title: Dist. 49, Part 2, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 1030 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum corpus glorificatum sit palpabile a tactu non glorificato.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; this chunk carries notes 1–11 of page 1030, labelled with a page prefix.

Secundo quaeritur de subtilitate per comparationem ad actum nostrum; et quaeritur, utrum corpus glorificatum sit palpabile a tactu non glorificato. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Lucae ultimo[^p1030-1]: *Palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet.*

2. Item, Gregorius in homilia[^p1030-2]: « Palpabile fuit per veritatem naturae et subtile per effectum spiritualis potentiae ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia in corpore glorioso erit veritas carnis et ossis; sed caro est mollis, et os durum; sed durum et molle sunt obiecta tactus[^p1030-3]: ergo etc.

4. Item, corpus gloriosum potest immutare visum[^p1030-4]: ergo eadem ratione potest immutare tactum.

**Contra:** 1. Gregorius[^p1030-5]: « Corrumpi necesse est quod palpatur »; sed gloriosum corpus est incorruptibile: ergo et impalpabile.

2. Item, Ioannes Chrysostomus in quadam homilia[^p1030-6]: « Dignum est quaerere, qualiter corpus incorruptibile tangibile fuit mortali manu; sed ne tumultueris; condescensionis enim fuit ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia omne quod sentitur tactu, sentitur aut per *resistentiam*, aut *qualitatem activam*, sicut sentitur aer frigidus; sed corpus gloriosum non potest sentiri per *resistentiam*, quia nihil ei resistit; non per *qualitatem activam*, quia nulla talis immutatio ibi remanet: ergo nullo modo.

4. Item, tactus maxime est materialis; corpus autem illud spirituale[^p1030-7]: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** *Corpus gloriosum potest se praebere tangibile et etiam non se praebere sive latere.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum dico *tangibile*, duo dico, scilicet quod potest *immutare sensum*, et hoc est perfectionis; et quod *non potest latere tactum nostrum*, et hoc est imperfectionis. Et quia remanebit quod est perfectionis, et tolletur quod est imperfectionis[^p1030-8]; ideo dico, quod corpus gloriosum potest se praebere tangibile et potest se non praebere sive latere; et hoc habet secundum diversas conditiones. Nam *tangi* potest, quia potest impellenti resistere, cum sit corpus verum, non vanum vel phantasticum; *latere* potest, quia potest penetrare organum tactus. *Primum* habet per virtutem naturae, *secundum* per effectum spiritualis potentiae. Et haec duo contraria sunt in nobis, sed non in illo corpore. — Concedendae ergo sunt rationes, quod tangi potest.

**Ad argumenta pro parte opposita:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod palpatur est corruptibile; dicendum, quod hoc verum est de eo quod est tactui subiectum, sed istud non erat[^p1030-9]; et ideo condescensionis erat.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de resistentia, dico, quod corpus tangens non resistit tangendo, sed magis e converso; et licet nihil possit corpori glorioso resistere, ipsum tamen potest aliis; sicut patet, quia constat, quod potest sustollere[^p1030-10] lapidem in manu.

*Ad 4.* Ad ultimum vero patet responsio: quia corpus non efficitur ita spirituale, quin salvetur in eo veritas carnis et ossis[^p1030-11].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the glorified body is palpable to a touch that is not glorified.*

Secondly it is asked about subtlety by comparison with our act; and it is asked whether the glorified body is palpable to a touch that is not glorified. And that it is, seems so.

1. Luke, last chapter[^p1030-1]: *Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones.*

2. Likewise, Gregory in a homily[^p1030-2]: "It was palpable through the truth of its nature and subtle through the effect of spiritual power."

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because in the glorious body there will be the truth of flesh and bone; but flesh is soft, and bone hard; but hard and soft are objects of touch[^p1030-3]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a glorious body can alter sight[^p1030-4]: therefore by the same account it can alter touch.

**On the contrary:** 1. Gregory[^p1030-5]: "What is handled must necessarily be corrupted"; but a glorious body is incorruptible: therefore it is also impalpable.

2. Likewise, John Chrysostom in a certain homily[^p1030-6]: "It is worth asking how an incorruptible body was tangible to a mortal hand; but do not be troubled; it was a matter of condescension."

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because everything that is perceived by touch is perceived either through *resistance* or through an *active quality*, as cold air is perceived; but a glorious body cannot be perceived through *resistance*, because nothing resists it; nor through an *active quality*, because no such alteration remains there: therefore in no way.

4. Likewise, touch is most of all material; but that body is spiritual[^p1030-7]: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *A glorious body can present itself as tangible and can also not present itself, that is, lie hidden.*

**I respond:** It must be said that when I say *tangible*, I say two things, namely that it can *alter sense*, and this belongs to perfection; and that it *cannot lie hidden from our touch*, and this belongs to imperfection. And because what belongs to perfection will remain, and what belongs to imperfection will be taken away[^p1030-8]; therefore I say that the glorious body can present itself as tangible and can not present itself, that is, lie hidden; and it has this according to diverse conditions. For it *can be touched*, because it can resist one who pushes against it, since it is a true body, not empty or phantastic; it *can lie hidden*, because it can penetrate the organ of touch. The *first* it has through the power of nature, the *second* through the effect of spiritual power. And these two are contrary in us, but not in that body. — Therefore the reasons are to be conceded, that it can be touched.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected, that what is handled is corruptible; it must be said that this is true of what is subject to touch, but that body was not[^p1030-9]; and therefore it was a matter of condescension.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning resistance, I say that the touching body does not resist by touching, but rather the reverse; and although nothing can resist a glorious body, that body nevertheless can resist others; as is plain, because it is agreed that it can lift up[^p1030-10] a stone in its hand.

*To 4.* To the last the answer is plain: because the body is not made so spiritual that the truth of flesh and bone is not preserved in it[^p1030-11].

---

la: Vers. 39.

en: Verse 39.

la: Cfr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 26. n. 1. Verbotenus habetur XIV. Moral. c. 56. n. 72: *In illa enim resurrectionis gloria erit corpus nostrum subtile quidem per effectum spiritualis potentiae, sed palpabile per veritatem naturae.*

en: Cf. *Homilies on the Gospels*, book II, homily 26, n. 1. Word for word it is found in *Moralia* XIV, c. 56, n. 72: *For in that glory of the resurrection our body will be subtle indeed through the effect of spiritual power, but palpable through the truth of its nature.*

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 107. (c. 11.).

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 107 (c. 11).

la: Ut insinuatum est supra a. 2. q. 2.

en: As was intimated above, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 26. n. 1.

la: Homil. 87. (alias 86.) in Ioan. 20, 29. n. 1; textus originalis post *incorruptibile* addit *clavorum cicatrices habuerit* (ἐδείκνυτο). Pro *tumultueris* (θορυβηθῇς) cod. aa *metueris*, ed. Migne *turberis*.

en: Homily 87 (elsewhere 86) on John 20:29, n. 1; the original text adds after *incorruptible* the words *it had the scars of the nails* (ἐδείκνυτο). For *tumultueris* (θορυβηθῇς) codex aa reads *metueris*, the Migne edition *turberis*.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 15, 44. — De *tactu* cfr. supra pag. 1018, nota 8.

en: Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44. — On *touch* cf. above, p. 1018, note 8.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 10: *Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est.*

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:10: *But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.*

la: Codd. L N Y aa (E a secunda manu) addunt *in corpore Domini*.

en: Codices L, N, Y, aa (and E by a second hand) add *in the body of the Lord*.

la: Cod. V *tollere*, codd. G L R S U aa (bb a secunda manu) *sustinere*.

en: Codex V reads *tollere*, codices G, L, R, S, U, aa (and bb by a second hand) *sustinere*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L109698–109754, verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1030-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (band split 1030:2037, used as given — **no bands regenerated**). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page span.** Printed p. 1030 only; `printed_pages: [1030]` confirmed correct against the band (running head `1030 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` sits immediately above `QUAESTIO II.`). No correction needed.

**Apparatus split map — p. 1030 is a three-way shared page** (`s2-a3-q1` above, this chunk, `s2-a4-q1` below). Derived independently by content:

- p. 1030 carries **11 numbered notes**: 1–6 in the left footer column, 7–11 in the right. Binding is straight **reading order** — every marker in the body maps to the note whose content matches, with no overflow or inversion.
- **All 11 anchor in this chunk's body.** `s2-a3-q1`'s body ends on p. 1029; `s2-a4-q1`'s opener (`ARTICULUS IV. / De dote agilitatis.`, foot of p. 1030) carries **no markers**. So the split is **11 / 0 / 0** — this chunk takes the whole p. 1030 register; neither neighbour has a share.
- The left footer column opens with an **unnumbered runover** — *"quae paulo inferius ex Dionysio affertur. Vide tom. II. pag. 83, nota 1. et pag. 329, nota 4."* — which is the tail of **p. 1029's note 5** (*De Div. Nom.* c. 2 § 4). It belongs to p. 1029's register, not to this chunk, and is deliberately not rendered here. Flagged for whoever holds p. 1029.

**Scholion.** None for this question. Confirmed by note 11 itself: *"Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."* — Art. III's scholion sits in `s2-a3-q1` and covers this question by cross-reference. Not re-rendered here. `has_scholion: false`.

**Seams.** Opening (*Secundo quaeritur de subtilitate…*) is a clean question-opener continuous with Art. III's promise of two questions. Closing (*…quin salvetur in eo veritas carnis et ossis.*) parses cleanly and is the true end of Q. II — no cascade-merge. `ARTICULUS IV.` and its full praenotata (*Consequenter quaeritur de dote agilitatis… Primo… Secundo quaeritur de inclinatione corporis gloriosi per agilitatem.*) are entirely outside this range and fold into `s2-a4-q1`; **nothing of Art. IV is trapped here**.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not text): *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Duo habet tangibile*, *Conclusio*, *Rationes.*, *Solutio oppositorum*.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every reading was resolved off the band.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 49, Part 2, Art. 4, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 1030 -->

### Articulus IV. *De dote agilitatis.*

Consequenter quaeritur de dote agilitatis, de qua duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum sit in omnibus corporibus gloriosis.

Secundo quaeritur de inclinatione corporis gloriosi per agilitatem.

<!-- page 1031 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum agilitas sit in omnibus corporibus gloriosis.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: this chunk's body anchors notes 1–13 of page 1031 only. Page 1030's footer register (eleven notes) anchors wholly in the two preceding chunks — the Articulus IV opener printed at the foot of page 1030 carries no marker of its own.

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod agilitas sit in corporibus gloriosis.

1. Sapientiae tertio[^p1031-1]: *Tanquam scintillae in arundineto discurrent*; dicitur de Beatis.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia anima sensitiva habet vim motivam et sensitivam[^p1031-2], et resurgent organa virtutis motivae et sensitivae; sed organa sensitivae erunt habilia sensui: ergo organa motivae motui.

3. Item, corpus propter suam tarditatem animae repugnat[^p1031-3]; sed tunc nulla erit repugnantia: ergo nulla tarditas, et sic etc.

4. Item, non statim, ut resurgent, erunt in empyreo; et ille est locus debitus, et unumquodque corpus habet habilitatem tendendi ad locum suum[^p1031-4]: ergo cum habeat habilitatem tendendi et hanc non habeat nisi per agilitatem; patet etc.

**Contra:** 1. Frustra est agilitas ad motum, si non decet esse motum; sed in corporibus illis impossibile est esse motum, prout dicitur Apocalypsis decimo[^p1031-5]: *Iuravit, quod non erit ultra tempus*; sed omnis motus localis est in tempore: ergo si non erit tempus, ergo nec motus.

2. Item, Augustinus *de Trinitate*[^p1031-6]: «In habentibus mutationem nonnulla mors est ipsa mutatio». Et ratio huius est, quia in omni motu aliquid deperditur, et illud *mori* non incongrue dicitur; sed corpus illud erit ab omni morte alienum: ergo etc.

3. Item, Philosophus[^p1031-7] dicit, quod «motus est entelechia entis in potentia»; unde omnis motus imperfectioni attestatur, quia est propter habendum aliquid non habitum; sed omnis imperfectio abest a corporibus gloriosis: ergo et omnis motus.

4. Item, hoc ostenditur *per simile* in superiori et inferiori: quia anima remuneratur per affectionum et cogitationum quietationem, corpora etiam supercaelestia, quae sunt maxime habilia ad motum, per quietem[^p1031-8]: ergo similiter corpora gloriosa.

### Conclusio

> Corpora gloriosa habent agilitatem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quidquid sit de *motu*, tamen de *agilitate* certum est, quod ista proprietas est de perfectione et nobilitate corporis et faciens ad expeditionem animae in corpore: et ideo dico, quod erit ibi, sicut probant rationes.

1. Quod vero obiicitur de motu, dicendum, quod motus omnis est propter carentiam alicuius rei. Carentia autem potest esse aut rei, quae *inhaeret*, aut rei, quae *assistit*. Si rei, quae *inhaeret* ut proprietas absoluta; haec quidem imperfectionem facit in mobili, et similiter motus. Alia est carentia rei, quae *assistit*, et tunc aut illa[^p1031-9] est nata assistere *per naturam*, et tunc illa indiget; et talis motus, etsi sit rei perfectae, attestatur tamen alicui imperfectioni, ut cum lapis movetur ad locum deorsum; aut locus ille non est natus assistere *per naturam* magis quam alius, quia illo non indiget, sed per *voluntatem*, quia aliquid vult circa illum locum operari; et talis motus non ponit imperfectionem, sed libertatem, et talis esse poterit in corpore glorioso. — Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non erit tempus; dicendum, quod verum est, prout est mensura motus primi mobilis[^p1031-10].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de mutatione, quod est mors; dicendum, quod illud non intelligitur de *qualibet* mutatione, sed de mutatione ad *formam*[^p1031-11].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod motus attestatur imperfectioni; dicendum, quod verum est de motu ad *formam*, vel ad *situm* propter indigentiam; hic autem motus est propter libertatem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima non mutat affectiones; dicendum, quod mutatio veniebat[^p1031-12] *ex eius instabilitate*, mutatio corporum superiorum est *propter inferiorum necessitatem*; mutatio autem corporis ab anima *ex libertate*; ideo non est simile[^p1031-13].

---

english:
<!-- page 1030 -->

### Article IV. *On the dowry of agility.*

Next it is asked about the dowry of agility, concerning which two things are asked.

First it is asked whether it is in all glorified bodies.

Second it is asked about the inclination of the glorified body through agility.

<!-- page 1031 -->

### Question I. *Whether agility is in all glorified bodies.*

Concerning the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that agility is in glorified bodies.

1. Wisdom, chapter three[^p1031-1]: *They shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds*; it is said of the Blessed.

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because the sensitive soul has a motive power and a sensitive power[^p1031-2], and the organs of the motive and of the sensitive faculty will rise again; but the organs of the sensitive faculty will be apt for sensing: therefore the organs of the motive faculty [will be apt] for motion.

3. Likewise, the body on account of its sluggishness is at odds with the soul[^p1031-3]; but then there will be no discord: therefore no sluggishness, and so forth.

4. Likewise, they will not be in the empyrean immediately upon rising; and that is the due place, and every body has an aptitude for tending toward its own place[^p1031-4]: therefore since it has an aptitude for tending, and does not have this except through agility, it is plain, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Agility is pointless for motion if it is not fitting that there be motion; but in those bodies it is impossible that there be motion, as is said in Apocalypse, chapter ten[^p1031-5]: *He swore that there should be time no longer*; but every local motion is in time: therefore if there will be no time, then neither will there be motion.

2. Likewise, Augustine *On the Trinity*[^p1031-6]: «In things having change, the change itself is a certain death». And the ground of this is that in every motion something is lost, and that is not incongruously called *dying*; but that body will be a stranger to all death: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, the Philosopher[^p1031-7] says that «motion is the entelechy of a being in potency»; whence every motion testifies to imperfection, because it is for the sake of having something not had; but every imperfection is absent from glorified bodies: therefore also every motion.

4. Likewise, this is shown *by a parallel* in the higher and the lower: because the soul is rewarded through the quieting of its affections and thoughts, and the supercelestial bodies too, which are most apt for motion, [are rewarded] through rest[^p1031-8]: therefore likewise the glorified bodies.

### Conclusion

> Glorified bodies have agility.

**I respond:** It must be said that whatever be the case about *motion*, nevertheless about *agility* it is certain that this property belongs to the perfection and nobility of the body and makes for the soul's unimpededness in the body: and therefore I say that it will be there, as the reasons prove.

1. As for what is objected concerning motion, it must be said that all motion is on account of the lack of some thing. But the lack can be either of a thing that *inheres* or of a thing that *stands by*. If of a thing that *inheres* as an absolute property, this indeed makes an imperfection in the movable, and likewise the motion does. Another is the lack of a thing that *stands by*, and then either that thing[^p1031-9] is fitted to stand by *through nature*, and then [the movable] needs it; and such motion, even if it belong to a perfect thing, nevertheless testifies to some imperfection, as when a stone is moved downward to its place; or that place is not fitted to stand by *through nature* more than another, because it does not need it, but [it is sought] through *will*, because it wills to do something about that place; and such motion posits not imperfection but freedom, and such can be in a glorified body. — To that, then, which is objected, that there will be no time, it must be said that this is true insofar as time is the measure of the motion of the first movable[^p1031-10].

2. To that which is objected concerning change, that it is death, it must be said that this is not understood of *any* change whatever, but of change toward a *form*[^p1031-11].

3. To that which is objected, that motion testifies to imperfection, it must be said that this is true of motion toward a *form*, or toward a *position* on account of need; but this motion is on account of freedom.

4. To that which is objected, that the soul does not change its affections, it must be said that change came about[^p1031-12] *from its instability*; the change of the higher bodies is *on account of the necessity of the lower*; but the change of the body by the soul is *from freedom*; therefore the case is not parallel[^p1031-13].

---

la: Vers. 7.

en: Verse 7.

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 27. seqq. (c. 3.) et III. text. 40. seqq. (c. 9.). — Mox edd. *et ita resurgent... sicut et*; codd. I K *ergo resurgent*.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 27 ff. (c. 3) and III, text 40 ff. (c. 9). — Just below, the editions read *and thus they will rise again... just as also*; codices I K, *therefore they will rise again*.

la: Sap. 9, 15: Corpus enim, quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam etc. — Pro *suam* edd. cum paucis codd. *sui*.

en: Wisdom 9:15: For the body which is corrupted weighs down the soul, etc. — For *suam* the editions, with a few codices, read *sui*.

la: Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 4. et 48. (c. 1. et 5.): Fertur enim unumquodque in suum locum.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 4 and 48 (c. 1 and 5): For each thing is borne into its own place.

la: Vers. 6: Et iuravit per viventem in saecula saeculorum... Quia tempus non erit amplius.

en: Verse 6: And he swore by him that liveth for ever and ever... That time shall be no longer.

la: Libr. II. c. 9. n. 15: Ipsa mutabilitas non inconvenienter mortalitas dicitur etc. Libr. II. contra Maximin. Arianum, c. 12. n. 2: In omni enim mutabili natura nonnulla mors est ipsa mutatio, quia facit, aliquid in ea non esse quod erat.

en: Book II, c. 9, n. 15: Mutability itself is not unfittingly called mortality, etc. Book II *Against Maximinus the Arian*, c. 12, n. 2: For in every mutable nature the change itself is a certain death, because it makes something in it not to be what it was.

la: Libr. III. Phys. text. 6. (c. 1.): Eius quod in potentia existit actus [ἐντελέχεια], quatenus huiusmodi, motus est. Ibid. text. 15. (c. 2.): Et motus actus quidem aliquis esse videtur, *imperfectus* tamen. Causa autem est, quoniam imperfectum est ipsum possibile [i. e. ens in potentia], cuius est actus motus.

en: *Physics* III, text 6 (c. 1): The act [ἐντελέχεια] of that which exists in potency, insofar as it is such, is motion. Ibid., text 15 (c. 2): And motion seems indeed to be a certain act, yet an *imperfect* one. The reason is that the possible itself [i.e. the being in potency], whose act motion is, is imperfect.

la: Cfr. supra d. 48. a. 2. q. 1. et 2. — Edd. supplent *remunerantur*.

en: Compare above, d. 48, a. 2, q. 1 and 2. — The editions supply *are rewarded*.

la: Cod. F supplet *res*.

en: Codex F supplies *res* [the thing].

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. et ibid. pag. 20, nota 1.

en: See II *Sentences*, d. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the body, and ibid., p. 20, note 1.

la: Cui opponitur mutatio sive motus ad *situm*; cfr. tom. II. pag. 31, nota 9. et pag. 348, nota 3.

en: To which is opposed change or motion toward *position*; compare vol. II, p. 31, note 9, and p. 348, note 3.

la: Plurimi codd. et ed. I perperam *non veniebat*. Post *instabilitate* edd. prosequuntur: *seu necessitate; mutatio enim corporum* etc.

en: Very many codices and edition I wrongly read *non veniebat* [did not come about]. After *instabilitate* the editions continue: *or from necessity; for the change of bodies*, etc.

en: See the scholion to question 1 of the preceding article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L109755–109886, verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `vol4-p{1030,1031}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands used as given at the measured gutters 1030:2037, 1031:1630; **no bands regenerated, none clipped**). English translated literally, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Page span — CORRECTED.** The skeleton carried `printed_pages: [1030, 1031, 1032]`. **p.1032 carries no body of this chunk.** The raw runs: p.1031 body (both columns) → p.1031 footer register → the `1032 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` running head at L109882 → `QU.\ESTIO II.` at L109887. The chunk therefore ends at the p.1031/1032 page turn. Both p.1032 columns (bands L-2 and R-2) were read directly and are wholly `s2-a4-q2`'s body plus an eleven-note footer register. `printed_pages` narrowed to **[1030, 1031]**, `pdf_pages` to [1050, 1051], `source` adjusted.

**Apparatus split map.**
- **p.1030** — 11 notes (1–6 in the left footer column, 7–11 in the right; straight reading order, note 6 overflowing L→R). **None of them anchor here.** This chunk's only p.1030 content is the Articulus IV opener, which carries no marker. All eleven belong to `d49-p2-s2-a3-q1` / `-a3-q2`. Not claimed.
- **p.1031** — 13 notes, **all 13 anchored and rendered here**. Straight reading order: notes 1–7 print in the left footer column (note 7 overflowing into the right column), notes 8–13 in the right. Body anchors 1–8 fall in the left body column, 9–13 in the right — reading-order binding throughout, no inversion.
- Chunk total: **13 apparatus entries**, all `p1031-N`. Latin body anchors = 13; English body anchors = 13.

**OCR-vs-band disagreements, resolved at band time (no `[?]` raised).**
- Note 3: the OCR renders the marker as `5` and the citation as `Sap. 9, 1-3`. The band reads plainly `3 Sap. 9, 15` — Wisdom 9:15, *Corpus enim quod corrumpitur aggravat animam*, which is exactly what body argument 3 alludes to. Band followed.
- Note 6: OCR `n. 16`; band reads `n. 15`. Band followed; recorded because the two differ by one digit and the band is the only independent witness.
- Note 7's Greek is shattered in the OCR (`[evTEXIysia]`) and was restored from the band as `[ἐντελέχεια]`.

**Marginal glosses (editorial furniture, not body text).** p.1031 prints eight marginal glosses which the OCR bleeds inline as garbage (`»`, `ipposi-/im.`, `Conclosio.`, `solpuo op-`, `m/tae- DisUncuo.`, `snbdisun-`, `Notandnm.`, `jintauo iri-plei.`). Read off the bands they are: *Fundamenta.* · *Oppositum.* · *Conclusio.* · *Solutio oppositorum.* · *Distinctio.* · *Subdistinctio.* · *Notandum.* · *Mutatio triplex.* Trimmed from the body per the OCR-cleanup rule.

**Scholion — none, and this is correct, not an omission.** p.1031 ends at *ideo non est simile* with note 13 and no scholion. Note 13 states the reason explicitly: *Vide scholion ad 1. praecedentis articuli quaest.* — the scholion covering this material sits in `d49-p2-s2-a3-q1`. p.1032's note 11, serving q2, points to the same place, so Articulus IV as a whole has no scholion of its own. `has_scholion: false`.

**Dubia — absent, confirmed from the bands.** Both p.1032 footer bands were swept. The page carries only `s2-a4-q2`'s body and an eleven-note footer register (notes 1–6 left, 7–11 right); there is no dubia section, no `DUB.` header, and no marginal gloss of any kind in either margin. d.49 closes at the foot of p.1032, with `DISTINCTIO L. P. I.` opening at L109974. This **corroborates** the `Dubia circa lit. desunt.` gloss found in p.1011's right margin by `p1-a1-q6`: the littera dubia of d.49 are genuinely lacking, not merely un-greppable.

**ARTICULUS IV opener — promises exactly TWO questions.** Verbatim from band `vol4-p1030-{L,R}-2`: *«Consequenter quaeritur de dote agilitatis, de qua duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum sit in omnibus corporibus gloriosis. Secundo quaeritur de inclinatione corporis gloriosi per agilitatem.»* Two, named as (1) *utrum sit in omnibus corporibus gloriosis* and (2) *de inclinatione corporis gloriosi per agilitatem*. Both are accounted for by `s2-a4-q1` and `s2-a4-q2`; **no third question is hidden.**

**Seam L109886 / L109887 — clean, verified.** This chunk's last sentence, *…mutatio autem corporis ab anima ex libertate; ideo non est simile*, parses complete and is confirmed word-for-word on band `vol4-p1031-R-1`. L109887's `QU.\ESTIO II.` lies entirely outside the range; nothing of q2's opening — its title, its *Secundo quaeritur* prologue, or its Conclusio — is trapped here. No cascade-merge signature.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `d49-p2-s2-a3-q1` and `-a3-q2`: the whole of p.1030's 11-note footer register is yours; this chunk claims none of it. Derived independently from the p.1030 bands, not from any neighbour's report.
- To `d49-p2-s2-a4-q2`: the `ARTICULUS IV.` opener is rendered here in full per the frozen convention — do not repeat it. p.1032 is wholly yours, body and all 11 footer notes; this chunk claims nothing on that page.

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

**Nothing unmapped.** No unrendered ordinal opener, section, scholion, dubium, or footer note in the range.

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, Art. 4, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 1032 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum agilitas inclinet corpus gloriosum ad omnem differentiam positionis, an ad aliquem locum determinatum.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page; this chunk covers printed page 1032 only, so the labels run through notes 1–11 of page 1032.

Secundo quaeritur de inclinatione corporis gloriosi, quae est per agilitatem; et quaeritur, utrum agilitas inclinet corpus gloriosum ad omnem differentiam positionis, an ad aliquem locum determinatum. Et quod non ad omnem differentiam, videtur:

1. Quia inclinatio mobilis sequitur praedominans secundum quantitatem[^p1032-1]; sed praedominans secundum quantitatem in corporibus illis est terra et aqua: ergo etc. — *Si dicas*, quod auferetur gravitas; *contra*: haec est de natura terrae; sed Augustinus[^p1032-2] dicit, quod « natura servabitur »: ergo etc.

2. Item, unumquodque appetit quod est magis sibi conveniens[^p1032-3]; sed locus caeli empyrei est magis sibi conveniens: ergo appetit esse ibi. Sed inclinatio est appetitus naturalis: ergo etc.

3. Item, omne quod quiescit alicubi, habet vim ipsum ibi stabilientem[^p1032-4]; sed corpus gloriosum quiescit in caelo: ergo ibi stabilitur per aliquam virtutem. Sed virtus stabiliens in loco inclinat ad locum determinatum: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Corpus illud est per omnia obediens animae: ergo si voluntas illa potest movere ad omnem differentiam positionis, et aeque ad unam sicut ad aliam: ergo corpus gloriosum non magis inclinatur ad unam quam ad aliam[^p1032-5].

2. Item, quod habet inclinationem ad unam partem, si moveatur ad oppositam, movetur cum fatigatione et poena: ergo si illud inclinaretur sursum et moveretur deorsum, esset ibi labor et poena[^p1032-6].

3. Item, quod appetit unum locum, si extra illum ponatur, efficitur indigens et imperfectum[^p1032-7]: ergo si corpus gloriosum inclinaretur ad aliquem locum secundum appetitum, aut impossibile esset, quod inde moveretur, aut, si inde moveretur, esset imperfectum.

### Conclusio

> *Agilitas corporis gloriosi non inclinat ad aliquem locum determinatum, sed est promptitudo, ut ad omnem locum, sicut vult anima, moveatur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *habilitas* ad motum sequitur *inclinationem*, et *inclinatio* appetitus est respectu perfectionis[^p1032-8], quia propter illam est. Quoniam igitur corpus gloriosum totam suae existentiae et nobilitatis et stabilitatis rationem trahit ab anima; ideo inclinatio eius est ad *animam*, non ad *aliquid extra*. Et quoniam agilitas sequitur inclinationem; et anima potest movere in omnem differentiam positionis: ideo et corpus habet habilitatem ad omnem situm. Unde agilitas non inclinat ad aliquem locum determinatum, ut probatum est[^p1032-9], sed est promptitudo, ut corpus moveatur in omnem locum, ad quem vult movere anima. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod terra praedominatur; dicendum, quod quia appetitus elementorum totaliter quietatur in illo corpore, quod nullum elementum in eo appetit suam sphaeram; et ideo ablatus est terrae appetitus ille et gravitas[^p1032-10]. — Quod obiicitur, quod natura servatur, et vitium detrahitur; dicendum, quod *vitium* dicitur omne quod importat imperfectionem.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod appetit magis conveniens; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, si illo indiget; sed corpus gloriosum nullo indiget loco.

*Ad 3.* Ad ultimum dicendum, quod corpus stabilitur in omni loco per animam, et anima per Deum[^p1032-11]; et sic non indiget alia inclinatione.

---

english:
<!-- page 1032 -->

### Question II. *Whether agility inclines the glorified body to every difference of position, or to some determinate place.*

Secondly there is asked about the inclination of the glorified body which is through agility; and it is asked whether agility inclines the glorified body to every difference of position, or to some determinate place. And that it is not to every difference, it seems:

1. Because the inclination of a movable thing follows what predominates according to quantity[^p1032-1]; but what predominates according to quantity in those bodies is earth and water: therefore etc. — *If you say* that heaviness will be taken away; *on the contrary*: this belongs to the nature of earth; but Augustine[^p1032-2] says that "the nature will be preserved": therefore etc.

2. Likewise, everything seeks what is more suited to it[^p1032-3]; but the place of the empyrean heaven is more suited to it: therefore it seeks to be there. But inclination is a natural appetite: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, everything that rests somewhere has a power settling it there[^p1032-4]; but the glorified body rests in heaven: therefore it is settled there by some power. But a power settling in a place inclines toward a determinate place: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. That body is in all things obedient to the soul: therefore, if that will can move it to every difference of position, and equally to one as to another: therefore the glorified body is not more inclined to one than to another[^p1032-5].

2. Likewise, what has an inclination toward one direction, if it be moved toward the opposite, is moved with weariness and pain: therefore, if it were inclined upward and were moved downward, there would be labor and pain in it[^p1032-6].

3. Likewise, what seeks one place, if it be set outside it, is made needy and imperfect[^p1032-7]: therefore, if the glorified body were inclined toward some place according to appetite, either it would be impossible that it be moved from there, or, if it were moved from there, it would be imperfect.

### Conclusion

> *The agility of the glorified body does not incline it toward any determinate place, but is a readiness that it be moved to every place, as the soul wills.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *aptitude* for motion follows *inclination*, and *inclination* is an appetite in respect of perfection[^p1032-8], because it exists for the sake of that. Since therefore the glorified body draws the whole account of its existence and nobility and stability from the soul, its inclination is therefore toward the *soul*, not toward *something outside*. And since agility follows inclination, and the soul can move it to every difference of position, therefore the body too has an aptitude for every situation. Hence agility does not incline toward any determinate place, as has been proved[^p1032-9], but is a readiness that the body be moved to every place to which the soul wills to move it. — And the reasons for this are to be conceded.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that earth predominates; it must be said that, because the appetite of the elements is wholly brought to rest in that body, no element in it seeks its own sphere; and therefore that appetite of earth and its heaviness have been taken away[^p1032-10]. — To what is objected, that the nature is preserved and the vice taken away; it must be said that *vice* is said of everything that implies imperfection.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that it seeks what is more suited; it must be said that this is true if it needs it; but the glorified body needs no place.

*To 3.* To the last it must be said that the body is settled in every place through the soul, and the soul through God[^p1032-11]; and thus it does not need another inclination.

---

la: Secundum Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 7. seq. (c. 2.). — Pro *praedominans* Vat. *naturam praedominantis*.

en: According to Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 7 f. (c. 2). — For *praedominans* the Vatican edition reads *naturam praedominantis*.

la: Libr. XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 17: Vitia detrahentur, natura servabitur.

en: *On the City of God*, book XXII, c. 17: "The vices will be taken away, the nature will be preserved."

la: Cfr. Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 11.

en: Cf. Boethius, *On the Consolation of Philosophy* III, prose 11.

la: Vide Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 48. (c. 5.), et IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 21. seqq. (c. 3.). — Pro *omne* codd. M O *ratione videtur*.

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 48 (c. 5), and *On the Heavens and the World* IV, text 21 ff. (c. 3). — For *omne* codices M O read *ratione videtur*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 1017, nota 3. verba August.

en: Cf. above, p. 1017, note 3, the words of Augustine.

la: Respiciuntur verba Aristot. supra pag. 990, nota 3, et pag. 1016, nota 3. allata.

en: The words of Aristotle adduced above at p. 990, note 3, and p. 1016, note 3, are being referred to.

la: Secundum Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 76. seq. (c. 8.). — Immediate post pro *ergo si* multi codd. *item si*.

en: According to Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 76 f. (c. 8). — Immediately after, for *ergo si* many codices read *item si*.

la: Codd. I K addunt *animae*. Inferius pro *totam* edd. substituunt *totum*.

en: Codices I K add *animae*. Below, for *totam* the editions substitute *totum*.

la: In fundam. — Superius pro *habet habilitatem*, quod praebet cod. aa, alii codd. et ed. I non ita congrue *habet habile*, Vat. *habile*.

en: In the fundamenta. — Above, in place of *habet habilitatem*, which codex aa offers, the other codices and edition I read, less fittingly, *habet habile*; the Vatican edition, *habile*.

la: Vide supra pag. 976, nota 8. et d. 48. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius post *corpore* edd. addunt *ita*.

en: See above, p. 976, note 8, and d. 48, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, after *corpore*, the editions add *ita*.

la: Ut docet August. supra pag. 1014, nota 2. — Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.

en: As Augustine teaches, above at p. 1014, note 2. — See the scholion on question I of the preceding article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L109887–109978, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1032-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutter 2121, as pre-measured; **no bands were regenerated**). English translated literally, paragraph for paragraph.

**Page span corrected: [1032, 1033] → [1032]** (`pdf_pages` [1052, 1053] → [1052]). The skeleton was one page too wide. The question begins and ends entirely on p. 1032: the left column runs from *Secundo quaeritur* to *…esset imperfectum*, the right column from the CONCLUSIO to *…non indiget alia inclinatione*, and the footer register closes the page. The only p.1033 token inside the raw range is the running head at L109974 (`DISTINCTIO L. P. I. 1033`), which is page furniture belonging to the following page.

**Recovered-question boundary verdict — CLEAN.** The garbled `QU.\ESTIO II.` at L109887 is confirmed on the bands as a genuine, centred, **full-width heading spanning the gutter** (`QUAESTIO` on p.1032-L-0, `STIO II.` on p.1032-R-0; likewise the two-line italic title split across both bands). That spanning shape is exactly the documented cause of the OCR garble. The body starts there and nowhere else: the immediately preceding raw lines are p.1031's footer register (L109871–109881) and p.1032's running head (L109882), so nothing of this question's opening was left behind in `s2-a4-q1`, whose body closes on p.1031. The opening sentence (*Secundo quaeritur…*) parses and correctly answers Art. IV's promise of two questions; the closing sentence (*et sic non indiget alia inclinatione*) parses cleanly. No cascade-merge signature at either end.

**Apparatus — 11 entries, all page 1032, all anchored by this body.**
Split: **left footer column = notes 1–6**, **right footer column = notes 7–11**. Binding is **straight reading order**, verified by content, not position: notes 1–6 anchor in the left body column (*quantitatem*, *Augustinus*, *conveniens*, *stabilientem*, *ad aliam*, *labor et poena*), and note 7 anchors at the very end of the left column (*imperfectum*) even though it prints at the head of the right footer column — its own variant note (*Immediate post pro* ergo si) confirms this against the left column's next words. Notes 8–11 anchor in the right body column. No within-page gutter overflow beyond that single note-7 case; **no cross-page footer runover** — the left footer column opens with a numbered note 1 (no unnumbered continuation fragment from p.1031) and the right column closes with a complete note 11 (nothing breaks off).

**DUBIA — ABSENT, on positive evidence.** Checked three ways. (a) The **foot of p.1032**: band `vol4-p1032-{L,R}-2.png` read in full — the left footer column ends with note 6 and the right with note 11, each followed by a large blank region down to the page edge. There is no dubia section, no `DUB.`/`DuB.` header, no editorial gloss, and no marginal note anywhere below the footer rules. (b) **All of p.1033**: band `vol4-p1033-L-0.png` shows the page opening straight into the full-width `DISTINCTIO L.` header and `Pars I.`, then Lombard's littera `Cap. I. — Si mali in inferno peccabunt.` No d.49 material survives onto it. (c) **Raw cross-check** with the garble-tolerant pattern `grep -nEi "d[i1l]st[inml1]{1,2}[cg]t[il1]o"` over the tail of the range, which finds only the two running-head/header instances. Conclusion: d.49 genuinely prints **no littera dubia**, corroborating the editorial gloss *Dubia circa lit. desunt.* that `p1-a1-q6` reported from p.1011's right margin. This is not merely an absent grep — it is an eyes-on sweep of the whole foot of the last body page and of the whole following page.

**What on p.1033 belongs to d.50** — all of it. p.1033 carries the `DISTINCTIO L.` header, `Pars I.`, and Lombard's littera beginning `Cap. I. Si mali in inferno peccabunt` (raw resumes at L109979). The d.50 littera writer should claim p.1033 entire, including its whole footer register; **none of p.1033 is claimed here.**

**Nothing of d.50 is trapped in this range.** The last d.49 content line is L109973 (note 11's continuation); L109974 is p.1033's running head and L109975–109978 are blank.

**Scholion.** None on this page. Note 11 cross-refers *Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis articuli quaest.*, i.e. the Art. IV scholion sits with `s2-a4-q1` and covers this question by reference. `has_scholion: false` is correct.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): *Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Axioma*, *Inclinatio ad animam*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio positorum*.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every OCR garble in the range (`QU.\ESTIO`, `mcfeia<«o` → *inclinatio*, `Qnoniam` → *Quoniam*, `pi'obatum` → *probatum*, `proraptitudo` → *promptitudo*, `Solnlict positora` → marginal *Solutio positorum*) was resolved legibly off the bands.


title: Dist. 50, Part 1

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio L, Pars I — De statu damnatorum post iudicium

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction L, Part I — On the state of the damned after the judgement

source_text:
<!-- page 1033 -->

### DISTINCTIO L.
### Pars I.

> **On the apparatus numbering.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The notes below are therefore labelled by page: notes 1–5 of page 1033, and note 1 of page 1034. Page 1033's register is d.50's entire; the remaining notes of page 1034 (2 onward) anchor in Pars II and belong to the next chunk.

#### Cap. I.
*Si mali in inferno peccabunt.*

Hic oritur quaestio ex praemissis ducens originem. Supra enim[^p1033-1] Augustinus, loquens de malis in inferno damnatis et bonis in caelo glorificatis, dixit, quod nec bonis voluntas, nec malis facultas peccandi esse poterit. Et de bonis quidem constat; sed de malis, a quibus voluntatem malam non removet, quaeritur, quomodo verum sit, eos *non posse peccare,* immo quomodo verum sit, eos *non peccare,* cum malam habeant voluntatem. — Quidam autumant, illam malam voluntatem non esse peccatum, sed supplicium tantum; alii vero peccatum esse fatentur, sed per illud eos non mereri aliquam poenam, quia non est ibi locus merendi. Illud ergo peccatum dicunt non esse *meritum supplicii,* sed *supplicium mali meriti,* quod in hac vita praecessit.

De hoc autem Augustinus[^p1033-2] ita dicit: «Tempus acquirendi vitam aeternam in hac tantum vita Deus hominibus dedit, ubi voluit etiam poenitentiam esse fructuosam. Ideo hic poenitentia fructuosa est, quia potest hic homo, deposita malitia, bene vivere, et mutata voluntate, merita simul operaque mutare et ea gerere, quae Deo placeant. Quod qui in hac vita non fecerit habebit quidem poenitentiam in futuro saeculo de malis suis, sed indulgentiam in conspectu Dei non inveniet; quia, etsi erit ibi stimulus poenitudinis, tamen nulla erit correctio voluntatis. A talibus enim ita culpabitur iniquitas sua, ut nullatenus ab eis possit vel diligi vel desiderari iustitia. Voluntas enim eorum talis erit, ut habeat semper in se malignitatis suae supplicium, nunquam tamen recipere possit bonitatis affectum: quia, sicut illi qui cum Christo regnabunt, nullas in se malae voluntatis reliquias habebunt, ita illi qui erunt in supplicio ignis aeterni cum diabolo et Angelis eius deputati, sicut nullam habebunt ulterius requiem, sic bonam nullatenus poterunt habere voluntatem; et sicut coheredibus Christi dabitur perfectio gratiae ad aeternam gloriam, ita consortibus diaboli cumulabit ipsa malignitas poenam, quando, exterioribus deputati tenebris, nullo illustrabuntur interiori lumine veritatis».

— Ex his apparet, reprobos in inferno sic poenitentiam gesturos, ut per eam pravam voluntatem non deserant; et illa maligna voluntas erit eis ad cumulum poenae, per quam tamen non merebuntur, quia nullus meretur nisi in hac vita.

#### Cap. II.
*Quare dicuntur tenebrae exteriores.*

Hic quaeri potest: quare illae *tenebrae,* quibus involventur mali in gehenna, dicuntur *exteriores*[^p1033-3]? — Quia tunc mali penitus extra lucem corporalem et spiritualem, scilicet Deum, erunt. Nunc enim, etsi patiantur tenebras in caecitate mentis, non tamen penitus extra lucem Dei sunt nec corporali luce privantur. De hoc Augustinus[^p1033-4] sic ait: «Ira Dei et in iudicio erit et hic est in caecitate mentis, cum dantur mali *in reprobum sensum.* Ibi *exteriores tenebrae* erunt, quia tunc peccatores penitus erunt extra Deum. Quid est enim penitus esse extra Deum, nisi esse in summa caecitate? Siquidem Deus *habitat lucem inaccessibilem.* Hae autem tenebrae hic iam incipiunt in peccante, cum ab interiori Dei luce secluditur, sed non penitus, dum in hac vita est».

— Ecce, quare ibi peccator dicitur *pati exteriores tenebras,* et non hic; quia ibi secludetur penitus a luce Dei, quod non hic. — Sed quomodo intelligenda est illa seclusio? An quia non videbunt Deum per speciem? Sed nec aliquis videt hic Deum per speciem. An per dissimilitudinem, quam facit peccatum inter Deum et hominem? Sed et hic multi per gravia peccata elongantur a Deo. An quia Deum odiunt, ita ut velint, eum non esse? Sed et hic multi Deum oderunt, de quibus scriptum est[^p1033-5]: *Superbia eorum qui te oderunt, ascendit semper.* Quae est igitur illa elongatio?

— Sane *exteriores tenebrae* intelligi possunt quaedam malignitas odii et voluntatis, quae tunc excrescet in mentibus reproborum, et quaedam oblivio Dei, quia tormentorum interiorum et exteriorum doloribus adeo afficientur et turbabuntur, ut ab illis ad cogitandum aliquid de Deo vix vel raro vel nunquam mentem revocent; ut qui nimio premuntur pondere adeo stupescunt et turbantur, ut interim in aliam cogitationem mentem non extendant, sed illuc tendit impetus cogitationis, ubi sentitur vis doloris. Sed in hac vita nullus adeo malus est, ut penitus secludatur a cogitatione Dei, quia nec perdit appetitum beatitudinis et quendam boni amorem, quem naturaliter habet rationalis creatura.

<!-- page 1034 -->

— Illas autem exteriores et profundissimas tenebras reprobos perpessuros *post iudicium,* dicit Augustinus[^p1034-1], opponens de illo divite, qui in inferno positus, elevans oculos, vidit Abraham et in sinu eius Lazarum, cuius comparatione coactus est confiteri mala sua «usque adeo, ut et fratres roget ab his praemoneri, quod ante iudicium factum legitur. Sed post iudicium in profundioribus tenebris erunt impii, ubi nullam Dei lucem videbunt, cui confiteantur».

---

english:
### DISTINCTION L.
### Part I.

#### Chapter I.
*Whether the wicked will sin in hell.*

Here a question arises taking its origin from what has gone before. For above[^p1033-1] Augustine, speaking of the wicked damned in hell and of the good glorified in heaven, said that neither will the good have the will, nor the wicked the capacity, to sin. And concerning the good this indeed is established; but concerning the wicked, from whom he does not remove the evil will, it is asked how it is true that they *cannot sin,* nay rather how it is true that they *do not sin,* since they have an evil will. — Some maintain that that evil will is not a sin, but a punishment only; others, however, confess it to be a sin, but that through it they do not merit any punishment, because there is no place of meriting there. Therefore they say that that sin is not the *merit of punishment,* but the *punishment of an evil merit* which preceded in this life.

Concerning this, however, Augustine[^p1033-2] speaks thus: «The time of acquiring eternal life God has given to men in this life only, where he willed penitence also to be fruitful. For this reason penitence is fruitful here, because here a man can, having laid aside his malice, live well, and, his will being changed, change at once his merits and his works and do those things which please God. But he who shall not have done this in this life will indeed have penitence in the age to come for his evils, but he will not find indulgence in the sight of God; because, even though there will be there a goad of repentance, yet there will be no correction of the will. For by such men their own iniquity will be so blamed that in no way can justice be either loved or desired by them. For their will shall be such that it always has within itself the punishment of its own malignity, yet can never receive the affection of goodness: because, just as those who will reign with Christ will have in themselves no remnants of an evil will, so those who will be in the punishment of the eternal fire, assigned with the devil and his angels, just as they will have no rest thereafter, so they will in no way be able to have a good will; and just as to the coheirs of Christ there will be given the perfection of grace unto eternal glory, so for the companions of the devil that very malignity will heap up punishment, when, assigned to the outer darkness, they will be illumined by no interior light of truth».

— From these things it appears that the reprobate in hell will so bear penitence that through it they do not forsake their depraved will; and that malignant will shall be to them for a heaping up of punishment, through which nevertheless they will not merit, because no one merits except in this life.

#### Chapter II.
*Why they are called outer darkness.*

Here it can be asked: why is that *darkness,* in which the wicked will be enveloped in Gehenna, called *outer*[^p1033-3]? — Because then the wicked will be wholly outside the corporeal and the spiritual light, namely God. For now, even if they suffer darkness in the blindness of the mind, yet they are not wholly outside the light of God, nor are they deprived of corporeal light. Concerning this Augustine[^p1033-4] speaks thus: «The wrath of God will be both in the judgement and is here in the blindness of the mind, when the wicked are given over *to a reprobate sense.* There will the *outer darkness* be, because then sinners will be wholly outside God. For what is it to be wholly outside God, if not to be in the utmost blindness? Since indeed God *dwells in light inaccessible.* But this darkness here already begins in the sinner, when he is shut off from the interior light of God, yet not wholly, while he is in this life».

— Behold, why there the sinner is said *to suffer outer darkness,* and not here; because there he will be shut off wholly from the light of God, which is not so here. — But how is that shutting-off to be understood? Is it because they will not see God through his species? But neither does anyone here see God through his species. Is it through the dissimilitude which sin makes between God and man? But here too many are estranged from God through grave sins. Is it because they hate God, so that they wish him not to be? But here too many have hated God, of whom it is written[^p1033-5]: *The pride of them that hate thee ascendeth ever.* What then is that estrangement?

— Rightly the *outer darkness* can be understood as a certain malignity of hatred and of will, which will then grow up in the minds of the reprobate, and a certain forgetfulness of God, because they will be so afflicted and disturbed by the pains of interior and exterior torments that from them they scarcely or rarely or never recall the mind to think anything of God; just as those who are pressed by an excessive weight so grow numb and are disturbed that meanwhile they do not extend the mind to another thought, but the impulse of thought tends thither where the force of pain is felt. But in this life no one is so evil that he is wholly shut off from the thought of God, because he does not lose the appetite for beatitude and a certain love of the good, which the rational creature has by nature.

— But that the reprobate will suffer that outer and most profound darkness *after the judgement,* Augustine[^p1034-1] says, adducing that rich man who, placed in hell, lifting up his eyes, saw Abraham and in his bosom Lazarus, by comparison with whom he was compelled to confess his own evils «to such a degree that he even begs that his brothers be forewarned by them, which is read to have been done before the judgement. But after the judgement the impious will be in a deeper darkness, where they will see no light of God, to whom they might confess».

---

la: Dist. praeced. c. 1.

en: The preceding distinction, c. 1.

la: Potius Fulgent., de Fide ad Petrum, c. 3. n. 38.

en: Rather Fulgentius, *On the Faith, to Peter,* c. 3, n. 38.

la: Matth. 22, 13; 25, 30. Solae edd. repetunt *tenebrae* ante *exteriores.*

en: Matthew 22:13; 25:30. The editions alone repeat *tenebrae* before *exteriores.*

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 6. n. 8; ubi respicitur Rom. I, 28, et I. Tim. 6, 16.

en: *Enarration on Psalm 6,* n. 8; where Romans 1:28 and 1 Timothy 6:16 are had in view.

la: Psalm. 73, 23. — Infra ex codd. A B C E adiecimus *mentem* post *cogitationem;* pleraeque edd. supplent *se.*

en: Psalm 73:23. — Below, from codices A B C E, we have added *mentem* after *cogitationem;* most editions supply *se.*

en: The *Enarration* cited, n. 6; Luke 16:27 ff. is had in view. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L109979–110085, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1033-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1034-{L,R}-{0,2}.png`. **No bands were regenerated**; all read clean and unclipped at the pre-measured gutters.

**Page span — CORRECTED (widened).** The skeleton declared `printed_pages: [1033]`. Too narrow. p.1033's right column ends mid-word at *…profundissimas tenebras repro-*, and the sentence completes at the head of p.1034's left column (*…bos perpessuros post iudicium, dicit Augustinus¹…*), running through the head of p.1034's right column to *…cui confiteantur».* — immediately before the centred `Pars II.` header (L110086). Frontmatter widened to `[1033, 1034]` / pdf `[1053, 1054]`.

**p.1033 / d.49 boundary — verified clean off the bands.** Band `L-0` opens with the running head `DISTINCTIO L. P. I.` (page number `1033` on `R-0`), then the centred `DISTINCTIO L.` / `PARS I.` headers, then `Cap. I.` No d.49 body text stands anywhere on the page. The footer register likewise begins directly with a numbered note 1 (`Dist. praeced. c. 1.`) — **no unnumbered head fragment** carries over from p.1032. The whole of p.1033, body and footer, is d.50's, exactly as the brief stated. Confirmed independently, not taken on trust.

**Head/tail runover check.**
- *p.1033 head* — no unnumbered fragment above note 1 (left footer band `L-2`). Clean.
- *p.1033 tail* — note 5 (right footer band `R-2`) closes with a full stop at *…pleraeque edd. supplent se.* No mid-sentence break; nothing runs onto p.1034.
- *p.1034 head* — p.1034's left footer register (`L-2`) opens directly at a numbered note 1. Independently confirms no runover arriving from p.1033.
- *p.1034 tail* — not this chunk's to claim; p.1034's later notes belong to `p2-littera`.

**Apparatus split map — 6 entries.**
- **p.1033 — 5 notes, all d.50's, all in this chunk.** Left footer register holds notes 1–3; right footer register holds notes 4–5. **The register does NOT split at the body-column boundary:** note 3 prints in the *left* footer but anchors in the *right* body column (*dicuntur exteriores ³?*). Marker 3 was bound by content, not by position.
- **p.1034 — note 1 only** (*Enarrat. cit. n. 6; respicitur Luc. 16, 27. seqq.*), anchoring at *dicit Augustinus ¹* in this chunk's body. Notes 2, 3, 4 … of p.1034 anchor in Pars II (Cap. III onward) and are **forwarded to `p2-littera`**.

**Band-vs-OCR disagreements, resolved at band time** (band authoritative per the VOL II/IV override):
- p.1033 n.4: raw reads `n. S` → band reads `n. 8`.
- p.1033 n.5: raw reads `ex codd. ABC 1-^` → band reads clearly `ex codd. A B C E`.
- Body: raw `nullo lllustrabunlur … interlori` was cascade-fragmented out of line order (the phrase `interiori` sat orphaned nine raw lines below its clause) → band gives `nullo illustrabuntur interiori lumine veritatis`.
- Body: raw `peccabimt`, `qiiaestio`, `habeaiit`, `poccatum`, `mci-eri`, `suppliciimi`, `merili`, `dlssimilitudinem`, `lenebrae`, `exleriores`, `secludilur`, `naluraliter`, `confileanlur` — routine OCR letter substitutions, silently corrected against the bands.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial page furniture, not Lombard's text): p.1033 left column *Quaestio.* / *…opinio.* / *Augustinus.* / *Determinatio Magistri.*; right column *Augustinus.* / *Altera quaestio.* / *Resp.* / *Quando sic ponantur.*; p.1034 left column *Augustinus.* Also trimmed: the signature line *S. Bonav. — Tom. IV.* and the gathering signature *130* at the foot of p.1033.

**Page-break placement.** The p.1033/1034 break falls mid-word (*repro-|bos*). The `<!-- page 1034 -->` comment is placed at the nearest clean paragraph boundary — the em-dash break before *Illas autem exteriores…* — with the broken word rejoined, per corpus convention.

**Seam check.** *Opening:* the chunk opens at the distinction header, so there is no upstream prose seam; `d49-p2-s2-a4-q2` closes on p.1032 and claims nothing here. *Closing:* *…ubi nullam Dei lucem videbunt, cui confiteantur».* parses as a complete sentence and closes Lombard's Augustine quotation; `p2-littera` opens at the centred `Pars II.` header (L110086) with *Sancti tradunt, et boni malos…* — a fresh sentence, no grammatical dependency across the seam.

**ambiguity flags.** None. Every reading was legible on the bands.

**Anchor count.** Latin `[^` anchors: 6. English `[^` anchors: 6. Apparatus definitions: 6. Matched. No leftover code fence.


title: Dist. 50, Part 2

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio L, Pars II — De statu animarum ante iudicium

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction L, Part II — On the state of souls before the judgement

source_text:
<!-- page 1034 -->

## Pars II.

### Cap. III. *Si damnatorum animae notitiam habent eorum quae hic fiunt.*

Praeterea quaeri solet, si reproborum animae, quae nunc in inferno cruciantur, notitiam habeant eorum quae circa suos in hac vita geruntur; et si aliquo modo doleant super infortuniis suorum carorum. — Hanc quaestionem Augustinus[^p1034-2] commemorat, ex parte eam explicans, ex parte vero insolutam relinquens. Ait enim: « Quaeret aliquis, an ullus dolor tangat mortuos de his quae in suis post mortem contingunt, vel quomodo ea quae circa nos aguntur, noverint spiritus defunctorum. Cui respondeo, magnam esse quaestionem nec in praesenti disserendam. Verumtamen breviter dici potest, quod est cura mortuis de suis caris, ut de divite legitur, qui, dum tormenta apud inferos pateretur, *levavit oculos ad Abraham* et inter alia dixit: *Habeo enim quinque fratres; mitte aliquem ex mortuis, ut testetur illis, ne et ipsi veniant in hunc locum tormentorum.* Habent enim mortui curam de vivis, quos sciunt vivere, quia nec in locis poenarum vident eos, ubi dives sine fratribus erat, nec in requie beatorum, ubi Lazarum et Abraham, quamvis longe, agnoscebat. Non tamen ideo consequens est, eos scire quae circa suos caros aguntur hic, vel laeta, vel tristia ».

### Cap. IV. *De Lazaro et divite.*

Si quis autem quaerat, quomodo intelligatur quod de Lazaro et divite legitur; audiat Augustini[^p1034-3] responsum dicentis: « Si quis putat, animas corpore exutas locis corporalibus contineri, cum sint sine corpore; non deerunt qui faveant et divitem sitientem in loco fuisse corporali contendant, ipsamque animam corpoream praeparasse linguam et stillam de Lazari digito cupiisse. Sed melius est dubitare de occultis quam litigare de incertis. Divitem in supplicio, pauperem in refrigerio esse, non dubito. Sed quomodo intelligatur *lingua* divitis, *digitus* Lazari, *flamma* inferni, *sinus* Abrahae et eiusmodi, vix a mansuetis, a contentiosis nunquam invenitur ».

### Cap. V. *Si boni et mali invicem se vident.*

Quaeri solet etiam, utrum vicissim se videant illi qui sunt in inferno, et illi qui sunt in gloria. — Sicut Sancti tradunt, et boni malos, et mali bonos vident usque ad iudicium; post iudicium vero boni videbunt malos, sed non mali bonos. Unde Gregorius[^p1034-4]: « Infideles in imo positi ante diem iudicii fideles super se in requie attendunt, quorum gaudia post contemplari non possunt ».

### Cap. VI. *De chaos inter bonos et malos.*

Sed cum Sancti malos in tormentis videant, nonne aliqua compassione erga eos moventur? Nonne eos de tormentis liberari cupiunt? — Recole illud evangelicum, quod Abraham diviti respondit: *Inter vos et nos chaos magnum firmatum est, ut hi qui volunt hinc ad vos transire, non possint, neque inde huc transmeare.* Quid est illud *chaos* inter bonos et malos, nisi hinc iustitia, inde iniquitas, quae nullatenus sociari valent? Adeo enim Sancti iustitiae Dei addicti sunt, ut nulla compassione ad reprobos transire valeant, nulla pro eis inter Sanctos fiat intercessio. — Quomodo ergo inde volunt aliqui *transire* ad illos, sed non possunt? Quia, si Dei iustitia admitteret, non fieret eis molesta liberatio illorum. — Vel ita dicuntur velle et non posse, non quia velint et non possint, sed quia, etsi vellent, non possent eos iuvare. De hoc ita Gregorius[^p1034-5] ait: « Sicut reprobi a poenis ad gloriam Sanctorum transire volunt et non possunt; ita iusti per misericordiam mente ire volunt ad positos in tormentis, ut eos liberent; sed non possunt, quia iustorum animae, etsi in naturae suae bonitate misericordiam habent, iam tunc auctoris sui iustitiae coniunctae, tanta rectitudine constringuntur, ut nulla ad reprobos compassione moveantur ».

### Cap. VII. *Utrum visa impiorum poena minuat, vel augeat Bonorum gloriam.*

Postremo quaeritur, an visa poena reproborum decoloret gloriam Beatorum, an eorum beatitudini proficiat. — De hoc ita Gregorius[^p1034-6] ait: « Apud animum iustorum non fuscat beatitudinem aspecta poena reproborum, quia, ubi iam compassio miseriae non erit, minuere Beatorum laetitiam non valebit. Et licet iustis sua gaudia sufficiant, ad maiorem tamen gloriam vident poenas malorum, quas per gratiam evaserunt; quia qui Dei claritatem vident, nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint ». « Non est autem mirandum, si Sancti iam immortales reprobos videant

<!-- page 1035 -->

mentis intelligentia, cum Prophetae adhuc mortales videre haec omnia meruerunt. Egredientur ergo electi, non loco, sed intelligentia vel visione manifesta, ad videndum impiorum cruciatus; quos videntes non dolore afficientur, sed laetitia satiabuntur, agentes gratias de sua liberatione, visa impiorum ineffabili calamitate ». Unde Isaias[^p1035-1], impiorum tormenta describens et ex eorum visione laetitiam bonorum exprimens, ait: *Egredientur*, « electi scilicet », *et videbunt cadavera virorum, qui praevaricati sunt in me. Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis non exstinguetur, et erunt usque ad satietatem visionis omni carni*, id est electis. *Laetabitur enim iustus, cum viderit vindictam.*

### Epilogus.

Haec de *pedibus Sedentis super solium excelsum, quos Seraphim duabus alis velabant*[^p1035-2], scriptori, etsi non auditori, commemorasse sufficiat, qui a facie exorsus sedentis, per media ad pedes usque, Via duce, pervenit.

**EXPLICIT QUARTUS ET ULTIMUS LIBER SENTENTIARUM.**

> **Nota de numeratione.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the apparatus below is labelled by page. Page 1034 carries six notes in all: note 1 anchors in the closing paragraph of Lombard's Pars I and is rendered in the preceding chunk, while notes 2 through 6 anchor here. Page 1035 carries two registers: the two notes of the *littera* register, both of which anchor here, and a separate register headed *Notae ad commentarium* whose single note belongs to Bonaventure's commentary, which begins lower on the same page and is rendered in the following chunk.

---

english:
<!-- page 1034 -->

## Part II.

### Chap. III. *Whether the souls of the damned have knowledge of the things that are done here.*

Moreover it is wont to be asked whether the souls of the reprobate, who are now tormented in hell, have knowledge of the things that are done concerning their own in this life; and whether they in any way grieve over the misfortunes of their dear ones. — Augustine[^p1034-2] recalls this question, explaining it in part, but in part leaving it unresolved. For he says: « Someone will ask whether any grief touches the dead concerning those things which befall their own after death, or how the spirits of the departed know the things that are done about us. To him I answer that it is a great question and not to be discussed at present. Nevertheless it can briefly be said that the dead have care for their dear ones, as is read of the rich man who, while he was suffering torments among those below, *lifted up his eyes to Abraham* and among other things said: *For I have five brothers; send someone from the dead, that he may bear witness to them, lest they too come into this place of torments.* For the dead have care for the living, whom they know to be living, since they see them neither in the places of punishment, where the rich man was without his brothers, nor in the rest of the blessed, where he recognized Lazarus and Abraham, though far off. Yet it does not follow on that account that they know what is done here about their dear ones, whether glad or sad ».

### Chap. IV. *On Lazarus and the rich man.*

But if anyone asks how what is read of Lazarus and the rich man is to be understood, let him hear the answer of Augustine[^p1034-3], who says: « If anyone thinks that souls stripped of the body are contained in bodily places, since they are without a body, there will be no lack of those who would favour him and contend that the thirsting rich man was in a bodily place, and that the soul itself, being corporeal, had prepared a tongue and had desired a drop from Lazarus's finger. But it is better to doubt about hidden things than to quarrel about uncertain ones. That the rich man is in torment and the poor man in refreshment, I do not doubt. But how the rich man's *tongue*, Lazarus's *finger*, the *flame* of hell, Abraham's *bosom* and the like are to be understood, is scarcely found out by the gentle, and never by the contentious ».

### Chap. V. *Whether the good and the wicked see one another.*

It is also wont to be asked whether those who are in hell and those who are in glory see one another in turn. — As the Saints hand down, both the good see the wicked and the wicked the good up to the judgement; but after the judgement the good will see the wicked, but not the wicked the good. Whence Gregory[^p1034-4]: « The unbelieving, set in the lowest place, before the day of judgement look upon the faithful above them in rest, whose joys afterwards they cannot contemplate ».

### Chap. VI. *On the chasm between the good and the wicked.*

But since the Saints see the wicked in torments, are they not moved by some compassion towards them? Do they not desire that they be freed from their torments? — Recall that saying of the Gospel which Abraham answered the rich man: *Between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who wish to pass from here to you cannot, nor pass over from there to here.* What is that *chasm* between the good and the wicked, if not justice on this side and iniquity on that, which can in no way be joined together? For the Saints are so bound over to God's justice that by no compassion can they pass over to the reprobate, and no intercession is made for them among the Saints. — How then do some wish thence to *pass over* to those, but cannot? Because, if God's justice allowed it, the freeing of them would not be burdensome to them. — Or they are said in this way to will and not to be able, not because they will and cannot, but because, even if they willed, they could not help them. On this Gregory[^p1034-5] speaks thus: « Just as the reprobate wish to pass over from their punishments to the glory of the Saints and cannot, so the just out of mercy wish to go in mind to those set in torments, that they may free them; but they cannot, because the souls of the just, even though in the goodness of their own nature they have mercy, being already then joined to the justice of their Author, are constrained by so great a rectitude that they are moved by no compassion towards the reprobate ».

### Chap. VII. *Whether the sight of the punishment of the impious lessens or increases the glory of the Good.*

Lastly it is asked whether the sight of the punishment of the reprobate discolours the glory of the Blessed, or profits their beatitude. — On this Gregory[^p1034-6] speaks thus: « In the mind of the just the punishment of the reprobate, when beheld, does not darken their beatitude, because, where there will no longer be compassion for misery, it will not be able to lessen the gladness of the Blessed. And although their own joys suffice for the just, yet unto a greater glory they see the punishments of the wicked, which they have escaped through grace; because those who see the brightness of God — nothing is done in creation which they cannot see ». « Nor is it to be wondered at if the Saints, now immortal, see the reprobate

<!-- page 1035 -->

by the understanding of the mind, since the Prophets, still mortal, merited to see all these things. The elect will therefore go forth, not in place, but by understanding or by manifest vision, to see the torments of the impious; and seeing them they will not be affected with grief, but will be filled with gladness, giving thanks for their own deliverance, at the sight of the unspeakable calamity of the impious ». Whence Isaiah[^p1035-1], describing the torments of the impious and expressing from the sight of them the gladness of the good, says: *They shall go forth*, « the elect, that is », *and shall see the carcasses of the men who have transgressed against me. Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be unto the fullness of the sight of all flesh*, that is, of the elect. *For the just man shall rejoice when he shall see the vengeance.*

### Epilogue.

Let it suffice to have recalled these things concerning the *feet of Him who sits upon the lofty throne, whom the Seraphim veiled with two wings*[^p1035-2] — for the writer, even if not for the hearer — who, having begun from the face of the One seated, has come, through the middle parts, all the way to the feet, with the Way for his guide.

**HERE ENDS THE FOURTH AND LAST BOOK OF THE SENTENCES.**

---

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 108. n. 17.

en: *Enarration on Psalm 108*, n. 17.

la: Libr. VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 9.

en: *On Genesis to the Letter*, Book VIII, c. 5, n. 9.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 40. n. 2.

en: *Homilies on the Gospel*, Book II, homily 40, n. 2.

la: Loc. cit. n. 7.

en: The place cited, n. 7.

la: Loc. cit. n. 8. — Pro *fuscat* solae edd., excepta 1, *obfuscat*, refragante etiam originali. — Deinde sequitur Glossa in Isai. 66, 24, apud Lyranum.

en: The place cited, n. 8. — For *fuscat* the editions alone, except the first, read *obfuscat*, the original text likewise being against it. — Then follows the Gloss on Isaiah 66:24, in Lyra.

la: Loc. cit. cum Glossa *interlineari*; deinde Ps. 57, 11.

en: The place cited, together with the *interlinear* Gloss; then Psalm 57:11.

la: Isai. 6, 1. seqq. — Pro *sufficiat* codd. A B C E et ed. 1 *sufficit*.

en: Isaiah 6:1ff. — For *sufficiat* codices A B C E and the first edition read *sufficit*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L110086–110248, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p103{4,5}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (measured gutters 1034:2100, 1035:1570). No bands were regenerated. Both pages were read Left column top→bottom, then Right; body bands then footer bands. Page 1035's manual-override band (1570) is **not clipped** — the left column's single littera paragraph and the whole right column, including the Epilogus and its marginal gloss, are fully legible.

**Page-span correction — the skeleton was one page too wide.** The skeleton declared `printed_pages: [1033, 1034, 1035]`. Verified on the bands: **Pars II. does not begin on p.1033 at all.** The `Pars II.` heading is a full-width centred head printed on **p.1034**, after the first block of that page (4 lines of left column + 4 lines of right column) which completes Lombard's Pars I, Cap. II (`…ubi nullam Dei lucem videbunt, cui confiteantur».`). Corrected to `printed_pages: [1034, 1035]` / `pdf_pages: [1054, 1055]`. **p.1033 is therefore entirely `p1-littera`'s**, footer register included — this chunk claims nothing on it. The seam was derived here independently from the bands, not taken from a hand-off.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p.1034** — one register, 6 notes, split across the two footer columns (left footer 1–4, right footer 5–6) but *not* at the body-column boundary: note 4 (`Libr. II. Homil. in Evang.`) sits in the left footer while its anchor, `Unde Gregorius`, is in the **right** body column. **Note 1 (`Enarrat. cit. n. 6; respicitur Luc. 16, 27. seqq.`) anchors in Pars I** (`…dicit Augustinus ¹, opponens de illo divite…`, top of the left column, above the `Pars II.` head) and belongs to `p1-littera`; it is not rendered here. **Notes 2–6 rendered here.**
- **p.1035** — two registers. The *littera* register (left footer, 2 notes) both anchor here and are rendered: note 1 on `Unde Isaias`, note 2 on the Epilogus. The second register, headed **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.`** (right footer, 1 note: `Cap. 3. n. 38, ubi Fulgentius ait…`), anchors in Bonaventure's `Art. I, Quaest. I` argument 1 lower on the same page and belongs to the commentary chunks, **not** here.
- Total rendered: **7 entries** (p.1034 ×5, p.1035 ×2). Latin anchors 7, English anchors 7.

**Head/tail runover check (both pages).** p.1034 — head of the left footer register opens at a numbered `1`; no unnumbered fragment carried in from p.1033. Tail: note 6 closes complete (`…apud Lyranum.`), no mid-sentence break, so nothing runs over onto p.1035. p.1035 — head of the littera register likewise opens at a numbered `1`, confirming p.1034 note 6 did not continue; tail: note 2 closes complete (`…et ed. 1 sufficit.`). **No cross-page footer runover on either page, in or out.**

**OCR-vs-band resolutions (band authoritative, per the Vol II/IV override).**
- p.1035 note 1: the raw reads `Ps. 87, 11`; the band reads **`Ps. 57, 11`**, which is also the correct Vulgate reference for *Laetabitur iustus, cum viderit vindictam* (Ps. 57:11). Rendered as 57.
- p.1035 note 2: raw `Isai. 6, '1. seqq.` → band `Isai. 6, 1. seqq.`
- p.1034 note 6: raw `cxeepta 1` / `originuli` → band `excepta 1` / `originali`.
- p.1034 body: raw `De chaos` chapter title, `nullalenus sociari`, `evaserirat` → band `nullatenus sociari`, `evaserunt`. Chapter VI's title is genuinely `De chaos inter bonos et malos` (indeclinable *chaos*) on the band — kept.
- The closing line prints **`EXPLICIT QUARTUS ET ULTIMUS LIBER SENTENTIARUM.`** (full-width, centred, below the Epilogus). The brief's shorter form `ULTIMUS LIBER SENTENTIARUM.` is that line's right-hand half as it falls in the R band; the full line is rendered here.

**⚠ The `Dubium unicum.` marginal beside the Epilogus — resolved: it is a FORWARD POINTER, not a dubium.** The band shows `Dubium uni-cum.` set in the outer margin of p.1035's right column, level with the Epilogus's opening line. It is **not** a section header and there is no dubium text on p.1035. It is an instance of Quaracchi's standing marginal-gloss convention in Vol IV, by which the *littera* pages carry small marginal labels (`Dubium 1.`, `Dubium 2.`, `Dubium 5.`, …) flagging the exact lemma of Lombard's text that a later `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` section will discuss — the same device appears at raw L43560, 55373, 57050, 62814, 90196, 99653, 103007 and elsewhere. Here it marks the lemma *pedibus Sedentis super solium excelsum*, and it points forward to d.50's single dubium, `DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` at raw L112272 (pp.1053–1054, chunk `p2-dubium`), whose opening sentence quotes precisely this lemma back: *« In parte ista circa litteram quaeritur, qualiter intelligitur illud verbum ultimum de pedibus sedentis: quis sit sedens, et quid solium, et quae via. »* **Nothing is unmapped, and no chunk file is missing.** Following the corpus convention for editorial marginalia (and matching `d49-p1-littera`), the marginal labels on these pages — `Augustinus.`, `Gregorius.`, `Glossa.`, `Quid chaos…`, `Quomodo volunt transire`, `Dubium unicum.` — are not rendered inline.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `p1-littera`: **p.1034 note 1** (`Enarrat. cit. n. 6; respicitur Luc. 16, 27. seqq.`) anchors on `dicit Augustinus` in the p.1034 opening block, which is Pars I's. Also: the whole of **p.1033** is p1-littera's, unclaimed here.
- To `p1-divisio`: this chunk closes at the full-width `EXPLICIT QUARTUS ET ULTIMUS LIBER SENTENTIARUM.` line on p.1035. Everything below it on that page — `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM L.`, `Pars I.`, `De statu damnatorum post iudicium.`, `Hic oritur quaestio…`, `DIVISIO TEXTUS`, `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (raw L110249 onward) — is the next chunk's, together with **p.1035's `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` register** (1 note).

**Seam parse check.** Opening sentence (`Praeterea quaeri solet, si reproborum animae…`) opens a new chapter under a new full-width `Pars II.` head and is grammatically independent of Pars I's close. Closing sentence (the Epilogus, `Haec de pedibus Sedentis… Via duce, pervenit.`) parses complete. No cascade-merge signature at either end.

**Ambiguity flags:** none. Every reading was resolvable on the band.


title: Dist. 50, 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 1035 -->

> This file carries **no** numbered footnotes. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page, and page 1035 carries two separate registers — notes 1 and 2 of the *Notae ad librum Sententiarum* register (left footer) and note 1 of the *Notae ad Commentarium* register (right footer). None of the three is anchored in this chunk's body: the first two are anchored in the Master's letter above (`p2-littera`) and the third in the first question below (`p1-a1-q1`). See `## Notes` for the full split map.

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM L.

**Pars I.**

### *De statu damnatorum post iudicium.*

*Hic oritur quaestio ex praemissis ducens originem etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de statu Beatorum. In hac parte agit de statu damnatorum, primo post iudicium, secundo ante iudicium, ibi: *Praeterea quaeri solet, si reproborum animae* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat subversionem voluntatis; in secunda excaecationem rationis, ibi: *Hic quaeri potest: quare illae tenebrae* etc. Et utraque pars duas habet. In prima opponit, in secunda vero dissolvit.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae tangit Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de subversione voluntatis damnatorum.

Secundo de excaecatione rationis.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum damnati velint, se peccasse.

Secundo, utrum voluntate deliberativa damnati malint non esse quam esse sic.

Tertio, utrum damnati mallent, omnes esse damnatos, quam quosdam damnatos, quosdam beatos.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION L.

**Part I.**

### *On the state of the damned after the judgement.*

*Here a question arises drawing its origin from what has gone before, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the state of the Blessed. In this part he treats of the state of the damned: *first*, after the judgement; *secondly*, before the judgement, there: *Besides, it is customary to ask whether the souls of the reprobate* etc.

The first part has two [parts]. In the first he determines the subversion of the will; in the second, the blinding of the reason, there: *Here it can be asked: why those darknesses* etc. And each part has two [members]. In the first he raises the objection, in the second he in fact resolves it.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master touches upon, two things are principally asked.

*First*, inquiry is made concerning the subversion of the will of the damned.

*Secondly*, concerning the blinding of the reason.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

*First*, it is asked whether the damned will that they had sinned.

*Secondly*, whether by a deliberative will the damned would rather not be, than be thus.

*Thirdly*, whether the damned would rather that all were damned, than that some were damned and some beatified.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L110249–110283, verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1035-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` at the supplied manual-override gutter **1570**. **No bands were regenerated.** Despite p.1035 being a flagged narrow-run page, the bands are **not clipped**: every full-width centred heading reassembles cleanly across the L/R seam — `COMMENTARIUS IN | DISTINCTIONEM L.`, `PARS | I.`, `De statu damnator|um post iudicium.`, `DIVISIO | TEXTUS.`, `TRACTATIO QU|AESTIONUM.`, `ARTICU|LUS I.`, `QUAEST|IO I.` No ambiguity flags.

**Page span.** **p.1035 only — skeleton's `printed_pages` confirmed correct, no change.** The running head on the R band reads `DIST. L. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` with the folio **1035**; the running head is stale-forward page furniture (it announces Art. I / Quaest. I, which only begin lower on the page) and is not semantic.

**Seam derived independently off the band (no hand-off trusted).** The L-0/R-0 bands show, in printed order: the tail of Lombard's letter (*…Vermis eorum non morietur… Laetabitur enim iustus, cum viderit vindictam.*), then the centred `EPILOGUS.` heading, then the Epilogus paragraph (*Haec de pedibus Sedentis super solium excelsum…Via duce, pervenit.*), then the full-width rule-line `EXPLICIT QUARTUS ET ULTIMUS LIBER SENTENTIARUM.` **All of that is above this chunk and belongs to `p2-littera`.** This chunk opens immediately below it at the display heading `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM L.` Its close (`…quam quosdam damnatos, quosdam beatos.`) parses, and is followed on the same page by `ARTICULUS I. / De subversione voluntatis damnatorum.` → `QUAESTIO I. / Utrum damnati velint, se peccasse.`, which open `p1-a1-q1`.

**The `Dubium unicum.` marginal gloss — NOT in this chunk's portion.** It is set in the outer (right) margin of the **right** column, on the first line of the **Epilogus** paragraph (`Haec de pedibus Sedentis super solium excelsum,`), i.e. **above this chunk's seam** — it belongs to **`p2-littera`**. It is a **forward pointer**, not a stray dubium: the singular `DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` at L112272 (pp.1053–1054) opens *"In parte ista circa litteram quaeritur, qualiter intelligitur illud verbum ultimum de pedibus sedentis: quis sit sedens, et quid solium, et quae via"* — it treats exactly this Epilogus sentence. So the gloss marks the one place in the letter that the distinction's one dubium discusses. **No unrendered dubium exists on p.1035** and no chunk file is missing.

**Apparatus split for p.1035 (read off the footer bands L-2 / R-2, derived independently).** The page carries **two registers**, split exactly at the footer-column boundary, totalling **3 notes**:

| Register | Note | Text (short) | Anchor location | Chunk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| left (*Notae ad libr. Sent.*, heading not repeated on this page) | 1 | *Loc. cit. cum Glossa interlineari; deinde Ps. 57, 11.* | letter, R col. (*Laetabitur enim iustus…*) | `p2-littera` |
| left | 2 | *Isai. 6, 1. seqq. — Pro sufficiat codd. A B C E et ed. 1 sufficit.* | Epilogus, R col. (`velabant ²`) | `p2-littera` |
| right (`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.`) | 1 | *Cap. 3. n. 38, ubi Fulgentius ait: Sicut nullam ulterius habebunt requiem, sic bonam etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.* | q1 arg. 1, L col. (`de Fide ad Petrum ¹`) | `p1-a1-q1` |

**This chunk anchors none of them and therefore claims 0 apparatus entries** — its body (the Commentarius heading, the pars title, the incipit, the DIVISIO TEXTUS and the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) carries **no** superscript marker anywhere on either band. Latin anchors: 0. English anchors: 0. Matched. `has_apparatus` corrected from the skeleton's `true` to **`false`**.

**Head/tail runover check for p.1035 — both clean.** *Head:* the left footer register opens with a **numbered** `1` — there is **no** unnumbered opening fragment above it, so nothing runs over from p.1034. *Tail:* the right register's note 1 terminates on a complete sentence (`…Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.`) — it does **not** break off onto p.1036, whose own register opens fresh.

**Band-over-OCR resolutions** (all legible, resolved at band time, no ambiguity flags): `damnatortim` → `damnatorum`; `origincm` → `originem`; `Magisler` → `Magister`; `datnnatorum` → `damnatorum`; `anle` → `ante`; `habel` → `habet`; `subvei-sioneiu` → `subversionem`; `elc.` → `etc.`; `Prirao quaerilur` → `Primo quaeritur`; `utrnm` → `utrum`; `oirmes` → `omnes`; `quain` → `quam`; `malient` → **`mallent`** (band). **Footer disagreement worth recording:** the raw OCR gives note 1 of the left register as `Ps. 87, 11`; the band reads **`Ps. 57, 11`**, which is also the correct Vulgate reference for *Laetabitur iustus cum viderit vindictam*. Forwarded to `p2-littera`.

**TRACTATIO promise vs. structure — VERIFIED, no mismatch, no lost-question signal.** The Pars I TRACTATIO promises **two** principal members (`duo principaliter quaeruntur`) — *Primo… de subversione voluntatis damnatorum* (= Articulus I) and *Secundo de excaecatione rationis* (= Articulus II) — i.e. **2 articles**, matching the brief's expected shape. It then promises **three** questions under the first (`Circa primum quaeruntur tria`), and the three ordinal openers print in the right column and match one-for-one: *Primo… utrum damnati velint, se peccasse* / *Secundo, utrum voluntate deliberativa…* / *Tertio, utrum damnati mallent…* → `p1-a1-q{1,2,3}`. **No `QUAESTIO` grep was relied on**; the count was taken from the ordinal openers on the band.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- → **`p2-littera`** (above): notes **1 and 2** of p.1035's **left** footer register are yours (including the `Ps. 57, 11` correction), as is the `Dubium unicum.` marginal gloss, the `EPILOGUS.` heading with its paragraph, and the `EXPLICIT QUARTUS ET ULTIMUS LIBER SENTENTIARUM.` line.
- → **`p1-a1-q1`** (below): note **1** of p.1035's **right** register (`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` — Fulgentius, *Cap. 3. n. 38*) is yours; it anchors at `Augustinus de Fide ad Petrum ¹`. Your chunk opens on p.1035 at `ARTICULUS I.` — the article header, its title `De subversione voluntatis damnatorum.`, the `QUAESTIO I.` header and its title are **not** rendered here; render them. The article has no separate praenotata beyond the TRACTATIO listing rendered above.

**ambiguity flags.** None.


title: Dist. 50, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars II)

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

source_text:
<!-- page 1044 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem L.

### Pars II.
#### *De statu damnatorum ante iudicium, maxime quoad cognitionem.*

*Praeterea quaeri solet, si reproborum* etc.

**Textum Magistri vide supra pag. 1034.**

> **De numeratione notarum.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The labels below are page-qualified: the single entry rendered here is note 1 of page 1044. Notes 2–4 of page 1044 anchor in the following chunk (Pars II, Articulus I, Quaestio I) and are rendered there.

### Divisio textus.

Supra determinavit Magister statum damnatorum post iudicium quantum ad rationem et voluntatem. Hic incidenter determinat statum ante iudicium, maxime quantum ad cognitionem. Et dividitur haec pars in tres. In prima determinat, qualiter cognitio reprobarum animarum se habeat ad nos. In secunda vero, qualiter se habeat ad Beatos, ibi: *Quaeri etiam solet, utrum vicissim* etc. In tertia quaerit, qualiter se habeant Beati ad reprobos, ibi: *Postremo quaeritur, an visa poena reproborum* etc.

Ultima pars habet duas partes. In prima ostendit, quod non minuetur gloria bonorum ex aspectu poenae damnatorum[^p1044-1]. In secunda exprimit poenas, quas videbunt, scilicet vermem et ignem, ibi: *Non est autem mirandum, si Sancti* etc.; ubi concludit sermonem epilogando breviter quae in hoc libro determinata sunt et etiam in omnibus praecedentibus.

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis duo quaeruntur principaliter.

Primo quaeritur de cognitione animae separatae.

Secundo, de verme.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de cognitione eius per comparationem ad virtutem cognoscentem.

Secundo, per comparationem ad statum viatorum.

Tertio, per comparationem ad statum Beatorum.

---

english:
<!-- page 1044 -->

## Commentary on Distinction L.

### Part II.
#### *On the state of the damned before the judgement, especially as regards cognition.*

*Furthermore it is customarily asked, whether of the reprobate* etc.

**For the text of the Master see above, page 1034.**

### Division of the text.

Above, the Master determined the state of the damned after the judgement as regards the reason and the will. Here he incidentally determines their state before the judgement, especially as regards cognition. And this part is divided into three. In the first he determines how the cognition of the reprobate souls stands in relation to us. In the second, however, how it stands in relation to the Blessed, there: *It is also customarily asked, whether conversely* etc. In the third he asks how the Blessed stand in relation to the reprobate, there: *Lastly it is asked, whether, the punishment of the reprobate having been seen* etc.

The last part has two parts. In the first he shows that the glory of the good will not be diminished by the sight of the punishment of the damned[^p1044-1]. In the second he sets forth the punishments which they will see, namely the worm and the fire, there: *Nor is it to be wondered at, if the Saints* etc.; where he concludes his discourse by briefly summing up what has been determined in this book and also in all the preceding ones.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part two things are asked principally.

First it is asked concerning the cognition of the separated soul.

Second, concerning the worm.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked concerning its cognition by comparison to the knowing power.

Second, by comparison to the state of wayfarers.

Third, by comparison to the state of the Blessed.

---

la: Ita cod. C, codd. G aa (bb a secunda manu) *aspectu damnatorum* (cod. U *reproborum*, alii codd. *poenatorum*, edd. *poenarum*). Inferius ex codd. supplevimus propositionem *ubi concludit... praecedentibus.*

en: Thus cod. C; codd. G aa (bb by a second hand) *aspectu damnatorum* ("the sight of the damned"); cod. U *reproborum*, other codd. *poenatorum*, the editions *poenarum*. Below, we have supplied from the codices the clause *ubi concludit... praecedentibus* ("where he concludes... the preceding ones"). ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L111262–111301, verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1044-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (measured gutter 2101). No bands were regenerated. English translated literally, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Page span.** Printed page **1044** confirmed off the band — the running head reads `1044 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (band `vol4-p1044-L-0.png`); no correction needed. Note that the running head at raw L111344 (the *next* page, p.1045) OCRs its folio as `1043` — a digit-mangle; ignore raw folio digits.

**Seams, derived independently off the bands.**
- *Prior chunk* (`IV-d50-p1-a2-q3`): p.1044's left column begins directly with the centred `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM L.` header — there is **no** Pars I body text anywhere on p.1044. Pars I therefore closes on p.1043 and claims **nothing** on p.1044, including none of its footer register.
- *Following chunk* (`IV-d50-p2-a1-q1`): this chunk ends with `Tertio, per comparationem ad statum Beatorum.` (raw L111301); the centred `ARTICULUS I. / De cognitione animae separatae. / QUAESTIO I.` block opens at L111302 and belongs to a1-q1.

**Page → apparatus split map.** p.1044's footer register holds **exactly 4 numbered notes** (read off the bands, not the raw): notes 1–2 print in the **left** footer, notes 3–4 in the **right**. Binding by content: note 1 anchors at *poenae damnatorum* in the **right body column** of this divisio — i.e. it prints left but anchors right. Notes 2 (`Vers. 23: Elevans autem oculos suos…`), 3 (`Cap. 2: Vivit [anima] in se…`) and 4 (`Cod. M addit superior…`) anchor in a1-q1's *Ad oppositum* arguments 1–3. **This chunk claims note 1 only; notes 2–4 forward to `IV-d50-p2-a1-q1`.**

**Cross-page runover check (p.1044).** *Head:* clean — the register opens with a properly numbered `¹`, with no unnumbered fragment above it; p.1043's note 11 (`Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.`) terminates on its own page. *Tail:* clean — note 4 ends `Post liberior Vat. adnectit quod.`, a complete sentence; nothing breaks off onto p.1045.

**Lost-question sweep (Pars II).** The TRACTATIO promises **two** principal articles: Art. I *De cognitione animae separatae*, Art. II *De verme*. Art. I promises **three** questions (`Circa primum quaeruntur tria`), and all three ordinal openers are present in the right column (*Primo… Secundo… Tertio…*). Art. II's own opener (raw L111920–111922) reads `et circa hoc tria quaeruntur`, with *Primo / Secundo / Tertio* likewise all present. Both articles' `QUAESTIO` headers were confirmed by walking the range rather than by grep: **Art. II q.2's header is OCR-garbled as `QUAESTiO II.` (L112036)** and Art. I q.3's as `QUAESTIO 111.` — neither would survive a plain `QUAESTIO` grep. Total 2 articles × 3 questions = 6 quaestiones, matching the six existing `p2-a{1,2}-q{1,2,3}` chunk files. **No hidden question; nothing unmapped.**

**ambiguity flags.** None. Every band read was legible.