title: Dist. 48, Dubia

source_text:
<!-- page 995 -->

### Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels are page-qualified: notes 5–9 of page 995 (notes 1–4 of that page belong to the preceding chunk, *d48-a2-q4*), notes 1–9 of page 996, and notes 1–8 of page 997. Page 997 carries a second, separately numbered register headed *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum*, which belongs to the littera of distinction 49 and is not reproduced here.

### Dubium I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quia non in terra, sed in spatio aëris sedebit contra montem Oliveti.* Obiicitur enim tunc contra hoc de iudicandis, quia tota terra promissionis non posset capere omnes homines, qui iudicandi sunt. — *Si dicas,* quod erunt in aëre; *contra:* corpora *damnatorum* erunt ponderosa: ergo non erunt in aëre. — *Si dicas,* quod erunt in aëre *electorum* corpora; cum damnati sint innumerabiliter plures, quomodo poterunt esse in terra?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod credendum est, in iudicio Dominum descensurum in eum locum, unde ascendit, sicut colligitur ex textu, Actuum primo[^p995-5].

Quod quaeritur, utrum descendat ad terram; credendum est, ipsum in loco eminentiori esse futurum, unde ceteri poterunt videre ipsum. — *Si quaeras* de multitudine, dici potest, quod multi erunt in terra, et in parva terra innumerabilia millia hominum esse poterunt, quoniam constringentur; nec intelligendum est, quod ipsi omnes inter illam valliculam includantur, quia hoc est puerile, ut dicit Hieronymus[^p995-6], sed quod erunt ibi et in locis circumiacentibus; et si necesse fuerit, electi erunt in aëre per corporum agilitatem, et damnati etiam esse poterunt, divina suspendente virtute[^p995-7].

### Dubium II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sol et luna obscurari dicuntur, non sui luminis privatione.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia Rabanus super Matthaeum[^p995-8]: « Nihil prohibet, inquit, intelligere, veraciter solem et lunam cum sideribus ceteris suo lumine privari, quomodo factum de sole constat tempore dominicae passionis ». — Item, *ratione* videtur: quia turbulentia est in mundo propter peccatum hominis, et corpora omnia debent ostendere se ad honorem divinum facta, et nihil innovatur, nisi aliquo modo veterascat; unde homo non glorificatur, nisi resurgat. Si ergo in fine peccatum hominis excrescet, et superbia antichristi super caelos ascendet in vituperium Dei, quamvis non possit vituperari, et illa corpora debent renovari: ergo totus mundus debet obscurari, tum propter peccatum hominis, tum propter contumeliam Dei, tum propter renovationem mundi: ergo male dicit in littera[^p995-9].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hic non est contrarietas; potest enim esse, quod aliqua obscuratio in stellis accidet primo; sed post renovationem ex

<!-- page 996 -->

praesentia corporis Christi et aliorum corporum erit obscuratio solum in *apparentia,* vel etiam in *comparatione;* et ita utrumque potest esse verum secundum diversa tempora, et utrumque satis probabile[^p996-1].

### Dubium III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *magnus dicitur propter magna, quae ibi fient.* Quaeritur, quae sint illa *magna,* quae fient tunc, et signa, quae praecedent.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ita consuevit referri[^p996-2], quod primo die maria omnia exaltabuntur quindecim cubitis super excelsos montes, orbem terrae non affluentia, sed sicut nunc aequora faciunt[^p996-3]. — Secundo omnia aequora prosternentur in imum profundi, ita quod vix queant humanis obtutibus aspici. — Tertio omnia maria redigentur in antiquum statum, qualia ab exordio creata fuerunt. — Quarto belluae omnes et omnia quae moventur in aquis, congregabuntur et levabuntur super pelagus, more contentionis invicem mugientes, nescientque homines, quid cogitent, sed tantum Deus[^p996-4]. — Quinto omnia volatilia caeli congregabuntur in campis, unumquodque genus in ordine suo; eodem modo volucres invicem plorantes erunt, non gustantes neque bibentes, sed adventum iudicis timentes. — Sexto flumina ignea surgent ab occasu solis contra faciem firmamenti usque ad ortum corruentia[^p996-5]. — Septimo errantia sidera et stationaria omnia spargent ex se igneas comas, qualiter in cometis apparet signum orbi cum habitatoribus suis. — Octavo terrae motus erit magnus, ut nullus homo possit stare et nullum animal, sed solo prosternentur omnia. — Nono omnes lapides tam parvi quam magni scindentur in quatuor partes, et unaquaeque pars collidet alteram partem, nescietque homo sonum illius, nisi solus Deus. — Decimo die omnia ligna silvarum et olera herbarum sanguineum fluent rorem. — Undecimo omnes montes et colles et omnia aedificia humana arte constructa in pulverem redigentur. — Duodecimo omnia animalia terrae venient ad campos de silvis et montibus rugientia et mugientia, non gustantia neque bibentia. — Tertiodecimo die omnia sepulcra ab ortu solis usque ad occasum patebunt, cadaveribus surgentibus, usque ad horam sepulcri finalis, id est diem iudicii. — Quartodecimo die omne humanum genus, quod inventum fuerit, de habitaculis[^p996-6] descendet velociter, non intelligentes neque loquentes, sed discurrentes. — Quintodecimo die homines morientur, ut resurgant cum mortuis longe ante defunctis. — Haec utrum ita se habeant, Deus novit[^p996-7].

### Dubium IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *lux solis erit septempliciter, id est sicut lux septem dierum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia lux solis tunc[^p996-8] non excedebat lucem, quam modo habet, tantum, quantum sol excedit lunam; quia, si luna luxisset, sicut nunc sol, certe non fuisset nox: ergo si debet semper proportio servari in corporibus mundi, ergo male exponit, cum dicit: *Erit, sicut fuit in prima conditione.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *sicut* dicit *similitudinem,* non *quantitatem,* pro eo quod amplior lucis quantitas erit post quam ante, quia omnia debent meliorari, homine meliorato[^p996-9]; et homo erit melior in caelo post resurrectionem, quam erat in paradiso ante peccatum. Unde per illud quod dicit

<!-- page 997 -->

*septempliciter,* intelligitur, quod augmentabitur usque ad perfectam additionem[^p997-1].

### Dubium V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *non erit vicissitudo diei et noctis.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si haec luminaria facta sunt propter *diem et noctem,* sicut dicitur primo Genesis[^p997-2]: ergo cessante nocte, debet cessare luminare, quod factum est, *ut praeesset nocti.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum dicitur, quod luna facta est, *ut praeesset nocti,* non assignatur ratio *productionis substantiae,* sed *paucitatis luminis,* ut esset tantum, quod compateretur noctem, secundum substantiam vero factum propter perfectionem universi. Et quoniam non erit tunc nox, sed dies perfecta, dabitur lunae luminositas competens diei, qualis est luminositas solis; et solis luminositas crescet usque ad perfectum diem[^p997-3].

### Dubium VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Significat, his qui tunc erunt in aeterna beatitudine, nullum lucis usum praestare.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia omnia facta sunt propter hominem[^p997-4]: ergo si nullam facient homini utilitatem, frustra erunt: ergo si nihil est tunc frustra, non debent remanere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc erit ad gloriam electorum. Sicut enim gloria est regi habere plurimas cameras in palatio et pulcram coquinam, quamvis[^p997-5] non ingrediatur; sic electis erit gloria et honor, quod non solum aula paradisi et caelum empyreum sit pulcrum, sed etiam, quod caelum sidereum et antiquum habitaculum.

### Dubium VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Isidorus: *Non veniet ad occasum nec sol nec luna, ne impii in tormentis sub terra positi fruantur luce eorum.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia impii sunt in medio terrae, vel circa medium; alioquin non sunt in imo[^p997-6]; immo quia quaelibet superficies terrae est superior respectu medii: ergo sicut non vident solem, cum est in nostro hemisphaerio, ita non vident, cum revolvitur per illud.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non est intelligendum, quod infernus sit sub terra, quasi sit in *alia superficie* terrae nobis opposita, cui nos sumus inferiores, sicut et ipsa nobis; sed intelligendum est, infernum esse *sub terra*[^p997-7]; verumtamen possibile est, quod infernus habeat aliquod amplum os, et si sol revolveretur, possibile esset, quod aliquando eis beneficium lucis praeberet; et pro tanto loquitur Isidorus[^p997-8].

---

english:
<!-- page 995 -->

### Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: *That he will sit not on the earth, but in the space of the air over against the Mount of Olives.* For an objection is then raised against this, concerning those who are to be judged, because the whole land of promise could not hold all the men who are to be judged. — *If you say* that they will be in the air, *on the contrary:* the bodies *of the damned* will be heavy: therefore they will not be in the air. — *If you say* that the bodies *of the elect* will be in the air, then, since the damned are innumerably more numerous, how will they be able to be on the earth?

**I respond:** It must be said that it is to be believed that at the judgement the Lord will descend to that place from which he ascended, as is gathered from the text, Acts the first[^p995-5].

As to what is asked, whether he will descend to the earth: it is to be believed that he will be in a more eminent place, whence the rest will be able to see him. — *If you ask* about the multitude, it can be said that many will be on the earth, and in a small land innumerable thousands of men can be, since they will be pressed together; nor is it to be understood that they will all be enclosed within that little valley, because this is childish, as Jerome says[^p995-6], but that they will be there and in the surrounding places; and if it be necessary, the elect will be in the air through the agility of their bodies, and the damned too will be able to be, by the divine power holding them up[^p995-7].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *The sun and moon are said to be darkened, not by the privation of their own light.* For he seems to speak badly, because Rabanus on Matthew[^p995-8] says: « Nothing forbids us to understand that the sun and moon, with the rest of the stars, are truly deprived of their own light, as is agreed to have happened to the sun at the time of the Lord's passion ». — Likewise, it seems so *by reason:* because there is turbulence in the world on account of man's sin, and all bodies ought to show themselves to have been made for the divine honour, and nothing is renewed unless it in some way grows old; whence man is not glorified unless he rise again. If therefore at the end man's sin will increase, and the pride of antichrist will ascend above the heavens unto the reproach of God — although he cannot be reproached — and those bodies ought to be renewed: therefore the whole world ought to be darkened, both on account of man's sin, and on account of the contumely done to God, and on account of the renewal of the world: therefore he speaks badly in the text[^p995-9].

**I respond:** It must be said that here there is no contrariety; for it can be that some darkening will befall the stars first; but after the renewal, from

<!-- page 996 -->

the presence of the body of Christ and of the other bodies, there will be a darkening only in *appearance,* or else in *comparison;* and thus both can be true according to different times, and both are sufficiently probable[^p996-1].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *he is called great on account of the great things which will happen there.* It is asked what those *great things* are which will happen then, and the signs which will precede.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is customarily reported thus[^p996-2], that on the first day all the seas will be raised fifteen cubits above the high mountains, not flooding the globe of the earth, but standing as the waters now do[^p996-3]. — Secondly, all the waters will be laid low into the lowest depth, so that they can scarcely be looked upon by human eyes. — Thirdly, all the seas will be reduced to their ancient state, such as they were created from the beginning. — Fourthly, all the sea-beasts and all things that move in the waters will be gathered together and lifted up above the deep, bellowing at one another after the manner of strife, and men will not know what they think, but God alone[^p996-4]. — Fifthly, all the birds of heaven will be gathered together in the fields, each kind in its own order; in the same way the birds will be lamenting one to another, not eating nor drinking, but fearing the coming of the Judge. — Sixthly, rivers of fire will rise from the setting of the sun against the face of the firmament, rushing on unto its rising[^p996-5]. — Seventhly, the wandering stars and the fixed ones will all scatter from themselves fiery tresses, as in comets a sign appears to the world with its inhabitants. — Eighthly, there will be a great earthquake, so that no man can stand and no animal, but all will be laid flat upon the ground. — Ninthly, all stones, small as well as great, will be split into four parts, and each part will strike against the other, and man will not know the sound of it, but God alone. — On the tenth day all the trees of the forests and the herbs of the field will drip a bloody dew. — Eleventhly, all mountains and hills and all buildings constructed by human art will be reduced to dust. — Twelfthly, all the animals of the earth will come to the plains out of the woods and mountains, roaring and bellowing, not eating nor drinking. — On the thirteenth day all the sepulchres from the rising of the sun unto its setting will lie open, the corpses rising, until the hour of the final sepulchre, that is, the day of judgement. — On the fourteenth day the whole human race, whatever shall be found of it, will come down swiftly from its dwellings[^p996-6], not understanding nor speaking, but running to and fro. — On the fifteenth day men will die, that they may rise again with those who died long before. — Whether these things are so, God knows[^p996-7].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *the light of the sun will be sevenfold, that is, as the light of seven days.* For he seems to speak badly, because the light of the sun then[^p996-8] did not exceed the light which it now has by as much as the sun exceeds the moon; because, if the moon had shone as the sun now does, certainly there would have been no night: therefore, if a proportion must always be preserved among the bodies of the world, then he expounds it badly when he says: *It will be as it was in the first condition.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *as* states a *likeness,* not a *quantity,* inasmuch as the quantity of light will be greater afterwards than before, since all things ought to be bettered, man having been bettered[^p996-9]; and man will be better in heaven after the resurrection than he was in paradise before sin. Hence by that which he says

<!-- page 997 -->

*sevenfold,* it is understood that it will be increased unto a perfect addition[^p997-1].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *there will be no alternation of day and night.* For he seems to speak badly: because, if these luminaries were made for the sake of *day and night,* as is said in the first of Genesis[^p997-2]: therefore, night ceasing, that luminary ought to cease which was made *that it might rule the night.*

**I respond:** It must be said that when it is said that the moon was made *that it might rule the night,* the reason assigned is not that of *the production of its substance,* but of *the scantiness of its light,* that it should be only so much as would be compatible with night; but according to its substance it was made for the perfection of the universe. And since there will then be no night, but perfect day, there will be given to the moon a luminosity befitting the day, such as is the luminosity of the sun; and the luminosity of the sun will increase unto the perfect day[^p997-3].

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *It signifies that to those who will then be in eternal beatitude it affords no use of light.* For he seems to speak badly, because all things were made for man's sake[^p997-4]: therefore if they will render no usefulness to man, they will be in vain: therefore, if nothing is then in vain, they ought not to remain.

**I respond:** It must be said that this will be unto the glory of the elect. For just as it is a glory to a king to have very many chambers in his palace and a beautiful kitchen, although[^p997-5] he does not enter it; so to the elect it will be glory and honour that not only the hall of paradise and the empyrean heaven is beautiful, but also that the starry heaven and their ancient dwelling-place is.

### Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which Isidore says: *Neither sun nor moon will come to its setting, lest the wicked, placed in torments beneath the earth, should enjoy their light.* For he seems to speak badly: because the wicked are in the middle of the earth, or about the middle; otherwise they are not in the lowest place[^p997-6]; indeed, since any surface of the earth whatever is higher in respect of the middle: therefore, just as they do not see the sun when it is in our hemisphere, so they do not see it when it revolves through that other one.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is not to be understood that hell is beneath the earth as though it were on *another surface* of the earth opposite to us, to which we are lower, as it also is to us; but it is to be understood that hell is *beneath the earth*[^p997-7]; nevertheless it is possible that hell has some wide mouth, and if the sun were to revolve, it would be possible that it might sometimes afford them the benefit of light; and it is to that extent that Isidore speaks[^p997-8].

---

la: Vers. 11. — Inferius plures codd. *eminenti* pro *eminentiori,* et verbo *poterunt* praemittunt cum ed. 1 perperam *non.*

en: Verse 11. — Below, several codices read *eminenti* for *eminentiori,* and before the verb *poterunt* they prefix, with edition 1, wrongly, *non.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4, ubi allegatur expositio in Ioel 3, 2, quae est Glossa *ordinaria* apud Lyranum. — Superius pro *quoniam* codd. G H (bb a secunda manu) *quando.* Inferius pro *per… agilitatem* codd. A V W *pro* [Vat. *prae…*] *agilitate.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4, where the exposition on Joel 3, 2 is alleged, which is the *ordinary* Gloss in Lyra. — Above, for *quoniam* codices G H (bb by a second hand) read *quando.* Below, for *per… agilitatem* codices A V W read *pro* [the Vatican edition, *prae…*] *agilitate.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 25. m. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 7.

en: On this doubt compare Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. III. q. 25. m. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 4. little-question 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 4; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 7.

la: Cap. 24, 29. (In edd. oper. Rabani expositio v. 4-36. desideratur, quia, ut in nota subiecta dicitur, inter excudendum a militibus, omnia vastantibus, deperdita est). Eadem tamen verba iam occurrunt apud Bedam, IV. in Marc. 13, 24.

en: Chapter 24, 29. (In the editions of Rabanus' works the exposition of verses 4–36 is lacking, because, as is said in the note appended there, during the printing it was lost through soldiers who were laying everything waste). The same words nevertheless already occur in Bede, IV. on Mark 13, 24.

la: Scilicet in textu huius dubii.

en: Namely, in the text of this doubt.

la: Codd. L P Q bb supplent *est.* Superius pro *renovationem* cod. aa *resurrectionem.* — De hoc dubio vide Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 25. m. 1. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5.

en: Codices L P Q bb supply *est.* Above, for *renovationem* codex aa reads *resurrectionem.* — On this doubt see Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. III. q. 25. m. 1. a. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 4. little-question 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 4; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 5.

la: Petr. Damian., Opusc. 59. de Novissimis et antichristo, c. 4: « Illud tamen, quod de quindecim signis totidem dierum diem iudicii praecedentium B. *Hieronymum* referre didicimus, hic eisdem verbis inserere non superfluum iudicamus… Res ergo, sicut ad nos pervenit, huius stilo se simpliciter inserat, ut antiquis etiam Hebraeorum populis… *ex eorum paginis* [Petr. Comestor, Histor. scholast. in Evang. c. 141, et Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. de Hieronymo referunt, quod ipse dicit, se haec signa legisse in annalibus libris Hebraeorum] innotescat ». In seqq. verba Petri Damiani a nostra lectione divergentia afferemus.

en: Peter Damian, *Opusculum* 59, *On the Last Things and Antichrist,* c. 4: « That, however, which we have learned Blessed *Jerome* to report concerning the fifteen signs of as many days preceding the day of judgement, we judge it not superfluous to insert here in the same words… Let the matter therefore, as it has come down to us, simply insert itself into his style, so that it may become known also to the ancient peoples of the Hebrews… *from their own pages* [Peter Comestor, *Scholastic History, on the Gospel,* c. 141, and Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 3, report of Jerome that he himself says that he read these signs in the annalistic books of the Hebrews] ». In what follows we shall give the words of Peter Damian that diverge from our reading.

la: Petr. Damian. *sicut muri aequora stabunt,* et superius pro *orbem terrae* substituit *orbis terrae* (coniungens cum praecedentibus *excelsos montes*); codd. N aa vocibus *orbem terrae* praemittunt *et,* codd. I K *super.* Pro *non affluentia,* pro quo non pauci codd. *effluentia,* edd. *et superoffluentia,* quae etiam immediate post omittunt *sed;* cod. bb legit: *orbis terrae, sed non affluentia erunt, sicut nunc aequora faciunt.* Inferius voci *humanis* Petr. Damian. praefigit *ab.*

en: Peter Damian reads *the waters will stand like walls,* and above, for *orbem terrae* he substitutes *orbis terrae* (joining it with the preceding *excelsos montes*); codices N aa prefix *et* to the words *orbem terrae,* codices I K *super.* For *non affluentia,* in place of which not a few codices read *effluentia,* the editions read *et superoffluentia,* which likewise immediately afterwards omit *sed;* codex bb reads: *orbis terrae, sed non affluentia erunt, sicut nunc aequora faciunt.* Below, to the word *humanis* Peter Damian prefixes *ab.*

la: Petr. Damian.: *mugientes et rugientes, nescientque homines, quid cantent, vel quid cogitent, sed tantum scit Deus, cui omnia vivunt, officio gerendi.* Mox pro *congregabuntur* Petr. Damian. *concionabuntur;* deinde vero pro *eodem modo volucres invicem* idem substituit *eaedem volucres invicem colloquentes et.*

en: Peter Damian: *bellowing and roaring, and men will not know what they sing, or what they think, but God alone knows, to whom all things live, by the office of bearing them.* Shortly after, for *congregabuntur* Peter Damian reads *concionabuntur;* and then for *eodem modo volucres invicem* the same author substitutes *eaedem volucres invicem colloquentes et.*

la: Cod. H cum Petr. Damian. *currentia,* nonnulli codd. vel *concurrentia* vel *congruentia.* Superius pro *flumina* edd. *fulmina.* Inferius pro *signum orbi cum… suis* Petr. Damian. *orbi et eius.*

en: Codex H, with Peter Damian, reads *currentia;* some codices read either *concurrentia* or *congruentia.* Above, for *flumina* the editions read *fulmina.* Below, for *signum orbi cum… suis* Peter Damian reads *orbi et eius.*

la: Petr. Damian. prosequitur: *et de locis, in quibus erunt, velociter abscedent, non intelligentes neque loquentes, sed discurrent ut amentes,* et subinde voci *homines* praemittit *vivi.*

en: Peter Damian continues: *and from the places in which they are they will swiftly depart, not understanding nor speaking, but they will run about like madmen;* and thereupon he prefixes *vivi* to the word *homines.*

la: Eadem signa referunt S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. et Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. Omnes autem cum Petro Damiano notant, hanc enumerationem signorum minime esse certam.

en: The same signs are reported by St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 4. little-question 1, and by Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 3. All of them, however, note with Peter Damian that this enumeration of the signs is by no means certain.

la: In prima eius conditione. — Inferius pro *lunam* cod. K (I a secunda manu) *lumen lunae,* et post *si* cod. L addit *tunc.*

en: In its first condition. — Below, for *lunam* codex K (I by a second hand) reads *lumen lunae,* and after *si* codex L adds *tunc.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 886, nota 8, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Superius post *sicut* edd. prosequuntur: *non dicit similitudinem, sed qualitatem, pro eo* etc. Subinde pro *qualitas,* quod perperam habent edd. et plerique codd., substituimus ex cod. aa *quantitas.*

en: Compare above, page 886, note 8, and here the text of the Master, c. 5. — Above, after *sicut* the editions continue: *non dicit similitudinem, sed qualitatem, pro eo* etc. Thereupon, for *qualitas,* which the editions and most codices wrongly have, we have substituted from codex aa *quantitas.*

la: De *septenario* cfr. supra pag. 853, nota 6, et August., Serm. 95. n. 2, ubi ostendit, hoc numero saepissime perfectionem figurari. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 5.

en: On the *septenary* compare above, page 853, note 6, and Augustine, *Sermon* 95. n. 2, where he shows that perfection is very often figured by this number. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 8; St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 3. and near the text; Richard of Middleton, here a. 2. q. 5.

la: Vers. 14: Et dividant diem et noctem. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 16.

en: Verse 14: And let them divide the day and the night. — The following passage is in the same place, v. 16.

la: Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 9. et supra a. 2. q. 2.

en: Compare Blessed Albert, here a. 9, and above a. 2. q. 2.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 15. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See II *Sentences,* d. 15. a. 2. q. 1.

la: Multi codd. *quam.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 10; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Many codices read *quam.* — On this doubt compare Blessed Albert, here a. 10; St. Thomas, here near the text.

la: De quo vide supra d. 44. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — Edd. substituunt *ergo* pro *alioquin,* et mox omittunt *immo* et *quaelibet.* Inferius pro *vident,* quod bis occurrit, multi codd. *viderent* et *videtur.* Subinde pro *revolvitur per* edd. *recedit ad.*

en: On which see above, d. 44. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — The editions substitute *ergo* for *alioquin,* and shortly after omit *immo* and *quaelibet.* Below, for *vident,* which occurs twice, many codices read *viderent* and *videtur.* Thereupon, for *revolvitur per* the editions read *recedit ad.*

la: Codd. N aa subiungunt: *id est in medio terrae vel circa medium.* In edd. desideratur: *sed intelligendum… sub terra.*

en: Codices N aa subjoin: *that is, in the middle of the earth or about the middle.* In the editions there is lacking: *sed intelligendum… sub terra.*

la: Vide B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See Blessed Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas and Richard of Middleton, here near the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L105902–L106122, verified line-by-line against 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p99{5,6,7}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Body opens at the real header `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (OCR `DUBfA CIRCA UTTERAM MAGISTRI.`, L105902); L105868 is a running head and was not used. English is a fresh literal translation.

**SEVEN dubia — count method.** The raw greps only `DUB. I`, `DUB. If`, `DUB. III` (the rest are OCR-cased `DuB.`), but all seven headers are legible on the bands and *all seven are also present in the raw text* once case is ignored: Dub. I (p.995-L), Dub. II (p.995-R), Dub. III (p.996-L), Dub. IV (p.996-R), Dub. V (p.997-L), Dub. VI (p.997-L), Dub. VII (p.997-R). Counted off the bands in column order; **seven confirmed, matching the brief's expectation.**

**⚠ CORRECTION TO THE BRIEF — p.997 is a real body page, not a bleed.** The brief instructed that `DISTINCTIO XLIX. P. I. 997` (L106068) is a running-head bleed and that the chunk spans only pp.995–996. That is **wrong**, and the skeleton's `printed_pages: [995, 996, 997]` is **right**. p.996's right column ends mid-sentence at *"Unde per illud quod dicit"*; the continuation *"septempliciter, intelligitur…"* plus Dubia V, VI and VII are physically printed on p.997, whose page number `997` is visible in the band `vol4-p997-R-0.png`. Quaracchi's running head on p.997 anticipates the new distinction because d.49's full-width `DISTINCTIO XLIX / PARS I / CAP. I` heading begins lower on the same page — the head is *correct for the page*, not a bleed. `printed_pages` and `pdf_pages` left unchanged.

**Bands regenerated: yes, for p.997 only.** pp.995/996 bands were used as supplied (gutters 1616 / 2075) and NOT re-cropped. p.997 had no bands; extracted at 450 dpi and cropped at a measured gutter of **x = 1619** (minimum-ink column scan over the central 30% of the page, consistent with the odd-page range 1518–1623). Recommended for the registry: `997:1619`.

**Apparatus: 22 entries.** Page→split map:

| Page | Notes on page | Claimed here | Ceded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 995 | 1–9 (commentary register) | **5, 6, 7, 8, 9** | 1, 2, 3, 4 → `d48-a2-q4` |
| 996 | 1–9 | **1–9 (all)** | — |
| 997 | 1–8 (commentary register) | **1–8 (all)** | *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum* 1–2 → d.49 littera |

**Marker binding order, verified per page from the bands (not assumed):**
- **p.995** — straight reading order, with **note 6 overflowing into the right footer**. Left footer prints 1–6 (6 breaking off at *"expositio in"*); the right footer opens with 6's continuation *"Ioel 3, 2, quae est Glossa ordinaria…"* before 7, 8, 9. Left-column anchors 1 (*spiritualis effecti*, a2-q4), 5 (*Actuum primo*), 6 (*Hieronymus*); right-column anchors 2 (*perfectione*), 3 (*completionem eius*), 4 (*secundum statum*) — all a2-q4 — then 7 (*virtute*), 8 (*Matthaeum*), 9 (*in littera*). Content matched one by one; no positional relabelling.
- **p.996** — straight reading order with a **two-note overflow (4 and 5) into the right footer**. Left footer prints only 1–3; anchors 1–5 all fall in the left column (*probabile*, *referri*, *faciunt*, *Deus*, *corruentia*), 6–9 in the right (*habitaculis*, *novit*, *tunc*, *meliorato*).
- **p.997** — straight reading order, **left footer 1–6, right footer 7–8**, then a separate `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` register (1 = August., Enchirid. c. 111 n. 29; 2 = Ioan. 14, 2) which anchors in d.49's littera, not here. Anchors 1–4 in the left column, 5–8 in the right; note 6's text (*"De quo vide supra d. 44…"*) breaks across the gutter into the right footer's opening line *"stituunt ergo pro alioquin…"*.

**⚠ RAW MISSING p.997's ENTIRE FOOTER BLOCK — seventh occurrence in this distinction.** The raw runs from the last body word *"dorus °."* (L106122) straight to the end of the range with no footer text whatsoever. All eight p.997 commentary notes, and the two `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` entries, were recovered from the bands only. (pp.981, 983, 985, 987, 989 and 992 were previously confirmed the same way.) pp.995 and 996 footers *are* present in the raw and agree with the bands.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Received / to reconcile with `d48-a2-q4`:* p.995 notes **1, 2, 3, 4** are **not** claimed here — they anchor in a2-q4's tail (*spiritualis effecti*¹, *de perfectione*², *completionem eius*³, *secundum statum*⁴). This split was derived independently from the p.995 bands, not taken from a2-q4's account. a2-q4's closing sentence *"…secundae vero solum secundum statum⁴."* parses cleanly and this chunk opens on a new full-width section header, so the seam is sound; no cascade-merge signature.
- *Forwarded to the d.49 littera writer:* p.997 carries a second register headed `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` with **two** entries — 1 = *August., Enchirid. c. 111. n. 29*; 2 = *Ioan. 14, 2. — Deinde respicitur Matth. 20, 1; et inferius 1. Cor. 15, 41.* — anchoring in the littera text *"…alius alio tolerabilius permanebunt¹ ». … mansiones multae sunt²…"*. Label that register distinctly (e.g. `p997n-N`) so it cannot collide with this chunk's `p997-N` commentary labels. Also note the d.49 littera opens on p.997 (`Cap. I. De differentia mansionum in caelo et in inferno`), sharing the page with this chunk.

**Closing sentence** *"…et pro tanto loquitur Isidorus."* parses; no truncation at the seam with d.49.

**Marginalia trimmed** per the standing rule (editorial, not Bonaventure's): p.995 `solutio` / `quaestiones notae` / `Alia solutio notanda cum distinctione`, p.996 `Mirabilia 15` and `Iudicium his`, p.997 `Notandum` and `…tinus`.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every band read was legible; the only OCR-vs-band disagreements (garbled headers, dropped footers, `9%` for the p.996 folio) were resolved at band time and are recorded above.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 49, Part 1

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XLIX, Pars I — De beatitudine Sanctorum

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XLIX, Part I — On the beatitude of the Saints

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 997 -->

# DISTINCTIO XLIX.

## Pars I.

### Cap. I. *De differentia mansionum in caelo et in inferno.*

« Post resurrectionem vero, facto universo impletoque iudicio, suos fines habebunt civitates duae: una Christi, alia diaboli, una bonorum, altera malorum, utraque tamen Angelorum et hominum. Istis voluntas, illis facultas non poterit esse peccandi, vel ulla conditio moriendi; istis in aeterna vita feliciter viventibus, illis infeliciter in aeterna morte sine moriendi potestate durantibus, quoniam utrique sine fine; sed in beatitudine isti, alius alio praestabilius; in miseria vero illi, alius alio tolerabilius permanebunt[^p997n-1] ». — Ex his apparet, quod sicut boni differenter glorificabuntur, alii magis, alii minus; ita et mali differenter in inferno punientur. Sicut enim *in domo Patris*, id est in regno caelesti, *mansiones multae sunt*[^p997n-2], id est praemiorum differentiae; ita et in gehenna diversae sunt mansiones, id est suppliciorum differentiae. Omnes tamen aeternam

<!-- page 998 -->

poenam patientur, sicut omnes electi eundem habebunt *denarium, quem Paterfamilias dedit omnibus qui operati sunt in vinea*. Nomine denarii aliquid omnibus electis commune intelligitur, scilicet vita aeterna, Deus ipse, quo omnes fruentur, sed impariter. Nam sicut erit differens clarificatio corporum, ita differens gloria erit animarum. *Stella* enim *a stella*, id est electus ab electo, *differt* in claritate mentis et corporis. Alii enim aliis vicinius clariusque Dei speciem contemplabuntur, et ipsa contemplandi differentia diversitas mansionum vocatur. Domus ergo est una, id est, denarius est unus; sed diversitas est ibi mansionum, id est differentia claritatis, quia unum est et summum bonum beatitudo et vita omnium, scilicet Deus ipse. Hoc bono omnes electi perfruentur, sed alii aliis plenius. Perfruentur vero videndo *per speciem, non per speculum in aenigmate*[^p998-1]. Habere ergo vitam est videre vitam, id est cognoscere Deum in specie. Unde Veritas ait in Evangelio: *Haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te, et quem misisti Iesum Christum, esse unum et solum verum Deum*; hoc est habere vitam cognoscere te; non est ipsa cognitio, quod tu es, sed per cognitionem habere bonum, quod tu es, id est vita.

Solet etiam quaeri de beatitudine, utrum omnes eam velint et sciant, quae sit vera beatitudo. De hoc Augustinus in libro decimo tertio *de Trinitate*[^p998-2] ita disserit: « Mirum est, cum capessendae retinendaeque beatitudinis voluntas una sit omnium, unde tanta exstat de ipsa beatitudine rursus diversitas voluntatum; non quod eam aliquis nolit, sed quod non omnes eam norint. Si enim eam omnes noscerent, non ab aliis putaretur esse in virtute animi, ab aliis in voluptate corporis, ab aliis atque aliis alibi atque alibi. Quomodo ergo omnes amant quod non omnes sciunt? Quis potest amare quod nescit, sicut supra disputavi? Cur ergo beatitudo amatur ab omnibus, nec tamen scitur ab omnibus? An forte sciunt omnes, quae ipsa sit, sed non omnes sciunt, ubi sit, et inde contentio est »? « An forte falsum est quod pro vero posuimus, *beate vivere* omnes homines velle? Si enim *beate vivere* est, verbi gratia, *secundum animi virtutem vivere*; quomodo *beate vivere* vult qui hoc non vult? Nonne verius dixerimus: homo iste non vult *beate vivere*, quia non vult *secundum virtutem vivere*, quod solum est *beate vivere*? Non igitur omnes *beate vivere* volunt, immo pauci hoc volunt, si non est *beate vivere*, nisi *secundum virtutem animi vivere*, quod multi nolunt. Itane falsum erit, unde nec ipse Cicero dubitavit? Ait[^p998-3] enim: *Beati certe omnes esse volumus*. Absit, ut hoc falsum esse dicamus. Quid ergo? An dicendum est, etiam si nihil sit aliud *beate vivere*, quam *secundum virtutem animi vivere*; tamen et qui *hoc* non vult *beate vivere* vult? Nimis quidem hoc videtur absurdum. Tale enim est, ac si dicamus: qui non vult beate vivere beate vult vivere. Istam repugnantiam quis audiat? quis ferat? Et tamen ad hanc contrudit necessitas. Si et omnes *beate vivere velle* verum est, et non omnes *volunt sic vivere, quomodo solum vivitur beate* »? « An illud ab his angustiis nos poterit eruere, si dicamus, nihil esse *beate vivere* nisi *vivere secundum delectationem suam*; et ideo falsum non esse, quod omnes *beate vivere* velint, quia omnes ita volunt, ut quemque delectat? Sed id quidem falsum est. Velle enim quod non deceat est esse miserrimum. Nec tam miserum est *non adipisci* quod velis, quam *adipisci velle* quod non oporteat. Quis ita caecus sit, ut dicat aliquem ideo beatum, quia vivit, ut vult, cum profecto, etsi miser esset, minus tamen esset, si nihil eorum, quae perperam voluisset, habere potuisset. Mala enim voluntate vel sola miser quisque efficitur, sed miserior, cum desiderium malae voluntatis impletur. Quapropter, quoniam verum est, quod omnes homines esse beati velint idque ardentissimo amore appetant, et propter hoc cetera, quaecumque appetant; nec quisquam potest amare quod omnino quid vel quale sit, nescit, nec potest nescire, quid sit quod se velle scit: sequitur, ut omnes beatam vitam sciant. Omnes autem beati habent quod volunt, quamvis non omnes qui habent quod volunt, continuo sint beati. Continuo autem miseri sunt qui vel non habent quod volunt, vel id habent quod non recte volunt. Beatus igitur non est, nisi qui et habet omnia quae vult, et nihil vult mali ». « Ille quippe beate vivit, qui vivit, ut vult, nec male aliquid vult ». « Cum igitur ex his duobus constet beata vita, licet in malis sit aliquis bonus, non tamen, nisi finitis omnibus malis, est beatus ». « Cum vero ex hac vita qui in his miseriis fidelis et bonus est, venerit ad beatam; tunc erit vere quod nunc nullo modo esse potest, ut sic homo vivat, quomodo vult. Non enim ibi volet male vivere, aut volet aliquid, quod deerit, aut deerit aliquid, quod voluerit. Quidquid amabitur aderit, nec desiderabitur quod non aderit. Omne quod ibi erit, bonum erit, et summus Deus summum bonum erit; et quod est omnino beatissimum, ita semper fore certum erit ». « Beatos autem esse se velle omnium hominum est. Beatos esse se velle omnes in corde suo vident, nec tamen omnium est fides, qua ad beatitudinem pervenitur ».

### Cap. II. *Si quid ibi cognoscitur ab aliquo, quod non intelligant omnes.*

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum aliquid de Deo *cognoscat* aliquis magis meritus, ut Petrus, quod non cognoscat aliquis minus meritus, ut Linus. — Pluribus videtur, quod omnia de Deo ad beatitudinem spectantia omnes communiter electi cognoscant, sed differenter. Nihil enim in Deo noscibile maius digniusque videtur, quam eum intelligere trinum et unum; hoc autem omnes tunc per speciem cognoscent. Unde sequitur, ut non sit aliquid beatitudini pertinens incognitum alicui Beatorum. Omnes igitur cuncta illa videbunt, quorum cognitio beatitudini servit, sed in modo videndi different. Alius enim alio magis, alius alio minus fulgebit[^p998-4].

<!-- page 999 -->

### Cap. III. *De paritate gaudii.*

Solet etiam quaeri, an in *gaudio* dispares sint, sicut in claritate cognitionis differunt. — De hoc Augustinus[^p999-1] ait: « Multae *mansiones in una domo* erunt, scilicet variae praemiorum dignitates; sed ubi Deus *erit omnia in omnibus*, erit etiam in dispari claritate par gaudium, ut quod habebunt singuli commune sit omnibus; quia etiam gloria capitis omnium erit per vinculum caritatis ». — Ex his datur intelligi, quod par gaudium omnes habebunt, etsi disparem cognitionis claritatem, quia per caritatem, quae in singulis erit perfecta, « tantum quisque gaudebit de bono alterius, quantum gaudebit si in se ipso haberet[^p999-2] ». Sed si par erit cunctorum gaudium, videtur, quod par sit omnium beatitudo; quod constat omnino non esse. — Ad quod dici potest, quod beatitudo par esset, si ita esset par gaudium, ut etiam par esset cognitio; sed quia hoc non erit, non faciet paritas gaudii paritatem beatitudinis. — Potest etiam sic accipi par gaudium, ut non referatur paritas ad intensionem affectionis gaudentium, sed ad universitatem rerum, de quibus gaudebitur; quia de omni re, unde gaudebit unus, gaudebunt omnes.

> **Nota de numeratione.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, and page 997 carries two separate registers. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: the two entries of page 997's second register, headed *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum*, carry an `n`; then notes 1–4 of page 998; then notes 1 and 2 of page 999. Note 3 of page 999 anchors in Lombard's Pars II and is rendered there, not here.

---

english:
<!-- page 997 -->

# DISTINCTION XLIX.

## Part I.

### Chap. I. *On the difference of the mansions in heaven and in hell.*

« But after the resurrection, when the universe has been completed and the judgment fulfilled, the two cities will have their own ends: one of Christ, the other of the devil; one of the good, the other of the wicked — yet each of them made up of Angels and of men. For the one there will be no will, for the other no capacity, of sinning, nor any condition of dying; the one living happily in eternal life, the other enduring unhappily in eternal death without the power of dying, since both are without end; but in beatitude these will abide, one more excellently than another; while in misery those will abide, one more tolerably than another[^p997n-1] ». — From these things it appears that, just as the good will be glorified differently, some more, some less, so also the wicked will be punished differently in hell. For just as *in the Father's house*, that is, in the heavenly kingdom, *there are many mansions*[^p997n-2], that is, differences of rewards, so also in Gehenna there are diverse mansions, that is, differences of punishments. Yet all will suffer an eternal

<!-- page 998 -->

punishment, just as all the elect will have the same *denarius, which the Householder gave to all who had laboured in the vineyard*. By the name of the denarius is understood something common to all the elect, namely eternal life, God himself, whom all will enjoy, but unequally. For as there will be a differing glorification of bodies, so there will be a differing glory of souls. For *star differs from star*, that is, one elect from another, in the brightness of mind and of body. For some will contemplate the sight of God more closely and more clearly than others, and that very difference of contemplating is called the diversity of the mansions. The house therefore is one, that is, the denarius is one; but there is there a diversity of mansions, that is, a difference of brightness, because the beatitude and life of all is one and the highest good, namely God himself. All the elect will enjoy this good, but some more fully than others. And they will enjoy it by seeing *through the species, not through a mirror in an enigma*[^p998-1]. To have life, therefore, is to see life, that is, to know God in his species. Whence Truth says in the Gospel: *This is eternal life, that they may know thee, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, to be the one and only true God*; this is to have life, to know thee; the knowledge itself is not what thou art, but through knowledge to have the good which thou art, that is, life.

It is also wont to be asked concerning beatitude, whether all will it and know what true beatitude is. On this Augustine, in the thirteenth book *On the Trinity*[^p998-2], discourses thus: « It is a wonder that, since the will for laying hold of and retaining beatitude is one in all, there should arise again so great a diversity of wills concerning that very beatitude — not that anyone does not will it, but that not all know it. For if all knew it, it would not be thought by some to lie in the virtue of the mind, by others in the pleasure of the body, and by others and others elsewhere and elsewhere. How therefore do all love what not all know? Who can love what he does not know, as I disputed above? Why therefore is beatitude loved by all, and yet not known by all? Or do perhaps all know what it is, but not all know where it is, and thence is the contention »? « Or is perhaps that false which we laid down as true, that all men will *to live happily*? For if *to live happily* is, for example, *to live according to the virtue of the mind*, how does he will *to live happily* who does not will this? Shall we not say more truly: this man does not will *to live happily*, because he does not will *to live according to virtue*, which alone is *to live happily*? Not all, therefore, will *to live happily*; rather few will it, if *to live happily* is nothing but *to live according to the virtue of the mind*, which many do not will. Will it then be false, of which not even Cicero himself doubted? For he says[^p998-3]: *We certainly all will to be happy*. Far be it that we should say this is false. What then? Is it to be said that, even if *to live happily* is nothing else than *to live according to the virtue of the mind*, nevertheless he too who does not will *this* wills *to live happily*? This indeed seems too absurd. For it is as if we should say: he who does not will to live happily wills happily to live. Who could hear such a contradiction? who could bear it? And yet necessity thrusts us to this. If it is both true that all will *to live happily*, and that not all *will so to live as alone one lives happily* »? « Or will this be able to rescue us from these straits, if we say that *to live happily* is nothing but *to live according to one's own delight*; and that therefore it is not false that all will *to live happily*, since all so will as each is delighted? But this indeed is false. For to will what is not fitting is to be most wretched. Nor is it so wretched *not to obtain* what you will, as *to will to obtain* what is not proper. Who would be so blind as to say that anyone is happy for this reason, that he lives as he wills, when in fact, even if he were wretched, he would be less so if he had been able to have none of those things which he had wrongly willed. For by an evil will alone each one is made wretched, but more wretched when the desire of the evil will is fulfilled. Wherefore, since it is true that all men will to be happy and seek this with the most ardent love, and on account of this all other things, whatever they seek; and since no one can love what he wholly does not know what or of what sort it is, nor can he fail to know what that is which he knows himself to will: it follows that all know the happy life. But all the happy have what they will, although not all who have what they will are forthwith happy. But forthwith wretched are those who either do not have what they will, or have that which they do not rightly will. He therefore is not happy, save he who both has all that he wills and wills nothing evil ». « For he indeed lives happily who lives as he wills, and wills nothing evil ». « Since therefore the happy life consists of these two, though someone good may be among evils, yet he is not happy unless all evils are ended ». « But when he who in these miseries is faithful and good has come from this life to the happy one, then will truly be what now can in no way be, that a man should so live as he wills. For there he will not will to live evilly, nor will he will anything that will be lacking, nor will anything be lacking that he shall have willed. Whatever will be loved will be present, nor will that be desired which is not present. Everything that will be there will be good, and the highest God will be the highest good; and — what is altogether most blessed — it will be certain that it will ever be so ». « But to will themselves to be happy belongs to all men. All see in their heart that they will themselves to be happy, and yet not of all is the faith by which one comes to beatitude ».

### Chap. II. *Whether anything is there known by someone which not all understand.*

It is also wont to be asked whether someone of greater merit, such as Peter, *knows* anything of God which someone of lesser merit, such as Linus, does not know. — To most it seems that all the elect know in common all the things pertaining to beatitude concerning God, but differently. For nothing knowable in God seems greater or more worthy than to understand him as three and one; and this all will then know through the species. Whence it follows that there is nothing pertaining to beatitude unknown to any of the Blessed. All therefore will see all those things whose knowledge serves beatitude, but they will differ in the mode of seeing. For one will shine more than another, and one less than another[^p998-4].

<!-- page 999 -->

### Chap. III. *On the parity of joy.*

It is also wont to be asked whether they are unequal in *joy*, as they differ in the brightness of knowledge. — On this Augustine[^p999-1] says: « There will be *many mansions in one house*, namely various dignities of rewards; but where God *will be all in all*, there will be, even amid unequal brightness, an equal joy, so that what individuals will have may be common to all; because also the glory of the head will belong to all through the bond of charity ». — From these things it is given to understand that all will have an equal joy, even though an unequal brightness of knowledge, because through charity, which in each one will be perfect, « each will rejoice as much over the good of another as he would rejoice if he had it in himself[^p999-2] ». But if the joy of all will be equal, it seems that the beatitude of all is equal; which is plainly not at all the case. — To which it can be said that beatitude would be equal if joy were equal in such a way that knowledge also were equal; but since this will not be, the parity of joy will not make a parity of beatitude. — The equal joy can also be taken thus, that the parity be referred not to the intensity of the affection of those rejoicing, but to the universality of the things over which there will be rejoicing; because concerning every thing over which one will rejoice, all will rejoice.

---

la: August., Enchirid. c. 111. n. 29.

en: Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 111, n. 29.

la: Ioan. 14, 2. — Deinde respicitur Matth. 20, 1; et inferius 1. Cor. 15, 41.

en: John 14:2. — Then Matthew 20:1 is referred to; and below, 1 Corinthians 15:41.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 13, 12, deinde Ioan. 17, 3. — Ante *cognoscere te* plurimae edd. addunt *id est*, ed. 1 *et*, codd. B E *est*; deinde ante *ipsa cognitio* edd. 1, 6 et codd. D E addunt *enim*; denique plurimae edd. ponunt *quae* pro *quod*.

en: Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:12, then John 17:3. — Before *cognoscere te* most editions add *id est*, edition 1 *et*, codices B and E *est*; then before *ipsa cognitio* editions 1 and 6 and codices D and E add *enim*; finally most editions put *quae* for *quod*.

la: Cap. 4. n. 7; et ibid. sunt quae sequuntur, scil. secundus locus parum inferius; tertius c. 5. n. 8; quartus c. 8. n. 11; quintus c. 6. n. 9; sextus c. 7. n. 10; septimus c. 20. n. 25.

en: Chapter 4, n. 7; and in the same place are the passages that follow, namely the second passage a little further down; the third, c. 5, n. 8; the fourth, c. 8, n. 11; the fifth, c. 6, n. 9; the sixth, c. 7, n. 10; the seventh, c. 20, n. 25.

la: In *Hortensio*, ut ait August.

en: In the *Hortensius*, as Augustine says.

en: Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:41.

la: Potius Prosper, *Sentent.* n. 362, ubi respiciuntur Ioan. 14, 2, et I. Cor. 15, 28. In edd. August., non Prosperi, *per* pro *par*.

en: Rather Prosper, *Sentences* n. 362, where John 14:2 and 1 Corinthians 15:28 are referred to. In the editions it is ascribed to Augustine, not to Prosper, and *per* stands for *par*.

la: Libr. *de Spiritu et anima* (inter opera August.), c. 57.

en: The book *On the Spirit and the Soul* (among the works of Augustine), c. 57. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L106123–L106308, verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p99{7,8,9}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. **No bands were regenerated** — the pre-measured gutters (997:1619, 998:2131, 999:1601) were used exactly as supplied. Lombard's littera is clean running prose and the OCR is reliable for the body here; every footer, and every footnote-marker position, was nevertheless read off the bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page span confirmed: 997–999.** The skeleton's `printed_pages` is correct and unchanged. The body opens on p.997 *below* d.48's Dubia V–VII, at d.49's full-width `DISTINCTIO XLIX. / Pars I. / Cap. I.` heading, and closes at the foot of p.999's Cap. III, immediately before the full-width `Pars II.` heading.

**Apparatus: 8 entries.** Page→split map:

| Page | Registers on page | Claimed here | Ceded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 997 | commentary register 1–8 **+** a second register `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` with 2 entries | **Notae 1–2 only** (labelled `p997n-`) | commentary 1–8 → `d48-dubia` |
| 998 | 1–4 (single register) | **1–4 (all)** | — |
| 999 | 1–3 (single register) | **1, 2** | 3 → `d49-p2-littera` |

**Marker binding order, verified per page from the bands (not assumed):**
- **p.997** — the two registers are physically stacked in the **right** footer column: d.48's notes 7–8, then a centred heading `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.`, then its own 1 and 2. Both of its anchors fall in the **right body column** (*…tolerabilius permanebunt¹ »* and *mansiones multae sunt²*) — straight reading order within the register. **The split forwarded by `d48-dubia` was re-derived here off `vol4-p997-R-2.png`, not taken on trust; it is correct in every particular.** d.48's `p997-N` labels and this file's `p997n-N` labels cannot collide.
- **p.998 — heavy footer overflow, three of four notes printing in the other column.** The **left** footer prints note **1 only**; notes **2, 3, 4** all print in the **right** footer. But the anchors do *not* follow: 1 (*in aenigmate*), 2 (*de Trinitate*) and 3 (*Ait enim* — Cicero) all anchor in the **left** body column, and only 4 (*minus fulgebit*, Cap. II) anchors in the right. Numbering is straight reading order; footer *placement* is not column-aligned. Each note was bound by content match, never by position.
- **p.999 — three notes, with note 3 overflowing across the gutter.** The left footer prints 1, 2, 3; the right footer opens with an **unnumbered continuation** of 3 (*"Seq. locus Hieron. est II. Comment. in Osee 6, 1 … Ultimus locus est August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 35. n. 68, nonnullis omissis, ubi respicitur I. Cor. 15, 44."*). That whole note — head plus overflow — matches Pars II's Cap. IV (*"ut supra³ testatus est Augustinus"*, then the Hieronymus *Peracto iudicio* quotation and the *XII de Gen. ad lit.* passage), so it is **not** claimed here.

**p.999 layout — the page is shared three ways, as the brief anticipated.** Read off the bands, p.999 is stacked, not split by column: the **upper** two-column block is littera (left col: Cap. III, then the full-width `Pars II.` heading, then Cap. IV; right col: their continuations); below that a **full-width** `COMMENTARIUS IN DIST[INCTIONEM XLIX]` / `Pars I` / `De statu et conditione bonorum` / incipit / `DIVISIO TEXTUS`; and the **lower** two-column block is the divisio (*"Supra egit Magister de iudicio…"*). The near-abutting columns (3 px blank run) gave **no clipping** — `vol4-p999-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` are clean, first characters and marginalia intact. **Bands used as given; none re-cropped.**

**Hand-offs.**
- *Received from `d48-dubia`:* p.997's `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` register, 2 entries. Independently re-verified off the band and rendered here as `p997n-1` / `p997n-2`. d.48's closing sentence *"…et pro tanto loquitur Isidorus."* parses cleanly and this chunk opens on a new full-width distinction heading — no cascade-merge signature at the seam.
- *Forwarded to `d49-p2-littera`:* **p.999 note 3 is yours** — *"Dist. XLV. c. 1, ubi etiam August. locus invenitur."* printed in the **left** footer, **plus its unnumbered overflow in the right footer** beginning *"Seq. locus Hieron. est II. Comment. in Osee 6, 1…"*. **They are one note; render both halves together or the second half is lost.** It anchors at Cap. IV's *"ut supra³ testatus est Augustinus"*. Note also that Cap. IV's marginalia on p.999-L read *"…rmus."* (Hieronymus) and *"…inus."* (Augustinus).
- *Forwarded to `d49-p1-divisio`:* **p.999 carries no notes for you.** All three of p.999's notes anchor in the littera (1, 2 here; 3 in p2-littera); the divisio text in the lower block of p.999 (`L-2`, `R-2` bands) carries **no footnote markers at all**. Your first apparatus should begin at p.1000.

**Closing sentence** *"…quia de omni re, unde gaudebit unus, gaudebunt omnes."* parses cleanly and is the last line of the littera block before the full-width `Pars II.` heading. **Nothing of Pars II is trapped in this range** — L106309 is `Pars II.` itself and Cap. IV's opener *"Post haec quaeri solet…"* is entirely downstream. Seam verified against `vol4-p999-L-0.png` and `L-1.png`.

**Marginalia trimmed** per the standing rule (editorial, not Lombard's text): p.997 *"…inus."* (Augustinus); p.998 *"Quaestio de beatitudine"*, *"Augustinus"*, *"Cicero"*, *"Augustinus"*; p.999 *"Augustinus"*, *"Par gaudii difficultas"*, *"Solutio"*, *"Aliter"*.

**Chapter headings.** All three of Pars I's chapters are rendered with their titles: Cap. I *De differentia mansionum in caelo et in inferno*; Cap. II *Si quid ibi cognoscitur ab aliquo, quod non intelligant omnes*; Cap. III *De paritate gaudii*. Cap. II's heading is full-width-centred across the gutter on p.998 and OCRs as garbage (`&i quid ibi cognoscitur…`) — recovered from `vol4-p998-R-2.png`, where its second line prints legibly as the running title *"intelligant omnes."*

**`[?]` flags: none.** Every band read was legible. OCR-vs-band disagreements resolved at band time: `Pabs I.` → `Pars I.`, `&i quid` → `Si quid`, `dmarium` → `denarium`, `vitiea` → `vinea`, `aenigmale` → `aenigmate`, `Trinilate` → `Trinitate`, `exi-stat` → `exstat`, `cmant` → `amant`, `absUrdum` → `absurdum`, `intetisionem` → `intensionem`, `quartus c. 8. n. M` → `n. 11` and `septimus c. 20. n. 2S` → `n. 25` (both read off `vol4-p998-R-2.png`). `contrudit` is retained as printed — it is Quaracchi's own reading, confirmed on the band.

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


title: Dist. 49, Part 2

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XLIX, Pars II — De beatitudine et gloria ex parte corporis

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XLIX, Part II — On beatitude and glory on the part of the body

source_text:
<!-- page 999 -->

> The numbered footnote below corresponds to a marker in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page, so the label is page-qualified: it is note 3 of page 999. Notes 1–2 of page 999 anchor in the preceding chunk (`d49-p1-littera`); no note of page 999 anchors in `d49-p1-divisio`.

### Pars II.

### Cap. IV. *Si maior sit beatitudo Sanctorum post iudicium.*

Post haec quaeri solet, si beatitudo Sanctorum maior sit futura post iudicium quam interim. — Sine omni scrupulo credendum est, eos habituros maiorem gloriam post iudicium quam ante, quia et maius erit eorum gaudium, ut supra[^p999-3] testatus est Augustinus, et amplior erit eorum cognitio. Unde Hieronymus: «Peracto iudicio ampliorem gloriam suae claritatis Deus demonstrabit electis». «Si quem movet, quid opus sit spiritibus defunctorum corpora sua in resurrectione recipere, si eis potest sine corporibus summa beatitudo praeberi; difficilis quaestio est nec potest a nobis perfecte definiri. Sed tamen dubium non est, et raptam a carnis sensibus hominis mentem et post mortem, ipsa carne deposita, non sic videre posse incommutabilem substantiam, id est Deum, sicut sancti Angeli vident, sive alia latentiori causa, sive ideo, quia inest ei naturalis quidam appetitus corpus administrandi, quo retardatur quodam modo, ne tota intentione pergat in illud summum caelum, donec ille appetitus conquiescat. Porro si tale sit corpus, cuius sit difficilis et gravis administratio, sicut haec caro, quae corrumpitur; multo magis avertitur mens ab illa visione summi caeli. Proinde, cum hoc corpus iam non *animale*, sed *spirituale* receperit, Angelis aequata habebit perfectum naturae suae modum, obediens et imperans, vivificata et vivificans, tam ineffabili facilitate, ut sit ei gloriae quod fuit sarcinae».

---

english:
### Part II.

### Chapter IV. *Whether the beatitude of the Saints be greater after the judgment.*

After these things it is customarily asked whether the beatitude of the Saints will be greater after the judgment than in the meantime. — It is to be believed without any scruple that they will have a greater glory after the judgment than before, because their joy also will be greater, as Augustine testified above[^p999-3], and their knowledge will be more ample. Hence Jerome: «When the judgment has been completed, God will show to the elect a more ample glory of his own brightness». «If it moves anyone [to ask] what need there is for the spirits of the dead to receive back their own bodies in the resurrection, if the highest beatitude can be furnished to them without bodies; it is a difficult question and cannot be perfectly determined by us. But nevertheless there is no doubt that the mind of man, snatched away from the senses of the flesh — and also after death, once the flesh itself has been laid aside — cannot see the unchangeable substance, that is, God, in the way in which the holy Angels see him: whether for some other more hidden cause, or for this reason, that there is in it a certain natural appetite for administering a body, by which it is in some manner held back, lest it should press on with its whole intention into that highest heaven, until that appetite comes to rest. Moreover, if the body be such that its administration is difficult and burdensome, as is this flesh, which is corrupted, much more is the mind turned away from that vision of the highest heaven. Accordingly, when it has received this body no longer *animal* but *spiritual*, made equal to the Angels it will have the perfect mode of its own nature, obeying and commanding, made alive and making alive, with so ineffable an ease that what was a burden to it will be a glory».

---

la: Dist. XLV. c. 1, ubi etiam August. locus invenitur. Seq. locus Hieron. est II. Comment. in Osee 6, 1, ubi illa sententia indicatur, quae verbotenus est ibi in Glossa apud Lyranum. Ultimus locus est August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 35. n. 68, nonnullis omissis, ubi respicitur I. Cor. 15, 44.

en: Distinction XLV, c. 1, where the Augustine passage is also to be found. The following passage of Jerome is *Commentary on Hosea* II, on 6, 1, where that sentence is indicated, which is there word for word in the Gloss as found in Lyranus. The last passage is Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* XII, c. 35, n. 68, with some things omitted, where I Cor. 15, 44 is referred to. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L106309–106349, verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p999-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands used as given; **not** regenerated — the gutter for p.999 was already at the measured value 1601, and no first-character clipping was observed in either column despite the near-abutting 3 px blank run).

**Page span.** p.999 only; skeleton's `printed_pages: [999]` confirmed, no correction.

**Structure.** The range opens at Lombard's centred, full-width **`Pars II.`** heading, which prints across the gutter (it reads `PARS II` at the right edge of the L band and `RS II.` at the left edge of the R band). Pars II of the littera contains exactly one chapter, **`Cap. IV. Si maior sit beatitudo Sanctorum post iudicium.`**, rendered here. Lombard's chapter numbering runs continuously across the pars division, so there is no `Cap. I.` under Pars II.

Column reflow on p.999: the chapter's single paragraph runs L column (`Post haec quaeri solet … Sed tamen dubium non est, et raptam`) → R column (`a carnis sensibus hominis mentem … quod fuit sarcinae ».`). The seam `et raptam | a carnis sensibus hominis mentem` is grammatically continuous, and the closing sentence parses. Bonaventure's own DIVISIO TEXTUS lower on the same page confirms the split point: *«Prima pars habet duas. In prima parte determinat beatitudinem et gloriam a parte spiritus. In secunda vero, ex parte corporis, ibi: Post haec quaeri solet, si beatitudo etc.»* — i.e. Pars II begins precisely at this chapter's opening words.

**Apparatus: 1 entry.** Independent account of the **three-way p.999 split** (derived from the bands, not from any neighbour's hand-off):

| Page | Notes | Chunk that anchors them |
|---|---|---|
| 999 | 1 — *Potius Prosper, Sentent. n. 362 …* | `d49-p1-littera` (anchor `Augustinus¹ ait` , L col) |
| 999 | 2 — *Libr. de Spiritu et anima …* | `d49-p1-littera` (anchor `haberet²`, R col) |
| 999 | 3 — *Dist. XLV. c. 1 …* | **this chunk** (anchor `ut supra³ testatus est Augustinus`) |

p.999 carries a **single register of exactly three numbered notes**, all set in the **left** footer column in straight reading order. **Note 3 overflows unnumbered into the right footer column** (`Seq. locus Hieron. est II. Comment. in Osee 6, 1 … Ultimus locus est August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 35. n. 68 …`); that continuation is joined to note 3 here, since it supplies the references for the two further citations in this same chapter (Jerome's *Peracto iudicio…* and Augustine's *Si quem movet…*). This is why the Jerome and Augustine quotations in the body carry **no** markers of their own — one note serves all three loci.

`d49-p1-divisio`, the third chunk sharing p.999, anchors **no** footnote on this page: its body block (`Supra egit Magister de iudicio …` / `secunda vero, ex parte corporis …`) is entirely free of markers. Its share of p.999 is therefore **zero**.

**Marginalia.** The printed side-glosses in the left margin of this chapter (`Hieronymus.`, `Augustinus.`) are editorial marginalia and are trimmed per the corpus convention, not rendered inline.

**`[?]` flags.** None. Every word of the range was legible on the bands.


title: Dist. 49, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars I)

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (Part I)

source_text:
<!-- page 999 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLIX.

### Pars I.
#### *De statu et conditione bonorum post iudicium.*

*Post resurrectionem vero, facto universo completoque iudicio* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de iudicio. In hac parte agit de statu post iudicium. Et quoniam duplex est status secundum duplicem civitatem, unam scilicet Ierusalem et alteram Babylonis; ideo pars ista duas habet. In prima determinat statum et conditionem bonorum. In secunda, statum et conditionem damnatorum, infra distinctione quinquagesima: *Hic oritur quaestio ex praemissis* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima parte determinat beatitudinem et gloriam a parte spiritus. In secunda vero, ex parte corporis, ibi: *Post haec quaeri solet, si beatitudo* etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat, quid sit beatitudo, et quid sit esse beatum. In secunda vero determinat de beatitudinis appetitu, ibi: *Solet quaeri de beatitudine.* In tertia vero determinat modum participandi, utrum aequaliter participetur a diversis, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, utrum aliquid de Deo cognoscat* etc.

<!-- page 1000 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de beatitudine. Et de hoc sex quaeruntur.

*Primo* quaeritur, quid sit beatitudo.

*Secundo*, qualiter sit appetibilis.

*Tertio*, in quo sit.

*Quarto*, secundum quid insit.

*Quinto*, de eius actu sive operatione.

*Sexto*, de differenti participatione.

---

english:
<!-- page 999 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XLIX.

### Part I.
#### *On the state and condition of the good after the judgment.*

*But after the resurrection, when the universal judgment has been made and completed*, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the judgment. In this part he treats of the state after the judgment. And since the state is twofold according to the twofold city, the one namely Jerusalem and the other Babylon, therefore this part has two [parts]. In the first he determines the state and condition of the good. In the second, the state and condition of the damned, below in distinction fifty: *Here a question arises from what has been set down*, etc.

The first part has two. In the first part he determines beatitude and glory on the side of the spirit. In the second, however, on the side of the body, there: *After these things it is customarily asked whether the beatitude* etc.

The first part has three parts. In the first he determines what beatitude is, and what it is to be blessed. In the second, however, he determines concerning the appetite for beatitude, there: *It is customarily asked concerning beatitude.* In the third, however, he determines the manner of participating, whether it is equally participated in by diverse persons, there: *It is also customarily asked whether he knows anything of God*, etc.

<!-- page 1000 -->

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part inquiry is made concerning beatitude. And concerning this six things are asked.

*First* it is asked, what beatitude is.

*Second*, in what manner it is desirable.

*Third*, in what it is.

*Fourth*, according to what it is present.

*Fifth*, concerning its act or operation.

*Sixth*, concerning differing participation.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L106350–106436 (IA djvu OCR), reflowed column-by-column and verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p999-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p1000-{L,R}-0.png`. Bands used as generated (gutters 999:1601, 1000:2098); **no bands were regenerated**. p.999's near-abutting columns read clean — no first-character clipping in either the body or the footer register.

**Printed pages.** `printed_pages: [999, 1000]` verified correct and unchanged. The chunk opens with the centred `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLIX.` head at the foot of p.999 (spanning both columns) and closes with `Sexto, de differenti participatione.` at the top of the p.999→1000 right column, immediately before the centred `ARTICULUS UNICUS.` head (raw L106437), which belongs to `p1-a1-q1`.

**Apparatus — this chunk anchors NO footnotes (0 entries).** `has_apparatus` corrected from `true` to `false`.

*p.999 three-way split (derived independently from the bands, not taken from a neighbour).* p.999 carries a **single** footer register of **three** notes. The register prints in the left footer column (notes 1, 2, 3) and **note 3 overflows into the right footer column** (`Seq. locus Hieron. est II. Comment. in Osee 6, 1 … Ultimus locus est August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 35, n. 68, nonnullis omissis, ubi respicitur I. Cor. 15, 44.`). Binding by content:

| note | anchor | body column | owning chunk |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `De hoc Augustinus ¹ ait` (Lombard, Cap. III *De paritate gaudii*) | p.999 L, upper | `p1-littera` |
| 2 | `quantum gaudebit si in se ipso haberet ² »` (end of Cap. III) | p.999 R, upper | `p1-littera` |
| 3 | `ut supra ³ testatus est Augustinus` (Lombard, Cap. IV, under the `PARS II.` head) | p.999 L, lower | `p2-littera` |

So the independent account is **p1-littera = notes 1–2; p2-littera = note 3; p1-divisio (this chunk) = none.** The `DIVISIO TEXTUS` body on p.999 (both columns) carries no superscript marker at all.

*p.1000.* The `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` at the head of p.1000 carries no markers. Every note in p.1000's footer register anchors below the `ARTICULUS UNICUS. / QUAESTIO I.` head (e.g. `perfectio Beati ¹`, `dicit Boethius ⁷`) and therefore belongs entirely to `p1-a1-q1`.

**Question count — checked as requested.** The TRACTATIO promises **six**, read off the band verbatim: `Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de beatitudine. Et de hoc sex quaeruntur.` followed by six ordinals, *Primo* through *Sexto*, split across the two columns (Primo–Secundo left, Tertio–Sexto right). This matches the six-question Pars I structure; **no lost-question signal.**

**Structural note forwarded.** Pars I does have an article head: `ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De beatitudine.` prints centred full-width at raw L106437, immediately before `QUAESTIO I. / Quid sit beatitudo.` It is one undivided article, so the "six questions and no articles" description holds in substance, but the head itself is real and must be rendered at the top of `p1-a1-q1` (per the "short opener folds into that unit's q1" rule) — not dropped at the seam.

**Seam checks.** Opening (`Supra egit Magister de iudicio…`) is a fresh sentence under a new head, grammatically independent of the close of `p2-littera` (`…ut sit ei gloriae quod fuit sarcinae ».`), which parses. Closing sentence (`Sexto, de differenti participatione.`) parses.

**`[?]` flags:** none.


title: Dist. 49, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars II), cum principio Sectionis I

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (Part II), with the opening of Section I

source_text:
<!-- page 1011 -->

> The numbered footnote below corresponds to a marker in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page; this file carries only note 4 of page 1011, the one note anchored by its own body. Notes 1–3 of page 1011 are anchored in the preceding chunk (`p1-a1-q6`) and are rendered there.

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLIX.

**Pars II.**

### *De gloria corporis sive de stola secunda.*

*Post haec quaeri solet, si beatitudo Sanctorum etc.*

**TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 999.**

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de gloria spiritus, in qua consistit prima stola. Hic agit de gloria corporis, in qua consistit stola secunda. Dividitur autem haec pars in tres partes secundum tria, quae determinat. Primo enim ostendit, quod in resumtione corporum erit augmentum gloriae. Secundo vero determinat modum, per quem gloria spiritus augebitur, ibi: *Si quem movet, quid opus sit.* Tertio determinat, quale corpus reddetur animae beatae, scilicet spirituale, non animale; et hoc facit, ibi: *Proinde, cum hoc corpus iam non animale* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de gloria corporis. Et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur[^p1011-4].

Primo quaeritur de gloria corporis in generali.

Secundo, in speciali.

### SECTIO I.

### *De gloria corporis in generali.*

Circa primum quaeruntur principaliter tria.

Primo quaeritur de corporis glorificatione.

Secundo, de dotium distinctione.

Tertio, de sensuum remuneratione.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum gloria corporis sit de substantia beatitudinis.

Secundo quaeritur de origine beatitudinis corporis sive gloriae.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XLIX.

**Part II.**

### *On the glory of the body, or on the second robe.*

*After these things it is customary to ask, whether the beatitude of the Saints etc.*

**FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 999.**

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the glory of the spirit, in which the first robe consists. Here he treats of the glory of the body, in which the second robe consists. Now this part is divided into three parts according to the three things which he determines. For *first* he shows that in the resumption of bodies there will be an increase of glory. *Secondly*, he determines the manner by which the glory of the spirit will be increased, there: *If it moves anyone, what need there is.* *Thirdly*, he determines what sort of body will be restored to the beatified soul, namely a spiritual one, not an animal one; and he does this there: *Accordingly, since this body is now not animal* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning the glory of the body. And concerning this, two things are principally asked[^p1011-4].

*First*, inquiry is made concerning the glory of the body in general.

*Secondly*, in particular.

### SECTION I.

### *On the glory of the body in general.*

Concerning the first, three things are principally asked.

*First*, inquiry is made concerning the glorification of the body.

*Secondly*, concerning the distinction of the dowries.

*Thirdly*, concerning the remuneration of the senses.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

*First*, it is asked whether the glory of the body belongs to the substance of beatitude.

*Secondly*, inquiry is made concerning the origin of the beatitude or glory of the body.

---

la: Auctor hic *duo, quae principaliter* quaeruntur, iterum distribuit, et primum membrum in tria, quae *principaliter quaeruntur*, scil. in tres articulos. Ad confusionem in citando vitandam primae divisioni nomen *sectionis* superscripsimus.

en: The author here again distributes the *two things which are principally* asked, and the first member into three, which *are principally asked*, that is, into three articles. In order to avoid confusion in citation, we have superscribed upon the first division the name of *section*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L107630–107690, verified against 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1011-{L,R}-{1,2}.png` (gutter 1581, as supplied — **no bands regenerated**). Despite p.1011's near-abutting columns (5px blank run), the bands are **not clipped**: the full-width centred headings reassemble cleanly across the L/R seam (`COMMENTARIUS IN DIS|TINCTIONEM XLIX.`, `SECTIO| I.`, `De gloria corpori|s in generali.`).

**Page span.** p.1011 only — skeleton's `printed_pages` confirmed correct, no change. `ARTICULUS I.` / `QUAESTIO I.` print on p.1012 and open the next chunk.

**Band-over-OCR resolutions** (all legible, resolved at band time, no `[?]` flags): `SEGTIO` → `SECTIO`; `De gbria` → `De gloria`; `inlelligentiam` → `intelligentiam`; `ethocfacit` → `et hoc facit`; `seilicet` → `scilicet`; `consislit` → `consistit`; `principaliler` → `principaliter`; `primao` → `primae`; `beatiudo` → `beatitudo`; `beatiludinis` → `beatitudinis`; `VmE` → `VIDE`. `resumtione` is the printed form and is retained.

**Apparatus split for p.1011 (derived independently from the footer bands, not from a neighbour's hand-off).** The page carries a **single register of 4 notes**, printed in **straight reading order**: notes **1–3** in the left footer column, note **4** in the right footer column.

| Note | Text (short) | Anchor location | Chunk |
|---|---|---|---|
| p1011-1 | *In Vat. additur Deum.* | Pars I body, L col. | `p1-a1-q6` |
| p1011-2 | *Codd. IK aa supplent bonum. — De hac sententia cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 3. q. 3.* | Pars I body, R col. | `p1-a1-q6` |
| p1011-3 | *Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.* | Pars I body, R col. (`circa litteram`) | `p1-a1-q6` |
| **p1011-4** | *Auctor hic duo… nomen sectionis superscripsimus.* | **this chunk**, TRACTATIO: `duo principaliter quaeruntur` | **`p2-divisio`** |

This chunk therefore claims **1 apparatus entry**. Latin `[^` anchors: 1. English `[^` anchors: 1. Matched.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- → **`p1-a1-q6`**: notes **1, 2, 3** of p.1011 are yours. Note 2 reads **`III. Sent. d. 31. a. 3. q. 3.`** off the band — the raw OCR gives `Sent. d. 31. n. 3. q. 3.` (drops the `III.` and reads `a.` as `n.`); render the band form.
- → **`p2-s1-a1-q1`**: Sectio I's header, its title, the three-article listing, **and** Art. I's opener `Circa primum quaeruntur duo` with its two-question listing are **all rendered here** (they print on p.1011 above the footer rule). Do **not** re-render them. Your chunk opens at p.1012 with `ARTICULUS I. / De corporis glorificatione.` → `QUAESTIO I. / Utrum gloria corporis sit de substantia beatitudinis.` and a fresh p.1012 footer register.

**Seam continuity.** Opening is a clean full-width `COMMENTARIUS` header, discontinuous by design from q6's close (`…satis patent ea quae possent dici circa litteram`), which itself parses and terminates Pars I properly. Closing sentence (`Secundo quaeritur de origine beatitudinis corporis sive gloriae.`) parses. Nothing of Sectio I Article I's *body* is trapped in this range.

**TRACTATIO promise vs. structure — VERIFIED, no mismatch.** The Pars II TRACTATIO promises exactly **two** (`Et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur`): *Primo… de gloria corporis in generali* (= Sectio I) and *Secundo, in speciali* (= Sectio II). Sectio I's prologue then promises **three** articles (*glorificatione* / *dotium distinctione* / *sensuum remuneratione*) and **two** questions under Art. I. Both match the expected shape. **No lost-question signal on this page.**

**`[?]` flags.** None.