testamentum, verum etiam quantum ad novum.

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia primum principium, hoc ipso quod primum, est summum; et hoc ipso quod summum, est summe bonum; et hoc ipso quod summe bonum, est summe beatum et summe beatificativum; et hoc ipso quod summe beatificativum, est ipso summe fruendum; et hoc ipso quod est eo summe fruendum, summe est ei inhaerendum per amorem et in eo quiescendum tanquam in fine[^p261-8]. Quoniam ergo amor rectus et ordinatus, qui *caritas* appellatur, principaliter fertur in illud bonum, quo fruitur et in quo quiescit; et ipsum est ratio diligendi[^p261-9]: hinc est, quod illud praecipue diligit tanquam beatificativum et cetera per consequens, quae per illud idonea sunt beatificari. Quoniam igitur nobiscum ad beatitudinem natus est *proximus* pervenire; natum est etiam pervenire et *corpus nostrum* tanquam beatificabile cum

<!-- page 262 -->
spiritu: hinc est, quod quatuor tantum ex caritate diligenda esse dicuntur, scilicet *Deus* et *proximus*, *spiritus noster* et *corpus nostrum*.

Rursus, quoniam Deus est supra nos tanquam bonum supremum, spiritus noster intra nos tanquam bonum intrinsecum, et proximus noster iuxta nos tanquam bonum cognatum, corpus vero nostrum infra nos tanquam bonum subiectum; hinc est, quod hic debet servari *ordo* in diligendo, ut primo *Deus* diligatur super omnia et propter se ipsum; secundo, *spiritus noster* sub Deo supra omne bonum caducum; tertio, *proximus noster* iuxta nos ad consimile bonum; quarto, *corpus nostrum* infra nos sicut bonum infimum; et in eodem gradu contineri debet corpus proximi, quia utrumque tenet rationem inferioris boni respectu spiritus nostri.

Postremo, quia amor est pondus mentis[^p262-1] et origo omnis affectionis mentalis, qui de facili reflectitur in se et difficulter tendit in proximum et difficilius elevatur in Deum; hinc est, quod licet quatuor sint diligenda ex caritate, duplex tamen datur *mandatum*: unum, quod dirigit in Deum, aliud, quod dirigit in proximum. — Et quia omnia praecepta vel ad Deum referuntur, vel ad proximum, tanquam in finem, et in illud quod est ad finem; hinc est, quod in his duobus mandatis clauditur collectio mandatorum et comprehensio omnium Scripturarum. Et caritas ipsa est radix, forma et finis virtutum, iungens omnes cum ultimo fine et ligans omnia ad invicem simul et ordinate[^p262-2]; ideo ipsa est pondus inclinationis ordinatae et vinculum colligationis perfectae, *ordinem* quidem servans respectu diligendorum diversorum quantum ad affectum pariter et effectum, *unitatem* autem habens in habitu quantum ad unum finem et unum principale dilectum, quod est ratio diligendi respectu omnium aliorum, quae per amoris vinculum nata sunt colligari in unum Christum quantum ad caput et corpus, quod universitatem in se continet salvandorum. Quae unitas nunc inchoatur in via, sed consummatur in aeterna gloria, iuxta quod Dominus orat[^p262-3], *ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus; et ego in eis, et tu in me, ut sint consummati in unum*; qua unitate consummata per vinculum caritatis, erit *Deus omnia in omnibus* aeternitate certa et pace perfecta, eruntque omnia per amorem communia communione ordinata et ordinatione connexa et connexione indissolubiliter alligata.

---

english:
### Chapter VIII. *On the exercise of grace with respect to the things to be loved.*

Concerning the *things to be loved*, these things are to be held: that although all the divine works are *very good*[^p261-6], four things nevertheless are properly to be loved out of charity, namely *God* eternal, that which *we* are, *our neighbour* and *our body*. — In the love of these an *order* and a *measure* must be kept, so that *God* be loved first and above all things and for his own sake; second, that which *we are*, under God and for God; third, *our neighbour*, as also ourselves; fourth, *our body*, below us and below our neighbour as a good less principal. — And for the carrying out of this there is given *one habit of charity* and a *twofold commandment*, on which hangs the whole of the Law and the Prophets[^p261-7], not only as regards the old testament, but also as regards the new.

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the first principle, by this very fact that it is first, is highest; and by this very fact that it is highest, is supremely good; and by this very fact that it is supremely good, is supremely blessed and supremely beatifying; and by this very fact that it is supremely beatifying, is itself supremely to be enjoyed; and by this very fact that it is supremely to be enjoyed with respect to it, it is supremely to be adhered to by love and to be rested in as in an end[^p261-8]. Since, therefore, right and ordered love, which is called *charity*, is borne principally into that good which it enjoys and in which it rests, and that good is itself the reason of loving[^p261-9]: hence it is that love loves that good chiefly as beatifying, and the rest in consequence, which through it are fit to be beatified. Since, therefore, *our neighbour* is born to come with us to beatitude, and *our body* too is born to come, as beatifiable together with the

<!-- page 262 -->
spirit: hence it is that only four things are said to be loved out of charity, namely *God* and *our neighbour*, *our spirit* and *our body*.

Again, since God is above us as the supreme good, our spirit within us as an intrinsic good, and our neighbour beside us as a kindred good, while our body is below us as a subject good: hence it is that this *order* must here be kept in loving, that first *God* be loved above all things and for his own sake; second, *our spirit*, under God, above every perishable good; third, *our neighbour*, beside us, unto a like good; fourth, *our body*, below us as the lowest good; and in the same degree our neighbour's body must be contained, since each of them holds the character of a lower good in respect of our spirit.

Last, because love is the weight of the mind[^p262-1] and the origin of every mental affection, which is easily bent back upon itself and with difficulty tends toward the neighbour and with greater difficulty still is raised to God: hence it is that, although four things are to be loved out of charity, a twofold *commandment* is nevertheless given — one which directs toward God, the other which directs toward the neighbour. — And because all the precepts are referred either to God or to the neighbour, as to an end and to that which is toward the end, hence it is that in these two commandments is enclosed the gathering of the commandments and the comprehension of all the Scriptures. And charity itself is the root, the form and the end of the virtues, joining them all with the last end and binding all things to one another at once and in order[^p262-2]; therefore it is itself the weight of ordered inclination and the bond of perfect binding together, keeping indeed an *order* in respect of the diverse things to be loved as regards affection and effect alike, but having a *unity* in the habit as regards the one end and the one principal beloved, which is the reason of loving in respect of all the others, which through the bond of love are born to be gathered into the one Christ as regards head and body, which contains in itself the universality of those to be saved. And this unity is now begun in the way, but is consummated in eternal glory, according to what the Lord prays[^p262-3]: *that they may be one, as we also are one; and I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one*; and when that unity has been consummated through the bond of charity, *God* will be *all in all* with sure eternity and perfect peace, and all things will be common through love — ordered by communion, connected by ordering, and indissolubly bound by connection.

---

la: Gen. 1, 31. — Sententia de quatuor diligendis est August., I. de Doctr. christiana, c. 23. n. 22. — E hic addit *et ideo diligenda*; inferius vocibus *quod nos sumus* R praefigit *noster spiritus sive*, et pro *corpus nostrum* plures codd. *corpus proprium*.

en: Gen. 1, 31. — The doctrine of the four things to be loved is Augustine's, *On Christian Doctrine* I, c. 23, n. 22. — E here adds *et ideo diligenda*; below, before the words *quod nos sumus* R prefixes *noster spiritus sive*, and for *corpus nostrum* several codices have *corpus proprium*.

la: Matth. 22, 40. — De hoc cap. vide III. Sent. d. 28. et 29. per totam; de modo diligendi Deum cfr. ibid. d. 27. a. 2. q. 5. seq.

en: Matth. 22, 40. — On this chapter see III *Sent.*, dd. 28 and 29 throughout; on the manner of loving God cf. ibid., d. 27, a. 2, q. 5 and following.

la: Vide August., de Doctr. christiana, c. 32. n. 35.

en: See Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine*, c. 32, n. 35.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 1-3. et dub. 1. — Aliquanto inferius pro *quatuor tantum* edd., excepta 2, *quatuor tanquam*.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 27, a. 1, qq. 1–3, and dub. 1. — Somewhat below, for *quatuor tantum* the editions, edition 2 excepted, have *quatuor tanquam*.

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 639, nota 3. — De origine affectionum mentalium ex amore cfr. supra pag. 238, nota 4. — Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. dub. 2.

en: See tom. III, p. 639, note 3. — On the origin of the mental affections from love cf. above, p. 238, note 4. — Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 27, dub. 2.

la: Vide supra c. 4. — Edd. *finis virtutum, quae iungit omnes... et ligat omnia... et ordinat* [2 *ordinate*]*, ac per hoc ipsa etc.*

en: See above, c. 4. — The editions have *finis virtutum, quae iungit omnes... et ligat omnia... et ordinat* [edition 2 *ordinate*]*, ac per hoc ipsa etc.*

la: Ioan. 17, 22. seq. — Seq. locus est I. Cor. 15, 28. — Superius post *aliorum* Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *dilectorum* (2 *diligendorum*), quae etiam subinde pro *universitatem* substituunt *unitatem*. Pro *Quae unitas* 2 cum pluribus codd. perperam *Quae universitas*.

en: John 17, 22 and following. — The following passage is I Cor. 15, 28. — Above, after *aliorum* the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 add *dilectorum* (edition 2 *diligendorum*), which also thereupon substitute *unitatem* for *universitatem*. For *Quae unitas* edition 2, with several codices, wrongly has *Quae universitas*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 261–262, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A HEADING ON THE BAND.** `Cap. VIII. / De exercitio gratiae respectu diligendorum.` stands about **one-third down p. 261's RIGHT column**, immediately below Cap. VII's close, with a **ONE-line** subtitle, exactly where `bon-brev-p5-c7` placed it. Cap. VIII fills the rest of p. 261's right column to `…natum est etiam pervenire et *corpus nostrum* tanquam beatificabile cum`; breaks across the leaf **ON A PREPOSITION STRANDED FROM THE ABLATIVE IT GOVERNS** (`beatificabile cum` / `spiritu:`); and fills p. 262's **LEFT column entire**, closing at its foot with `…et connexione indissolubiliter alligata.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. IX. / De exercitio gratiae respectu agendorum, praeceptorum et consiliorum.` heading standing at the very TOP of p. 262's RIGHT column**, with a **TWO-line** subtitle and Cap. IX's own text following below it. No claim here rests on white space, on a grammatically complete tail, or on a running head. ★ **ONE break only, and it is a shape not yet seen in Pars V: a preposition severed from its own object across a leaf.** Cap. VII gave three breaks; this capitulum gives one, and it is the leaf break. ★★ **AND CAP. VIII DOES NOT CROSS p. 262's GUTTER AT ALL: the capitulum ends exactly where the left column ends, so on this leaf the capitulum boundary and the column boundary are the same line.** The index's hypothesis that Cap. IX opens on p. 262 is CONFIRMED, and the span it implied for Cap. VIII (pp. 261–262) is right too; neither fact licenses inferring the next span from the next pair of openings.

**★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE THIRTEENTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF.** p. 262's head reads **`262   BREVILOQUII PARS V. C. IX.`** on a page whose entire LEFT column is still Cap. VIII. Read on the band; used for nothing. The boundary was set from the `Cap. IX.` heading in the right column.

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE BREAK, NOT AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY — as in `p5-c6` and `p5-c7`, and for the same reason.** The leaf break falls **mid-paragraph**, inside the *Ratio autem* paragraph, between `beatificabile cum` and `spiritu:`, and the paragraph's own end is only nine words further on; `<!-- page 262 -->` therefore stands **at the break itself**, so that the printed page each line belongs to stays recoverable. A marker moved down to the paragraph end would have put ten words of p. 262 on p. 261.

**Gutters — one adopted from the brief and re-cut, one RE-DERIVED.** **p. 261 = 1232**, adopted per the dispatch (measured and confirmed by `p5-c7`; the column bands were re-cut at 1232 here and the right column reads clean edge to edge). — **p. 262 = 1321, RE-DERIVED here and NOT adopted from `p5-c7`'s advance measurement.** `colcrop.py vol5 262` with no constant returns `split_x=1321, low-ink run 61 px` — inside the 58–64 px sound band — and the per-column ink profile was printed anyway, per the standing rule, and explains why: over the body rows (45–92 % of page height) the blank band runs **x = 1291–1351**, and it carries **ONE in-gutter island at x = 1318–1324, peaking at 732 rows on x = 1321 — the printed column rule, and it is CENTRED**, the band's own midpoint being 1321. Upper window (45–65 %): band 1291–1352, rule 1320–1324. Lower window (74–92 %): band 1288–1371, rule 1318–1321. So the leaf carries a **~2 px leftward skew** and the default IS the answer. Adopted **1321** — identical to the value `p5-c7` recorded in advance, arrived at independently. ★★ **This is the column rule's CENTRED branch confirmed for a third consecutive leaf (pp. 260 excepted, then 261, now 262): centred rule → the zero-ink run spans the whole band → the windows agree → the default is right. It remains a description of these leaves, not a licence: the profile costs nothing and it is the only thing that tells you WHY the windows agreed.** ★ **p. 263 was NOT imaged and NOT measured — Cap. VIII does not reach it.**

**Apparatus (7 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 261 nn. 6–9** (inherited, every claim re-derived, closing that register entire) and **p. 262 nn. 1–3** (first-read). Every anchor below was read on the band at 450 dpi under direct high-factor zoom.
- p. 261 n. **6** on `licet omnia opera divina sint *valde bona*`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, three lines below the `Cap. VIII.` heading, in the opening thesis, beside the `Thesis 1.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 261 n. **7** on `in quo pendet universitas Legis et Prophetarum`⁷ — **RIGHT** column, closing the third thesis, five lines below the `Thesis 3.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 261 n. **8** on `in eo quiescendum tanquam in fine`⁸ — **RIGHT** column, closing the *hoc ipso quod* chain in the *Ratio* paragraph; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 261 n. **9** on `et ipsum est ratio diligendi`⁹ — **RIGHT** column, four lines below n. 8; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 262 n. **1** on `quia amor est pondus mentis`¹ — **LEFT** column, on the FIRST line of the *Postremo* paragraph; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 262 n. **2** on `ligans omnia ad invicem simul et ordinate`² — **LEFT** column, inside the *Et caritas ipsa est radix* sentence; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 262 n. **3** on `iuxta quod Dominus orat`³ — **LEFT** column, immediately before the italic Ioan. 17 quotation; entry in the **LEFT** block.

**★★ WHAT THIS CHUNK INHERITED — p. 261 nn. 6–9, AND EVERY DECLARED CLAIM HELD WHILE THE THREE UNREAD ANCHORS TURNED OUT TO SIT IN THE COLUMN THE BLOCK *WOULD* HAVE PREDICTED — WHICH IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE BLOCK PREDICTS THEM.** `bon-brev-p5-c7` forwarded four notes: **n. 6 with ownership, column and position all declared verified**, and **nn. 7–9 with ownership and block column verified but their ANCHOR POSITIONS declared an UNREAD REGION and explicitly NOT inferred.** All of it was re-derived from p. 261's bands here rather than adopted.
- **n. 6 — every declared claim HELD.** The anchor does stand on `valde bona`⁶ three lines below the heading, beside the `Thesis 1.` gloss, and the entry's text held VERBATIM.
- **nn. 7, 8 and 9 — the three unread anchors are now read, and all three are in the RIGHT column**, on `Legis et Prophetarum`⁷, `tanquam in fine`⁸ and `ratio diligendi`⁹. ★ **The hand-off was right to refuse the inference even though the inference would have come out right this time: the whole of Cap. VIII's p. 261 portion is in the right column, so on this leaf there was nowhere else for them to be — the block agreed with the anchors by geometric accident, exactly as it disagreed with them on p. 260, where the same reasoning would have put two notes in the wrong column.**
- **n. 7's self-corroboration held and was exactly what `p5-c7` called it — a hint, not a reading.** Matth. 22, 40 (`in his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet et prophetae`) does answer to the third thesis's `duplex mandatum, in quo pendet universitas Legis et Prophetarum`, and the anchor does sit on that phrase; but n. 9's lemma `Aliquanto inferius pro quatuor tantum` is the counter-example in the same register — it answers to `quatuor tantum ex caritate diligenda esse dicuntur`, which stands at the top of **p. 262's** left column, so **that lemma points off the page the note prints on and past its own anchor by a whole column.**
- **NO forwarded summary sentence was carried.** `p5-c7`'s prose about p. 261's geometry (anchors 4/5, blocks 5/4, capitulum line between nn. 5 and 6) concerns notes this chunk does not own; the only claims used here are the four per-note ones, each re-derived.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS — p. 262 nn. 4–7, FOUR NOTES, TO `bon-brev-p5-c9`.** **p. 262's register is SEVEN** (left block nn. 1–3, right block nn. 4–7), band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`. Only nn. 1–3 anchor in Cap. VIII. For each forwarded note, what was verified is named:
- n. **4** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `decem praecepta decalogi in duabus tabulis conscripta *digito Dei*`⁴, in Cap. IX's opening thesis, **RIGHT** column, six lines below the `Cap. IX.` heading; entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Exod. 31, 18. — P *conscriptis digito Dei*.`
- n. **5** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `invitat Christus Dominus noster eum qui vult esse perfectus`⁵, closing Cap. IX's second/third thesis block, **RIGHT** column; entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Matth. 19, 21: Si vis esse perfectus, vade, vende quae habes etc.`
- n. **6** — **OWNERSHIP and BLOCK COLUMN verified; the ANCHOR POSITION is an UNREAD REGION and is deliberately NOT inferred.** Entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. — Aliquanto superius Vat. et 3 *in universo regimine* pro *universi regimine*, refragantibus praeter 1 et 2 multis codd., inter quos L M T, (A *in universi regiminis dispositione*), et pro *summe iusti* cum G I K O et 2 *summae iustitiae*.`
- n. **7** — **OWNERSHIP and BLOCK COLUMN verified; the ANCHOR POSITION is an UNREAD REGION.** Entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Respicitur Rom. 8, 15. et Gal. 4, 24. seqq. — Inferius pro *documentorum* E *mandatorum*.`
★ **The digits and sigla in nn. 6–7 were read on the band while establishing the register's total, and are forwarded as read; `bon-brev-p5-c9` must still re-derive every one of them, and must read the two unread anchors rather than infer them from the block.**

**Runover findings — TWO OWED, TWO CLOSED, BOTH NEGATIVE.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 261 → p. 262 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, as owed.* p. 261's right footer block ends **complete** at n. 9 (`…excepta 2, *quatuor tanquam*.`) with clear paper below it, and **p. 262's left footer block opens NUMBERED: `¹ Vide tom. III. pag. 639, nota 3.`**
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 262 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, and this chunk's own.* p. 262's left block ends **complete** at n. 3 (`…perperam *Quae universitas*.`) with clear paper below it, and **p. 262's right block opens NUMBERED: `⁴ Exod. 31, 18.`**
- *One ledger line, `p5-c8  -`.*
- *NOT re-logged here:* the p. 260 → p. 261 test and p. 261's own gutter test (both `p5-c7`); `p.259 n.5:gutter` and `p.260 n.3:gutter` and the p. 258 → p. 259 and p. 259 → p. 260 tests (all four `p5-c6`); p. 257's own gutter test, p. 257 → p. 258 and p. 258's own gutter test (all three `p5-c5`); p. 256's own gutter test and p. 256 → p. 257 (both `p5-c4`); `p.255 n.8:gutter` and the p. 254 → p. 255 and p. 255 → p. 256 tests (all three `p5-c3`); `p.253 n.9:page` and `p.254 n.3:gutter` (both `p5-c2`); the p. 252 → p. 253 test and p. 253's own gutter test (both `p5-c1`). ★ **p. 263's gutter test and the p. 262 → p. 263 test are NOT owed here and are NOT logged — Cap. VIII closes at the foot of p. 262's left column and never touches p. 263.**

**★ NO PRINTER'S SIGNATURE AND NO QUIRE SIGNATURE ON EITHER PAGE.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` last fell on p. 257 with the quire signature `33`. p. 261 carries neither mark (confirmed by `p5-c7`, re-confirmed here while re-reading its right block to its last line) and **p. 262 carries neither** — both of p. 262's blocks were read to their last line, both end on a numbered entry's own last line, and the whole strip below them is blank paper. The next signature remains due around p. 265. **Neither mark is ever an entry; neither was counted, because neither is here.**

**★★ p. 262's FOOTER: ALL THREE LINES COINCIDE — anchors, blocks and the capitulum line fall in the same place.** Derived from this chunk's own per-note list above and from nothing else: p. 262's **anchors** divide **3 / 4** (nn. 1–3 LEFT column, nn. 4–7 RIGHT); its **blocks** divide **3 / 4** (nn. 1–3 LEFT, nn. 4–7 RIGHT); and its **capitulum line** falls between nn. **3 and 4**, because Cap. VIII ends at the foot of the left column and Cap. IX opens at the head of the right. **Three lines, ONE position — no dissenting note anywhere on the leaf.** ★ **The mechanism is visible and is worth naming, because it is what makes the coincidence uninteresting: the capitulum boundary here happens to be the column boundary, so all three structures are being measured against the same physical line.** ⚠ **No claim is made here about whether this is a first for Pars V.** `p5-c7` withdrew exactly such a claim from `p5-c6` one chunk ago, and establishing it would mean re-deriving pp. 252–259's anchors, which this chunk did not do. **What is asserted is p. 262 and only p. 262.**

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **This leaf-run's register is dominated by the `1`/`4` class — eight decisions turn on it — and it runs in BOTH directions inside the seven entries, with genuine `4`s and flagged `1`s standing four lines apart.**
- **★★ `Gen. 1, 31.` (p. 261 n. 6) — the `1`/`4` class, and the raw gives `(icn. \, 31`.** At 8× the sort after `Gen.` is a **narrow upright with an angled flag at the upper left and a foot serif** — glyph for glyph the same sort as the `1` of `31` three characters to its right on the SAME line, and nothing like the wide, open-topped, triangular-countered `4` of `40.` in n. 7 two lines below. ★ **Sense settles it outright and the entry checks itself against its anchor: Gen. 1, 31 is `viditque Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona`, which is word for word the `omnia opera divina sint valde bona` the anchor sits on. Gen. 4 has no verse 31.**
- **★★ `Matth. 22, 40.` (p. 261 n. 7) — a GENUINE `4` in the same register, and it is the contrast set for everything else.** The `4` of `40` is wide and open-topped with a diagonal crossing an upright; set beside n. 6's `Gen. 1` it settles both readings at once. ★ **Sense: Matth. 22, 40 is `in his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet et prophetae`, and the anchor is `duplex mandatum, in quo pendet universitas Legis et Prophetarum`.**
- **★★ `d. 27. a. 1. q. 1-3. et dub. 1.` (p. 261 n. 9) — THREE flagged `1`s in one citation, all of which the raw sets as `4`s (`d. 27. a. 1. q. 1-3. el diil). 1.` reads as `a. 4. q. 4-3. et dub. 4.` on a first pass).** Each is the narrow flagged-and-footed sort; the `3` of `1-3` is double-bowled and stands inside the hyphenated pair as its own contrast. ★ **Sense settles it: III *Sent.* d. 27 is the distinction *de caritate*, its a. 1 qq. 1–3 are the questions on what charity is, and dub. 1 exists; `a. 4` does not.**
- **★★ `c. 23. n. 22.` (p. 261 n. 6) and `c. 32. n. 35.` (p. 261 n. 8) — the `3`/`5` class, twice, and each entry supplies its own contrast.** In `c. 32. n. 35.` the `3`s are double-bowled and the `5` is a flat top bar over a single lower bowl, and the two sorts stand nine characters apart on one line. ★ **Sense settles n. 6: Augustine, *De doctrina christiana* I, c. 23, n. 22 is precisely where the four things to be loved (God, self, neighbour, body) are set out — which is what the entry says it is citing.**
- **★★ `pag. 639, nota 3.` and `pag. 238, nota 4.` and `d. 27. dub. 2.` (p. 262 n. 1) — SIX decisions in one entry, and the `4` of `nota 4` is genuine.** `639` and `238` are unambiguous; the two `3`s are double-bowled; `nota 4.` prints the wide open-topped sort, the same as `Matth. 22, 40`'s and not the same as `Gen. 1`'s.
- **★★ `Vide supra c. 4.` (p. 262 n. 2) — a GENUINE `4`, and the sense is decisive.** The sort is wide and open-topped. ★ **Pars V Cap. IV is *De ramificatione gratiae in habitus virtutum*, which is where `caritas` as the *forma et finis virtutum* was set out — exactly what the anchor sentence repeats. Cap. I (*De gratia, in quantum est donum divinitus datum*) has nothing to do with it, so a misread `c. 1.` would have been a well-formed cross-reference pointing at the wrong chapter.**
- **★★ `I. Cor. 15, 28.` (p. 262 n. 3) — the `1`/`4` AND the `3`/`5` classes in one two-digit number, and the raw sets it `I. Cor. 45, 28`.** The first sort is the narrow flagged upright, matching the `1` of `Ioan. 17,` on the same line; the second is the flat-top-bar `5`. ★ **Sense settles it twice over: I Cor. 15, 28 is `ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus`, which is verbatim the `erit Deus omnia in omnibus` the note is annotating, and I Corinthians has sixteen chapters, so `45` is impossible on its face.** ★ **`Ioan. 17, 22` likewise checks itself: `ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus` is the body's own italic quotation.**
- **★★ SIGLA — `E` and `R` (p. 261 n. 6), `Vat.` with `1 et 3` and `2` (p. 262 n. 3), `2` (p. 262 n. 2).** `R` in n. 6 is a single-bowled upright with a leg, in the witness slot, and the raw's `K` for it is the volume's chronic `R`/`K` corruption running in its usual direction. ★ **`Vat., 1 et 3 addunt … (2 diligendorum)` is the fifth or later attestation of the standing rule and one of the cleanest: `Vat.` is an ABBREVIATED codex name and `1`, `2`, `3` in the same clause are EDITIONS — a numeral in the witness slot is always an edition here, and this entry sets a codex and three editions side by side.** ★ **`[2 ordinate]` in p. 262 n. 2 sets an edition numeral inside square brackets in the middle of a quoted edition-reading, with `2` roman and the reading italic; the brackets are Quaracchi's and are preserved.**

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ THE ITALIC EXTENT DIFFERS BETWEEN THE TWO STATEMENTS OF THE SAME MEMBER, IN ADJACENT SENTENCES.** The first list prints `quod *nos* sumus` with **`nos` alone italic and `sumus` ROMAN**; the second, eight lines later, prints `secundo, quod *nos sumus* sub Deo` with **both words italic**. Read at 3.2× on both lines to be sure. **Rendered as printed in both places and NOT regularised** — this is the same class of finding as Cap. VII's italic/roman split on `duodecim`, except that here the plate does *not* hold a line.
- **★★ THE SCRIPTURAL QUOTATION IN THE BODY IS ITALIC — the reverse of p. 261's apparatus, one leaf earlier.** `*ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus; et ego in eis, et tu in me, ut sint consummati in unum*` is italic throughout, and so is `*Deus omnia in omnibus*` three lines later, where `p5-c7` found p. 261 n. 1's and n. 2's Vulgate quotations set ROMAN in the identical apparatus slot. **Body and apparatus are not the same convention; both are rendered as printed and the divergence is not closed.**
- **★★ THE FOURFOLD SERIES IS ITALICISED IN THE PRESCRIPTIVE STATEMENTS AND WHOLLY ROMAN IN THE DESCRIPTIVE ONE — a sixth italic principle in the pars, and the plate holds it three times out of three.** The two *ordo* passages italicise every member (`*Deus*`, `*nos sumus*` / `*spiritus noster*`, `*proximus noster*`, `*corpus nostrum*`), and so does the summary `scilicet *Deus* et *proximus*, *spiritus noster* et *corpus nostrum*`; but the *Rursus, quoniam Deus est supra nos* sentence, which states the same four in the same order as a matter of fact rather than of precept, sets **all four wholly roman** (`Deus … spiritus noster … proximus noster … corpus vero nostrum`), as it does the four goods that answer them (`bonum supremum, intrinsecum, cognatum, subiectum`). **Transcribed as printed; nothing regularised.**
- **★★ TWO LINES AT THE FOOT OF p. 261's RIGHT COLUMN LOSE THEIR FINAL LETTERS ON THE PLATE, AND THE RAW REPRODUCES THE LOSS EXACTLY.** The band reads `quae per illud idonea su` and `Quoniam igitur nobiscum ad beatitudin`, and the djvu raw reads the same (`idonca su`, `heatiludin`) — so this is a defect in the printed leaf or its film, not an OCR failure. The column's justified right margin sits at x ≈ 2217 and these two lines stop 37 px and 51 px short of it, which is exactly the width of the missing `nt` and `em`; the pixels beyond are pure paper (minimum grey value 234–236, i.e. no ink at all), and the two lines below them return to the full margin. **Rendered whole as `idonea sunt` and `ad beatitudinem` under the battered-sort rule** — grammar, sense and the measured shortfall all agree, and no other reading is possible. **No `[?]` flag: the reasoning is recorded here rather than compressed into one.**
- **★ THE `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` COLON — TWENTY-FIRST consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–X, Pars V capp. I–VIII). Here it opens on a **bare `quia` + a five-link `hoc ipso quod` ladder with no `cum` at all** — the first time in Pars V the formula is followed by neither a `cum … sit` frame nor a plain causal `cum`, and a sixth shape in eight capitula. The marginal gloss `Ratio.` marks it, as it did in Cap. VII.
- **★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION FALLS TO THREE, AND ALL THREE FALL INSIDE PARAGRAPHS.** Two stand in the opening thesis paragraph, separating thesis 1 from thesis 2 and thesis 2 from thesis 3 (`et *corpus nostrum*. — In quorum dilectione…`; `bonum minus praecipuum. — Ad hoc autem…`), and the third stands inside the *Postremo* paragraph (`quod dirigit in proximum. — Et quia omnia praecepta…`). **None articulates a paragraph turn.** ★ **Note what the first two do that no dash in Pars V has done before: they mark the divisions the marginal glosses `Thesis 1. / Thesis 2. / Thesis 3.` are numbering, so on this leaf the dash and the gloss agree about the structure — which they did not on p. 261's Cap. VII portion, where the two dashes marked nothing the glosses counted.**
- **`Deus`, `Dei`, `Deo`, `Deum`, `Christum`, `Dominus`, `Legis`, `Prophetarum`, `Scripturarum`, `Sent.`, `Vat.` are capitalised as printed**, and `caritas`, `amor`, `ordo`, `modus`, `mandatum`, `habitus`, `spiritus`, `corpus`, `proximus`, `virtutum`, `gloria` are not; the English follows. ★ **`spiritus noster` is lower-case at every one of its five occurrences, including where it names the second of the four things to be loved and stands in exact parallel with the capitalised `Deus` — the same deliberate asymmetry the plate kept between `Divinitas` and `humanitas` in Cap. VII.** `iuxta`, `iungens` and `inchoatur` keep the plate's `i`, and `tanquam`, `assumta`-class spellings and `exsequendum` stand as printed.

**★★ ENUMERATION — THE ORDER OF CHARITY IS FOURFOLD, WHICH IS THE EXPECTED NUMBER; BUT THE CHAPTER'S ARCHITECTURE IS 4 / 1 / 2, AND THE SECOND MEMBER IS RENAMED BETWEEN ITS TWO STATEMENTS.** Counted off the plate, not off the doctrine. **(a) The *diligenda* are FOUR** and the count is stated as such three times: `quatuor tamen proprie sunt ex caritate diligenda`, `licet quatuor sint diligenda ex caritate`, and the summary `quatuor tantum ex caritate diligenda esse dicuntur`. The number is never italicised — unlike Cap. VII's `*duodecim*` / `*quatuordecim*`, the count here is not the thesis. **This is the Augustinian fourfold order (God, self, neighbour, body), and the apparatus says so outright: n. 6 sends the reader to `August., I. de Doctr. christiana, c. 23. n. 22`, which is where that fourfold division is made.** So on this occasion the doctrinally expected number IS the plate's number — which the Cap. VI and Cap. VII traps make worth stating explicitly rather than assuming. **(b) But the second member is named TWO WAYS.** The opening thesis calls it `quod *nos* sumus` (and the *ordo* clause `quod *nos sumus*`); the summary sentence at the head of p. 262 and the whole of the re-derivation call it `*spiritus noster*` — and **the apparatus records that a codex tried to close the gap**: n. 6 notes that before `quod nos sumus` R prefixes `noster spiritus sive`. **The body's own divergence is preserved and NOT harmonised.** **(c) The four are not the whole structure.** Against the four *diligenda* the chapter sets **ONE habit** (`datur *unus caritatis habitus*`, glossed `Unus habitus.`) and **TWO commandments** (`et *duplex mandatum*`, glossed `Duplex mandatum.`), and the *Postremo* paragraph exists precisely to explain why four objects need only two precepts and one habit. **The chapter's number is therefore not "four" but 4 / 1 / 2, and a brief that reports only the fourfold order has reported a third of it.** **(d) A FIFTH item is folded into the fourth grade without changing the count:** `et in eodem gradu contineri debet corpus proximi` — the neighbour's body is given no place of its own in the four but is assigned to the fourth degree, `quia utrumque tenet rationem inferioris boni`. **(e) The *ordo* itself is stated TWICE on different principles and the two do not use the same descriptors** — the first by rank and cause (`primo et super omnia et propter se` … `sub Deo et pro Deo` … `sicut et nos` … `infra nos et infra proximum tanquam bonum minus praecipuum`), the second by position and kind of good (`supra nos … bonum supremum`, `intra nos … bonum intrinsecum`, `iuxta nos … bonum cognatum`, `infra nos … bonum subiectum`, then `infra nos sicut bonum infimum`). **The fourth member's descriptor changes from `bonum minus praecipuum` to `bonum infimum` between them.** Recorded as printed; the two are not reconciled here because the chapter does not reconcile them.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 261 R — "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Ratio." · "Pro thesi 1." p. 262 L — "Pro thesi 2." · "Pro thesi 3." · "Duplex mandatum." · "Unus habitus." · "Unitas in Christo." · "Deus omnia in omnibus." **Eleven glosses, and a form that is neither Cap. VII's nor anything earlier: SEVENTH consecutive capitulum, SEVENTH gloss grammar.** ★ **Cap. VII ran `Thesis 1. / Thesis 2.` answered by `Pro thesi 1. / Pro thesi 2.` — a two-member pair series. Cap. VIII runs the SAME two series to THREE members each, and this time the two series do not interleave: all three `Thesis` glosses stand together on p. 261 before the `Ratio.` gloss, and all three `Pro thesi` glosses follow it, the first on p. 261 and the other two on p. 262. The answering is sequential, not alternating.** ★★ **AND THE SERIES STOPS DEAD AFTER `Pro thesi 3.`: the last three glosses (`Duplex mandatum.`, `Unus habitus.`, `Unitas in Christo.`, `Deus omnia in omnibus.` — four, in fact) abandon numbering altogether and name their topics, so ONE capitulum carries a numbered pair-series and an unnumbered topical series back to back.** ★ **Note also that `Unus habitus.` and `Duplex mandatum.` quote the body's own italic head-terms `*unus caritatis habitus*` and `*duplex mandatum*` verbatim — but they gloss the *Postremo* paragraph's re-derivation, not the thesis where those words actually stand, which is nine lines and one page earlier.** **Never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Four readings could have carried one — the two line-ends stripped of their final letters at the foot of p. 261's right column (`idonea su`, `ad beatitudin`), the `Gen. 1, 31` / `Gen. 4, 31` decision, the three uprights in `a. 1. q. 1-3. et dub. 1.`, and `I. Cor. 15, 28` against the raw's `45, 28` — and each is settled positively: by measuring the shortfall against the justified margin and confirming pure paper beyond it, by the flag-versus-open-top contrast built from the same line, and by the cited text checking itself word for word against its own anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag.

**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 Pars V agent's benefit. ★ **The headline finding is that p. 262 is the CLEANEST leaf in this stretch of Pars V — its left column and its left footer block both run near-clean where p. 261's equivalents were the worst regions on their leaf — and that on p. 261 the damage stays exactly where `p5-c7` found it: in the glosses and in the footer, not in the body.**
- **p. 261, right column (Cap. VIII's portion only) — GOOD.** `Cai>. Vlll.`, `De exerciiio gratiae respectu ililifjenilurum.` (heading and subtitle both shattered, as usual), `Ue diligendis autem liacc teneniia sunt, (piod'`, `liret omnia o|)era divina sint valde hoiui "`, `Tiic^is i.` and `Thcsii 2.` and `Ti.csis 3.` and `iiitio.` and `Pro uicsi i.` (**all five glosses spliced into the body lines, and `Pro thesi 1.`'s `1` read as a ROMAN `i` — the `1`/`I` confusion running in the direction it ran on p. 259 n. 8**), `carit;ile`, `Ucus aeternus`, `proxiuius noster`, `dilectiono serv;in-`, `Dms diligatur` (**`Deus` destroyed**), `su[)er oinnia et pi'0[)ter se`, `nos simnis`, `\bvWo , proximus navte/-` (**`tertio` and `noster` destroyed**), `corpus nmtrum`, `honum minus pracci[)uum`, `halritus et diiplex ' mandaluni`, `uniT versitas Legis et l'roi)lielarum '`, `testamentinn`, `[irimum principinm`, `lior ipso fiuod [iri-muin`, `hor ipso qnod suinmiun`, `el lioc ip.so (piod summe honum`, `heatificativum`, `suinnie Iieatifiralivum`, `i[)So sumnie fruendum`, `huen-dum^`, `amoiein`, `tanquain in line"`, `avnor` (**`amor` mangled**), `ordinatusj`, `ap[)ellatnr`, `Iruitur`, `ipsuin esl ratio diligendi"`, `hcatificativum`, `conscquens`, `idonca su` (**the plate's own loss, faithfully reproduced**), `heatiludin`, `nohiscurn`, `[)ervenire`, `Umquain Ijeatilicabile`. **About forty garbles in twenty-six printed lines, THREE words destroyed, FIVE of five glosses spliced (one with a wrong numeral), and no wrong reading that reaches the text.** ★ **Density HIGH, severity LOW-to-MODERATE. The glosses are again the worst-served part of the page — all five damaged, exactly as all six of p. 261's left-column glosses were — while the body loses only three words, every one recoverable.**
- **p. 262, left column (Cap. VIII's portion, which is the column entire) — VERY GOOD, and the cleanest column in this stretch of Pars V.** `spiritii`, `hino v^l`, `tantuni`, `(liiigenila esse dicuntur`, `supreinuni`, `iibnum intrinsecum`, `tinquani bonum cognatum`, `binc est`, `iii diligendo`, `ililigatur`, `JMnum cadu-cum`, `proximus nostei:`, `lioiinm`, `noslrixm`, `nuin iniimum`, `cnntineri`, `'corpus proximi,quia` (space lost), `lenet rationem infe-rioris`, `pondus mentis'`, `alTectionis`, `rellc-ctitur`, `diCTicuUer`, `liinc est`, `licet i|ua-`, `mmvlatum`, `verad proximum` (space lost), `Hnem`, `ost`, `inandatis`, `compreliensio`, `fouma` (**`forma` mangled**), `omncs`, `fme`, `oidinatae`, `perfe-ctae`, `respoctu`, `alTectum`, `habitii`, `oinnia`, `^esi 2.` and `iiesi 3.` and `xman-tuor` and `i iiabi-` (**four glosses spliced and shattered — `Pro thesi 2.`, `Pro thesi 3.`, `Duplex mandatum.`, `Unus habitus.`**). **About forty garbles in fifty-four printed lines, ZERO words destroyed, and FOUR of six glosses damaged.** ★ **Density LOW, severity LOW — every garble is a bracket-or-letter substitution and every word is recoverable from context. This is the first column in six leaves with no destroyed word at all.** ★ **Two glosses on this column, `Unitas in Christo.` and `Deus omnia in omnibus.`, survive the raw well enough to be read — which no gloss on p. 261 did.**
- **p. 261 footer, right block (nn. 6–9, all this chunk's) — FAIR.** `(icn. \, 31.` (**`1` destroyed**), `Sciitciiiia ilc rpiatiior ililiijcnilis csl Au-gust.`, `I. de Doctr. cliristiana , c. 23. n. 22.`, `1-: liic adilil ct ideo dilif/endn;` (**siglum `E` read as `1-:`**), `inferius \oi-ibus qiiod iios sumiis K iiracliyil` (**siglum `R` read as `K` — the chronic corruption**), `iioster ■ipiritus sicc`, `curpus noslriini plures ifoilil.`, `l)c li.oc cap. \iilc 111. Sr^nl. d. 2f(. cl 29. pcr totam` (**`d. 28` mangled**), `clc nioclo diliycucli Dciim cii-. iliid. d. 27. a. 2. q. .'). seq.` (**`q. 5` destroyed**), `Vidc Aiigust. , de Doctr. clirisliaiia, c. 32. ii. 3'6.` (**`n. 35` destroyed and read as `3'6`**), `Cff. III. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 1-3. el diil). 1.`, `.MiquanUi infcrius pi'0 ijuatiior lantum cdd., exccpla 2, iiualtnir tanqunin.`. **About sixteen garbles in eleven printed lines, FIVE items destroyed, and no wrong reading that parses.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — but note the direction of the failure and how it differs from p. 260's: here the raw destroys BOTH a lemma-side siglum (`R`→`K`) and two citation digits (`n. 35`, `q. 5`), where p. 260's footer destroyed five lemmata and left all four citations intact. Three leaves, three different failure directions in the footers.**
- **p. 262 footer, left block (nn. 1–3, all this chunk's) — GOOD, and the best footer region in six leaves.** `Vide tom. III. pag. 639, nola 3.`, `De origine affectio-num mentalium ex amore cfr. supra pag. 238, nota 4.`, `Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. dub. 2.`, `Vide supra c. 4.`, `Edd. finis virtutum, quae iungit omnes... et ligat omnia... et ordinat [2 ordinate], ac per hoc ipsa etc.`, `loan. 17, 22. seq.` (**`Ioan.` read as `los.`-class `l`-for-`I`**), `Seq. locus est I. Cor. 45, 28.` (**`15` read as `45` — the leaf's one dangerous digit**), `Superius post aliorum Vat., 1 et 3 addunt dilectorum (2 diligendorum)`, `quae etiam subinde pro universitatem substituunt unitatem.`, `Pro Quae unitas 2 cum pluribus codd. perperam Quae universitas.`. **About six garbles in twelve printed lines, ZERO items destroyed, and ONE wrong reading that reaches the text.** ★ **Density LOW, severity MODERATE — and the one defect is the dangerous kind: `I. Cor. 45, 28` does not parse as a real citation, so it is *not* of the `ad finum` / `d. 23` class that passes silently; but a reader who normalised it to `4, 5` or `45` without checking would have produced one. It is settled by the flagged `1` against `Ioan. 17`'s on the same line and by I Cor. 15, 28 quoting the anchor's own words.**
- **p. 262 footer, right block (nn. 4–7, none of them this chunk's) — read to its last line to establish the register's total of SEVEN and to close the gutter test; not graded here beyond noting that it opens NUMBERED at n. 4 (`Exod. 31, 18.`) and ends complete at n. 7 (`Inferius pro documentorum E mandatorum.`) with clear paper below.**

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0