site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Prologus, Commentarius

title_alt:
COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM MAGISTRI
Commentary on the Master's Prologue

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 22 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; Quaracchi restart their numbering on every printed page, so the labels are qualified by page.

# COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM MAGISTRI.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Totali libro praemittit Magister prologum, in quo tangit causas suscepti operis. Dividitur autem in duas partes. In prima parte ponit rationes, quae moverunt[^p22-1] ipsum ad aggrediendum praesens negotium sive opus; in secunda rationes, quae debent movere discipulos ad benigne audiendum, ibi[^p22-2] circa finem: *In quo maiorum* etc., ubi incipit alloqui auditores.

*Prima* pars dividitur iterum in duas, quia duplex ratio potest movere aliquem ad opus faciendum, scilicet *amor boni* et *odium mali*. *Primo* ergo ponit rationes sumtas ex parte *amoris boni*, scilicet catholicae veritatis. *Secundo* ex parte *odii mali*, scilicet haereticae pravitatis, ibi: *Quamvis non ambigamus* etc. Prima pars habet quatuor particulas. In prima tangit[^p22-3] causam excitantem; et haec est desiderium mercedis et spes auxilii sub exemplo viduae et parabola Samaritani. In secunda ponit causam retrahentem, quae duplex est, scilicet laboris immensitas et propria infirmitas, ibi: *Delectat nos* etc. In tertia ponit causam ipsum[^p22-4] propellentem, et haec est zelus ipsum accendens, ibi: *Quam vincit zelus* etc. In quarta ponit causam compellentem et praevalentem, ibi: *Non valentes* etc., et haec est petitio fratrum studiosorum, quibus non potest quis iure resistere, sed quodammodo necessario oportet collum subiicere.

### DUBIA CIRCA PRIMAM PARTEM PROLOGI MAGISTRI.

#### Dub. I.

Sed quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:[^p22-5] *Opus agere praesumsimus*; sed praesumtio est peccatum: ergo peccavit.

**Respondeo:** Est praesumtio *confidentiae* de divino adiutorio, et praesumtio *superbiae*, quae est de proprio ingenio. Prima non est peccatum, sed est virtutis[^p22-6]; secunda vero est peccatum; sed de prima loquitur Magister.

Vel aliter: Est praesumtio secundum *veritatem*, et est praesumtio secundum *propriam aestimatio-*

<!-- page 23 -->

*nem*. Prima est reprehensibilis, quia superbiae, secunda laudabilis, quia humilitatis, nec est culpabilis in aliquo; vir enim humilis in omnibus[^p23-1] operibus suis se reputat indignum et quasi praesumtuosum.

#### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Prolatis duobus denariis supereroganti*; quae sit ista supererogatio. *Si tu dicas*, quod sit magistrorum et Sanctorum superadditio ad sacram Scripturam; *contra*, Damascenus[^p23-2]: «Quae tradita sunt nobis per Legem et Prophetas veneremur, nihil ultra haec inquirentes».

Item, Apocalypsis ultimo[^p23-3]: *Si quis apposuerit super haec, apponet ei Dominus plagas.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est additio *distrahens*, et est additio *complens*. Addens primo modo non supererogat, sed magis diminuit et subvertit; et tales sunt haeretici, quibus datur maledictio. Addens secundo modo supererogat, quia salvo sensu Scripturae[^p23-4] ipsam dilucidat. Per *duos* igitur *denarios* duo intelligo Testamenta, per *Samaritanum*, Christum, per *semivivum*, hominem gratuitis exspoliatum et vulneratum in naturalibus, per[^p23-5] *supererogationem* intelligo doctorem exponentem.

Vel aliter dicendum, quod est additio, in qua additum est *contrarium*, et est[^p23-6], in qua additum est *diversum*, et est, in qua additum est *consonum*. Prima additio est erroris, secunda praesumtionis; quia praesumtio est dicere in sacra Scriptura aliquid omnino diversum ab his, quae in ea expressa sunt; tertia fidelis instructionis; quia quod implicitum est explicat.

#### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quam vincit zelus domus Dei*, quis sit iste zelus. Et quare magis hoc zelo accenditur contra *animales* et *carnales* quam contra superbos et alios peccatores? Et cum zelus sit amor privatus, non videtur quod deberet zelo accendi.

Praeterea[^p23-7], cum maius peccatum sit superbia, videtur quod magis deberet accendi contra superbos.

**Respondeo:** Ad primum dicendum, quod zelus est amor nolens habere consortium in amato. Zelus malus vitat omne consortium, sed zelus bonus vitat tantum malum[^p23-8]; unde veri zelatores domus Dei non possunt videre in Ecclesia vitia, quin insurgant contra ipsa. Unde Ioannis secundo dicit Glossa[^p23-9]: «Zelus bonus est, quo animus, abiecto humano timore, accenditur et eo comeditur, quo quaelibet prava, quae viderit, corrigere satagit, et si nequiverit, tolerat et gemit».

Ad secundum dicendum, quod Magister specialiter in Ecclesia zelabat fidem; et ideo magis succendebatur[^p23-10] contra fidei corruptores. Dupliciter autem corrumpit quis fidem: aut motus perversitate voluntatis et affectionis; et hic dicitur *carnalis*. Nam caro dicitur hic carnalis affectio, secundum illud ad Galatas quinto[^p23-11]: «*Manifesta sunt opera carnis* etc.» Alio modo corrumpit quis, motus perversitate *iudicii*; et hic dicitur *animalis*, quasi phantasticus, quia phantasiae pervertunt iudicium rationis.

#### Dub. IV.

*Quas bigas agitat in nobis Christi caritas.*

**Contra:** Ecclesiastis nono[^p23-12]: *Nemo scit, utrum odio, an amore dignus sit.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod caritas uno modo dicit virtutem gratuitam, alio modo dicit large amo-

<!-- page 24 -->

rem multum appretiantem amatum: unde caritas[^p24-1], *amor carus*. Primo modo sumta caritate, verum est, quod certitudinaliter nescit aliquis[^p24-2]; potest tamen aliquo experimento dulcedinis divinae misericordiae hoc coniicere probabiliter; secundo modo potest scire. Et si primo modo dicit Magister, non dicit asserendo, sed coniiciendo; si secundo modo, tunc assertive potest intelligi; et sic patet illud.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS SECUNDAE PARTIS PROLOGI.

*Quamvis non ambigamus* etc. Supra posuit Magister rationes moventes ex approbatione[^p24-3] *boni*; hic ponit rationes moventes ex odio et detestatione *mali*; et hoc est malum haereticae perversitatis. Habet autem haec pars quatuor particulas. In *prima* parte tangit eorum perversitatem, quae consistit in calumniando bonum et verum ex erroris caecitate et invidiae pari malignitate[^p24-4]. In *secunda* tangit huius perversitatis radicem, quae est suggestio diabolica et propria superbia, ibi: *Quam Deus huius saeculi.* In tertia tangit huius erroris diffusionem[^p24-5], quae est per falsam superstitionem et mendacem et contentiosam locutionem, ibi: *Habent rationem sapientiae in superstitione.* In quarta infert rationem, quae ipsum movit ad praesentis operis compilationem, ibi: *Horum igitur Deo odibilem.* Et ratio haec est subversio erroris.

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM SECUNDAE PARTIS PROLOGI.

#### Dub. V.

Quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Veritati non intellectae.* Videtur enim[^p24-6], quod dicat male, quia veritas est lux intelligibilis, sicut lux corporalis sensibilis; sed oculus habens visum non potest ignorare lucem sensibilem: ergo pari ratione nec intellectus ignorabit lucem intelligibilem. *Si tu dicas*, quod non est simile; quaeritur, quare non est simile, et quare magis deficit natura intellectui quam sensui?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod simile est, si quis attendat. Triplex enim est causa, quare aliquis non videt visibile: aut enim non videt, quia non *vult* respicere, aut si vult, impeditur propter *defectum organi*, aut propter *absentiam lucis*. Hoc manifestum est. Similiter in spiritualibus intellectus[^p24-7] frequenter aliqua non intelligit, quia non *vult* considerare; aliquando vero non intelligit propter *impedimentum* ex parte corporis, ut patet in phreneticis et stultis; aliquando propter *absentiam lucis*. Licet enim lux increata se non subtrahat quantum ad *essentiam* vel quantum ad qualemcumque influentiam, subtraxit[^p24-8] tamen se homini, cum peccavit, quantum ad influentiam *perfectam*; unde dicitur inflixisse ei ignorantiam. Unde sicut oculus in tenebris errat, sic hodie miser humanus intellectus. Cum autem plene restituetur[^p24-9] in lucem, sicut oculus videre poterit omne visibile, sic intellectus omne intelligibile.

#### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Veritati offendenti.* Contra: «Omnes homines natura scire desiderant»[^p24-10], sicut etiam esse beati; sed beatitudo neminem offendit, quia omnes eam desiderant: ergo nec veritas offendit aliquem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de veritate quantum ad primum effectum, qui est *illuminare*; et quantum ad istum nemo ipsam odit: omnes enim naturaliter desiderant illuminari. Est iterum loqui quantum ad effectum consequentem, qui est *arguere*; et hunc habet in malis. Manifestando enim mala redarguit mala facientem[^p24-11]; et inde est, quod mali odiunt veritatem, quia sicut dicitur Ioannis tertio[^p24-12]: *Qui male agit, odit lucem.*

#### Dub. VII.

*Qui contentioni studentes contra veritatem sine foedere bellant.* Contra: Tertii Esdrae quarto[^p24-13]: *Magna est veritas et fortior omnibus. Omnis terra veritatem invocat, et omnes tremunt eam.*

<!-- page 25 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod[^p25-1] est loqui de veritate *simpliciter*, vel de veritate *in hoc* sive in speciali. *Primo modo* veritas est inexpugnabilis, et ideo praevalet; et sic intelligitur illud Esdrae. Est iterum loqui de veritate *secundo modo*; et[^p25-2] sic contingit eam per rationes phantasticas obumbrari et per contentionem impugnari. Unde Ambrosius super primum ad Romanos[^p25-3]: «Contentio est impugnatio veritatis cum confidentia clamoris».

#### Dub. VIII.

*Ex testimoniis veritatis in aeternum fundatis.* Contra: primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^p25-4]: *Scientia destruetur*: ergo et testimonia.

**Respondeo:** Quod testimonia veritatis sunt in aeternum fundata, sicut dicitur in Psalmo[^p25-5]: *Initio cognovi de testimoniis tuis* etc. Quod obiicitur, quod scientia destruetur; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad modum docendi et considerandi, sed non quantum ad cognitum et rationem cognoscendi, Psalmus[^p25-6]: *In aeternum Domine permanet verbum tuum* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS ULTIMAE PARTIS.

*In quo maiorum exempla.* Haec est pars ultima, in qua ponit Magister rationes moventes discipulos ad audiendum. Et dividitur haec pars in quatuor partes secundum quatuor, quae movent discipulos ad audiendum, duo quorum[^p25-7] sunt ex parte operis, videlicet auctoritas et utilitas; duo vero ex parte docentis, scilicet humilitas et facilitas. In primo praeparat docilitatem, scilicet in *auctoritate*. In secundo, scilicet[^p25-8] in *utilitate*, suscitat attentionem. In duobus autem sequentibus, scilicet *humilitate et facilitate*, captat benevolentiam.

In prima igitur parte ostendit, opus suum esse authenticum, in secunda compendiosum, ibi: *Non igitur debet hic labor*; in tertia ostendit, modum docendi esse humilem, in hoc quod vult corrigi, ibi: *In hoc autem tractatu* etc. In quarta ostendit, esse facilem ad inveniendum et memorandum, ibi: *Ut autem quod quaeritur facilius occurrat.*

### DUBIUM ULTIMAE PARTIS.

#### Dub. IX.

Quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Liberum correctorem*; quid vult dicere per hoc nomen *liberum*?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod liber corrector dicitur, sicut homo liber, qui «sui tantum causa est», ut dicit Philosophus[^p25-9]; sic corrector liber dicitur qui tantum gratia correctionis, non invidiae vel subsannationis corrigit. Hunc desiderat Magister exemplo Augustini secundo de Trinitate[^p25-10], ubi dicit: «Magis amabo inspici a rectis, quam timebo morderi a perversis. Gratanter enim suscipit osculum columbinum pulcherrima et modestissima caritas; dentem vero caninum vel evitat cautissima humilitas, vel retundit solidissima veritas: magisque optabo a quolibet reprehendi, quam sive ab errante sive ab adulante laudari».

---

english:
<!-- page 22 -->

# COMMENTARY ON THE MASTER'S PROLOGUE.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

To the book as a whole the Master prefixes a prologue, in which he touches upon the causes of the work he has undertaken. Now it is divided into two parts. In the first part he sets down the reasons which moved[^p22-1] him to take up the present business or work; in the second, the reasons which ought to move his disciples to hear him kindly, there[^p22-2] near the end: *In it [you will find] the examples of our forebears* etc., where he begins to address his hearers.

The *first* part is again divided into two, because a twofold reason can move anyone to the doing of a work, namely *love of the good* and *hatred of evil*. *First*, then, he sets down the reasons taken from the side of the *love of the good*, namely of catholic truth. *Second*, from the side of the *hatred of evil*, namely of heretical depravity, there: *Although we do not doubt* etc. The first part has four particles. In the first he touches[^p22-3] the arousing cause; and this is the desire of the reward and the hope of help, under the example of the widow and the parable of the Samaritan. In the second he sets down the withdrawing cause, which is twofold, namely the immensity of the labour and his own infirmity, there: *The truth of him who promises delights us* etc. In the third he sets down the cause driving him[^p22-4] forward, and this is the zeal which kindles him, there: *which zeal for the house of God overcomes* etc. In the fourth he sets down the compelling and prevailing cause, there: *Not being able* etc., and this is the petition of studious brethren, whom no one can rightly resist, but to whom in a certain way one must of necessity bow the neck.

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE FIRST PART OF THE MASTER'S PROLOGUE.

#### Dub. I.

But it is asked concerning this which he says:[^p22-5] *We have presumed to undertake the work*; but presumption is a sin: therefore he sinned.

**I respond:** There is a presumption of *confidence* concerning the divine assistance, and a presumption of *pride*, which is concerning one's own native ability. The first is not a sin, but belongs to virtue[^p22-6]; the second, however, is a sin; but the Master is speaking of the first.

Or otherwise: There is a presumption according to *the truth*, and there is a presumption according to *one's own estimate*.

<!-- page 23 -->

The first is reprehensible, because it belongs to pride; the second is praiseworthy, because it belongs to humility, and it is not culpable in anything; for a humble man in all[^p23-1] his works reckons himself unworthy and, as it were, presumptuous.

#### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: *Two denarii having been brought out, to him who spends beyond them*; what that spending-beyond is. *If you say* that it is the superaddition of the masters and of the Saints to sacred Scripture — *on the contrary*, Damascene[^p23-2]: «Let us venerate the things that have been handed down to us through the Law and the Prophets, seeking nothing beyond these».

Likewise, the last chapter of the Apocalypse[^p23-3]: *If anyone shall add to these things, the Lord shall lay upon him the plagues.*

**I respond:** It must be said that there is an addition which *draws away*, and there is an addition which *completes*. He who adds in the first way does not spend beyond, but rather diminishes and subverts; and such are the heretics, to whom the curse is given. He who adds in the second way spends beyond, because, the sense of Scripture[^p23-4] being safe, he makes it clear. By the *two denarii*, therefore, I understand the two Testaments; by the *Samaritan*, Christ; by the *half-dead man*, man despoiled of the gratuitous gifts and wounded in his natural ones; by[^p23-5] the *spending-beyond* I understand the doctor who expounds.

Or it must be said otherwise, that there is an addition in which what is added is *contrary*, and there is one[^p23-6] in which what is added is *diverse*, and there is one in which what is added is *consonant*. The first addition is one of error, the second of presumption; because it is presumption to say in sacred Scripture something altogether diverse from those things which are expressed in it; the third is of faithful instruction, because it makes explicit what was implicit.

#### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: *Which the zeal of the house of God overcomes* — what that zeal is. And why is he kindled with this zeal against the *animal* and the *carnal* rather than against the proud and other sinners? And since zeal is a private love, it does not seem that he ought to be kindled with zeal.

Furthermore[^p23-7], since pride is the greater sin, it seems that he ought rather to be kindled against the proud.

**I respond:** To the first it must be said that zeal is a love unwilling to have a partner in the thing loved. Evil zeal shuns every partnership, but good zeal shuns only what is evil[^p23-8]; hence the true zealots of the house of God cannot see vices in the Church without rising up against them. Hence on the second chapter of John the Gloss says[^p23-9]: «Good zeal is that by which the mind, human fear being cast off, is kindled and is consumed by it, so that it busies itself to correct whatever perverse things it has seen, and if it cannot, bears with them and groans».

To the second it must be said that the Master was especially zealous for the faith in the Church; and therefore he was the more inflamed[^p23-10] against the corrupters of the faith. Now a man corrupts the faith in two ways: either moved by a perversity of will and affection — and this man is called *carnal*. For flesh is here called carnal affection, according to that saying to the Galatians, chapter five[^p23-11]: «*The works of the flesh are manifest* etc.» In the other way a man corrupts it moved by a perversity of *judgement* — and this man is called *animal*, as it were fantastic, because fantasies pervert the judgement of reason.

#### Dub. IV.

*Which two horses the charity of Christ drives in us.*

**On the contrary:** Ecclesiastes, chapter nine[^p23-12]: *No man knows whether he is worthy of hatred or of love.*

**I respond:** It must be said that charity in one way names the gratuitous virtue, in another way it names broadly a love

<!-- page 24 -->

greatly prizing the thing loved: whence *caritas*[^p24-1], *a dear love*. Charity being taken in the first way, it is true that no one knows it with certitude[^p24-2]; yet he can conjecture it with probability by some experience of the sweetness of the divine mercy; in the second way he can know it. And if the Master speaks in the first way, he does not speak by asserting but by conjecturing; if in the second way, then it can be understood assertively; and thus that saying is clear.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT OF THE SECOND PART OF THE PROLOGUE.

*Although we do not doubt* etc. Above the Master set down the reasons that move from the approval[^p24-3] of *the good*; here he sets down the reasons that move from the hatred and detestation of *evil*; and this evil is the evil of heretical perversity. Now this part has four particles. In the *first* part he touches their perversity, which consists in calumniating the good and the true out of the blindness of error and the equal malignity of envy[^p24-4]. In the *second* he touches the root of this perversity, which is diabolical suggestion and one's own pride, there: *Which the god of this world.* In the third he touches the diffusion[^p24-5] of this error, which is through false superstition and mendacious and contentious speech, there: *They have an account of wisdom in superstition.* In the fourth he brings in the reason which moved him to the compiling of the present work, there: *Of these men therefore, hateful to God.* And this reason is the overturning of error.

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE LETTER OF THE SECOND PART OF THE PROLOGUE.

#### Dub. V.

It is asked concerning this which he says: *A truth not understood.* For it seems[^p24-6] that he speaks ill, because truth is an intelligible light, just as corporeal light is a sensible one; but an eye that has sight cannot be ignorant of sensible light: therefore by parity of reasoning neither will the intellect be ignorant of intelligible light. *If you say* that the case is not alike, it is asked why it is not alike, and why nature fails the intellect more than the sense.

**I respond:** It must be said that the case is alike, if one attends to it. For there is a threefold cause why someone does not see a visible thing: either he does not see because he is not *willing* to look; or, if he is willing, he is impeded by a *defect of the organ*; or by the *absence of light*. This is manifest. Likewise in spiritual things the intellect[^p24-7] frequently does not understand some things because it is not *willing* to consider them; sometimes, however, it does not understand on account of an *impediment* on the part of the body, as is clear in the frenzied and in fools; sometimes on account of the *absence of light*. For although the uncreated light does not withdraw itself as regards its *essence*, or as regards any influence whatsoever, it did withdraw[^p24-8] itself from man, when he sinned, as regards the *perfect* influence; whence it is said to have inflicted ignorance upon him. Hence, as the eye errs in darkness, so today does the wretched human intellect. But when it shall have been fully restored[^p24-9] into the light, then, as the eye will be able to see every visible thing, so will the intellect every intelligible thing.

#### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: *A truth giving offence.* On the contrary: «All men by nature desire to know»[^p24-10], just as they also desire to be blessed; but blessedness offends no one, because all desire it: therefore neither does truth offend anyone.

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of truth as regards its first effect, which is *to illuminate*; and as regards this no one hates it, for all naturally desire to be illumined. One may speak again as regards the consequent effect, which is *to convict*; and this it has in the wicked. For by manifesting evils it convicts the one doing them[^p24-11]; and hence it is that the wicked hate the truth, because, as is said in the third chapter of John[^p24-12]: *He who does evil hates the light.*

#### Dub. VII.

*Who, being zealous for contention, war against the truth without a treaty.* On the contrary: the fourth chapter of Third Esdras[^p24-13]: *Great is truth and stronger than all things. All the earth calls upon truth, and all tremble at it.*

<!-- page 25 -->

**I respond:** It must be said that[^p25-1] one may speak of truth *simply*, or of truth *in this or that case*, that is, in particular. *In the first way* truth is unconquerable, and therefore prevails; and thus that saying of Esdras is understood. One may speak again of truth *in the second way*; and[^p25-2] thus it happens that it is overshadowed by fantastic reasonings and assailed by contention. Hence Ambrose on the first chapter to the Romans[^p25-3]: «Contention is the assailing of truth with the confidence of shouting».

#### Dub. VIII.

*Out of the testimonies of truth founded unto eternity.* On the contrary: the first to the Corinthians, chapter thirteen[^p25-4]: *Knowledge shall be destroyed*: therefore the testimonies also.

**I respond:** That the testimonies of truth are founded unto eternity, as is said in the Psalm[^p25-5]: *From the beginning I have known concerning thy testimonies* etc. As to what is objected, that knowledge shall be destroyed, it must be said that this is true as regards the manner of teaching and of considering, but not as regards the thing known and the account of knowing; the Psalm[^p25-6]: *For ever, O Lord, thy word remains* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT OF THE LAST PART.

*In it [you will find] the examples of our forebears.* This is the last part, in which the Master sets down the reasons that move disciples to hear. And this part is divided into four parts according to the four things which move disciples to hear, two of which[^p25-7] are on the side of the work, namely authority and usefulness; two, however, on the side of the teacher, namely humility and easiness. In the first he prepares docility, namely in *authority*. In the second, namely[^p25-8] in *usefulness*, he rouses attention. In the two that follow, namely *humility and easiness*, he wins good will.

In the first part, therefore, he shows that his work is authentic; in the second, that it is compendious, there: *This labour, then, ought not*; in the third he shows that his manner of teaching is humble, in this, that he wishes to be corrected, there: *But in this treatise* etc. In the fourth he shows that it is easy for finding and for remembering, there: *And that what is sought may come to hand the more easily.*

### A DOUBT OF THE LAST PART.

#### Dub. IX.

It is asked concerning this which he says: *A free corrector*; what does he mean by this word *free*?

**I respond:** It must be said that a free corrector is so called just as a free man is, who «is his own cause only», as the Philosopher says[^p25-9]; so a corrector is called free who corrects only for the sake of correction, not out of envy or of mockery. Such a one the Master desires, after the example of Augustine in the second book *On the Trinity*[^p25-10], where he says: «I shall more gladly be examined by the upright than fear to be bitten by the perverse. For a most beautiful and most modest charity gladly receives the kiss of the dove; but the tooth of the dog either a most cautious humility avoids, or a most solid truth blunts: and I shall rather choose to be reproved by anyone whatsoever than to be praised either by one who errs or by one who flatters».

---

la: Cod. I. et ed. 1 *movent.*

en: Codex I and ed. 1 read *movent.*

la: Supplevimus *ibi*, sicuti et paulo infra post *dividitur* particulam *iterum* ex mss. et ed. 1.

en: We have supplied *ibi*, as also, a little further on, after *dividitur*, the particle *iterum*, from the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Cod. W et X *ponit.* Mox aliqui codd. ut F G K ee ff cum ed. 1 *hoc est* loco *haec est*, quae lectio adhuc bis in sequentibus occurrit, sed non ita bene.

en: Codices W and X read *ponit.* Presently some codices, such as F G K ee ff, together with ed. 1, read *hoc est* in place of *haec est*, a reading which occurs twice more in what follows, but not so well.

la: Vat. indebite et contra mss. ac ed. 1 omittit *ipsum.*

en: The Vatican edition, unwarrantably and against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omits *ipsum.*

la: Praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 in hoc dubio et in sequentibus Vat. omittit haec verba preambula. Dein Vat. textum Magistri integre exhibet, post *opus* addendo *ultra vires nostras*, quae tamen verba desunt in mss. et ed. 1. Haec omissio et mutatio praeambulorum in omnibus fere dubiis litteralibus totius Commentarii occurrit in Vat., sicut iam in Prolegominis observatum est.

en: Against the witness of the manuscripts and of ed. 1, the Vatican edition, in this doubt and in those that follow, omits these prefatory words. Then the Vatican edition gives the Master's text in full, adding after *opus* the words *ultra vires nostras*, which words, however, are wanting in the manuscripts and in ed. 1. This omission and alteration of the prefatory words occurs in the Vatican edition in almost all the literal doubts of the whole Commentary, as has already been observed in the Prolegomena.

la: Minus bene et reluctantibus mss. cum ed. 1, hic Vat. addit *indicium.*

en: Less well, and against the manuscripts together with ed. 1, the Vatican edition here adds *indicium.*

la: Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc *nec est culpabilis, qui in omnibus*, quae lectio mutila exindeque vim dictis distrahens resarcitur ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition, with the later codex cc, reads *nec est culpabilis, qui in omnibus* — a mutilated reading, and one which thereby draws away the force of what is said; it is repaired from the older manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 1: *Omnia, quae nobis tam per Legem et Prophetas, quam per Apostolos et Evangelistas tradita sunt, amplectimur, agnoscimus et veneramur; nec ultra ea quidquam inquirimus.* — In quo textu Vat. post *ultra* omittit *haec*, quod in fere omnibus mss. et ed. 1 habetur.

en: Book I *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 1: *All the things which have been handed down to us both through the Law and the Prophets and through the Apostles and Evangelists we embrace, acknowledge and venerate; nor do we inquire anything beyond them.* — In which text the Vatican edition omits, after *ultra*, the word *haec*, which is found in nearly all the manuscripts and in ed. 1.

la: Vers. 18, ubi Vat. cum Vulgata contra mss. et ed. 1. *ad haec* pro *super haec*; deinde Vulgata legit *apponet Deus super illum plagas.*

en: Verse 18, where the Vatican edition, with the Vulgate and against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *ad haec* for *super haec*; then the Vulgate reads *apponet Deus super illum plagas.*

la: Faventibus antiquoribus mss. et ed. 1 nec non constructione grammaticali, substituimus *Scripturae* loco *Scripturam*, quod Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc habet.

en: With the older manuscripts and ed. 1 in favour, and the grammatical construction as well, we have substituted *Scripturae* in place of *Scripturam*, which the Vatican edition has together with the later codex cc.

la: Minus clare Vat. cum cod. cc legit *et* loco *per*, obnitentibus vetustioribus mss. cum ed. 1.

en: Less clearly, the Vatican edition with codex cc reads *et* in place of *per*, the older manuscripts together with ed. 1 resisting.

la: Cod. N hic et paulo post repetit verbum *additio.*

en: Codex N here, and a little after, repeats the word *additio.*

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. *Item.*

en: The Vatican edition, against the witness of the manuscripts and of the first six editions, reads *Item.*

la: Supple: *consortium.* — Lectio in textum recepta et praecedentibus conformior suppeditatur a mss. antiquioribus ac ed. 1 pro lectione Vat. et cod. cc *malos.* — Mox perturbatam, immo mendosam lectionem Vat. et paucorum codd. ut A F K cc *quae insurgunt contra ipsam* emendavimus ope aliorum mss. et ed. 1.

en: Supply: *consortium.* — The reading received into the text, and more conformable to what precedes, is furnished by the older manuscripts and by ed. 1, in place of the reading *malos* of the Vatican edition and of codex cc. — Presently we have corrected the disturbed, indeed faulty, reading of the Vatican edition and of a few codices such as A F K cc, *quae insurgunt contra ipsam*, by the help of the other manuscripts and of ed. 1.

la: Glossa apud Lyranum loc. cit. v. 19. ita habet: *Bonus zelus est fervor animi, quo mens, abiecto humano timore, pro defensione veritatis accenditur. Ab eo comeditur qui quaelibet prava, quae viderit, corrigere satagit; si nequit, tolerat et gemit.* — Quoad primam propositionem cod. O magis quam ceteri codd. cum allegatis convenit, quia post *timore* habet *pro defensione veritatis*; quoad secundam propositionem Vat. a mss. et ed. 1 discedens legit *tendit ut* pro *comeditur quo* ac propter variatam constructionem in fine propositionis *satagat, toleret, gemat.*

en: The Gloss in Lyra, at the place cited, v. 19, has it thus: *Good zeal is a fervour of mind, by which the mind, human fear being cast off, is kindled for the defence of truth. By it he is consumed who busies himself to correct whatever perverse things he has seen; if he cannot, he bears with them and groans.* — As to the first proposition, codex O agrees with the passage adduced more than the other codices do, because after *timore* it has *pro defensione veritatis*; as to the second proposition, the Vatican edition, departing from the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *tendit ut* for *comeditur quo*, and, on account of the altered construction, at the end of the proposition *satagat, toleret, gemat.*

la: Vat. *Magister accendebatur.* Omnes. mss. habent *succendebatur*; plures vero ut M aa bb ee *magis* pro *Magister*, quam lectionem tanquam unice veram, utpote obiectioni superius positae conformem, praeferimus. Error aliorum mss. facillimus ex eo iudicatur, quod duo ista vocabula eodem fere modo abbreviantur.

en: The Vatican edition reads *Magister accendebatur.* All the manuscripts have *succendebatur*; but several, such as M aa bb ee, read *magis* for *Magister*, which reading we prefer as alone true, being conformable to the objection set down above. The error of the other manuscripts is judged to have been very easy from this, that those two words are abbreviated in almost the same way.

la: Vers, 18, ubi Vulgata post *sunt* addit *autem.* — Mox post *quis* supple *fidem*, quod et ed. 1 habet.

en: Verse 18, where the Vulgate adds *autem* after *sunt.* — Presently, after *quis*, supply *fidem*, which ed. 1 also has.

la: Vers. 1, in quo textu restituimus ex multis mss. ut A F G I K T etc. et ed. 1, ac Vulgata *utrum* loco *an.*

en: Verse 1, in which text we have restored, from many manuscripts such as A F G I K T etc. and from ed. 1, and from the Vulgate, *utrum* in place of *an.*

la: Vat. hic addit *dicitur quasi*, sed castigatur ex mss. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition here adds *dicitur quasi*, but it is corrected from the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Reluctantibus mss. et ed. 1, verbis ita transpositis *verum est certitudinaliter, quod nescit aliquis*, Vat. sensum Doctoris distorquet. Cod. cc omittit *quod.* Mox post *tamen* ed. 1 satis bene addit praepositionem *ex*, et cod. M habet *aliquis* pro *aliquo.* S. Doctor sententiam, quam hic proponit, fusius exponit infra d. 18. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. et Comment. in Ioan. c. 14. n. 999. (Supplem. Bonelli, tom. I.).

en: Against the manuscripts and ed. 1, the words being thus transposed — *verum est certitudinaliter, quod nescit aliquis* — the Vatican edition distorts the Doctor's sense. Codex cc omits *quod.* Presently, after *tamen*, ed. 1 quite rightly adds the preposition *ex*, and codex M has *aliquis* for *aliquo.* The holy Doctor sets forth the opinion which he here proposes more fully below, d. 18. p. I. a. 1. q. 3., and in the Commentary on John, c. 14. n. 999. (Bonelli's Supplement, tom. I.).

la: Ed. 1 *appetitione.*

en: Ed. 1 reads *appetitione.*

la: Codd. diversimode hic legunt; cod. V omittit *caecitate*, cod. S cum ed. 1 omittit *pari*; cod. O habet *prava* loco *pari*; alii aliter, sed corrupte; nihil immutandum duximus.

en: The codices read here in various ways; codex V omits *caecitate*, codex S together with ed. 1 omits *pari*; codex O has *prava* in place of *pari*; others otherwise, but corruptly; we have judged that nothing should be altered.

la: Prave et contra codd. ac ed. 1 legit Vat. *defensionem.*

en: Wrongly, and against the codices and ed. 1, the Vatican edition reads *defensionem.*

la: Adiecimus ex mss. et ed. 1 *enim.*

en: We have added *enim* from the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Cod. T adiungit hic *enim*, mutata in praecedentibus interpunctione; omisso siquidem puncto post *est* habet *hoc manifestum est similiter in spiritualibus*; eandem interpunctionem et plures alii codd. exhibent; sed non ita bene.

en: Codex T here adds *enim*, the punctuation in what precedes being changed; for, the full stop after *est* being omitted, it has *hoc manifestum est similiter in spiritualibus*; several other codices give the same punctuation as well; but not so well.

la: Plures codd. ut F G H K Y Z et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 minus bene *subtrahit*, quorum tamen aliqui sibi non constantes mox habent *peccavit.* — De influentia lucis increatae vide infra d. 3. p. I. q. 1. Scholion.

en: Several codices, such as F G H K Y Z, and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, read less well *subtrahit*, of which, however, some, not consistent with themselves, presently have *peccavit.* — On the influence of the uncreated light see below, d. 3. p. I. q. 1. Scholion.

la: Cod. N. hic addit *intellectus.* Circa finem propositionis Vat. *intelliget* pro *intellectus*, contradicentibus permultis mss. et ed. 1.

en: Codex N here adds *intellectus.* Toward the end of the proposition the Vatican edition reads *intelliget* for *intellectus*, very many manuscripts and ed. 1 contradicting.

la: Aristot., I. Metaph. text. 1.

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* I, text 1.

la: Corruptam lectionem Vat. *manifestatio enim mali redarguit facientem* emendavimus ex mss. et ed. 1.

en: We have corrected the corrupt reading of the Vatican edition, *manifestatio enim mali redarguit facientem*, from the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Vers. 20.

en: Verse 20.

la: Vers. 35. et 36, ubi Vulgata: *Et veritas magna et fortior prae omnibus* etc.

en: Verses 35 and 36, where the Vulgate reads: *Et veritas magna et fortior prae omnibus* etc.

la: In Vat. deest *quod*, sed contra mss. et ed. 1. Mox ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *in hoc* loco *quantum ad hoc*, quia *in hoc* et materiae subiectae et verbis immediate subnexis magis correspondet et in operibus S. Doctoris saepius occurrit.

en: In the Vatican edition *quod* is wanting, but against the manuscripts and ed. 1. Presently, from the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *in hoc* in place of *quantum ad hoc*, because *in hoc* corresponds better both to the matter in hand and to the words immediately joined to it, and occurs more often in the works of the holy Doctor.

la: Fere omnibus mss. et ed. 1 faventibus addidimus *et.*

en: With nearly all the manuscripts and ed. 1 in favour, we have added *et.*

la: Vers. 29. — Expositio, quae a S. Doctore et etiam a S. Thoma (hic in expos. textus) attribuitur S. Ambrosio, invenitur in Glossa ordinaria apud Lyranum. — Vat. contra codd. antiquiores specialem citationem omittendo ponit *super illud verbum Apostoli: Contentione, dicit.*

en: Verse 29. — The exposition which is attributed to St. Ambrose by the holy Doctor and also by St. Thomas (here, in his exposition of the text) is found in the *Glossa ordinaria* in Lyra. — The Vatican edition, against the older codices, omitting the particular citation, puts *super illud verbum Apostoli: Contentione, dicit.*

la: Vers. 8. — Mox codd. X et Z post *respondeo* addunt *dicendum.*

en: Verse 8. — Presently codices X and Z add *dicendum* after *respondeo.*

la: Psalm. 118, 89. — Cod. Y *Unde Psalmista* loco *Psalmus.* Paulo ante permulti codd. *et* pro *sed*, at minus bene.

en: Psalm 118, 89. — Codex Y reads *Unde Psalmista* in place of *Psalmus.* A little before, very many codices read *et* for *sed*, but less well.

la: Postulantibus mss. et ed. 1, mutavimus *quae* in *quorum.*

en: At the demand of the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have changed *quae* into *quorum.*

la: Vat. *In prima* et *in secunda in*; quam lectionem subnexis minus cohaerentem emendamus ope fere omnium mss. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition reads *In prima* and *in secunda in*; which reading, as less coherent with what is joined to it, we correct by the help of nearly all the manuscripts and of ed. 1.

la: Libr. I. Metaph. c. 3, ubi in antiqua ed. Venetiis 1489 sic legitur: *Sed ut dicimus homo liber, qui suimet et non alterius causa est.* — In ed. Paris. c. 2: *Sed quemadmodum dicimus liber homo de eo, qui sui ipsius et non alterius gratia est.*

en: Book I of the *Metaphysics*, c. 3, where in the old Venice edition of 1489 it is read thus: *Sed ut dicimus homo liber, qui suimet et non alterius causa est.* — In the Paris edition, c. 2: *Sed quemadmodum dicimus liber homo de eo, qui sui ipsius et non alterius gratia est.*

la: In Prooemio. — In hoc textu Vat., contradicentibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 necnon ed. operum S. Augustini, habet *castissima* pro *modestissima* et paulo infra post *caninum* omittit *vel.* Mss. in eo tantum ab ed. operum S. Augustini discedunt, quod legant *osculum* loco *oculum*, et paulo infra post *dentem* habeant *vero* pro *autem.* Sequimur mss. — Paulo supra nullius cod. auctoritate nec non contra edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 omisso *Magister* Vat. loco *Augustini* ponit *Augustinus.*

en: In the Prooemium. — In this text the Vatican edition, against the older manuscripts and ed. 1 as well as the edition of the works of St. Augustine, has *castissima* for *modestissima*, and a little below, after *caninum*, omits *vel.* The manuscripts depart from the edition of the works of St. Augustine only in this, that they read *osculum* in place of *oculum*, and a little below, after *dentem*, have *vero* for *autem.* We follow the manuscripts. — A little above, on the authority of no codex and against editions 1, 2, 3, 6, *Magister* being omitted, the Vatican edition puts *Augustinus* in place of *Augustini.*

translators_notes:
**Span, fixed positively.** The display heading `COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM MAGISTRI.` stands full-measure in the middle of **p. 22**, directly beneath the last entries of Book I's capitula table (raw L12255). The unit runs to the foot of the text on **p. 25**, ending at *…sive ab adulante laudari»*, and closes **positively** against `LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM. / DE DEI UNITATE ET TRINITATE, / DISTINCTIO I.` at the head of **p. 26** (raw L12781). The **lower half of p. 25 is blank in both columns**; that white space was not used as evidence — the frozen rule is that a blank column foot is never a boundary, and the end was set from the next leaf's display matter. The bare `COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM.` at raw L12197, 12355, 12515 and 12657 are **running heads** (pp. 22, 23, 24, 25) and were used for nothing.

**Structure.** Three `DIVISIO TEXTUS` sections alternating with three groups of dubia, in printed order: DIVISIO TEXTUS (p. 22) · DUBIA CIRCA PRIMAM PARTEM PROLOGI MAGISTRI, Dub. I–IV (pp. 22–24) · DIVISIO TEXTUS SECUNDAE PARTIS PROLOGI (p. 24) · DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM SECUNDAE PARTIS PROLOGI, Dub. V–VIII (pp. 24–25) · DIVISIO TEXTUS ULTIMAE PARTIS (p. 25) · DUBIUM ULTIMAE PARTIS, Dub. IX (p. 25).

**Why `type: commentary` and not `divisio` / `dubia`.** `next-session-resume.md` predicted this chunk would need `divisio` and `dubia` admitted to `SENTENCES_FRONT_TYPES`. **The plate says otherwise**: the leaf carries ONE full-measure display heading, `COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM MAGISTRI`, under which the divisiones and the dubia alternate — this is one printed unit, and typing it as either half would misname three quarters of it. The corpus already has a `commentary` type (`bon-sent-I-d1-commentary`, `bon-sent-II-…`), so **only `commentary` was added** to the guard set, titled **"Prologus, Commentarius"**. `divisio` and `dubia` were deliberately NOT admitted: no `distinctio: 0` chunk anywhere in vols I–IV declares either, and admitting unused types would widen a guard whose whole job is to keep editors' front matter out.

★ The trap that change walks past is unchanged and still live: `chunkMeta.type` defaults to `"quaestio"` when a file declares none, and `vol1/bon-sent-I-proleg.md` — a bare 77k-word OCR dump — declares none. **The guard tests `declaredType`, the raw frontmatter value. Do not collapse `declaredType` back into `type`.**

**Apparatus — 41 entries, all read off `footcrop.py` bands at 2.4× (four spots re-read at 6–7×), none from a whole-page view.**

| page | notes owned | anchor split (L / R column) | footer block split |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | nn. 1–6 of the **second** register | 4 / 2 | 2 / 4 |
| 23 | nn. 1–12 | 6 / 6 | 8 / 4 |
| 24 | nn. 1–13 | 6 / 7 | 7 / 6 |
| 25 | nn. 1–10 | 7 / 3 | 7 / 3 |

**Block structure and anchor structure come apart on three of the four leaves** — only p. 25's two splits coincide. On **p. 23** the left block overruns by two notes and **n. 8 breaks off mid-clause at the left block's foot (`…ut A F K cc`) and continues UNNUMBERED at the head of the right block** (`quae insurgunt contra ipsam emendavimus…`); on **p. 24** the left block overruns by one and **n. 7 does the same** (`…in praecedentibus in-` / `terpunctione; omisso siquidem puncto…`). Two page-internal runovers, both logged positive. A reader dividing either register by block would mis-assign the fragment or lose it.

**p. 22 carries TWO independently numbered registers on one leaf, and both start at 1.** The left block runs the capitula's nn. 1–6, then prints the sub-heading **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.`** in spaced caps, under which a fresh sequence begins again at n. 1 (nn. 1–2 left block, nn. 3–6 right). **The printed sub-heading is the only tell** — nothing in the numbering says a new sequence has begun. The six inherited from `bon-sent-I-capitula` were forwarded as OWNERSHIP only, and every position and column was re-derived here; the predecessor's provisional anchor list (`moverunt`¹, `ibi`², `tangit`³, `ipsum`⁴, `dicit`⁵, `virtutis`⁶) proved right in all six, and its own doubt about n. 6 is resolved: the note records that Vat. adds *indicium* after *virtutis*, which is exactly where the marker stands.

**Gutters — measured per REGION, never per page.** p. 22 stacks four regions (capitula table, display heading, Commentarius body, footer register) at different measures. The Commentarius body's band is **1028–1075 (48 px), rule 1050–1056, midpoint 1051** — **not** the 1060 measured over the table rows for `bon-sent-I-capitula`, and a footer crop taken on 1060 would have shaved the right block. p. 23 = **952** (band 929–976, rule 947–954, twelve windows spread 2 px). p. 24 = **1062** (band 1040–1084, rule 1058–1067); its whole-body window returns a WIDE ink island because the `DIVISIO TEXTUS SECUNDAE PARTIS` and `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM` headings sit inside the left column — the 0.20–0.45 window is the sound one. p. 25 = **939** (band 920–958), on a measured **7 px head-to-foot walk** (0.10–0.25 reads 935, 0.28–0.50 reads 942): mild skew, well inside the one-split test, but recorded because it is real. The `--skew` screen is useless on p. 25 and reports a spurious 355 px drift — its thin slices land on headings and on the page's blank lower half, which is the stacked-region false positive the tool itself warns about.

**Marginalia (trimmed from the body, per the standing convention).** p. 23, left column, beside *Vel aliter dicendum, quod est additio…*: `Alia solutio.` That is the only editorial gloss in the unit's four leaves.

**Raw quality, graded per region and per column-run.** The lines immediately above the display heading are rotted (`Dous soit`, `Doi ■iolnntas`, `Utruni`, `\elit`) — that is the tail of the capitula table, not this unit. **The body below the heading recovers considerably** and the DIVISIO TEXTUS paragraphs transcribe cleanly. Four body readings were nevertheless settled against the raw at the plate: **`arguere`** (raw `curguere`, p. 24 Dub. VI) · **`multum`** (raw `niullum`, p. 24) · **`omnes tremunt eam`** (raw `omms`, p. 24) · **`indignum`** (raw `indigniun`, p. 23). The footer is a separate verdict and was not used at all: **the apparatus is bands-only**, and the raw's footer text proved wrong twice where it mattered (below).

**Two apparatus digits corrected against the raw at the band, both in the documented confusion classes.**
1. **p. 24 n. 8** — raw `edd. 2, 3, 4, 3, 6`, plate **`edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6`**. The `3`/`5` class.
2. **p. 25 n. 5** — raw `Psalm. 118, 132`, plate **`Psalm. 118, 152`**. The `3`/`5` class again, and independently confirmed by sense: Ps. 118, 152 is *Initio cognovi de testimoniis tuis*, which is the verse the body quotes.

**Two plate defects transcribed as printed, NOT emended, and NOT given inline `[?]` flags.** Both are legible; neither is a reading in doubt.
1. **p. 23 n. 11, `Vers, 18`** (comma for the point, and the verse number). Read at 6×: the digits are unambiguously `1` and `8`. But the note's own content — *ubi Vulgata post* sunt *addit* autem — describes **Gal. 5, 19** (*Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis*), which is also the verse the body quotes. Quaracchi's `18` is therefore almost certainly a slip for `19`. Transcribed as printed. **No `[?]`, and no QA flag either: 18 is a real verse of Gal. 5, so the citation is in range and the index cannot see it.** This is the class that only a reader with the Vulgate in view catches.
2. **p. 24 n. 2, `infra d. 18. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.`** Read at 7×: unambiguously `18`, not `17`. **But Book I's d. 18 has no pars division at all** — nine chunks, none with a `p`. — so `d. 18. p. I.` is jointly impossible, and this is the same species as `bon-brev-p6-c7`'s `Col. 6, 12`. The true target is almost certainly **`bon-sent-I-d17-p1-a1-q3`**, *Utrum caritas certitudinaliter cognosci possit ab habente* — which is precisely the *sententia* n. 2 says the holy Doctor expounds more fully, and d. 17 **does** have a Pars I with one articulus. Transcribed as printed and flagged here rather than silently emended, because the emendation would be ours and not the edition's. **`build-citations.py` flags it as `target locus does not exist`; that flag is correct and should be left standing.**

**★★ THE DISAPPEARING-FLAG CHECK WAS RUN, AND IT CLOSES CLEAN — but only because it was checked, and the checking is the point.** This chunk claims pp. 22–25, which were previously unowned, so `build-citations.py`'s corpus QA total moved **201 → 200**: **one flag added** (p. 24 n. 2, above) and **TWO retired**. Both retirements were verified against their anchors before being accepted, per the rule earned at `bon-sent-I-capitula`:
- `bon-sent-I-d47-a1-q3` `[^6]` — `Cfr. supra pag. 23, nota 9`. Its anchor is *zelus, quantum potest, obviat peccato*. **p. 23 n. 9 is the Glossa on good zeal** (*Bonus zelus est fervor animi… corrigere satagit; si nequit, tolerat et gemit*). **Correct.**
- `bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-a1-q1` `[^1b]` — `Vide tom. I. pag. 23, nota 9`. Its anchor is *ira per zelum est habitus, quo homo irascitur vitiis alienis*. **Same note, same subject. Correct.**

Two independent citations landing on the same note, each matching its own anchor's subject, is about as strong as this check gets. **Contrast `bon-sent-I-d25-littera` `[^17]`'s `pag. 19, nota 3`, which the capitula chunk's arrival turned from a visible `dangling` line into a clean and WRONG `chunk` resolution — that one is still owed a fix (see the forwarded list below).**

**Guard-rail audits deliberately NOT run.** All three (`audit-paraphrase.py`, `audit-headers.py`, `audit-apparatus-count.py`) select on `bon-sent-{I,II,III,IV}-d(\d+)-` and would print a clean verdict on **0 chunks audited** for a `distinctio: 0` chunk; worse, `audit-paraphrase.py --min-d 0 --max-d 0` *overwrites* `manual-review/d1-d40-paraphrase-audit.md` with an empty report. This chunk was verified instead by **marker pairing (41 / 41 / 41, identical order in Latin, English and defs)**, **structural parity** (three divisiones and nine dubia in each language, headings one-to-one), **`polish-style-scan.py`** (full corpus: the same 10 PAIR issues across 5 chunks, all pre-existing, unchanged), **`build-citations.py`** (above), and **plate discipline**.

**Forwarded — not fixed here.**
1. ✅ **RESOLVED 2026-08-23 — `bon-sent-I-d25-littera` `[^17]` now reads `Cfr. supra pag. 49, nota 3`.** The p. 433 plate (IA `doctorisseraphic12bona`, leaf `n22`) prints a clean, well-inked `49`. Our `19` was never Quaracchi's: the djvu OCR reads the non-word **`pag. i9`**, which a transcription pass silently normalized to `19` — the wrong direction, since `i` in this face is most often `4` (the same footer's n. 4 OCRs `edd. i, 6, 9` where the plate prints `4, 6, 9`). Corroborated substantively before the plate was opened: p. 49 n. 3 IS the *dant*/*perhibent* note on 1 John 5:7 that `[^17]` cross-references (= `bon-sent-I-d2-littera` `[^57]`, third note in p. 49's footer block), while p. 19 n. 3 is about *sed ut esset essentia* and has nothing to do with the verse.
2. **Quaracchi cite `IV. Sent. d. 2. p. I.` (three chunks do) but the corpus's Book IV d. 2 has no pars chunks.** Still nobody's fix; hand it to whoever works Book IV's body.
3. **The `Dictae salutis` fix (`bon-hex-c8`, p. 372 n. 1) is still not live.**

**Closed here, not forwarded: `bon-sent-I-d1-commentary` was MIS-PAGED and is now repaired.** Its frontmatter put a 17-word stub at `printed_pages: [1] / pdf_pages: [103]` — an artefact of the auto-chunker taking the raw's `DISTINCTIO I.` (L13215) for the book's opening when it is a **running head**. p. 29 was extracted and read: the running head `DISTINCTIO I.` and the page number `29` stand at the top of the leaf, and below them the full-measure display heading `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I.`, its subtitle, and the *Veteris ac novae Legis continentiam* incipit — immediately above `bon-sent-I-d1-divisio`'s `DIVISIO TEXTUS` **on the same leaf**. Corrected to `[29] / [131]`, both page markers with it, and its `## Apparatus` placeholder — which claimed the preceding footer block belongs to *the prologue's ultima pars* — corrected too: that register is **p. 28's**, and belongs to `bon-sent-I-d1-littera`. Backup at `_backup-d1-commentary-pre-repage-20260820/`. ⚠ **Printed p. 1 is now unowned by any chunk**, which is correct — Vol I's printed p. 1 is Prolegomena matter, not corpus text.

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. 1

title_alt: Distinctio I — textus Magistri Sententiarum (Caps. I–III)

title_alt: Distinction I — text of the Master of the Sentences (Chs. 1–3)

source_text:
<!-- page 26 -->

## LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM.

### DE DEI UNITATE ET TRINITATE.

### DISTINCTIO I.

#### Cap. I.

*Omnis doctrina est de rebus vel de signis.*

Veteris ac novae Legis continentiam diligenti indagine etiam atque etiam considerantibus nobis praevia Dei gratia innotuit, sacrae paginae tractatum circa res vel signa praecipue versari. Ut enim egregius doctor Augustinus ait in libro de Doctrina christiana[^1]: «Omnis doctrina vel rerum est, vel signorum. Sed res etiam per signa discuntur. Proprie autem hic res appellantur, quae non ad significandum aliquid adhibentur; signa vero, quorum usus est in significando». Eorum autem aliqua sunt, quorum omnis usus est in significando, non in iustificando, id est[^2], quibus non utimur nisi aliquid significandi gratia, ut aliqua Sacramenta legalia; alia, quae non solum significant, sed conferunt quod intus adiuvet, sicut evangelica Sacramenta. «Ex quo aperte intelligitur, quae hic appellentur signa, res illae videlicet, quae ad significandum aliquid adhibentur. Omne igitur signum etiam res aliqua est. Quod enim nulla res est, ut in eodem Augustinus ait, omnino nihil est; non autem e converso[^3] omnis res signum est», quia non adhibetur ad significandum aliquid. Cumque his intenderit theologorum speculatio studiosa atque modesta, divinam Scripturam formam praescriptam in doctrina tenere advertet. De his ergo nobis aditum ad res divinas aliquatenus intelligendas, Deo duce, aperire volentibus disserendum est; et primum de rebus, postea de signis disseremus.

#### Cap. II.

*De rebus quibus fruendum est, vel utendum, et de his quae fruuntur et utuntur.*

«Id ergo in rebus considerandum est, ut in eodem[^4] Augustinus ait, quod res aliae sunt, quibus fruendum est, aliae, quibus utendum est, aliae, quae fruuntur et utuntur. Illae, quibus fruendum est, nos beatos faciunt; istis, quibus utendum est, tendentes ad beatitudinem adiuvamur et quasi adminiculamur, ut ad illas res, quae nos beatos faciunt, pervenire eisque inhaerere possimus. Res vero, quae fruuntur et utuntur, nos sumus, quasi inter utrasque constituti», et Angeli et Sancti[^5]. «Frui autem est amore alicui rei inhaerere propter se ipsam; uti vero id quod in usum venerit referre ad obtinendum illud, quo fruendum est; alias abuti est, non uti. Nam usus illicitus abusus vel abusio nominari debet[^6]». «Res igitur, quibus fruendum est, sunt Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Eadem tamen Trinitas quaedam summa res est communisque omnibus fruentibus ea, si tamen res dici debet et non rerum omnium causa, si tamen et causa. Non enim facile potest inveniri nomen, quod tantae excellentiae conveniat, nisi quod melius dicitur Trinitas haec unus Deus». Res autem, quibus utendum est, mundus est et in eo creata. Unde Augustinus in eodem[^7]: «Utendum est hoc mundo, non fruendum, ut invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciantur[^8], id est, ut de temporalibus aeterna capiantur». Item in eodem: «In omnibus rebus illae tantum sunt, quibus fruendum est, quae aeternae et incommutabiles sunt; ceteris autem utendum est, ut ad illarum perfruitionem[^9] perveniatur». Unde Augustinus in libro decimo de Trinitate[^10]: «Fruimur cognitis, in quibus ipsis propter se voluntas delectata conquiescit; utimur vero eis quae ad aliud referimus, quo fruendum est».

#### Cap. III.

*Quid sit frui et uti.*

Notandum vero, quod idem Augustinus in libro decimo de Trinitate[^11], aliter quam supra accipiens uti et frui, sic dicit: «Uti est assumere aliquid in

<!-- page 27 -->

facultatem voluntatis; frui autem est uti cum gaudio non adhuc spei, sed iam rei; ideoque omnis, qui fruitur, utitur; assumit enim aliquid in facultatem voluntatis cum fine delectationis. Non autem omnis, qui utitur, et fruitur; si id quod in facultatem voluntatis assumit, non propter ipsum, sed propter aliud appetit».

Et attende, quod[^12] videtur Augustinus dicere, illos frui tantum, qui in re gaudent, non iam in spe; et ita in hac vita non videmur frui, sed tantum uti, ubi gaudemus in spe, cum supra dictum sit, frui amore inhaerere alicui rei propter se, qualiter etiam hic multi adhaerent Deo.

Haec ergo, quae sibi contradicere videntur, sic determinamus dicentes, nos et hic et in futuro frui, sed ibi proprie et perfecte et plene, ubi per speciem videbimus quo fruemur; hic autem, dum in spe ambulamus, fruimur quidem, sed non adeo plene. Unde Augustinus in libro decimo de Trinitate[^13]: «Fruimur cognitis, in quibus ipsis voluntas propter se delectata conquiescit». Idem in libro de Doctrina christiana[^14] ait: «Angeli illo fruentes iam beati sunt, quo et nos frui desideramus; et quantum in hac vita iam fruimur vel per speculum vel in aenigmate, tanto nostram peregrinationem et tolerabilius sustinemus et ardentius finire cupimus».

Potest etiam dici, quod qui fruitur etiam in hac vita non tantum habet gaudium spei, sed etiam rei, quia iam delectatur in eo quod diligit, et ita iam rem aliquatenus tenet. Constat ergo, quia[^15] debemus Deo frui, non uti. «Illo enim, ut ait Augustinus[^16], frueris, quo efficieris beatus et in quo spem ponis, ut ad id pervenias». De hoc idem ait in libro de Doctrina christiana: «Dicimus ea re nos frui, quam diligimus propter se, et ea re nobis fruendum esse tantum, qua efficimur beati; ceteris vero utendum». Frequenter tamen dicitur frui cum delectatione uti. Cum enim adest quod diligitur, etiam delectationem secum gerit. Si tamen per eam transieris et ad illud, ubi permanendum est, eam retuleris, uteris ea et abusive, non proprie diceris frui. Si vero inhaeseris atque permanseris, finem in ea ponens laetitiae tuae, tunc vere et proprie frui dicendus es; quod non est faciendum nisi in illa Trinitate, id est, summo et incommutabili bono[^17]».

##### *Utrum homine sit fruendum, an utendum.*

Cum autem homines, qui fruuntur et utuntur aliis rebus, res aliquae sint, quaeritur, «utrum frui se debeant, an uti, an utrumque». Ad quod sic respondet Augustinus in libro de Doctrina christiana[^18]: «Si propter se homo diligendus est, fruimur eo; si propter aliud, utimur eo: videtur autem mihi propter aliud diligendus. Quod enim propter se diligendum est, in eo constituitur beata vita, cuius etiam spes hoc tempore nos consolatur. In homine autem spes ponenda non est, quia *Maledictus est qui hoc facit*. Ergo si liquide advertas, nec seipso quisquam frui debet, quia non se debet diligere propter se, sed propter illud quo fruendum est». Huic autem contrarium videtur quod Apostolus ad Philemonem[^19] loquens ait: *Ita, frater, ego te fruar in Domino*. Quod ita determinat Augustinus[^20]: «Si dixisset tantum *te fruar*, et non addidisset *in Domino*, videretur finem dilectionis ac spem constituisse in eo; sed quia illud addidit, in Domino se finem posuisse eodemque frui significavit». «Cum enim», ut idem Augustinus ait, «homine in Deo frueris, Deo potius quam homine frueris».

##### *Utrum Deus nobis fruatur, an utatur.*

Sed cum Deus diligat nos, ut frequenter Scriptura dicit, quae eius dilectionem erga nos multum commendat, quaerit Augustinus[^21], quomodo diligit, an ut utens, an ut fruens, et procedit ita: «Si fruitur nobis, eget bono nostro, quod nemo sanus dixerit; ait enim Propheta[^22]: *Bonorum meorum non eges*. Omne enim bonum nostrum vel ipse est, vel ab ipso est: non ergo fruitur nobis, sed utitur. Si enim nec fruitur nobis nec utitur, non invenio, quomodo diligat nos». «Neque tamen sic utitur nobis, ut nos aliis rebus. Nos enim res, quibus utimur, ad id referimus, ut Dei bonitate perfruamur; Deus vero ad suam bonitatem usum nostrum refert: ille enim miseretur nostri propter suam bonitatem, nos autem nobis invicem propter illius bonitatem; ille nostri miseretur, ut se perfruamur, nos vero invicem nostri miseremur, ut illo fruamur. Cum enim nos alicuius miseremur et alicui consulimus, ad eius quidem facimus utilitatem eamque intuemur, sed et nostra fit consequens, cum misericordiam, quam aliis impendimus, non relinquit Deus sine mercede. Haec autem merces summa est, ut ipso perfruamur[^23]». Item: «Quia bonus est, sumus, et inquantum sumus, boni sumus. Porro quia etiam iustus est, non impune mali sumus, et in quantum mali sumus, in tantum etiam

<!-- page 28 -->

minus sumus. Ille igitur usus, quo nobis utitur Deus, non ad eius, sed ad nostram utilitatem refertur, ad eius vero tantummodo bonitatem[^24]».

##### *Utrum virtutibus sit fruendum, an utendum.*

Hic considerandum est, utrum virtutibus sit utendum, an fruendum. Quibusdam videtur, quod eis sit utendum et non fruendum, et hoc confirmant auctoritate Augustini[^25], qui, ut praetaxatum est, dicit, non esse fruendum nisi Trinitate, id est, summo et incommutabili bono. Item dicunt, ideo non esse fruendum eis, quia propter se amandae non sunt, sed propter aeternam beatitudinem. Illud autem, quo fruendum est, propter se amandum est. Sed quod virtutes propter se amandae non sint, immo propter solam beatitudinem, probant auctoritate Augustini, qui in libro decimo tertio de Trinitate[^26] contra quosdam ait: «Forte virtutes, quas propter solam beatitudinem amamus, sic persuadere nobis audent, ut ipsam beatitudinem non amemus; quod si faciunt, etiam ipsas utique amare desistimus, quando illam, propter quam solam istas amavimus, non amamus». Ecce his verbis videtur Augustinus ostendere, quod virtutes non propter se, sed propter solam beatitudinem amandae sint. Quod si ita est, ergo eis fruendum non est. Aliis vero contra videtur, scilicet quod eis fruendum sit, quia[^27] propter se petendae et amandae sunt. Et hoc confirmant auctoritate Ambrosii[^28], qui ait super illum locum Epistolae ad Galatas: *Fructus autem spiritus est caritas, gaudium, pax, patientia* etc.: «Haec non nominat opera, sed fructus, quia propter se petenda sunt». Si vero propter se petenda sunt, ergo propter se amanda. Nos autem harum quae videtur[^29] auctoritatum repugnantiam de medio eximere cupientes, dicimus, quod virtutes propter se petendae et amandae sunt, et tamen propter solam beatitudinem. Propter se quidem amandae sunt, quia delectant sui possessores sincera et sancta delectatione et in eis pariunt gaudium spirituale. Verumtamen non est hic consistendum, sed ultra gradiendum. Non hic haereat dilectionis[^30] gressus, neque hic sit dilectionis terminus, sed referatur hoc ad illud summum bonum, cui soli omnino inhaerendum est, quia illud propter se tantum amandum est, et ultra illud nihil quaerendum est; illud est enim supremus finis. Ideo Augustinus dicit, quod eas diligimus propter solam beatitudinem, non quin[^31] eas propter se diligamus, sed quia id ipsum, quod eas diligimus, referimus ad illud summum bonum, cui soli inhaerendum est, et[^32] in eo permanendum finisque laetitiae ponendus; quare virtutibus non est fruendum. Sed dicet aliquis: Frui est amore inhaerere alicui rei propter se ipsam, ut praedictum est; si ergo virtutes propter se amandae sunt, et eis fruendum est. Ad quod dicimus: in illa descriptione, ubi dicitur *propter se ipsam*, intelligendum est tantummodo, ut scilicet ametur propter se ipsam tantum, ut non referatur ad aliud, sed ibi ponatur finis, ut supra ostendit Augustinus dicens[^33]: «Si inhaeseris atque permanseris, finem ponens laetitiae tuae, tunc vere et proprie frui dicendus es. Quod non est faciendum nisi in illa Trinitate, id est, summo et incommutabili bono». Utendum est ergo virtutibus et per eas fruendum summo bono; ita et de voluntate bona dicimus. Unde Augustinus in libro decimo de Trinitate[^34] ait: «Voluntas est per quam fruimur»; ita et per virtutes fruimur; non eis, nisi forte aliqua virtus sit Deus, ut caritas, de qua post tractabitur[^35].

##### *Epilogus.*

Omnium igitur, quae dicta sunt, ex quo de rebus specialiter tractavimus, haec summa est[^36]: quod aliae sunt, quibus fruendum est, aliae, quibus utendum est, aliae, quae fruuntur et utuntur; et inter eas, quibus utendum est, etiam quaedam sunt, per quas fruimur, ut virtutes et potentiae animi, quae sunt naturalia bona. De quibus omnibus, antequam de signis tractemus, agendum est, ac primum de rebus, quibus fruendum est, scilicet de sancta atque individua Trinitate.

---

english:
<!-- page 26 -->

## BOOK ONE OF THE SENTENCES.

### ON THE UNITY AND TRINITY OF GOD.

### DISTINCTION I.

#### Chapter I.

*All teaching is about things or about signs.*

As we, by God's grace going before us, considered again and again with diligent investigation the contents of the Old and New Law, it became known to us that the treatment of sacred Scripture is chiefly concerned with things or with signs. For, as the eminent doctor Augustine says in his book *On Christian Doctrine*[^1]: «All teaching is either of things or of signs. But things also are learned through signs. Properly however things are here called those which are not employed to signify something; while signs are those whose use lies in signifying». But of these there are some whose whole use is in signifying, not in justifying — that is to say[^2], those which we use only for the sake of signifying something, like certain Sacraments of the Law; and others, which not only signify but also confer that which inwardly assists, as the evangelical Sacraments. «From this it is plainly understood what are here called signs, namely those things which are employed to signify something. Every sign therefore is also some thing. For that which is no thing, as in the same place Augustine says, is altogether nothing; not however conversely[^3] is every thing a sign», because it is not employed for signifying something. And when the studious and modest speculation of theologians applies itself to these matters, it will recognise that the divine Scripture observes a prescribed form in its teaching. Concerning these things, therefore, we who wish, God leading, to open up some access toward understanding divine things, must discourse; and we shall treat first of things, afterwards of signs.

#### Chapter II.

*On the things which are to be enjoyed or to be used, and on those which enjoy and use.*

«This therefore must be considered in things, as in the same place[^4] Augustine says, that some things are those which are to be enjoyed, others which are to be used, others which both enjoy and use. Those which are to be enjoyed make us blessed; by these which are to be used we are helped, while striving toward blessedness, and as it were supported, so that we may be able to reach and cleave to those things which make us blessed. The things which enjoy and use are we ourselves, constituted as it were between the two», both Angels and Saints[^5]. «But to enjoy is to cleave with love to some thing for its own sake; to use is to refer that which has come into use toward obtaining that which is to be enjoyed; otherwise it is to abuse, not to use. For an illicit use ought to be named an abuse or misuse[^6]». «The things therefore which are to be enjoyed are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet this same Trinity is a certain supreme thing and common to all who enjoy it — if indeed it ought to be called a thing and not the cause of all things, if even cause. For a name cannot easily be found which befits such great excellence, unless that it is better said: This Trinity is one God». But the things which are to be used are the world and what is created in it. Whence Augustine in the same place[^7]: «This world must be used, not enjoyed, so that the invisible things of God may be seen, being understood through the things that are made[^8] — that is, that from temporal things eternal things may be grasped». Likewise in the same place: «Among all things, those alone are to be enjoyed which are eternal and unchangeable; the rest must be used, so that we may attain to the enjoyment of those[^9]». Whence Augustine in the tenth book *On the Trinity*[^10]: «We enjoy those things known, in which the will, delighted for their own sake, comes to rest; but we use those things which we refer to something else, which is to be enjoyed».

#### Chapter III.

*What it is to enjoy and to use.*

But it must be noted that the same Augustine in the tenth book *On the Trinity*[^11], taking *to use* and *to enjoy* otherwise than above, says thus: «To use is to take up something into

<!-- page 27 -->

the power of the will; but to enjoy is to use with joy not still of hope, but already of the reality; and therefore everyone who enjoys also uses, for he takes up something into the power of the will with the end of delight. But not everyone who uses also enjoys; if that which he takes up into the power of the will he seeks not on its own account, but for the sake of something else».

And note that[^12] Augustine seems to say that those alone enjoy who rejoice in the reality, not yet in hope; and so in this life we do not seem to enjoy, but only to use, where we rejoice in hope — even though it was said above that to enjoy is to cleave with love to some thing for its own sake, in which way also many here cleave to God.

These things, then, which seem to contradict one another, we resolve thus, saying that we enjoy both here and in the future, but there properly and perfectly and fully, where by sight we shall behold what we shall enjoy; here, however, while we walk in hope, we do indeed enjoy, but not so fully. Whence Augustine in the tenth book *On the Trinity*[^13]: «We enjoy those things known, in which the will, delighted for their own sake, comes to rest». The same in the book *On Christian Doctrine*[^14] says: «The Angels enjoying Him are already blessed by that whom we also desire to enjoy; and the more we already enjoy in this life — whether through a mirror or in a riddle — the more tolerably we bear our pilgrimage and the more ardently we desire to end it».

It may also be said that he who enjoys, even in this life, has not only the joy of hope but also of the reality, because he is already delighted in what he loves, and so already in some measure holds the thing. It stands therefore that[^15] we ought to enjoy God, not use Him. «For by that», as Augustine says[^16], «you enjoy by which you are made blessed and in which you place your hope, that you may come to it». On this the same says in the book *On Christian Doctrine*: «We say that we enjoy a thing which we love for its own sake, and that we are to enjoy a thing only by which we are made blessed; the rest, however, are to be used». Yet frequently it is said *to enjoy* with the sense of *to use with delight*. For when that which is loved is present, it brings delight with it. If, however, you pass through it and refer it to that wherein one must abide, you use it, and abusively; you are not properly said to enjoy. But if you cleave and abide, placing the end of your gladness in it, then you are truly and properly to be said to enjoy; which is not to be done except in that Trinity, that is, the supreme and unchangeable good[^17]».

##### *Whether man is to be enjoyed or used.*

But since men, who enjoy and use other things, are themselves certain things, it is asked, «whether they ought to enjoy themselves, or use, or both». To which Augustine in the book *On Christian Doctrine*[^18] thus replies: «If man is to be loved for his own sake, we enjoy him; if for the sake of another, we use him: to me, however, it seems that he is to be loved for the sake of another. For that which is to be loved for its own sake is that in which the blessed life is constituted, the hope of which also consoles us in this time. But hope is not to be placed in man, for *Cursed is he who does this*. Therefore, if you note clearly, no one ought even to enjoy himself, because one ought not to love oneself for one's own sake, but for the sake of that which is to be enjoyed». But to this seems contrary what the Apostle in speaking to Philemon[^19] says: *So, brother, I shall enjoy thee in the Lord*. Which Augustine thus settles[^20]: «If he had said only *I shall enjoy thee*, and had not added *in the Lord*, he would have seemed to set the end of love and of hope in him; but because he added that, he signified that he had set his end in the Lord and that he was enjoying the same». «For when», as the same Augustine says, «you enjoy a man in God, you enjoy God rather than man».

##### *Whether God enjoys us or uses us.*

But since God loves us, as Scripture frequently says, which much commends His love toward us, Augustine asks[^21] how He loves us, whether as one using or as one enjoying; and he proceeds thus: «If He enjoys us, He has need of our good, which no sane man would say; for the Prophet says[^22]: *Of my goods Thou hast no need*. For all our good either is Himself or is from Him: He does not therefore enjoy us, but uses us. For if He neither enjoys us nor uses us, I do not see how He loves us». «Yet He does not so use us as we use other things. For we refer the things which we use to this, that we may enjoy the goodness of God; but God refers our use to His own goodness: for He has mercy on us because of His own goodness, but we on one another because of His goodness; He has mercy on us, that we may enjoy Him fully, but we have mercy on one another, that we may enjoy Him. For when we have mercy on someone and counsel someone, we do it indeed for his usefulness and look to that, but ours follows as a consequence, since God does not leave without reward the mercy which we show to others. But this reward is the highest, that we may enjoy Him fully[^23]». Likewise: «Because He is good, we are; and inasmuch as we are, we are good. Further, because He is also just, we are not evil with impunity, and inasmuch as we are evil, by so much also

<!-- page 28 -->

we are less. That use therefore by which God uses us is referred not to His utility, but to ours; to His, however, only to His goodness[^24]».

##### *Whether the virtues are to be enjoyed or used.*

Here it must be considered whether the virtues are to be used or enjoyed. To some it seems that they are to be used and not enjoyed, and they confirm this by the authority of Augustine[^25], who, as has been noted above, says that none is to be enjoyed except the Trinity, that is, the supreme and unchangeable good. Likewise they say that they are not to be enjoyed because they are not to be loved for their own sake, but for the sake of eternal blessedness. But that which is to be enjoyed is to be loved for its own sake. And that the virtues are not to be loved for their own sake, but rather for blessedness alone, they prove by the authority of Augustine, who in the thirteenth book *On the Trinity*[^26] says against certain ones: «Perhaps the virtues, which we love only for the sake of blessedness, dare to persuade us thus, that we should not love blessedness itself; if they do this, we cease at any rate to love them also, when we do not love that for which alone we have loved them». Behold, by these words Augustine seems to show that the virtues are to be loved not for their own sake, but for blessedness alone. And if this is so, therefore they are not to be enjoyed. But to others on the contrary it seems, namely that they are to be enjoyed, because[^27] they are to be sought and loved for their own sake. And this they confirm by the authority of Ambrose[^28], who says, on that passage of the Epistle to the Galatians: *But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, patience* etc.: «He does not name these works, but fruits, because they are to be sought for their own sake». But if they are to be sought for their own sake, therefore they are to be loved for their own sake. We, however, desiring to remove from the midst the apparent[^29] repugnance of these authorities, say that the virtues are to be sought and loved for their own sake, and yet on account of blessedness alone. For their own sake indeed they are to be loved, because they delight their possessors with sincere and holy delight and bring forth in them spiritual joy. Nevertheless one must not stop here, but pass beyond. Let not the step of love[^30] adhere here, nor let the term of love be here, but let this be referred to that supreme good, to which alone wholly one must cleave, because that alone is to be loved for its own sake, and beyond it nothing is to be sought; for that is the supreme end. Therefore Augustine says that we love them for blessedness alone — not but that[^31] we love them for their own sake, but because that very fact, that we love them, we refer to that supreme good, to which alone we must cleave, and[^32] in which we must abide and place the end of gladness; wherefore the virtues are not to be enjoyed. But someone will say: To enjoy is to cleave with love to some thing for its own sake, as has been said; if therefore the virtues are to be loved for their own sake, they too are to be enjoyed. To which we say: in that description, where it is said *for its own sake*, it must be understood only thus, that namely it should be loved for its own sake alone, so that it should not be referred to another, but the end should be placed there, as Augustine showed above saying[^33]: «If you cleave and abide, placing the end of your gladness, then you are truly and properly to be said to enjoy. Which is not to be done except in that Trinity, that is, the supreme and unchangeable good». Therefore the virtues are to be used and through them the supreme good is to be enjoyed; and so likewise we say of the good will. Whence Augustine in the tenth book *On the Trinity*[^34] says: «The will is that by which we enjoy»; and so also through the virtues we enjoy; not them, unless perhaps some virtue be God, as charity, of which it will be treated afterwards[^35].

##### *Epilogue.*

Of all things therefore that have been said, since we have specially treated of things, this is the sum[^36]: that some are those which are to be enjoyed, others which are to be used, others which enjoy and use; and among those which are to be used there are also certain ones through which we enjoy, such as the virtues and powers of the soul, which are natural goods. Concerning all these, before we treat of signs, it must be dealt with, and first concerning those things which are to be enjoyed, namely concerning the holy and undivided Trinity.

---

la: Cap. 2. n. 2; hic et proximo loco, sed multis a Magistro omissis et nonnullis additis ac mutatis.

en: Cap. 2, n. 2; here and in the next passage, but with many omissions by the Master and some additions and alterations.

la: Vat. et ed. 4 non bene omittunt *id est*.

en: The Vatican edition and ed. 4 not well omit *id est* ("that is").

la: Vat. et edd. 1, 6 *e diverso* pro *e converso*.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 1, 6 read *e diverso* for *e converso*.

en: Book I, c. 3, n. 1.

la: Omnes codd. cum edd. 1, 6, 8 *Angeli sancti*. Pro utraque lectione militant rationes; unde nihil immutavimus. Lectio *Angeli sancti* comprehendit sub *nos sumus* omnes homines bonos, sive sint in via, sive in patria; et addit *sancti* ad *Angeli*, ut excludantur daemones, cum damnati nullo modo Deo fruantur. Altera vero lectio ex una parte ponit *nos*, qui soli stricto sensu constituti sumus inter res, quibus fruendum, scil. Deo, et quibus utendum ut mediis ad Deum, ex altera parte beatos Angelos et Sanctos, qui proprie fruuntur Deo nec indigent uti mediis ad ultimum finem, sed tamen aliquo modo creaturis uti possunt ad alios fines.

en: All the codices, together with edd. 1, 6, 8, read *Angeli sancti* ("holy Angels"). Reasons support each reading; hence we have altered nothing. The reading *Angeli sancti* comprehends under *we ourselves* all good men, whether they be on the way or in the fatherland, and adds *sancti* to *Angeli* in order to exclude the demons, since the damned in no way enjoy God. The other reading places on one side *we*, who alone in strict sense are constituted between the things to be enjoyed — namely God — and the things to be used as means to God; and on the other side the blessed Angels and Saints, who properly enjoy God and do not need to use means toward the ultimate end, yet can in some way use creatures for other ends.

la: Aug. loc. cit. c. 4. et proximus locus, qui incipit: *Res igitur*, ibid. c. 5.

en: Augustine at the place cited, c. 4; and the next passage, which begins *Res igitur* ("Therefore the things"), in the same place, c. 5.

la: Libr. I. c. 4. et proximus locus ibid. c. 5.

en: Book I, c. 4; and the next passage in the same place, c. 5.

la: Vat. et edd. 1, 2, 4 *fruitionem*, contradicentibus textu Augustini et codd. cum aliis edd.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 1, 2, 4 read *fruitionem* ("enjoyment"), against the text of Augustine and the codices together with the other editions.

la: Cap. 10. n. 13. — Vat. cum cod. A et omnibus edd., excepta 8, in principio propositionis: *Idem* loco *Unde Augustinus*.

en: C. 10, n. 13. — The Vatican edition, with codex A and all the editions except 8, at the beginning of the sentence reads *Idem* in place of *Unde Augustinus*.

la: Cap. 11. n. 17. — In fine textus cod. B, ed. 1 et originale habent *appetivit* pro *appetit*.

en: C. 11, n. 17. — At the end of the text codex B, ed. 1, and the original have *appetivit* for *appetit*.

la: Vat. cum codd. B C et edd. praeter 6 et 8 *quia*.

en: The Vatican edition with codices B C and the editions except 6 and 8 read *quia*.

la: Cap. 10. n. 13. — Integrum textum posuimus ex cod. D et ed. 1. Vat. cum ceteris edd. et codd. *fruimur cognitis, in quibus voluntas est*. Suspicamur autem, pro *est* legendum esse *etc*. Nomen *Augustinus*, quod deerat post *Unde*, suffectum est ex codd. C D et edd. 1, 8.

en: C. 10, n. 13. — We have set down the integral text from codex D and ed. 1. The Vatican edition with the other editions and codices reads *fruimur cognitis, in quibus voluntas est* ("we enjoy things known, in which the will is"). We however suspect that for *est* should be read *etc*. The name *Augustinus*, which was lacking after *Unde*, has been supplied from codd. C D and edd. 1, 8.

la: Libr. I. c. 30. n. 31. — Scripturae locus, quem hic respicit Augustinus, est I. Cor. 13, 12.

en: Book I, c. 30, n. 31. — The Scripture passage which Augustine here looks to is 1 Cor. 13:12.

la: Solummodo edd., exceptis 1, 8, legunt *igitur quod*. Tum Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 post *frui* addit *et*.

en: Only the editions, except 1, 8, read *igitur quod*. Then the Vatican edition, against the codices and edd. 1, 8, after *frui* adds *et*.

la: Libr. I. de Doctr. christ. c. 33. n. 37; proximus locus ibid. c. 31. n. 34.

en: Book I, *On Christian Doctrine*, c. 33, n. 37; the next passage in the same place, c. 31, n. 34.

la: Loc. cit. c. 33. n. 37. — In fine huius auctoritatis codd. omnes et edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt *in* ante *summo*; sed infra circa finem in eodem S. Aug. loco solummodo cod. B cum iisdem duabus edd. Cum autem *in* desit in originali, nihil immutavimus.

en: Place cited, c. 33, n. 37. — At the end of this authority all the codices and edd. 1, 8 add *in* before *summo*; but lower down, near the end in the same passage of St. Augustine, only codex B with the same two editions [do so]. Since however *in* is lacking in the original, we have altered nothing.

la: Libr. I. c. 22, sed plura secundum sensum excerpta sunt. — Insuper mss. omnes et edd. 1, 8 male et contra textum Augustini omittunt *nos* ante *consolatur*. Verba, quae sequuntur: *In homine* etc., alludunt ad Ierem. 17, 5.

en: Book I, c. 22, but several things have been excerpted according to the sense. — Moreover all the mss. and edd. 1, 8 wrongly and against the text of Augustine omit *nos* before *consolatur*. The words which follow, *In homine* etc., allude to Jeremiah 17:5.

la: Vers. 20. — Immediate ante Vat. cum edd. 1, 7 contra codd. et ceteras edd. *videri non debet* pro *videtur*.

en: Verse 20. — Immediately before, the Vatican edition with edd. 1, 7, against the codices and the other editions, reads *videri non debet* for *videtur*.

la: De Doctr. christ. c. 33. n. 37, ubi in originali: *Inde ad Philemonem Paulus: Ita frater, inquit, ego te fruar in Domino. Quod si non addidisset in Domino, et te fruar tantum dixisset, in eo constituisset spem beatitudinis suae*. — In fine huius loci codd. A C D bene *eodemque se frui*. — Proximus locus habetur ibidem.

en: *On Christian Doctrine*, c. 33, n. 37, where in the original: *Inde ad Philemonem Paulus: Ita frater, inquit, ego te fruar in Domino. Quod si non addidisset in Domino, et te fruar tantum dixisset, in eo constituisset spem beatitudinis suae* ("Then to Philemon Paul: 'So, brother,' he says, 'I shall enjoy thee in the Lord.' Which, if he had not added *in the Lord*, and had said only *I shall enjoy thee*, he would have placed the hope of his blessedness in him"). — At the end of this passage codices A C D rightly read *eodemque se frui*. — The next passage is found in the same place.

la: De Doctr. christ. c. 31. n. 34. — Mox Vat. *diligat* pro *diligit* contra textum Augustini, codd. et fere omnes edd. Postea verbis *si fruitur* hic et paulo infra post *nec fruitur* additum est *nobis* ex cod. D et edd. 1, 8.

en: *On Christian Doctrine*, c. 31, n. 34. — Soon after, the Vatican edition reads *diligat* for *diligit*, against the text of Augustine, the codices, and nearly all the editions. Afterwards, to the words *si fruitur* here and a little below after *nec fruitur*, *nobis* has been added from codex D and edd. 1, 8.

la: Psalm. 13, 2. — Mss. ABCE cum edd. 1, 8 *indiges* pro *eges*, sed repugnante Augustino cum Vulgata.

en: Psalm 13:2. — Mss. ABCE with edd. 1, 8 read *indiges* for *eges*, but against Augustine with the Vulgate.

la: Ibid. c. 32. n. 33; in quo textu post *misericordiam quam* codd. A B E et edd. 1, 8 pro *aliis* legunt *alii*; cod. D *alicui*; et mox pro *perfruamur* Vat. cum paucis edd. *fruamur*.

en: Same place, c. 32, n. 33; in which text after *misericordiam quam* codices A B E and edd. 1, 8 read *alii* for *aliis*; codex D *alicui*; and soon for *perfruamur* the Vatican edition with a few editions reads *fruamur*.

la: Ibid.; in quo textu Vat., ordine verborum non bene inverso, legit *Porro etiam quia*, et paulo post pro *Ille igitur* eadem legit *Ille ergo*.

en: Same place; in which text the Vatican edition, with the order of words not well inverted, reads *Porro etiam quia*, and a little after, for *Ille igitur*, the same reads *Ille ergo*.

la: Loc. cit. c. 33. n. 37; vide supra in medio huius capituli. — Paulo ante cod. C *confirmatur auctoritate*; cod. D *confirmant auctoritates* et paulo infra *probant auctoritates*.

en: Place cited, c. 33, n. 37; see above in the middle of this chapter. — A little before, codex C [reads] *confirmatur auctoritate*; codex D *confirmant auctoritates* and a little below *probant auctoritates*.

la: Cap. 8. n. 11. — Paulo ante mss. BCE *sunt* pro *sint*.

en: C. 8, n. 11. — A little before, mss. BCE read *sunt* for *sint*.

la: Solus cod. D *et propter*, sed male.

en: Codex D alone [reads] *et propter*, but wrongly.

la: Super Epist. ad Galatas c. 5, 22: «Non dixit: *opera spiritus caritas est*, sed *fructus spiritus*». — Verba, quae sequuntur: «quia propter se petenda sunt», idem Lombardus habet *Collect. in Epist. Pauli ad Gal.* Patrolog. Lat. tom. CXCII, col. 160: «Fructus autem: quasi dicat, haec quae enumeravi, sunt opera carnis; sed ista sunt opera spiritus, quae sequuntur, quae tamen non nominat opera, sed *fructus*, quia propter se petenda sunt». Ex his confirmatur lectio codd. et ed. 1: *haec non nominat*, dum ceterae edd. legunt *Hic non nominat*; Vat. et ed. 4 *At hic* etc. Deinde pro *nominat* cod. D *nominantur*. Postea Vat. et edd. 2, 4, 7, 9 *ergo et propter*; omisimus *et*, postulantibus mss. et aliis edd. Denique edd. 1, 3, 8 adiungunt *amanda sunt*.

en: On the Epistle to the Galatians c. 5, 22: «He did not say *the works of the Spirit is charity*, but *the fruit of the Spirit*». — The words which follow, «because they are to be sought for their own sake», the same Lombard has in his *Collectanea in Epist. Pauli ad Gal.*, PL tom. CXCII, col. 160: «*Fructus autem*: as if he said, these which I have enumerated are works of the flesh; but these which follow are works of the Spirit — which however he does not name *opera*, but *fructus*, because they are to be sought for their own sake». From these is confirmed the reading of the codices and ed. 1: *haec non nominat*, while the other editions read *Hic non nominat*; the Vatican edition and ed. 4 [read] *At hic* etc. Then for *nominat* codex D [reads] *nominantur*. Afterwards the Vatican edition and edd. 2, 4, 7, 9 read *ergo et propter*; we have omitted *et*, the mss. and other editions requiring it. Finally edd. 1, 3, 8 add *amanda sunt*.

la: Codd. ABE et edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 *videntur*.

en: Codd. ABE and edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 read *videntur*.

la: Vat. perperam *delectationis*.

en: The Vatican edition wrongly [reads] *delectationis*.

la: Vat. *quod*, edd. 5, 8, 9 *qui*, sed recte codd. et aliae edd. *quin*, quia Magister hic mediam viam tenet inter negantes et asserentes virtutes propter se amandas esse.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *quod*, edd. 5, 8, 9 *qui*, but rightly the codices and other editions [read] *quin*, since the Master here holds the middle way between those who deny and those who assert that the virtues are to be loved for their own sake.

la: Vat. sola praetermittit *et*.

en: The Vatican edition alone omits *et*.

la: De Doctr. christ. l. c. 33. n. 37; in quo textu praeter Vat. ceterae edd. et codd. omittunt *tuae* post *laetitiae*; sed retinuimus cum originali, quia supra in eodem textu omnes concorditer sic legunt.

en: *On Christian Doctrine*, book I, c. 33, n. 37; in which text, except the Vatican edition, the other editions and the codices omit *tuae* after *laetitiae*; but we have retained it with the original, because above in the same text all read so concordantly.

la: Infra d. 17. Edd. 1, 3, 8 *postea* loco *post*.

en: Below, d. 17. Edd. 1, 3, 8 [read] *postea* in place of *post*.

la: Codd. omnes omittunt *est*, et item postea codd. ABC cum edd. 1, 8 post *utendum*. Denique cod. D legit *animae* pro *animi* et cum ed. 1 *dona* pro *bona*.

en: All the codices omit *est*, and likewise afterwards codd. ABC with edd. 1, 8 [omit it] after *utendum*. Finally codex D reads *animae* for *animi* and with ed. 1 *dona* for *bona*.