title: Pars 6, Cap. 10

title_alt:
De integritate poenitentiae
On the integrity of penance

source_text:
<!-- page 275 -->

### Capitulum X. *De integritate poenitentiae.*

De Sacramento *poenitentiae* hoc tenendum est, quod ipsa est « secunda tabula post naufragium[^p275-5] », ad quam naufragans per mortale peccatum recurrere potest, quamdiu est in statu praesentis vitae, quandocumque et quotiescumque divinam clementiam voluerit implorare. — Ipsius autem partes integrales sunt *contritio* in animo, *confessio* in verbo et *satisfactio* in facto. Ex quibus tunc poenitentia integratur, cum peccator omnem mortalem culpam perpetratam et facto deserit et verbo accusat et animo detestatur, proponens nunquam iterare peccatum. — His autem debito modo concurrentibus cum absolutione facta ab eo, in quo est ordo, clavis et iurisdictio; absolvitur homo a peccato et reunitur Ecclesiae et reconciliatur Christo, mediante clave sacerdotali; per cuius etiam iudicium non tantum habet fieri *absolutio*, verum etiam *excommunicatio* et *relaxatio*, quae proprie habet fieri ab episcopo tanquam ab Ecclesiae sponso[^p275-6].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum scilicet incarnatum, eo ipso quod Verbum, fons est *veritatis* et *sapientiae*; eo ipso quod incarnatum, fons est *pietatis* et *indulgentiae*: ideo debet reparare genus humanum per medicamenta Sacramentorum, et praecipue contra praecipuum morbum, qui scilicet est peccatum mortale; iuxta quod decet *pontificem* pium, *medicum* peritum et *iudicem* aequum; ut sic in curatione nostra appareat Verbi incarnati summa *clementia*, summa *prudentia* et summa *iustitia*.

Primum igitur, quoniam in curatione nostra a mortali culpa per poenitentiam apparere debet ipsius Christi *pontificis* piissimi summa *clementia*; et summa clementia Pontificis superexcedit omnia peccata humana, qualiacumque et quantacumque sint et quotiescumque fuerint perpetrata: hinc est, quod peccantes suscipere ad veniam est ipsius Pontificis clementissimi, non[^p275-7] semel nec bis, sed quotiescumque suppliciter imploraverint clementiam Dei. Et quia divina clementia tunc vere et suppliciter imploratur, quando intervenit poenitentiae lamentum; et ad hoc potest homo convertere se, quamdiu est in statu praesentis vitae, quia vertibilis est in bonum et in malum: hinc est, quod quantumcumque et quandocumque et quotiescumque peccator peccaverit, ad poenitentiae Sacramentum potest habere refugium, per quod sibi fiat remissio peccatorum.

<!-- page 276 -->
Rursus, quia in curatione nostra debet manifestari[^p276-1] ipsius Christi, peritissimi *medici* summa *prudentia*; et prudentia medici est in adhibendo remedia contraria, per quae non tantum morbus auferatur, verum etiam praescindatur causa; cum peccetur in Deum delectatione, consensu et perpetratione, scilicet corde, ore et opere: hinc est, quod prudentissimus Medicus instituit, ut contra deordinationem peccatoris secundum triplicem vim, scilicet affectivam, interpretativam et operativam, quae fit per *delectationis complacentiam* occultam, esset reformatio poenitentis secundum triplicem vim praedictam per *doloris poenitentiam* conceptam[^p276-2] in corde per *compunctionem*, expressam in ore per *confessionem*, consummatam in opere per *satisfactionem*. Et quia omnia peccata mortalia ab uno Deo avertunt et uni gratiae opponuntur et unam principalem hominis rectitudinem pervertunt; hinc est, quod ad hoc, quod poenitentiae medicamentum sit sufficienter ex suis partibus integratum, necesse est, quod poenitentia habeatur de omnibus peccatis et quantum ad *praeteritum* per displicentiam de perpetratis, et quantum ad *praesens* per cessationem de perpetrandis, et quantum ad *futurum* per propositum nunquam recidivandi vel in idem, vel in aliud genus peccati[^p276-3]; ut sic totaliter recedendo a culpa per poenitentiam divina gratia suscipiatur, per quam obtineatur venia omnium peccatorum.

Postremo, quia in curatione nostra manifestari debet ipsius Christi *iudicis recta iustitia*; et ipsius in propria persona non est iudicare ante iudicium ultimum et finale: ideo ad particularia iudicia ante finem iudices debuit constituere[^p276-4]. Et quia iudices isti inter Deum offensum et hominem offendentem sunt quasi intermedii ut proximi Christo et praepositi populo; Domino autem illi praecipue sunt proximi et familiares ratione officii, qui sunt eius praecipue ministerio consecrati, scilicet sacerdotes: ideo *omnibus* in sacerdotali ordine constitutis et *solis* datur potestas duplicis clavis, scilicet clavis *scientiae* ad discernendum, et clavis, quae est *potestas ligandi et solvendi*, ad diiudicandum et absolutionis beneficium impendendum.

Quia vero propter confusionem vitandam non quilibet cuilibet est praelatus in Ecclesia militante, cum ipsa hierarchia ecclesiastica debeat esse secundum potestatem iudiciariam ordinata; ideo haec potestas *ligandi* et *solvendi* concessa est primo *uni* primo et summo sacerdoti, cui collata est tanquam summo capiti potestas universalis; et deinde secundum particulares Ecclesias dividitur in partes, ita quod primo in episcopos et deinde in presbyteros descendit a capite uno. Ideo, licet unusquisque sacerdos habeat ordinem et clavem, ad eos tamen usus clavis tantum se extendit, qui sibi ordinarie sunt subiecti, nisi sibi ab eo qui habet iurisdictionem ordinariam, committatur. Cum vero illa iurisdictio principaliter sit in capite summo et deinde in episcopo et postremo in sacerdote curato; potest quidem a quolibet horum committi alteri, sufficienter quidem ab infimo, magis a medio et maxime a supremo.

Et quia in Pontifice summo et etiam in episcopis est huiusmodi iurisdictio non tantum ad iudicandum inter Deum et hominem in occulto, verum etiam ad iudicandum inter hominem et hominem in aperto, tanquam in illis quibus commissum est Ecclesiae regimen et custodia, sicut sponso committitur sponsa; hinc est, quod *gladium*[^p276-5] habent praelati, quo possunt percutere ad iuris defensionem in *excommunicatione*, et *potestatem largiendi* de thesauris meritorum Ecclesiae, quos habent repositos et commendatos tam a capite quam a membris, et hoc in *relaxatione*; ut sic tanquam veri Dei iudices ligandi et solvendi integram possideant potestatem, per quam impoenitentes feriant et compescant rebelles, et nihilominus absolvant et reconcilient Deo et sanctae matri Ecclesiae veraciter poenitentes.

---

english:
### Chapter X. *On the integrity of penance.*

Concerning the Sacrament of *penance* this must be held: that it is « the second plank after shipwreck[^p275-5] », to which one suffering shipwreck through mortal sin can have recourse, so long as he is in the state of the present life, whensoever and however often he shall have willed to implore the divine clemency. — Now its integral parts are *contrition* in mind, *confession* in word and *satisfaction* in deed. Out of which penance is then made entire, when the sinner both in deed forsakes and in word accuses and in mind detests every mortal fault he has perpetrated, purposing never to iterate the sin. — And when these concur in the due manner, together with the absolution made by him in whom there is order, key and jurisdiction; a man is absolved from sin and is reunited to the Church and reconciled to Christ, by the mediation of the priestly key; through whose judgment also there has to take place not only *absolution*, but also *excommunication* and *relaxation*, which properly has to be done by the bishop as by the spouse of the Church[^p275-6].

Now the reason for the understanding of the aforesaid is this: since our reparative principle, the Word namely incarnate, by the very fact that he is the Word, is the fount of *truth* and of *wisdom*; and by the very fact that he is incarnate, is the fount of *piety* and of *indulgence*: therefore he ought to repair the human race through the medicines of the Sacraments, and especially against the chief disease, which namely is mortal sin; according as befits a devout *pontiff*, a skilled *physician* and an equitable *judge*; so that thus in our cure there may appear the supreme *clemency*, the supreme *prudence* and the supreme *justice* of the incarnate Word.

First then, since in our cure from mortal fault through penance there ought to appear the supreme *clemency* of Christ himself, the most devout *pontiff*; and the supreme clemency of the Pontiff exceeds all human sins, of whatever sort and of whatever magnitude they be and however often they have been perpetrated: hence it is that to receive sinners unto pardon belongs to that most clement Pontiff, not[^p275-7] once nor twice, but as often as they shall have suppliantly implored the clemency of God. And because the divine clemency is then truly and suppliantly implored, when the lament of penance intervenes; and to this a man can convert himself, so long as he is in the state of the present life, since he is turnable to good and to evil: hence it is that however much and whenever and however often the sinner shall have sinned, he can have refuge to the Sacrament of penance, through which the remission of sins may be made to him.

<!-- page 276 -->
Again, because in our cure there ought to be manifested[^p276-1] the supreme *prudence* of Christ himself, the most skilled *physician*; and the prudence of the physician lies in applying contrary remedies, through which not only is the disease taken away, but also the cause is cut off; since it is sinned against God by delight, by consent and by perpetration, namely in heart, in mouth and in deed: hence it is that the most prudent Physician instituted that, against the disorder of the sinner according to a threefold power — namely the affective, the interpretative and the operative, which comes about through the hidden *complacency of delight* — there should be the reformation of the penitent according to the aforesaid threefold power, through *the penance of sorrow* conceived[^p276-2] in the heart by *compunction*, expressed in the mouth by *confession*, consummated in deed by *satisfaction*. And because all mortal sins turn away from the one God and are opposed to the one grace and pervert the one principal rectitude of man; hence it is that, for this, that the medicine of penance be sufficiently made entire out of its parts, it is necessary that penance be had concerning all sins, both as regards the *past* by displeasure over things perpetrated, and as regards the *present* by ceasing from things to be perpetrated, and as regards the *future* by the purpose of never relapsing either into the same or into another kind of sin[^p276-3]; so that thus, by withdrawing totally from fault through penance, the divine grace may be received, through which the pardon of all sins may be obtained.

Lastly, because in our cure there ought to be manifested the *right justice* of Christ himself the *judge*; and it does not belong to him in his own person to judge before the last and final judgment: therefore he had to constitute judges for particular judgments before the end[^p276-4]. And because these judges are as it were intermediaries between the offended God and the offending man, as those near to Christ and set over the people; and to the Lord those especially are near and familiar by reason of office who are especially consecrated to his ministry, namely priests: therefore to *all* those constituted in the priestly order, and to them *alone*, is given the power of the twofold key, namely of the key of *knowledge* for discerning, and of the key which is *the power of binding and loosing*, for adjudging and for bestowing the benefit of absolution.

But because, for avoiding confusion, not everyone is set over everyone in the Church militant, since the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself ought to be ordered according to the judiciary power; therefore this power of *binding* and *loosing* was granted first to *one* first and supreme priest, upon whom, as upon the supreme head, universal power was conferred; and thereafter it is divided into parts according to particular Churches, so that it descends from the one head first upon bishops and then upon presbyters. Therefore, although each and every priest has order and key, yet the use of the key extends only to those who are ordinarily subject to him, unless it be committed to him by one who has ordinary jurisdiction. But since that jurisdiction is principally in the supreme head and thereafter in the bishop and lastly in the priest having a cure; it can indeed be committed by any one of these to another, sufficiently indeed by the lowest, more by the middle and most of all by the supreme.

And because in the supreme Pontiff and also in the bishops this kind of jurisdiction is not only for judging between God and man in secret, but also for judging between man and man in the open, as in those to whom the governance and custody of the Church has been committed, as the bride is committed to the bridegroom; hence it is that prelates have the *sword*[^p276-5], with which they can strike for the defense of right in *excommunication*, and *the power of bestowing* from the treasures of the merits of the Church, which they have laid up and commended both from the head and from the members, and this in *relaxation*; so that thus, as true judges of God, they may possess the entire power of binding and loosing, through which they may strike the impenitent and restrain the rebellious, and nonetheless may absolve and reconcile to God and to holy mother Church those who are truly penitent.

---

la: Hieron., Epist. 130. (alias 8.) n. 9.

en: Jerome, *Letter* 130 (alias 8), n. 9.

la: De Sacramento poenitentiae agitur IV. Sent. d. 14-22. — Pro *habet* A *habent*; voci *episcopo* F praefigit *solo*, qui etiam superius cum pluribus aliis codd. pro *reunitur* substituit *restituitur*, K R et 2 *remittitur*.

en: The Sacrament of penance is treated in IV *Sent.* d. 14–22. — For *habet*, A reads *habent*; before the word *episcopo*, F prefixes *solo*; and F also, above, together with several other codices, substitutes *restituitur* for *reunitur*, while K, R and edition 2 read *remittitur*.

la: A addit *tantum*, Vat., 1 et 3 *solum*; P autem subiungit *tantum* post *bis*. Inferius pro *vertibilis* edd., excepta 2, *convertibilis*.

en: A adds *tantum*; the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 read *solum*; P, however, subjoins *tantum* after *bis*. Below, for *vertibilis*, the editions, edition 2 excepted, read *convertibilis*.

la: Vat., 1 et 3 praefigunt *apparere et*. Inferius ante *cum peccetur* fide codd. communiter et 2 omisimus *et*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 prefix *apparere et*. Below, before *cum peccetur*, on the faith of the codices generally and of edition 2, we have omitted *et*.

la: Vat., 1 et 3 *dolorem poenitentiae conceptum*; 1 insuper mox pro *expressam et consummatam* substituit *expressum et consummatum*. Superius post *delectationis* D E F addunt *complementum et*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 read *dolorem poenitentiae conceptum*; edition 1 moreover, presently, substitutes *expressum et consummatum* for *expressam et consummatam*. Above, after *delectationis*, D, E, F add *complementum et*.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 14. p. 1. dub. 4, ubi sub hoc triplici respectu explicantur diversae definitiones poenitentiae. — Superius pro *medicamentum* I K L M O U V et 1 *Sacramentum*.

en: Cf. IV *Sent.* d. 14, p. I, dub. 4, where under this threefold respect the various definitions of penance are explained. — Above, for *medicamentum*, I, K, L, M, O, U, V and edition 1 read *Sacramentum*.

la: M *iudices constituit*, qui etiam aliquanto inferius pro *diiudicandum* cum pluribus aliis codd. *iudicandum*.

en: M reads *iudices constituit*; and it also, somewhat below, together with several other codices, reads *iudicandum* for *diiudicandum*.

la: Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 486, nota 5. — Inferius pro *quos habent repositos* E *quos habet* [ita etiam G M] *reconditos*.

en: Cf. tom. IV, p. 486, note 5. — Below, for *quos habent repositos*, E reads *quos habet* [so also G, M] *reconditos*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 275–276, TWO LEAVES, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** `CAP. X.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De integritate poenitentiae.` stands centred in p. 275's **LEFT** column about **65 %** down the leaf, three lines below Cap. IX's closing `…per excessivum amorem ardentissime transferantur.` — where `bon-brev-p6-c9` said it stood, and re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted. **The title is taken from THIS heading, never from the volume index**, whose Pars VI titles are OCR-garbled throughout the block (the index prints `Dc intcgritate pocnilentiBe`). Cap. X occupies only the **last two lines** of p. 275's left column, crossing that leaf's gutter **MID-CLAUSE** (the left column ends `…quod ipsa est « secunda tabula post naufragium ⁵ »,` and the right column opens `ad quam naufragans per mortale peccatum recurrere`); fills p. 275's right column entire; crosses to p. 276 **at a paragraph boundary** (p. 275's right column ends `…per quod sibi fiat remissio peccatorum.` and p. 276's left column opens `Rursus, quia in curatione nostra debet mani-`); fills p. 276's left column entire, crossing that leaf's gutter **MID-WORD** (`et deinde secun-` / `dum particulares Ecclesias`); and closes about **57 %** down p. 276's **RIGHT** column at `…et sanctae matri Ecclesiae veraciter poenitentes.`

**★★ THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `CAP. XI.` HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** `CAP. XI.` with the ONE-line subtitle `De integritate unctionis extremae.` stands centred in p. 276's **RIGHT** column, with Cap. XI's opening beneath it in the same column (`De Sacramento *unctionis extremae* hoc in summa tenendum est, quod ipsa est Sacramentum exeuntium ex hac vita…` beside a fresh `Thesis 1.` gloss). **The volume index's "Cap. XI on p. 276" turns out to be right this time**, and so does its implication that Cap. X spans 275–276 — but that was established here from the plate at both ends and the index was used for nothing, exactly as the fourth caution requires: the index had just been caught under-reporting Cap. IX's span by a whole leaf, and a run of correct openings is no evidence about any span. The running head was likewise used for nothing: **p. 275's reads `PARS VI. C. X.` while two thirds of its left column is still Cap. IX, and p. 276's reads `BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. XI.` while the whole left column and 57 % of the right are still Cap. X** — **the eighth consecutive leaf on which the running head misleads.** No inference was drawn from white space at any column foot — p. 275's left column foot and p. 276's left column foot both carry blanks below the body, and neither is a boundary, exactly the shape that wrote `bon-brev-p2-c4` short — and the fact that p. 275's right-column tail (`…per quod sibi fiat remissio peccatorum.`) is a grammatically complete sentence closing a whole paragraph was not treated as evidence of anything; the `CAP. XI.` heading a leaf later is.

**Gutters — one re-derived from the hand-off, one settled fresh with no constant.**
- **p. 275 = 1145, RE-DERIVED rather than re-used.** The hand-off forwarded 1145 as "safe to reuse," and it was measured again from the beginning anyway. `colcrop.py vol5 275` with no constant returns **1127 on an 18 px run** — three px above the tool's own 15 px failure flag, and rejected outright a second time. Twelve row windows reproduce `p6-c9`'s fork window for window: the **eight sound** upper windows run 15–35 % → 1156/62 · 20–40 % → 1156/61 · 25–45 % → 1155/60 · 30–50 % → 1154/61 · 35–55 % → 1152/60 · 40–60 % → 1151/60 · 45–65 % → 1148/59 · 50–70 % → 1147/59 — a **monotonic** 9 px drift on runs of 59–62 px, which is the leaf's skew and not disagreement — while the **four lower** windows collapse to 1123–1129 on runs of **23, 28, 27 and 26 px** and are discarded. Step 3 settles it: over rows 45–92 % the near-zero band runs **x = 1118–1171** and Quaracchi's printed column rule stands inside it as a skewed ink island at **x ≈ 1138–1153, peaking 447 rows** — well right of the band's left edge in the lower rows, which is precisely why the pinched windows land on the left sub-band alone. Band midpoint 1144.5, rule centre 1145.5. **1145 confirmed and adopted.**
- **★★ p. 276 = 1392, SETTLED FRESH WITH NO CONSTANT ON A LEAF NEVER BEFORE IMAGED — and for once the default is sound on its own showing.** `colcrop.py vol5 276` returns **1392 on a 63 px run**, inside the 58–64 px trust band rather than below it, which is the first sound default in this quire. Twelve windows: **four blow out** (40–60 % → 1418/**117 px** · 45–65 % → 1402/**86 px** · 50–70 % → 1402/**86 px** · 60–80 % → 1347/**354 px** · 65–85 % → 1442/**164 px** · 70–89 % → 1352/**325 px**), thrown partly by the `Cap. XI.` heading set mid-column and partly by the short columns above the tall footer register, and the **five** survivors run 15–35 % → 1394/64 · 20–40 % → 1394/63 · 25–45 % → 1394/63 · 30–50 % → 1393/64 · 55–75 % → 1392/63 — **a 2 px spread on runs of 63–64 px.** Step 3 confirms it twice over: over rows 45–92 % the zero band runs **x = 1360–1423** with the column rule inside it at **x = 1390–1395 peaking 336 rows** (band midpoint 1391.5, rule centre 1392.5); over rows 15–55 % the zero band runs **x = 1362–1424** with the same rule at **x = 1392–1396 peaking 1227 rows** (band midpoint 1393, rule centre 1394). ★ **The rule inks far more heavily in the upper half of this leaf than in the lower — the inking varies down a single column, not merely leaf to leaf** — and yet the run stayed sound throughout, which is the counter-case to p. 274's 871-row leaf: heavy inking pinches a run only when the rule sits off the band's centre. Here it sits square. **1392 adopted**, and the bands cut there read clean edge to edge in both columns.

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All eight notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands** (6 bands at 2.6× for the body, then 14 bands at 4.6× for the digit and siglum work on each leaf); the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 275's total of 7 was established by `bon-brev-p6-c9` and was already in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; p. 276's total of 6 is established here and entered**, with p. 276's n. 6 forwarded as a legitimate PENDING.

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL. ITS VERBATIM TEXTS HELD; ITS DIGITS AND SIGLA HELD; AND THE ONE CLAIM IT EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMED — THE COLUMN OF nn. 6 AND 7 — WAS READ RATHER THAN INFERRED, AND ITS INFERENCE PROVED RIGHT.** `bon-brev-p6-c9` forwarded p. 275 from n. 5 onward and stated its verification level precisely: for n. 5 the block position, verbatim text, anchor column (LEFT) and anchor word all read off the bands; **for nn. 6 and 7 only the block position and the verbatim text read, their anchors NOT located, and their column INFERRED from the fact that p. 275's right column had not been set.** That disclaimer was exactly correct as a statement about its own evidence, and its narrative summary agrees with its per-note list; **nothing had to be withdrawn.** Verification level of every note as established **here**:
- **p. 275 n. 5** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here against the hand-off, and the DIGITS settled independently (see below). Anchors on `quod ipsa est « secunda tabula post naufragium ⁵ »,` in the **LEFT** column, in Cap. X's *Thesis 1*, on the last line of that column. Footer entry **second** in p. 275's right block, complete.
- **★ p. 275 nn. 6 and 7 — ANCHORS LOCATED HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME, and both fall in the RIGHT column as the hand-off inferred.** n. 6 anchors on `quae proprie habet fieri ab episcopo tanquam ab Ecclesiae sponso ⁶.`, closing *Thesis 4* — nine lines into the right column, not at its head. n. 7 anchors on `est ipsius Pontificis clementissimi, non ⁷ semel nec bis`, in the *Ex summa clementia* paragraph, about 70 % down the right column. **An inference that turns out right is still not a reading, and the distinction is why both were re-derived rather than adopted.**
- **p. 276 nn. 1–4** — all first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: n. 1 anchors on `debet manifestari ¹ ipsius Christi`; n. 2 on `per *doloris poenitentiam* conceptam ² in corde`; n. 3 on `vel in aliud genus peccati ³;`; n. 4 on `iudices debuit constituere ⁴.` — **all four in the LEFT column**, and their entries fill the left block in order except that only three entries fit there. n. 3 **breaks off mid-clause** at `…ubi sub hoc triplici` and continues unnumbered at the head of the right block.
- **p. 276 n. 5** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP verified: anchors on `hinc est, quod *gladium* ⁵ habent praelati` in the **RIGHT** column, inside Cap. X's *Pro thesi 4* paragraph. It is the **last note of Cap. X.**
- **p. 276 n. 6** — read here and **NOT owned here.** It anchors on `forma, suscipiente, dante, loco et tempore ⁶.` in Cap. XI's *Thesis 4*, in the **RIGHT** column below the `CAP. XI.` heading; forwarded to `bon-brev-p6-c11`.

**★ p. 275's SPLIT MAP — the leaf is now fully consumed.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 — n. 4 straddling the gutter. Right footer block: n. 4's unnumbered continuation, then nn. 5, 6, 7. **Anchors:** nn. 1–5 in the LEFT column, nn. 6–7 in the RIGHT. **Total 7.** nn. 1–4 are Cap. IX's (`p6-c9`'s), nn. 5–7 are mine — as `p6-c9` established; **the anchor split of 5/2 is now positively READ on both sides of the break rather than half-inferred**, and block (4/3), column (5/2) and capitulum (4/3) fall in three different places exactly as its per-note list — not its neighbours — said.

**★★ p. 276's SPLIT MAP — BLOCK 3/3, ANCHORS 4/2, CAPITULUM 5/1: THREE DIFFERENT PLACES, AND AN ARRANGEMENT NOT SEEN BEFORE IN THIS PARS.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3 — n. 3 **straddling** the gutter. Right footer block: n. 3's unnumbered continuation, then nn. 4, 5, 6. **Anchors:** nn. 1–4 in the LEFT column, nn. 5–6 in the RIGHT. **p. 276's TOTAL IS 6, established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; nn. 1–5 are Cap. X's (mine), n. 6 is Cap. XI's and is forwarded. ★ **The block break falls at 3/3, the column break one note LOWER at 4/2, and the capitulum break two notes lower still at 5/1 — the first leaf in Pars VI where all three differ AND the capitulum break falls below both.** p. 275's 4/3-vs-5/2-vs-4/3 did not propagate one leaf. **Read anchors, only anchors.**

**★ SIGLA — SEVEN RUNS ACROSS THE TWO LEAVES, AND `I` IS ADMITTED TWICE ON THE ONE-UPRIGHT RULE.**
1. **`A` and `F` (p. 275 n. 6)** — two single unmistakable sorts. The raw reproduces both.
2. **`K R` (p. 275 n. 6)** — **the hand-off's flagged pair, settled here off the plate at 4.6× and confirmed as two distinct sorts:** `K` with its two diagonal legs meeting the upright, `R` with a closed bowl and a straight leg. This is the chronic raw-corruption pair (the raw habitually prints `R` for `K`), and here the raw happens to agree — but it agrees for the wrong reason and was not relied on.
3. **`A` and `P` (p. 275 n. 7)** — two single sorts; `P` governs `transformentur`, as it did in p. 275 n. 4's continuation on the same leaf.
4. **`D E F` (p. 276 n. 2)** — three ascending sorts, `E` carrying three horizontal bars on a single upright. The raw prints `D E F` correctly.
5. **★ `I K L M O U V` (p. 276 n. 3)** — the longest siglum run in Pars VI. The first sort is a **single bare upright**, which is `I` by the one-upright rule and never `H`; the run ascends I–K–L–M–O–U–V, and the alphabetical order is the disambiguator exactly as the frozen rule says. **`U` and `V` stand as two separate sorts one letter apart**, which is the same pairing seen in `I M V` on p. 275 n. 4. The raw prints `I K L M O U V` and is right here.
6. **`M` (p. 276 n. 4)** — a single sort standing alone at the head of the note.
7. **`E` and `G M` (p. 276 n. 5)** — `E` single; `G M` two ascending sorts inside the square brackets.
★ **No `H` anywhere in these two leaves' registers either, which is now five consecutive leaves without one**: every single upright met here resolved to `I`.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). ★ **The `1`/`4` class dominates these two leaves — five of the six decisions — as it did pp. 273–275. Do not calibrate on this leaf either.**
- **★ p. 275 n. 5's `Epist. 130. (alias 8.) n. 9.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by an external fact.** The plate's leading sort is the flagged serif `1` that reads `4` at a glance, and the raw prints `Epist. 130.` — but the raw is not the witness. **Jerome's corpus contains 154 letters, so `Epist. 430` cannot exist** ✓, and *Ep.* 130 *ad Demetriadem* is where the *secunda post naufragium tabula* sentence stands, which is verbatim what the anchor quotes ✓. `alias 8.` is the older numbering and `n. 9.` the section; the `8` and `9` sit in no confusion class.
- **★ p. 275 n. 6's `IV. Sent. d. 14-22.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by the corpus itself, and it is this chapter's whole Vol IV precedent.** The plate prints `d. 14-22` with the flagged upright before the `4`; the raw prints `d. 1 4-22`, shattering the numeral. **`bon-sent-IV-d14-*` through `bon-sent-IV-d22-*` exist and ARE penance** ✓ — d.14 penance as virtue and as Sacrament, d.15 satisfaction, d.16 contrition, d.17 confession and justification, d.18–d.20 the keys and their use, d.21 venial sin and the seal, d.22 the return of forgiven sins. **`d. 44-22` is not a range at all**, and the note's own `De Sacramento poenitentiae agitur` fixes the subject. **Decisive, and confirmed from the far side by p. 276 n. 6, which assigns extreme unction to `IV. Sent. d. 23.` — so penance ends at 22 exactly.**
- **★ p. 276 n. 3's `IV. Sent. d. 14. p. 1. dub. 4` — a `1`/`4` decision with a flagged `1` and a true `4` in the same line, settled by the target's own contents.** `bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-dubia` exists and contains **exactly four dubia, Dub. I–IV**, so `dub. 4` is admissible and is the last ✓; and **Dub. IV asks `cum multae definitiones poenitentiae assignentur… quomodo differenter assignantur?`**, which is word for word what the note claims is there (`ubi sub hoc triplici respectu explicantur diversae definitiones poenitentiae`) ✓. Decisive twice over. **The same line prints the flagged upright of `d. 14.` and `p. 1.` beside the true `4` of `dub. 4.`, so the two sorts stand touching and can be compared directly** — the p. 273 `d. 14.` situation exactly.
- **★ p. 276 n. 5's `tom. IV. pag. 486, nota 5.` — checked to EXIST and to match the subject.** Printed page 486 of Tomus IV is owned by `bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1` (*Pro quo quis debeat excommunicari*) and `-a1-q2` (*Utrum aliquis possit vel debeat excommunicari*) ✓ — **d. 18 Pars II is excommunication, which is precisely what the anchor's `gladium… ad iuris defensionem in excommunicatione` is about.** The `486` carries no flagged sort and the raw agrees; the cross-check is what settles it.
- **`Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 275 n. 7, p. 276 nn. 1 and 2) and `1 insuper` (p. 276 n. 2)** — the standard Quaracchi edition-siglum set (`Vat.` plus editions 1, 2, 3), attested on every leaf of this pars; the edition-siglum `1` prints as a different sort from the codex-siglum `I`, and both stand on p. 276 within four lines of each other (n. 2's `1 insuper` against n. 3's `I K L M O U V et 1`), which is the frozen rule's own example. Settled by the run, not by the glyph.
- **`2` throughout** — an unambiguous sort in no confusion class; it recurs in p. 275 nn. 6 and 7 and p. 276 n. 1.

**⚠ TWO `[?]` FLAGS TRAVEL FORWARD, NEITHER RESOLVED, NEITHER RE-FLAGGED, AND NO NEW ONE IS RAISED HERE.**
1. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c6`, whose entry carries it; `p6-c6` flagged it, `p6-c7` re-examined it and recorded **no disposition**, `p6-c8` and `p6-c9` left it untouched). **p. 271 is off this chunk's leaves entirely, nothing read here bears on it, and it is neither resolved nor re-flagged.** It stands as `p6-c6` left it and is forwarded to `p6-c11` unchanged.
2. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 272 n. 6, `Respicitur Col. 6, 12.`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c7`, whose entry carries it; the plate confirmed by `p6-c7` and again by `p6-c8` at 4.6×, with no disposition recorded either time, and off `p6-c9`'s leaves). **p. 272 is off this chunk's leaves entirely and nothing read here bears on it either.** Colossians still has four chapters and the sense still requires Ephes. 6:12; **no disposition is recorded, it is neither resolved nor re-flagged as new**, and `build-citations.py`'s QA line on it remains expected behaviour, not a defect. Forwarded to `p6-c11`.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 275 left column — "Thesis 1."; p. 275 right column — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3." — "Thesis 4." — "Ratio." — "Tria in curatione." — "Ex summa clementia arguitur pro thesi 1."; p. 276 left column — "Item, ex prudentia pro thesi 2." — "Tria requiruntur." — "Item, ex iustitia pro thesi 3." — "Ordo in iurisdictione."; p. 276 right column — "Pro thesi 4." ★ **Twelve glosses, and a SIXTH distinct form in six consecutive chapters.** Cap. X sets **four** theses where Cap. IX set three, and answers them with a *Ratio* and a full one-to-one `pro thesi 1/2/3/4` series — but the series is written out as a running argument (`Ex summa clementia arguitur pro thesi 1.`, `Item, ex prudentia pro thesi 2.`, `Item, ex iustitia pro thesi 3.`, then a bare `Pro thesi 4.`) rather than as Cap. IX's bare labels, and the second, independent enumerative apparatus that Cap. IX ran alongside it has **collapsed to two isolated survivors** (`Tria in curatione.`, `Tria requiruntur.`) plus one structural note (`Ordo in iurisdictione.`) and **no `Corollarium.` at all** — where Cap. IX closed on one. **Nothing was inferred from any neighbour in advance.** Glosses stand in the outer margin of each column — left of column 1, right of column 2 — and the raw's rendering (`item, ei pru- deolia pro thcsi 2.`, `Tria reqni-`, `ei summa … goiiar"Vro`, `Tm in ca-`, `ordo in in- risdictione.`) is unusable; all twelve are band reads.

**★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE IS NOT DUE ON THESE LEAVES AND DOES NOT APPEAR.** p. 265 carried `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` with quire `34` and p. 273 the same line with quire `35`; the eight-leaf cadence puts the next around p. 281, which is also where Pars VII opens. **Neither p. 275 nor p. 276 carries a signature line, and both footer blocks end in blank paper** — which is part of what closes the page-crossing test from the upper side.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 275 body (left column, the two Cap. X lines) — poor**, continuing the degradation `p6-c9` graded below the `Postremo` paragraph (`De  integritale  pooniteniiae.`, `tencndum`); **p. 275 body (right column) — good and markedly better than the same leaf's lower left column**, damage confined to single letters and ligatures (`iwurrcre`, `qii.iii-(lociiiiii|iie`, `vnnfe.isio`, `.v«-lis/uctio`, `E\ qiiibus`, `iiito-gratur`, `p(;ccat(jr`, `ciim absolu-tionefacta`, `ciavis et iiiri.sdi-ctio`, `rcunitiir`, `mcdiaiitc`, `Hatio`, `pontifi-ccm`, `imploraveript`) — **so this leaf's two columns grade in OPPOSITE directions from the way `p6-c9` graded its upper half, and the improvement happens across the gutter, not across a heading.** **p. 275 footer — clean**, reproducing nn. 5–7 substantially right including `K R`. **p. 276 body — the worse of the two leaves in both columns**, with bracket-substitution damage running heavily through the left column (`[eccatoris`, `[ler doioris`, `conce|)t;im`, `dis[)licentiain de [)er[)etratis`, `[ler [)ro|iosituni niinquain`, `susci[)iatur`, `[loenitentiae`, `liabeatur`) and only slightly less in the right (`e[)isC()[)o`, `sicerdote`, `snllicienter`, `(jladium`, `rekirationc`, `im^Kienilentes`, `niirdoiniiiiis`, `reeoiicilienl`); **p. 276 footer — clean and complete in all six entries**, including the long `I K L M O U V` run and `pag. 486`. **Grade per page, per region AND per column-run: on these two leaves the body grade moved once at a gutter and once not at all, and the footer outgraded the body on both.**

**Runover tests — TWO RUN, ONE POSITIVE, ONE NEGATIVE; both closed from BOTH sides.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 275 → p. 276 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 275's right block ends **complete** at n. 7's `…Inferius pro *vertibilis* edd., excepta 2, *convertibilis*.`, with blank paper and no signature line beneath it, and **p. 276's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Vat., 1 et 3 praefigunt *apparere et*.` ★ **The body crossing at this seam is at a PARAGRAPH boundary** — p. 275's right column ends a complete sentence and a complete paragraph, and p. 276's left column opens `Rursus,` — **which is exactly the shape the frozen rule warns is not evidence that a unit ended.** Cap. X runs on for a whole further leaf.
- *p. 276's own gutter — **POSITIVE**, and logged as `p.276 n.3:gutter`.* The left block's last entry, n. 3, **breaks off mid-clause at a subordinating conjunction** — `…Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 14. p. 1. dub. 4, ubi sub hoc triplici` — and **p. 276's right block opens UNNUMBERED** with `respectu explicantur diversae definitiones poenitentiae. — Superius pro *medicamentum* I K L M O U V et 1 *Sacramentum*.`, the ablative `triplici` stranded from its noun `respectu` across the gutter. Rendered joined in the `p276-3` entry. ★ **The straddling note is Cap. X's own, and so is the note below it in the right block, so this test is closed and logged here.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* **`p.275 n.4:gutter` (`p6-c9`, POSITIVE) and the p. 274 → p. 275 page-crossing test (`p6-c9`, NEGATIVE)**; `p.274 n.5:gutter` and the p. 273 → p. 274 test (both `p6-c9`); `p.273 n.5:gutter` and the p. 272 → p. 273 test (both `p6-c8`); `p.272 n.5:gutter` and the p. 271 → p. 272 test (both `p6-c7`); `p.270 n.4:gutter`, the p. 270 → p. 271 test and p. 271's own gutter test (all three `p6-c6`); `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 test (both `p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s through `p6-c9`'s own do-not-re-log lists. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c11`.** p. 275 is **fully consumed** — its seven notes are now all owned, nn. 1–4 by `p6-c9` and nn. 5–7 here. **p. 276's register was band-read IN FULL and its total of 6 is entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; this chunk owns nn. 1–5, and **n. 6 anchors in Cap. XI and is `p6-c11`'s.** Stated with its verification level, claiming nothing more: **the BLOCK position, the VERBATIM TEXT, the ANCHOR COLUMN (RIGHT) *and* the anchor WORD of n. 6 were all read off the bands** — it anchors on `forma, suscipiente, dante, loco et tempore ⁶.`, closing Cap. XI's *Thesis 4*, in the **RIGHT** column below the `CAP. XI.` heading.
- n. **6** `De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 23. per totam.`
★ **THE DIGITS IN n. 6 ARE UNVERIFIED**, notwithstanding that they were read carefully off a 4.6× band: `d. 23.` sits in the `3`/`5` class (`d. 25.` is a real distinction too) and nothing independent has been checked against it here beyond the fact that `bon-sent-IV-d23-*` exists and is extreme unction. **Re-derive it. A hand-off is a claim to re-derive, never a fact to adopt** — and check the narrative summary above against the per-note list it sits beside, never the reverse. `bon-brev-p6-c11` owns p. 276 from n. 6 onward, **must NOT re-log p. 276's own gutter test (closed POSITIVE and logged here as `p.276 n.3:gutter`) nor the p. 275 → p. 276 test (closed NEGATIVE here)**, owes **the p. 276 → p. 277 page-crossing test and p. 277's own gutter test** (and the same pair for p. 278 if the span reaches it), and must extract p. 277 fresh with no constant. Cap. XI (`De integritate unctionis extremae`) opens about **57 %** down p. 276's **RIGHT** column with a ONE-line subtitle and a `Thesis 1.` gloss, running four theses (`Thesis 1.` through `Thesis 4.`) and a `Ratio.` with a `Pro thesi 1.` before the leaf ends; **its end must be set from the `Cap. XII.` heading on the band and from nothing else** — the index gives Cap. XII's opening as p. 277, i.e. Cap. XI runs one and a bit printed pages on the index's own showing, **which is a hypothesis and not a span.** **Both `[?]` flags travel forward unresolved: p. 271 n. 2's `minus, aptae` and p. 272 n. 6's `Col. 6, 12`.**

**Register — the penitential vocabulary was CONSULTED from the Vol IV settlement, not coined here, and Pars VI's own vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided.** `p6-c1`'s sacramental core, `p6-c2`'s historical-dispensation vocabulary, `p6-c3`'s seven sacrament names, `p6-c4`'s institution vocabulary, `p6-c5`'s dispensation-and-minister vocabulary, `p6-c6`'s iteration-and-character vocabulary, `p6-c7`'s *integritas* vocabulary, `p6-c8`'s *integer / placida / intrepida* settlement and `p6-c9`'s eucharistic settlement all stand unchanged. **Vol IV chunks consulted for this chapter — d.14 through d.22, which is penance and which p. 275 n. 6 names as such (*De Sacramento poenitentiae agitur IV. Sent. d. 14-22*), plus d.18 in particular, which p. 276 n. 5 cites by page:** `bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-littera`, `bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-divisio`, `bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-a1-q1` (*Utrum poenitentia sit virtus*), `bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-dubia` (Dub. I, where Jerome's *secunda tabula post naufragium* is expounded against baptism as the *prima tabula*, and Dub. IV, the target of p. 276 n. 3), `bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q1`–`q3` and `-p2-a2-q1`–`q3`, `bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1` (*Utrum ad iustificationem impii necessaria sit gratiae infusio*, where contrition, confession and satisfaction are set out as the parts), `bon-sent-IV-d18-p1-a1-q1` (*Utrum claves Ecclesiae sint datae*), `bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1` (*Pro quo quis debeat excommunicari*) and `-a1-q2` (*Utrum aliquis possit vel debeat excommunicari* — the two chunks that own printed p. 486, the target of p. 276 n. 5), `bon-sent-IV-d19-a1-q1` (*Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves*), `bon-sent-IV-d21-p1-a1-q1` and `bon-sent-IV-d22-a1-q1` (*Utrum peccata dimissa redeant quantum ad maculam*). **Carried from that settlement, not re-decided:** *poenitentia* → "penance" throughout (never "repentance"), and *poenitens* → "the penitent"; *contritio / confessio / satisfactio* → "contrition / confession / satisfaction"; *partes integrales* → "integral parts" and *integratur* → "is made entire" (answering `p6-c7`'s *integrari*); *secunda tabula post naufragium* → "the second plank after shipwreck" (Vol IV's own phrase, so d.14's Dub. I answers this sentence rather than drifting from it); *claves / clavis* → "keys / key", *potestas clavium* → "the power of the keys", *clavis scientiae* → "the key of knowledge", *potestas ligandi et solvendi* → "the power of binding and loosing"; *absolutio / absolvitur* → "absolution / is absolved"; *excommunicatio* → "excommunication" and *relaxatio* → "relaxation" (Vol IV keeps the noun rather than "remission of penalty"); *reunitur Ecclesiae* → "is reunited to the Church"; *remissio peccatorum* → "the remission of sins"; *iurisdictio* → "jurisdiction" with *iurisdictio ordinaria* → "ordinary jurisdiction"; *compunctio* → "compunction"; *displicentia* → "displeasure"; *deordinatio* → "disorder"; *impoenitentes* → "the impenitent"; *thesauri meritorum* → "the treasures of the merits"; *gladius* → "the sword"; *culpa* → "fault" against *peccatum* → "sin" (the Vol IV distinction, kept here because `omnem mortalem culpam` and `genus peccati` stand four lines apart); *sacerdos* → "priest" and *episcopus* → "bishop" with *Pontifex* → "Pontiff" kept distinct, per `p6-c8`. **Fixed here for the rest of the per-sacrament run:** *sacerdos curatus* → "the priest having a cure"; *vertibilis* → "turnable" (kept literal against the apparatus variant *convertibilis*, which is the point of p. 275 n. 7); *complacentia delectationis* → "the complacency of delight" (answering `p6-c8`'s *complacentia*); *vis affectiva / interpretativa / operativa* → "the affective / interpretative / operative power", the three kept as a triad; *recidivare* → "to relapse"; *praescindere causam* → "to cut off the cause"; *venia* → "pardon" against *remissio* → "remission", so the two are not flattened. Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved throughout, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence — the *Ratio* period, the *Primum igitur* period, the *Rursus* period, the *Postremo* period and the *Et quia in Pontifice summo* period each run as a single sentence, and the *Rursus* period runs as one sentence across nearly a full column.


site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 6, Cap. 11

title_alt:
De integritate unctionis extremae
On the integrity of extreme unction

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 276 -->

### Capitulum XI. *De integritate unctionis extremae.*

De Sacramento *unctionis extremae* hoc in summa tenendum est, quod ipsa est Sacramentum exeuntium ex hac vita, praeparans et disponens ad sanitatem perfectam; valet etiam ad delenda venialia et ad recuperandam sanitatem praesentem, si infirmo expediat. — Ad huius autem Sacramenti integritatem requiritur oleum simplex, sed consecratum, vocalis expressio orationum, inunctio infirmi in septem partibus determinatis, scilicet in oculis, auribus, naribus, labiis, manibus, pedibus et lumbis. — Nec debet istud Sacramentum dari nisi adultis et postulantibus, imminente periculo mortis, et hoc per manum et ministerium sacerdotis. — Ex quo colligitur, quod inter hoc Sacramentum et confirmationem est differentia septiformis, scilicet in *efficacia, materia, forma, suscipiente, dante, loco* et *tempore*[^p276-6].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum
<!-- page 277 -->
scilicet incarnatum, nos reparat in quantum *mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus*[^p277-1]; et in quantum *Iesus* habet salvare, in quantum autem *Christus*, unctus, habet unctionis gratiam in alios derivare: hinc est, quod ipsius est in Sacramentis suis *unctionem* membris suis tribuere *salutarem*. Quoniam autem anima ad hoc, quod perfecte sanetur, indiget triplici genere sanitatis, scilicet ad strenuitatem *actionis*, ad suavitatem *contemplationis* et ad felicitatem *comprehensionis*; et prima est *intrantium* in aciem Ecclesiae, secunda est *praesidentium* in eadem, quorum est alios erudire, et tertia est *exeuntium* de eadem per mortem: hinc est, quod non solum unctionem *sacramentalem* instituit Dominus in *confirmatione*, verum etiam *mediam* in *ordine pontificali* et *extremam*, imminente *periculo mortis*.

Quoniam igitur « finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem[^p277-2] »; hinc est, quod secundum exigentiam huius finis debet hoc Sacramentum *operari*, debet etiam *integrari*, *suscipi* et *dispensari*. — Primum igitur, quia huius Sacramenti *operatio* debet regulari a fine; et finis est, quia introductum est ad salutem felicitatis perpetuae facilius et expeditius consequendam; et hoc fit per *devotionem* sursum levantem et per *exonerationem* a culpis venialibus et aliis sequelis, quae deorsum deprimunt: hinc est, quod Sacramentum istud efficaciam habet et ad *devotionem excitandam* et ad *venialia dimittenda* et ad *peccatorum scoriam facilius abolendam*. Et quia pluribus infirmis expedit adhuc vivere ad suorum cumulum meritorum; hinc est, quod Sacramentum istud et animam vigorando in bono et exonerando a malo frequenter etiam alleviat a morbo. Et hoc est quod dicit beatus Iacobus[^p277-3], quod *oratio fidei salvabit infirmum, et si in peccatis fuerit, dimittentur ei*.

Rursus, quia huius Sacramenti *institutio* debet esse secundum exigentiam finis; et hic est acquisitio spiritualis salutis per remissionem culparum; et haec salus respicit sanitatem et munditiam conscientiae interioris, secundum quam iudicat ille iudex caelestis: hinc est, quod in hoc Sacramento debet esse *oleum simplex* et *consecratum*, quia sanctitatem et nitorem designat in habitaculo conscientiae[^p277-4]. — Quia vero super illam salutem mortalis homo non habet potestatem; hinc est, quod *oratio* et *forma vocalis* exprimitur per verbum deprecativum ad impetrandum gratiae donum. — Et quoniam anima infirmitates spirituales contrahit in corpore secundum quatuor virtutes ipsius corporis regitivas, scilicet *sensitivam, interpretativam, generativam* et *progressivam*; hinc est, quod membra his virtutibus deservientia sunt inungenda. Quia igitur quinque sunt membra deservientia quinque sensibus, scilicet *oculi* visui, *aures* auditui, *nares* olfactui, *manus* tactui et *os* gustui et etiam alii virtuti, scilicet interpretativae, et *pedes* deserviunt progressui, et *lumbi* generationi — quia genitalia indignum et pudendum est contrectari et etiam nominari — hinc est, quod inunctio debet fieri in septem locis praedictis, ut sic disponatur homo per hoc Sacramentum ad plenitudinem sanitatis per deletionem omnis venialis peccati.

Postremo, quia istius Sacramenti *susceptio* a fine dependet; et finis est velocior transitus ad caelum per *depositionem oneris*[^p277-5] venialium et *conversionem* mentis ad Deum: ideo non debet dari nisi *adultis*, qui venialiter peccant; nec aliquibus nisi *petentibus*, qui devotione sursum eriguntur; nec aliquibus nisi in *periculo constitutis* et quasi in transitu ad alium statum. — Et quia hoc Sacramentum est *periclitantium*; et tamen habet materiam sacram, scilicet *oleum consecratum*: hinc est, quod propter *periculum evitandum* communiter committi debet sacerdotibus, et propter *consecrationem* olei non est nisi a *consecratis manibus* contrectandum.

Ex variatione igitur finis in *confirmatione* et *unctione extrema* oritur diversitas in *efficacia*, in *materia* et in *forma*, in *loco* et in *tempore*, in *suscipiente* et in *dispensante*: in *efficacia*, quia illud Sacramentum disponit ad melius[^p277-6] agonizandum, hoc ad celerius evolandum; in *materia*, quia illud in oleo permixto balsamo, hoc vero in oleo puro; in *forma*, quia illud in indicativa, hoc vero in deprecativa; in *loco*, quia illud in fronte, hoc vero in multiplici parte; in *tempore*, quia illud in sanitate, hoc autem in aegritudine; in *suscipiente*, quia illud non solum adultis, verum etiam parvulis, hoc vero tantum adultis; in *dante*, quia illud ab episcopis, hoc autem a sacerdotibus quibuscumque. Et haec omnis diversitas a fine procedit, quia, sicut claruit, diversitas in finibus proximis diversitatem introducit in his quae ad fines illos habent finaliter ordinari.

---

english:
### Chapter XI. *On the integrity of extreme unction.*

Concerning the Sacrament of *extreme unction* this must be held in summary: that it is the Sacrament of those departing from this life, preparing and disposing them to perfect health; it avails also for blotting out venial sins and for recovering present health, if it be expedient for the sick man. — Now for the integrity of this Sacrament there is required oil that is simple, but consecrated, the vocal expression of prayers, the anointing of the sick man in seven determined parts, namely in the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the lips, the hands, the feet and the loins. — Nor ought this Sacrament to be given save to adults and to those requesting it, when the danger of death is imminent, and this through the hand and ministry of a priest. — From which it is gathered that between this Sacrament and confirmation there is a sevenfold difference, namely in *efficacy, matter, form, recipient, giver, place* and *time*[^p276-6].

Now the reason for the understanding of the aforesaid is this: since our reparative principle, the Word namely
<!-- page 277 -->
incarnate, repairs us inasmuch as he is *the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus*[^p277-1]; and inasmuch as he is *Jesus* it belongs to him to save, but inasmuch as he is *Christ*, the anointed, it belongs to him to derive the grace of unction into others: hence it is that it belongs to him in his Sacraments to bestow upon his members a *saving unction*. But since the soul, in order that it be perfectly healed, needs a threefold kind of health — namely for the strenuousness of *action*, for the sweetness of *contemplation* and for the felicity of *comprehension*; and the first is of those *entering* into the battle-line of the Church, the second of those *presiding* in the same, whose office is to instruct others, and the third of those *departing* from the same through death: hence it is that the Lord instituted not only the *sacramental* unction in *confirmation*, but also the *middle* one in the *pontifical order* and the *last* one, when the *danger of death* is imminent.

Since therefore « the end imposes necessity upon those things which are for the end[^p277-2] »; hence it is that according to the exigency of this end this Sacrament ought to *operate*, and ought also to be *made entire*, to be *received* and to be *dispensed*. — First then, since the *operation* of this Sacrament ought to be regulated by the end; and the end is that it was introduced for attaining more easily and more expeditiously the salvation of perpetual felicity; and this comes about through *devotion* lifting upward and through *disburdening* from venial faults and from the other consequences which press downward: hence it is that this Sacrament has efficacy both for *exciting devotion* and for *dismissing venial sins* and for *abolishing more easily the dross of sins*. And because for many sick persons it is expedient to live yet longer for the heaping up of their merits; hence it is that this Sacrament, both by invigorating the soul in good and by disburdening it from evil, frequently also relieves it from disease. And this is what blessed James says[^p277-3]: that *the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him*.

Again, since the *institution* of this Sacrament ought to be according to the exigency of the end; and this is the acquisition of spiritual salvation through the remission of faults; and this salvation regards the health and the cleanness of the interior conscience, according to which that heavenly judge judges: hence it is that in this Sacrament there ought to be *simple* and *consecrated oil*, because it signifies sanctity and brightness in the dwelling-place of conscience[^p277-4]. — But because over that salvation mortal man has no power; hence it is that the *prayer* and the *vocal form* is expressed through a deprecative word, for obtaining the gift of grace. — And since the soul contracts spiritual infirmities in the body according to the four powers of that body which govern it, namely the *sensitive*, the *interpretative*, the *generative* and the *progressive*; hence it is that the members serving these powers are to be anointed. Since therefore there are five members serving the five senses — namely the *eyes* sight, the *ears* hearing, the *nostrils* smell, the *hands* touch and the *mouth* taste, and also another power, namely the interpretative — and the *feet* serve progression, and the *loins* generation — since it is unworthy and shameful that the genitals be handled and even named — hence it is that the anointing ought to be made in the seven aforesaid places, so that man may thus be disposed through this Sacrament unto the fullness of health through the blotting out of every venial sin.

Lastly, since the *reception* of this Sacrament depends upon the end; and the end is a swifter passage to heaven through *the laying down of the burden*[^p277-5] of venial sins and *the conversion* of the mind to God: therefore it ought not to be given save to *adults*, who sin venially; nor to any save to those *asking* for it, who are raised upward by devotion; nor to any save to those *established in danger* and as it were in passage to another state. — And because this Sacrament is of those *in peril*; and yet it has a sacred matter, namely *consecrated oil*: hence it is that, for the sake of *avoiding danger*, it ought commonly to be committed to priests, and, on account of the *consecration* of the oil, it is not to be handled save by *consecrated hands*.

From the variation therefore of the end in *confirmation* and in *extreme unction* there arises a diversity in *efficacy*, in *matter* and in *form*, in *place* and in *time*, in the *recipient* and in the *dispenser*: in *efficacy*, because that Sacrament disposes one to contend better[^p277-6], this one to fly away more swiftly; in *matter*, because that one is in oil mixed with balsam, but this one in pure oil; in *form*, because that one is in the indicative, but this one in the deprecative; in *place*, because that one is on the forehead, but this one on manifold parts; in *time*, because that one is in health, but this one in sickness; in the *recipient*, because that one is not only for adults but also for infants, whereas this one only for adults; in the *giver*, because that one is by bishops, but this one by priests whatsoever. And all this diversity proceeds from the end, because, as has become clear, diversity in proximate ends introduces diversity in those things which have to be ordered finally to those ends.

---

la: De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 23. per totam.

en: On this chapter see IV *Sent.* d. 23, throughout.

la: Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5. — Subinde respicitur Matth. 1, 21: Vocabis nomen eius Iesum; ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum etc. Hebr. 1, 9: Propterea unxit te Deus etc.

en: *Epistle* I Tim. 2:5. — Thereupon Matt. 1:21 is referred to: *Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people* etc. Heb. 1:9: *Therefore God hath anointed thee* etc.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 88. seqq. (c. 9.).

en: According to Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 88 and following (c. 9).

la: Cap. 5, 15: Et oratio fidei salvabit infirmum, et alleviabit eum Dominus, et si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei.

en: Chapter 5:15: *And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall relieve him; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 273, nota 4.

en: Cf. above, p. 273, note 4.

la: Ita permulti codd. et 2; aliae edd. et M *omnium*. Inferius post *in periculo* F K M O addunt *mortis*, et pro *communiter*, quod nonnulli codd. omittunt, F habet *convenienter*.

en: So very many codices and edition 2; the other editions and M read *omnium*. Below, after *in periculo*, F, K, M, O add *mortis*; and for *communiter*, which some codices omit, F has *convenienter*.

la: B C E H L T *virilius*.

en: B, C, E, H, L, T read *virilius*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 276–277, TWO LEAVES, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** `CAP. XI.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De integritate unctionis extremae.` stands centred in p. 276's **RIGHT** column about **57 %** down the leaf, immediately below Cap. X's closing `…et sanctae matri Ecclesiae veraciter poenitentes.` — where `bon-brev-p6-c10` said it stood, and re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted. **The title is taken from THIS heading, never from the volume index**, whose Pars VI titles are OCR-garbled throughout the block. Cap. XI occupies the lower **43 %** of p. 276's right column, crossing to p. 277 **MID-SENTENCE and MID-PHRASE** (p. 276's right column ends `…quia principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum` and p. 277's left column opens `scilicet incarnatum, nos reparat in quantum`, splitting the appositive `Verbum … incarnatum`); fills p. 277's left column entire, crossing that leaf's gutter **MID-LIST** (`scilicet *sensitivam*,` / `*interpretativam, generativam* et *progressivam*`, the first member of a four-term enumeration stranded from the other three); and closes about **78 %** down p. 277's **RIGHT** column at `…in his quae ad fines illos habent finaliter ordinari.`

**★★ THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `CAP. XII.` HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** `CAP. XII.` with the ONE-line subtitle `De integritate ordinis.` stands centred in p. 277's **RIGHT** column, with Cap. XII's opening beneath it in the same column (`De Sacramento *ordinis* haec in summa tenenda sunt, quod « ordo est signaculum quoddam, quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato ⁷ ». — Licet autem` …, beside fresh `Thesis 1.` and `Thesis 2.` glosses). **The volume index's "Cap. XII on p. 277" turns out to be right this time**, and so does its implication that Cap. XI spans 276–277 — but that was established here from the plate at both ends and the index was used for nothing, exactly as the fourth caution requires: the index had already been caught under-reporting Cap. IX's span by a whole leaf in this very pars, and a run of correct openings is no evidence about any span. The running head was likewise used for nothing: **p. 276's reads `BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. XI.` while the whole left column and 57 % of the right are still Cap. X, and p. 277's reads `PARS VI. C. XII.` while the whole left column and 78 % of the right are still Cap. XI** — **the ninth consecutive leaf on which the running head misleads.** No inference was drawn from white space at any column foot — p. 276's right column foot and p. 277's right column foot both carry blanks below the body, and neither is a boundary, exactly the shape that wrote `bon-brev-p2-c4` short. Nor was the shape `p6-c10` met fresh allowed to mislead in the other direction: **the p. 275 → p. 276 crossing had fallen at a complete paragraph and was not a boundary; here the p. 276 → p. 277 crossing falls mid-phrase and is likewise not a boundary. Neither shape carries information about where a unit ends. Only the next `Cap. N.` heading does.**

**Gutters — one re-derived from the hand-off, one settled fresh with no constant.**
- **p. 276 = 1392, RE-DERIVED rather than re-used.** The hand-off forwarded 1392 as "safe to reuse," and it was measured again from the beginning anyway. `colcrop.py vol5 276` with no constant returns **1392 on a 63 px run**, inside the 58–64 px trust band; the ink profile over rows 45–92 % puts the zero band at **x = 1360–1423** with Quaracchi's printed column rule inside it at **x = 1390–1395**, band midpoint 1391.5 and rule centre 1392.5. **1392 confirmed and adopted**, and the bands cut there read clean edge to edge in both columns of the Cap. XI stretch.
- **★★ p. 277 = 1247, SETTLED FRESH WITH NO CONSTANT ON A LEAF NEVER BEFORE IMAGED — and the default is NOT sound on its own showing, so p. 276 does not set a trend.** `colcrop.py vol5 277` returns **1245 on a 56 px run** — below the 58–64 px trust band, therefore suspect rather than usable, and exactly the quiet failure the tool's own 15 px flag does not catch. Thirteen row windows: 10–30 % → 1257/62 · 15–35 % → 1255/60 · 20–40 % → 1254/58 · 25–45 % → 1254/58 · 30–50 % → 1252/59 · 35–55 % → 1251/60 · 40–60 % → 1250/63 · 45–65 % → 1248/62 · 50–70 % → 1248/62 · 55–75 % → 1247/61 · 60–80 % → 1245/60 · 70–90 % → 1243/61, with **one blow-out discarded** (65–85 % → 1253 on an **80 px** run). ★ **The surviving twelve drift MONOTONICALLY 1257 → 1243, a 14 px slide down the leaf on runs held between 58 and 63 px — that is the leaf's skew, not disagreement**, and per the frozen rule a monotonic drift is skew and is NOT a failure. Step 3 settles it and shows the skew directly: over rows 45–92 % the zero-ink band runs **x = 1221–1273** with the printed column rule inside it as an ink island at **x = 1240–1252, peaking 596 rows** (band midpoint **1247**, rule centre 1246); over rows 15–55 % the band runs **x = 1226–1281** with the same rule at **x = 1248–1259, peaking 451 rows** (midpoint 1253.5, rule centre 1253.5). **The band itself moves 6.5 px between the leaf's upper and lower halves — the skew read off the profile rather than inferred from the windows.** Per the frozen instruction for a skewed leaf, the **body-band midpoint decides: 1247 adopted**, 2 px right of the rejected default. The rule sits very nearly square in the band on this leaf (1246 against 1247), which is why the run was merely pinched to 56 px rather than forked.

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All seven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands** (6 bands at 2.6× for the body, then 14 bands at 4.6× for the digit and siglum work); the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 276's total of 6 was established by `bon-brev-p6-c10` and was already in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; p. 277's total of 7 is established here and entered**, with p. 277's n. 7 forwarded as a legitimate PENDING.

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL. EVERY PARTICULAR HELD — POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD, VERBATIM TEXT AND THE DIGITS IT EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMED — AND ITS NARRATIVE SUMMARY AGREES WITH ITS PER-NOTE LIST.** `bon-brev-p6-c10` forwarded p. 276 from n. 6 onward and stated its verification level precisely: block position, verbatim text, anchor column (RIGHT) and anchor word all read off the bands, with **the digits flagged as UNVERIFIED** because `d. 23.` sits in the `3`/`5` class. That disclaimer was the right one to make, and the digits are settled here (below). Nothing had to be withdrawn or corrected. Verification level of every note as established **here**:
- **p. 276 n. 6** — POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD and OWNERSHIP all verified here against the hand-off, and the DIGITS settled independently. Anchors on `scilicet in *efficacia, materia, forma, suscipiente, dante, loco* et *tempore* ⁶.` in the **RIGHT** column, closing Cap. XI's *Thesis 4*. Footer entry **last** in p. 276's right block, complete, with blank paper beneath it.
- **p. 277 nn. 1–4** — all first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: n. 1 anchors on `*homo Christus Iesus* ¹;` in the *Ratio* period; n. 2 on `quae sunt ad finem ² »;` — **inside the closing guillemet, not after it**; n. 3 on `dicit beatus Iacobus ³,`; n. 4 on `designat in habitaculo conscientiae ⁴.` — **all four in the LEFT column**, and their four entries fill the left block in order, **n. 4 ending complete** at `nota 4.`
- **p. 277 nn. 5 and 6** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP verified: n. 5 anchors on `per *depositionem oneris* ⁵ venialium` in the **RIGHT** column, opening Cap. XI's *Pro thesi 3*; n. 6 on `disponit ad melius ⁶ agonizandum` in the same column, inside the septiform-difference paragraph. n. 6 is the **last note of Cap. XI.**
- **p. 277 n. 7** — read here and **NOT owned here.** It anchors on `quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato ⁷ ».` in Cap. XII's *Thesis 1*, in the **RIGHT** column below the `CAP. XII.` heading; forwarded to `bon-brev-p6-c12`.

**★ p. 276's SPLIT MAP — the leaf is now fully consumed.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3 — n. 3 straddling the gutter. Right footer block: n. 3's unnumbered continuation, then nn. 4, 5, 6. **Anchors:** nn. 1–4 in the LEFT column, nn. 5–6 in the RIGHT. **Total 6.** nn. 1–5 are Cap. X's (`p6-c10`'s), n. 6 is mine — as `p6-c10` established; block (3/3), column (4/2) and capitulum (5/1) fell in three different places, exactly as its per-note list said, and re-reading the register here changed nothing.

**★★ p. 277's SPLIT MAP — BLOCK 4/3, ANCHORS 4/3, CAPITULUM 6/1: BLOCK AND COLUMN COINCIDE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SIX LEAVES, AND THE CAPITULUM BREAK SITS TWO NOTES BELOW BOTH.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 — **no straddle**, n. 4 ending complete. Right footer block: nn. 5, 6, 7, opening NUMBERED. **Anchors:** nn. 1–4 in the LEFT column, nn. 5–7 in the RIGHT. **p. 277's TOTAL IS 7, established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; nn. 1–6 are Cap. XI's (mine), n. 7 is Cap. XII's and is forwarded. ★ This is a **ninth distinct arrangement in fourteen leaves of Pars VI**, and it is the mirror of p. 276's, which ran 3/3, 4/2 and 5/1 on the same two-leaf span — **the one leaf where all three differed, followed immediately by a leaf where two of the three agree.** Nothing about p. 276 predicted it. **Read anchors, only anchors.**

**★ SIGLA — TWO RUNS ACROSS THE TWO LEAVES, AND `H` IS ADMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SIX LEAVES.**
1. **`M`, `F K M O` and `F` (p. 277 n. 5)** — `M` alone at the head; then `F K M O`, four ascending sorts with no bare uprights among them; then `F` again. The raw prints `M`, `F K M 0` (zero for `O`, the chronic corruption) and `F`, and was not relied on.
2. **★ `B C E H L T` (p. 277 n. 6)** — the fourth sort is **two uprights**, and by the one-upright rule it therefore *can* be a crossbar-less `H`; the **alphabetical order of the run settles that it is** (`B C E ? L T` admits only a letter between E and L, and `H` is in Quaracchi's Vol V siglum set while `I` would break the ascent by standing after, not before, `L`… and `I` is in fact excluded because the run would then read `B C E I L T` with `I` correctly placed — the discriminator is therefore stroke count, and the sort carries **two** uprights joined by a faint crossbar visible at 4.6×, which one upright cannot be). **This is the first `H` met since p. 272**, and it is exactly the case the frozen rule was written for: glyph alone will not decide it, order narrows it, stroke count closes it. The raw agrees at `B C E H L T`, for once, but agrees on no independent ground.
★ **No siglum on p. 276 falls to this chunk** — n. 6 carries none.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). ★ **The `1`/`4` class dominates p. 277 — three of the four scriptural decisions — while p. 276's single decision was a `3`/`5`. Two classes, one leaf apart. Do not calibrate on either.**
- **★ p. 276 n. 6's `IV. Sent. d. 23. per totam.` — the hand-off's flagged `3`/`5` decision, SETTLED DECISIVELY here, and it is this chapter's whole Vol IV precedent.** At 4.6× the sort is an unambiguous open-bowled `3`, not the flat-topped `5`. Three independent facts agree. **(a) `bon-sent-IV-d23-*` exists and IS extreme unction** ✓ — its eight questions are *Quae sit materia extremae unctionis*, the institution, *Utrum forma verbi sit de essentia Sacramenti*, the bodily-versus-spiritual disease, *Cui debeat dari hoc Sacramentum*, *In quo loco debeat fieri unctio*, *Quis debeat administrare hoc Sacramentum* and *Utrum hoc Sacramentum debeat iterari* — **which is Cap. XI's own septiform frame, member for member** (materia, forma, suscipiens, dans, locus, tempus). **(b) It is bounded from below**: p. 275 n. 6 assigns penance to `IV. Sent. d. 14-22`, so d. 23 is the next distinction. **(c) It is bounded from above**: p. 277 n. 7, on this very opening, assigns order to `IV. Sent. d. XXIV.` and `d. 24.` ✓. **`d. 25.` is a real distinction but is matrimony's neighbourhood, not unction's.** Decisive three times over; **the flag the hand-off raised is discharged, not carried.**
- **★ p. 277 n. 1's `Matth. 1, 21` and `Hebr. 1, 9` — two `1`/`4` decisions in one note, both settled by the quoted text the note itself prints.** Both leading sorts are the flagged serif `1` that reads `4` at a glance, and the raw prints `Malth. 1, 21` and `Hebr. 1,9`. **Matt. 1:21 is `Vocabis nomen eius Iesum; ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum`** — the note quotes it verbatim ✓, and Matt. 4:21 is the calling of James and John. **Heb. 1:9 is `propterea unxit te Deus`** — likewise quoted verbatim ✓, and Heb. 4:9 is `itaque relinquitur sabbatismus`. Decisive twice, from the note's own words. The note's first citation, `Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5`, is in no confusion class and is confirmed by the body it anchors: `mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus` is I Tim. 2:5 ✓.
- **★ p. 277 n. 3's `Cap. 5, 15` — a `1`/`4` decision settled the same way.** The plate's `15` prints with the flagged upright and the raw shatters it to `5, 15`; **James 5:15 is `oratio fidei salvabit infirmum … et si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei`**, which the note quotes in full ✓ — and the anchored body quotes it a second time. This is the James locus that Vol IV d.23 treats as the Sacrament's institution. Decisive.
- **★ p. 277 n. 4's `supra pag. 273, nota 4.` — checked to EXIST and to match the subject.** Printed p. 273's n. 4 is owned by `bon-brev-p6-c8` and reads `Cfr. Matth. 10, 32. — De significatione olei et balsami cfr. verba Hug. a S. Vict. et Innocent. III. allegata tom. IV. pag. 167, nota 1. et pag. 593, nota 2. seq.` ✓ — **the signification of oil, which is precisely what this anchor's `quia sanctitatem et nitorem designat in habitaculo conscientiae` asserts.** The cross-check, not the glyph, is what settles it.
- **`II. Phys. text. 88. seqq. (c. 9.)` (p. 277 n. 2)** — the `II.` is a two-upright **roman numeral, not a siglum**, per the frozen warning; `88` and `9` sit in no confusion class. *Physics* II c. 9 is where `finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem` stands ✓, which is the sentence the anchor quotes.
- **`2` (p. 277 n. 5)** — the edition siglum, an unambiguous sort in no confusion class; it stands beside the codex sigla `M` and `F K M O` in the same note without either being mistaken for the other.

**⚠ TWO `[?]` FLAGS TRAVEL FORWARD, NEITHER RESOLVED, NEITHER RE-FLAGGED, AND NO NEW ONE IS RAISED HERE.**
1. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c6`, whose entry carries it; `p6-c6` flagged it, `p6-c7` re-examined it and recorded **no disposition**, and `p6-c8` through `p6-c10` left it untouched). **p. 271 is off this chunk's leaves entirely, nothing read here bears on it, and it is neither resolved nor re-flagged.** It stands as `p6-c6` left it and is forwarded to `p6-c12` unchanged.
2. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 272 n. 6, `Respicitur Col. 6, 12.`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c7`, whose entry carries it; the plate confirmed by `p6-c7` and again by `p6-c8` at 4.6×, with no disposition recorded either time, and off `p6-c9`'s and `p6-c10`'s leaves). **p. 272 is off this chunk's leaves entirely and nothing read here bears on it either.** Colossians still has four chapters and the sense still requires Ephes. 6:12; **no disposition is recorded, it is neither resolved nor re-flagged as new**, and `build-citations.py`'s QA line on it remains expected behaviour, not a defect. Forwarded to `p6-c12`.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 276 right column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3." — "Thesis 4." — "Ratio." — "Pro thesi 1."; p. 277 left column — "Ex fine dependent quatuor." — "Primo, operatio." — "Secundo, materia et forma." — "Pro thesi 2."; p. 277 right column — "Tertio, susceptio." — "Pro thesi 3." — "Quarto, dispensatio." — "Pro thesi 4." — "Differentiae 7." — "Notandum." ★ **Sixteen glosses, and a SEVENTH distinct form in seven consecutive chapters.** Cap. XI sets four theses, as Cap. X did, but where Cap. X answered them with a running-argument `pro thesi` series (`Ex summa clementia arguitur pro thesi 1.`) Cap. XI runs **two interleaved series at once**: a bare-label `Pro thesi 1/2/3/4` answering the theses, and a **numbered structural skeleton** — `Ex fine dependent quatuor.` heading `Primo, operatio.` / `Secundo, materia et forma.` / `Tertio, susceptio.` / `Quarto, dispensatio.` — which is the second, independent enumerative apparatus that Cap. IX ran in full and Cap. X let collapse to two isolated survivors. **Here it is complete and pairs one-to-one with the `pro thesi` labels**, two glosses standing on the same line at three of the four joins. It closes not on a `Corollarium.` (Cap. IX) nor on nothing (Cap. X) but on `Differentiae 7.` and a bare `Notandum.` **Nothing was inferred from any neighbour in advance.** Glosses stand in the outer margin of each column — left of column 1, right of column 2 — and the raw's rendering (`Ex nne de-` … `iiior.`, `1'riino, opc-`, `nuterS^et`, `pfrSiesi'`, `Tcnio, su-` `pro'£ 3.`, `Qaano, di-` `'p*°""°-`, `oiireren-` `'"° ''`, `^fotandnm.`) is unusable; all sixteen are band reads.

**★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE IS NOT DUE ON THESE LEAVES AND DOES NOT APPEAR.** p. 265 carried `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` with quire `34` and p. 273 the same line with quire `35`; the eight-leaf cadence puts the next around p. 281, which is also where Pars VII opens. **Neither p. 276 nor p. 277 carries a signature line, and both footer blocks end in blank paper** — which is part of what closes the page-crossing test from the upper side.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 276 body (right column, the Cap. XI stretch) — poor**, continuing the bracket-substitution damage `p6-c10` graded on this leaf (`islud Sacram(.'iitum`, `[lostu-lantibus`, `[lericulo mortis`, `[ler ina-num`, `lix quo colligitur`, `mc/ficacia`, `re[)arativum`); **p. 276 footer — clean and complete**, n. 6 reproduced substantially right (`Dc hoc cap. ^ide IV. Scnt. d. 23. per lolani.`). **p. 277 body — moderate and markedly better than p. 276's, and it improves ACROSS THE GUTTER**: the left column carries the same bracket damage at a lower rate (`in(lii,'et`, `iiUraiUiuin`, `iiior.`, `(kcotionem`, `emmralioneni`, `c.ccitaMkmi`, `aholcn-dam`) while the right column is close to clean, its damage confined to single letters and ligatures (`oeuli visui`, `anres`, `munus tai'lui`, `gitstui`, `^jw/ra`, `iniinclio`, `iirawliclis`, `mclius`, `bakmio`, `deprc-aUiva`, `inliodncit`). **p. 277 footer — clean**, reproducing all seven entries including the `B C E H L T` run and the three flagged scriptural numerals. ★ **So this two-leaf span grades in the OPPOSITE direction from `p6-c10`'s** — which found p. 276 the worse of *its* two leaves — **and the improvement here happens across a gutter, not across a heading, which is the shape `p6-c10` also met on p. 275. Grade per page, per region AND per column-run, and give body and footer separate verdicts: on both leaves here the footer outgraded the body.**

**Runover tests — TWO RUN, BOTH NEGATIVE; both closed from BOTH sides.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 276 → p. 277 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 276's right block ends **complete** at n. 6's `…vide IV. Sent. d. 23. per totam.`, with blank paper and no signature line beneath it, and **p. 277's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5.` ★ **The BODY crossing at this seam is mid-sentence and mid-phrase** (`Verbum` / `scilicet incarnatum`), the exact opposite shape from the paragraph-boundary crossing `p6-c10` met one leaf earlier — **and neither shape was treated as evidence about where the capitulum ends.**
- *p. 277's own gutter — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* The left block's last entry, n. 4, ends **complete** at `Cfr. supra pag. 273, nota 4.` — a whole short entry, with blank paper beneath it to the foot of the column — and **p. 277's right block opens NUMBERED** with `⁵ Ita permulti codd. et 2;`. ★ **No straddle on this leaf, which breaks a run of six consecutive leaves whose left block overran the gutter.** Nothing is logged for either test; the ledger records positives.
- *NOT re-logged here:* **`p.276 n.3:gutter` (`p6-c10`, POSITIVE) and the p. 275 → p. 276 page-crossing test (`p6-c10`, NEGATIVE)**; `p.274 n.5:gutter`, `p.275 n.4:gutter`, the p. 273 → p. 274 test and the p. 274 → p. 275 test (all four `p6-c9`); `p.273 n.5:gutter` and the p. 272 → p. 273 test (both `p6-c8`); `p.272 n.5:gutter` and the p. 271 → p. 272 test (both `p6-c7`); `p.270 n.4:gutter`, the p. 270 → p. 271 test and p. 271's own gutter test (all three `p6-c6`); `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 test (both `p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s through `p6-c10`'s own do-not-re-log lists. **The p. 277 → p. 278 page-crossing test is NOT run or logged here** — p. 277's foot is Cap. XII's seam, n. 7 being Cap. XII's, and it belongs to `bon-brev-p6-c12` on the same rule by which `p6-c10` left the p. 276 → p. 277 test to this chunk. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c12`.** p. 276 is **fully consumed** — its six notes are now all owned, nn. 1–5 by `p6-c10` and n. 6 here. **p. 277's register was band-read IN FULL and its total of 7 is entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; this chunk owns nn. 1–6, and **n. 7 anchors in Cap. XII and is `p6-c12`'s.** Stated with its verification level, claiming nothing more: **the BLOCK position, the VERBATIM TEXT, the ANCHOR COLUMN (RIGHT) *and* the anchor WORD of n. 7 were all read off the bands** — it anchors on `quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato ⁷ ».`, closing Cap. XII's *Thesis 1*, in the **RIGHT** column below the `CAP. XII.` heading.
- n. **7** `Ut dicit Magister Sententiarum, IV. Sent. d. XXIV. c. 13. Ibid. in capp. praecedentibus et subsequentibus insinuantur quae hic subnectuntur. — De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 24.`
★ **THE DIGITS IN n. 7 ARE PARTLY UNVERIFIED**, notwithstanding that they were read carefully off a 4.6× band: `d. XXIV.` and `d. 24.` corroborate each other and are independently confirmed by `bon-sent-IV-d24-*` existing and being order (and by p. 276 n. 6's `d. 23.`, settled here, bounding it from below) — **but `c. 13.` is a lone `1`/`3` pair with nothing agreeing with it yet, and the raw shatters it to `K^`.** **Re-derive it against Lombard's own chapter division. A hand-off is a claim to re-derive, never a fact to adopt** — and check the narrative summary above against the per-note list it sits beside, never the reverse. `bon-brev-p6-c12` owns p. 277 from n. 7 onward, **must NOT re-log p. 277's own gutter test (closed NEGATIVE here) nor the p. 276 → p. 277 test (also closed NEGATIVE here)**, **owes the p. 277 → p. 278 page-crossing test, p. 278's own gutter test**, and the same pair for any further leaf Cap. XII spans, and must extract p. 278 fresh with no constant. Cap. XII (`De integritate ordinis`) opens about **78 %** down p. 277's **RIGHT** column with a ONE-line subtitle, running `Thesis 1.` and `Thesis 2.` glosses before the leaf ends mid-sentence at `— Licet autem`; **its end must be set from the `Cap. XIII.` heading on the band and from nothing else** — the index gives Cap. XIII's opening as p. 279, i.e. Cap. XII runs two printed pages on the index's own showing, **which is a hypothesis and not a span, and this index has already under-reported Cap. IX's span by a whole leaf in this pars.** **Both `[?]` flags travel forward unresolved: p. 271 n. 2's `minus, aptae` and p. 272 n. 6's `Col. 6, 12`.**

**Register — the unction vocabulary was CONSULTED from the Vol IV settlement, not coined here, and Pars VI's own vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided.** `p6-c1`'s sacramental core, `p6-c2`'s historical-dispensation vocabulary, `p6-c3`'s seven sacrament names, `p6-c4`'s institution vocabulary, `p6-c5`'s dispensation-and-minister vocabulary, `p6-c6`'s iteration-and-character vocabulary, `p6-c7`'s *integritas* vocabulary, `p6-c8`'s confirmation-and-chrism settlement, `p6-c9`'s eucharistic settlement and `p6-c10`'s penitential settlement all stand unchanged. **Vol IV chunks consulted for this chapter — d. 23, which IS extreme unction and which p. 276 n. 6 names as such (*De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 23. per totam*):** `bon-sent-IV-d23-littera` (Lombard's own `unctio infirmorum` chapter, where the three unctions are distinguished and the James 5 institution is quoted in full), `bon-sent-IV-d23-divisio`, `bon-sent-IV-d23-a1-q1` (*Quae sit materia extremae unctionis*), `-a1-q2` (the institution), `-a1-q3` (*Utrum forma verbi sit de essentia Sacramenti* — the deprecative form), `-a1-q4` (*Utrum Sacramentum extremae unctionis principaliter sit ordinatum ad morbum corporalem an ad spiritualem*), `-a2-q1` (*Cui debeat dari hoc Sacramentum*), `-a2-q2` (*In quo loco debeat fieri unctio* — the seven parts), `-a2-q3` (*Quis debeat administrare hoc Sacramentum*), `-a2-q4` (*Utrum hoc Sacramentum debeat iterari*) and `bon-sent-IV-d23-dubia`; plus **`bon-sent-IV-d7-a1-q1`**, already consulted by `p6-c8`, for the confirmation half of the septiform contrast. **`bon-sent-IV-d23-a1-q3` had been consulted by `p6-c8`; the other ten d. 23 chunks are consulted here for the first time.** **Carried from that settlement, not re-decided:** *unctio extrema* → "extreme unction" throughout; *inunctio / inungere* → "anointing / to anoint" (Vol IV d.23's own rendering — **a deliberate divergence in form, not in sense, from `p6-c8`'s *unctio / ungere* → "unction / to anoint", which is kept for the noun *unctio*: `unctionem sacramentalem` is "the sacramental unction" while `inunctio infirmi` is "the anointing of the sick man", exactly as Vol IV keeps them apart**); *oleum* → "oil", *oleum consecratum* → "consecrated oil", *oleum simplex* → "simple oil", *balsamum* → "balsam" (from `p6-c8`); *infirmus* → "the sick man" and *infirmitas* → "infirmity"; *venialia* → "venial sins" and *culpae veniales* → "venial faults" (*culpa* → "fault" against *peccatum* → "sin", the Vol IV distinction `p6-c10` also kept); *sanitas* → "health" and *sanari* → "to be healed"; *alleviat a morbo* → "relieves from disease" (Vol IV renders the James verb *alleviabit* as "shall relieve", so the note and the body it anchors read alike); *forma deprecativa / indicativa* → "the deprecative / indicative form"; *sacerdos* → "priest" and *episcopus* → "bishop" (from `p6-c8` and `p6-c10`); *suscipiens / dans / dispensans* → "the recipient / the giver / the dispenser"; *materia / forma* → "matter / form" per the standing table; *parvuli / adulti* → "infants / adults" (from `p6-c7`); *remissio culparum* → "the remission of faults" against `p6-c10`'s *remissio peccatorum* → "the remission of sins". **Fixed here for the rest of the per-sacrament run:** *exeuntes ex hac vita* → "those departing from this life", kept parallel with *intrantium / praesidentium / exeuntium* → "those entering / presiding / departing" so Bonaventure's three-state figure survives; *agonizare* → "to contend", following Cap. VIII's *pugil* → "champion" and corroborated by the apparatus variant *virilius* ("more manfully") at p. 277 n. 6, which is a combat word and not a death-bed one; *evolare* → "to fly away"; *exoneratio / exonerare* → "disburdening / to disburden"; *scoria peccatorum* → "the dross of sins"; *periclitantes* → "those in peril"; *acies Ecclesiae* → "the battle-line of the Church"; *virtutes regitivae* → "the governing powers", with *sensitiva / interpretativa / generativa / progressiva* → "sensitive / interpretative / generative / progressive" kept as a quartet answering `p6-c10`'s *affectiva / interpretativa / operativa* triad; *habitaculum conscientiae* → "the dwelling-place of conscience"; *depositio oneris* → "the laying down of the burden"; *nitor* → "brightness". Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved throughout, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence — the opening *thesis* period, the *Ratio* period, the *Quoniam igitur* period, the *Rursus* period, the *Postremo* period and the closing *Ex variatione igitur* period each run as a single sentence, the last of them carrying all seven differences without a break.

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