title: Dist. 28, Art. 1, Q. 6

source_text:
<!-- page 631 -->

### Quaestio VI. *De diligendorum numero et sufficientia.*

Sexto quaeritur de diligendorum numero et sufficientia. Dicit enim Augustinus[^1], quod «quatuor sunt ex caritate diligenda, videlicet Deus et nos ipsi, proximus et corpus nostrum». Et videtur primo, quod ibi sit superfluitas:

1. Quia quae sunt eiusdem speciei et non distinguuntur nisi secundum materiam, non debent facere diversa membra distinctionis[^2]; sed nos et proximus noster sumus eiusdem speciei: ergo non debet homo habens caritatem cum proximo suo pro diversis diligibilibus numerari.

2. Item, sacra Scriptura sufficienter enumerat diligibilia in praeceptis, quae dat; sed non enumerat nisi duo, scilicet Deum et proximum, de quibus dat duo praecepta[^3]: ergo videtur, quod alia membra sint superflua.

3. Item, nihil contingit esse beatum nisi tribus modis, videlicet *per essentiam*, per primam in<!-- page 632 -->fluentiam et *per redundantiam*[^4]: ergo si caritas non se extendit ad diligendum nisi id quod est beatum in actu, vel in potentia; videtur, quod non sint nisi tria diligenda, videlicet Deus, animus et corpus.

Sed quod sit diminutio, videtur:

4. Primo per Ambrosium, qui, secundum quod in sequenti distinctione[^5] habetur, assignat sex membra in numero diligendorum: ergo si Ambrosius non fuit in enumerando *superfluus*, videtur, quod Augustinus fuerit *diminutus*.

5. Item, sicut ex caritate diligendum est corpus nostrum, ita etiam et corpus proximi: ergo sicut animus noster et animus proximi constituunt duo membra diligendorum, ita videtur, quod corpus nostrum et corpus proximi: ergo videtur, quod quinque sunt ex caritate diligenda.

6. Item, sicut ex caritate diligimus quod est *supra* nos et *infra* nos et *iuxta* nos; sic etiam ex caritate diligendum est quod est *contra* nos, videlicet inimicus, sicut supra[^6] ostensum est: videtur ergo, quod praedictis membris deficiat unum membrum.

Quaeritur ergo: quare tot sunt ex caritate diligenda, et non plura neque pauciora?

> ### Conclusio.
> Ex caritate quatuor sunt diligenda, quorum sufficientia duplici via demonstratur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod numerus diligibilium et sufficientia dupliciter potest accipi: uno modo per comparationem ad ipsam *dilectionem*; alio modo per comparationem ad ipsum *diligentem*.

Secundum ipsam *dilectionem* potest accipi numerus et sufficientia sic. Cum enim dilectio sit appetitus boni, in appetitu autem boni est considerare ipsum *bonum desideratum* et ipsum *qui* desiderat et ipsum *cui* desiderat bonum[^7]; *bonum* autem *desideratum*, hoc est summum Bonum, ille *qui* desiderat est habens caritatem; *cui* autem desideratur potest esse in quadruplici differentia — quia aut optat summum Bonum ipsi *Deo*, aut *sibi* ipsi, aut sibi *simili*, aut sibi *adhaerenti* — ideo quatuor sunt ex caritate diligenda, quia numerus diligendorum non accipitur ex parte *optantis*, vel ex parte *boni optati*, cum sit unum, sed ex parte eius *cui* optatur; quod cum sit in quadruplici differentia, quatuor sunt diligendorum membra. Et hoc est quod supra[^8] dictum est, quod in praedicta divisione sumitur numerus diligendorum secundum dilectionem *amicitiae*, qua dicitur quis diligere alium, quando vult illi bonum.

Alio modo potest sumi numerus et sufficientia diligendorum ex comparatione ad ipsum *diligentem*. Nam diligens aut habet respectum ad *se*, aut ad id quod est *supra se*, aut ad id quod est *iuxta se*, aut ad id quod est *infra se*; et secundum hoc[^9] quatuor tantummodo diligenda sunt ex caritate. — Et secundum hunc modum assumit Augustinus diligibilium numerum et sufficientiam in libro de Doctrina christiana[^10], nec tantum assignat numerum, sed etiam ordinem debitum. Ait enim sic: «Quatuor sunt diligenda: unum, quod *supra nos* est, scilicet Deus; alterum, quod *nos* sumus; tertium, quod *iuxta nos* est, scilicet proximus; quartum, quod *infra nos* est, scilicet corpus». Et quia omnia possunt reduci ad ista quatuor membra; ideo patet diligendorum numerus et sufficientia.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod est ibi *superfluitas*, quia non differimus specie a proximis; dicendum, quod quamvis *specie* non differamus, tamen ad nos et ad proximos nostros caritas nostra diversimode comparatur secundum *rationem* diligendi et *gradum*. Primo enim caritas facit *habentem* se tendere ad beatitudinem et deinde *proximum*; illi optat tendere ad idem quasi a latere[^11].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sacra Scriptura non exprimit nisi duo diligenda; dicendum, quod in sequenti mandato implicat tria diligenda. Nam in hoc quod dicit: *Dilige proximum tuum sicut te ipsum*, mandat homini, quod diligat se ipsum; et cum ipse sit constitutus ex anima et corpore, includitur ibi dilectio utriusque[^12].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tantummodo tribus modis est quid beatum; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen caritas, quae disponit ad beatitudinem, alio modo respicit suum *susceptibile*, alio modo respicit illud quod est ei *simile*: primum ut *participans*, secundum ut *comparticipans*; et ideo secundum istam diversam comparationem distingui possunt diversa diligibilia[^13].

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod est ibi <!-- page 633 -->*diminutio*, quia Ambrosius assignat sex membra; dicendum, quod illa sex membra reducuntur ad ista quatuor. Ambrosius enim distinguit unum istorum membrorum in quatuor, videlicet dilectionem eius quod *iuxta* nos est, scilicet dilectionem proximi. Nec est ibi contrarietas, quia Ambrosius considerat differentias diligibilium *accidentales*, Augustinus considerat gradus et differentias *magis essentiales*; quod melius apparebit inferius[^14].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore proximi, dicendum, quod tam corpus proximi quam corpus nostrum est *infra* nos, et ideo continetur sub quarto membro. Nec est simile de animo nostro et animo proximi, quia *diversimode* habet caritas comparari ad utrumque: ad unum sicut ad *intrinsecum*, ad aliud sicut ad *propinquum*. Ad corpora autem comparari habet *uniformiter*; ad utrumque enim comparatur sicut ad *interius*. — Aliter volunt[^15] aliqui dicere, quod dilectio corporis proximi continetur sub dilectione proximi, quia *uniformiter* comparatur caritas ad utrumque; ad animum autem nostrum et ad corpus comparatur *difformiter*, quia ad animum comparatur sicut ipsum informans et eidem inhaerens, ad corpus vero sicut eidem dominans et ipsum regens.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ex caritate diligendum est quod est *contra* nos; dicendum, quod illud continetur sub eo membro, quod est *iuxta* nos, pro eo quod, etsi inimici sint diligendi, qui sunt contra nos, non tamen sunt diligendi in eo, quod sunt *contra* nos, hoc est ratione culpae, sed in eo, quod sunt *iuxta* nos, hoc est secundum conformitatem naturae[^16].

---

english:
### Question VI. *On the number and sufficiency of the things to be loved.*

Sixth, the question is raised concerning the number and sufficiency of the things to be loved. For Augustine[^1] says that «there are four things to be loved out of charity, namely God and we ourselves, our neighbor and our body». And it seems, first, that there is superfluity here:

1. Because things that are of the same species and are not distinguished except according to matter ought not to make different members of a distinction[^2]; but we and our neighbor are of the same species: therefore a man having charity ought not to be counted together with his neighbor as distinct objects to be loved.

2. Likewise, sacred Scripture sufficiently enumerates the things to be loved in the precepts which it gives; but it enumerates only two, namely God and neighbor, concerning which it gives two precepts[^3]: therefore it seems that the other members are superfluous.

3. Likewise, nothing happens to be blessed except in three ways, namely *by essence*, by first influence, and *by redundancy*[^4]: therefore if charity does not extend itself to loving anything except what is blessed in act, or in potency; it seems that there are only three things to be loved, namely God, the soul, and the body.

But that there is a deficiency seems [to be the case]:

4. First, through Ambrose, who, as is found in the following distinction[^5], assigns six members in the number of things to be loved: therefore if Ambrose was not *superfluous* in his enumeration, it seems that Augustine was *deficient*.

5. Likewise, just as our body is to be loved out of charity, so also the body of our neighbor: therefore just as our soul and our neighbor's soul constitute two members of the things to be loved, so it seems also our body and our neighbor's body: therefore it seems that there are five things to be loved out of charity.

6. Likewise, just as out of charity we love what is *above* us and *below* us and *beside* us; so also out of charity what is *against* us is to be loved, namely the enemy, as was shown above[^6]: it seems therefore that one member is lacking from the aforesaid members.

It is asked, therefore: why are there just so many things to be loved out of charity, and neither more nor fewer?

> ### Conclusion.
> Out of charity there are four things to be loved, whose sufficiency is demonstrated by a twofold way.

**I respond:** It must be said that the number and sufficiency of things to be loved can be taken in two ways: in one way by comparison to *love* itself; in another way by comparison to the *lover* himself.

According to *love* itself the number and sufficiency can be taken thus. For since love is an appetite for the good, in the appetite for the good there is to be considered the *good itself desired* and the one *who* desires and the one *for whom* he desires the good[^7]; now the *good desired* is the supreme Good, the one *who* desires is the one having charity; the one *for whom* it is desired can be in a fourfold difference — for he either wishes the supreme Good for God himself, or for himself, or for one *like* himself, or for one *cleaving* to himself — therefore there are four things to be loved out of charity, because the number of things to be loved is not taken from the side of the one *wishing*, nor from the side of *the good wished*, since it is one, but from the side of the one *for whom* it is wished; and since this is in a fourfold difference, there are four members of the things to be loved. And this is what was said above[^8], that in the aforesaid division the number of things to be loved is taken according to the love of *friendship*, by which one is said to love another, when he wills the good for him.

In another way the number and sufficiency of things to be loved can be taken from the comparison to the *lover* himself. For the lover has a regard either to *himself*, or to that which is *above himself*, or to that which is *beside himself*, or to that which is *below himself*; and according to this[^9] there are only four things to be loved out of charity. — And according to this mode Augustine takes up the number and sufficiency of things to be loved in the book *On Christian Doctrine*[^10], nor does he only assign the number, but also the due order. For he says thus: «There are four things to be loved: one, which is *above us*, namely God; another, which *we* are; third, which is *beside us*, namely the neighbor; fourth, which is *below us*, namely the body». And because all things can be reduced to these four members; therefore the number and sufficiency of things to be loved is clear.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that there is *superfluity* there, because we do not differ in species from our neighbors; it must be said that although we do not differ in *species*, nevertheless our charity is compared in different ways to us and to our neighbors according to the *ground* of loving and the *degree*. For first charity makes the one *having* it tend to beatitude and then the *neighbor*; for him it wishes to tend toward the same [end] as it were from the side[^11].

2. To that which is objected, that sacred Scripture expresses only two things to be loved; it must be said that in the following commandment it implies three things to be loved. For in this that it says: *Love your neighbor as yourself*, it commands a man to love himself; and since he is constituted of soul and body, the love of both is included there[^12].

3. To that which is objected, that something is blessed only in three ways; it must be said that this is true; but nevertheless charity, which disposes to beatitude, regards in one way its *subject capable [of it]*, and in another way regards that which is *like* it: the first as *participating*, the second as *co-participating*; and therefore according to this diverse comparison different objects to be loved can be distinguished[^13].

4. To that which is objected last, that there is *deficiency* there, because Ambrose assigns six members; it must be said that those six members are reduced to these four. For Ambrose distinguishes one of these members into four, namely the love of that which is *beside* us, namely the love of the neighbor. Nor is there any contrariety there, because Ambrose considers the *accidental* differences of the things to be loved, [whereas] Augustine considers the grades and the differences *more essential*; which will appear better below[^14].

5. To that which is objected concerning the body of the neighbor, it must be said that both the body of the neighbor and our body are *below* us, and therefore is contained under the fourth member. Nor is it the same with our soul and the neighbor's soul, because charity is compared in *different ways* to each: to the one as to something *intrinsic*, to the other as to something *near*. But to bodies it is compared *uniformly*; for it is compared to each as to something *more interior*. — Otherwise some wish[^15] to say that the love of the neighbor's body is contained under the love of the neighbor, because charity is compared *uniformly* to each; but to our soul and to the body it is compared *non-uniformly*, because to the soul it is compared as informing it and inhering in it, but to the body as ruling over it and governing it.

6. To that which is objected, that out of charity that which is *against* us is to be loved; it must be said that this is contained under that member which is *beside* us, for the reason that, although enemies who are against us are to be loved, nevertheless they are not to be loved in that they are *against* us, that is by reason of fault, but in that they are *beside* us, that is according to the conformity of nature[^16].

---

la: Libr. I. de Doctr. christ. c. 23. n. 22. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Book I, *On Christian Doctrine*, c. 23, n. 22. See here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 28. (VI. c. 8.); Porphyr., de Praedicab. c. de Specie et c. de Differentia. — Edd. sic: *Quia quae sunt eiusdem speciei non distinguuntur nisi secundum numerum et non debent* etc.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VII, text 28 (VI, c. 8); Porphyry, *On the Predicables*, the chapter on Species and the chapter on Difference. — The editions read thus: *Because things that are of the same species are not distinguished except according to number and ought not* etc.

la: Matth. 22, 37. seqq. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVII. c. 2.

en: Matt. 22:37 ff. Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXVII, c. 2.

la: Verba *qui est ipsa beatitudo* desunt in edd.

en: The words *who is beatitude itself* are lacking in the editions.

la: Cap. 2. Ambrosius falso a Magistro aliisque allegatur pro Origene. — In initio arg. codd. Z aa (K a secunda manu) voculae *Sed* adiiciunt *contra*.

en: Chapter 2. Ambrose is falsely alleged by the Master and others in place of Origen. — At the beginning of the argument codices Z, aa (K by a second hand) add to the word *Sed* the word *contra*.

la: Quaest. 3. — *Maior* est secundum August., cuius sententiam videsis hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Question 3. — The *major* is according to Augustine, whose opinion you may see here in the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Secundum Aristot., de quo supra pag. 574, nota 5. — Vat. *cui desideratur bonum*.

en: According to Aristotle, concerning whom [see] above, p. 574, note 5. — The Vatican edition [reads] *for whom the good is desired*.

la: Quaest. praeced. ad 1. — Proxime post pro *quod* codd. F H I L N T U Z bb et edd. 1, 2 *quia*.

en: The preceding question, to [objection] 1. — Immediately after, in place of *quod* the codices F H I L N T U Z bb and editions 1, 2 [read] *quia*.

la: Codd. F G L N T U V Z *secundum haec*.

en: Codices F G L N T U V Z [read] *according to these things*.

la: Libr. I. c. 23. n. 22. In fine testimonii post *scilicet corpus* cod. Z subdit *nostrum*.

en: Book I, c. 23, n. 22. At the end of the testimony, after *namely the body*, codex Z adds *our*.

la: Cfr. August., I. de Doctr. christ. c. 29. n. 30. — Edd., omissa vocula *illi* nec facta interpunctione, coniungunt *optat tendere* cum verbo *proximum*. Pro *illi* cod. A *illum*, cod. U *quia illi*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* I, c. 29, n. 30. — The editions, omitting the little word *illi* and making no punctuation, join *optat tendere* with the word *proximum*. In place of *illi* codex A [reads] *illum*, codex U *quia illi*.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Superius pro *sequenti mandato* Vat. *secundo mandato* et subinde pro *diligenda* cum edd. 1, 2 et nonnullis codd. *diligibilia*.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Above, in place of *in the following commandment* the Vatican edition [reads] *in the second commandment*, and thereupon, in place of *diligenda*, with editions 1, 2 and several codices, *diligibilia*.

la: Cfr. supra q. 4. ad 4.

en: Cf. above, q. 4, to [objection] 4.

la: Dist. seq. q. 6. et dub. 3. — In initio solut. edd. omittunt *ultimo*, et deinde pro *in quatuor* codd. substituunt *in quinque*; perperam, ut ex dub. 3. seq. dist. patet.

en: The following distinction, q. 6, and dubium 3. — At the beginning of the solution the editions omit *ultimo*, and then in place of *into four* the codices substitute *into five*; wrongly, as is clear from dubium 3 of the following distinction.

la: Cod. A *voluerunt*.

en: Codex A [reads] *voluerunt* [they wished].

la: Cfr. supra quaest. 3. — Paulo ante plurimi codd. omittunt *sunt* post *non tamen*.

en: Cf. above, question 3. — A little before, very many codices omit *sunt* after *non tamen*.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set with the column-band PDF (pp. 631–633, PDF 653–655) authoritative for the Respondeo, Ad-replies, and all footers (Vol III two-column OCR cascade-fragments these), raw OCR lines 43885–44016 as the base for clean running prose. Fresh literal English. Offset `pdf = printed + 22`.
- **Page span:** pp. 631–633 (PDF 653–655). The question opens at the foot of p. 631 (right column lower, after q. 5's Scholion §II closes — opener at the left-column foot: *Sexto quaeritur de diligendorum numero et sufficientia*), runs across p. 632 (Conclusio, Respondeo, Via 1 + Via 2, Ad 1–3), and closes at the top of p. 633 (Ad 4–6) just before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`.
- **Alignment verified.** Header `QUAESTIO VI.` (raw 43885); title `De diligendorum numero et sufficientia` (raw 43887); opener `Sexto quaeritur de diligendorum numero et sufficientia` (raw 43889). Matches the TRACTATIO's *Sexto quaeritur de diligendorum numero et sufficientia* 1:1. No q-swap.
- **End boundary / d.28 structure — CORRECTION to hand-off.** The brief stated q. 6 → `DISTINCTIO XXIX` directly with **NO d.28 dubia**. That is wrong. After q. 6 closes (raw 44016) the printed text gives **`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`** (raw 44017), with **Dub. I–IV** (Dub. II raw 44038, Dub. III raw 44101, Dub. IV raw 44096), running pp. 633–634; `DISTINCTIO XXIX` only begins after the dubia (raw 44141). So **d.28 is NOT complete after q. 6** — a separate `bon-sent-III-d28-dubia` chunk (Dub. I–IV, pp. 633–634) remains. q. 6's own end boundary is the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header (raw 44017), not `DISTINCTIO XXIX`.
- **Footer split with q. 5 (p. 631).** p. 631 notes: q. 5 held nn. 1–6 (Ad-replies). **q. 6 carries nn. 7–9** (hand-off honored): n. 7 (*Dicit enim Augustinus⁷*, de Doctr. christ.), n. 8 (obj. 1, *distinctionis⁸*, Aristot./Porphyr.), n. 9 (obj. 2, *duo praecepta⁹*, Matth. 22) → `[^1]`–`[^3]`.
- **Footer split on p. 632.** p. 632 restarts notes 1–10; all ten anchor in q. 6's body and are carried here: n. 1 (obj. 3 *redundantiam*), n. 2 (obj. 4 *distinctione*), n. 3 (obj. 6 *supra*), n. 4 (Via 1 *bonum*), n. 5 (Notandum *supra*), n. 6 (Via 2 *secundum hoc*), n. 7 (*christiana*), n. 8 (Ad 1 *a latere*), n. 9 (Ad 2 *utriusque*), n. 10 (Ad 3 *diligibilia*) → `[^4]`–`[^13]`.
- **Footer split with the dubia (p. 633).** p. 633 restarts notes 1–N; **q. 6 carries only nn. 1–3** (Ad 4–6 tail): n. 1 (*apparebit inferius¹* → *Dist. seq. q. 6. et dub. 3*), n. 2 (*Aliter volunt² aliqui* → *Cod. A voluerunt*), n. 3 (*conformitatem naturae³* → *Cfr. supra quaest. 3*) → `[^14]`–`[^16]`. **Notes 4+ on p. 633 gloss the DUBIA (Dub. I onward) and must be left for the forthcoming `d28-dubia` chunk** (n. 4 *Multi codd. atque edd. unumquodque*, n. 5 *Et dicit Magister, hic c. 1*, …).
- **Scholion: absent (redirect).** This question has no scholion of its own. The sibling q. 5's Scholion **§II** explicitly covers it (« *II. De sufficientia diligendorum ex caritate, tractata in seq. (6.) quaestione, secundum primam viam ab auctore relatam explicite agunt…* » with the S. Thom. a. 12 / B. Albert. a. 1 / Petr. a Tar. a. 9 / Richard. a Med. bibliography for "the following (6th) question"). `has_scholion: false`.
- **Apparatus count:** 16 entries / 16 body markers [^1]–[^16] (p. 631 nn. 7–9 = 3; p. 632 nn. 1–10 = 10; p. 633 nn. 1–3 = 3). All markers resolve in both languages.
- **[?] flags:** none. All footers read cleanly off the 450 dpi column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 28, Dubia

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 633 -->

# Dubia circa litteram Magistri

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nec speciali praecepto opus erat hoc tradi, ut quisque se vel corpus suum diligat* etc. Hoc enim non videtur verum, quia, si praecepta data sunt ad dirigendum affectiones nostras, cum maxime contingat unumquemque[^p633-4] errare circa dilectionem sui, videtur, quod de hoc maxime debuit praeceptum dari. — Item, in praeceptis caritatis non praecipitur amor carnalis, sed spiritualis; sed difficillimum est se ipsum spiritualiter diligere: si hoc ergo necessarium est ad salutem, videtur, quod hoc debuerit specialiter praecipi. Si dicas, quod non oportuit praecipere, quia in aliis duobus praeceptis includitur[^p633-5]; tunc quaeritur: quare dilectio proximi non includitur, sed exprimitur?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod triplex est ratio, quare non oportet, speciale mandatum dari de dilectione sui, vel corporis: una est, quam reddit Augustinus, et habetur in littera[^p633-6], quia satis intelligitur per hoc quod dicitur: *Sicut te ipsum.* Alia ratio est, quia ad hoc ipsum inclinat natura. Tertia ratio est, quia diligere Deum ex toto corde et ex tota anima et ex tota mente, hoc est se ipsum spiritualiter amare. Ille enim se spiritualiter amat, qui cor et corpus ad honorem Dei totaliter exponit: et sic dilectio sui implicatur in illis duobus mandatis, et qui bene exsequitur primum mandatum facilitatem habet et rectitudinem ad diligendum se ipsum; et propterea non oportuit tertium mandatum addi, secundum quod dicit Augustinus[^p633-7].

Et per hoc patet determinatio obiectorum. Nam illud quod obiicit, quod circa dilectionem sui est obliquatio et difficultas; iam patet: quia satis instruitur homo per illa duo mandata ad obliquitatis et difficultatis illius remotionem.

Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur: quare non sic implicite datur mandatum de dilectione proximi, sicut de dilectione sui? dicendum, quod ratio huius est, quia non est ita in inclinatione et appetitu naturae converti ad alterum, sicut converti ad se ipsum; et praeterea[^p633-8], difficillimum est proximum diligere, maxime quando est ei adversarius: ideo congruum fuit, de hoc speciale mandatum dari.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Manifestum est, omnem hominem proximum esse deputandum.* Obiicitur enim de beata Virgine: si enim proximus est ille qui est iuxta nos, et beata Virgo non tantum supra nos, sed «supra Angelos exaltata est[^p633-9]»; non videtur, quod tantum diligenda sit ut proxima, sed magis ut domina. — Item, honoranda est beata

<!-- page 634 -->

Virgo speciali honore, qui dicitur *hyperdulia*[^p634-1]: ergo speciali amore amanda: non ergo videtur, quod sub nomine proximi intelligatur, per quem intelligimus illud quod est iuxta.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nomine proximi intelligitur omnis homo cuiuscumque sexus, cuiuscumque dignitatis, cuiuscumque virtutis. Unde et dilectio gloriosae Virginis includitur sub dilectione proximi.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod non est iuxta nos, sed magis supra; dicendum, quod licet sit supra nos ratione dignitatis gratiae et conceptionis nobilissimae, est tamen iuxta nos secundum conformitatem naturae; et quoniam dilectio respicit similitudinem, honor autem respicit dignitatem[^p634-2], hinc est, quod dilectio eius generaliter sub dilectione proximi continetur, quamvis veneratio ipsius aliis superponatur. — Verum est tamen, quod ipsa speciali affectu ab omnibus debet diligi; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod dilectio eius non debeat sub dilectione proximi contineri, quia, quantumcumque aliqua creatura magno affectu sit amanda, per prius ipsa caritas ordinat animum ad diligendam salutem propriam, sicut melius infra[^p634-3] manifestabitur. — Per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta, quoniam ipse arguit de dignitatis sublimitate, cum obiicit[^p634-4], quod beata Virgo est supra nos, secundum quam est *veneranda*; sub nomine vero *proximi* continetur quantum ad naturae conformitatem, secundum quam est *diligenda.*

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Manifestum est, praecepto dilectionis proximi etiam sanctos Angelos contineri.* Sed contra: sancti Angeli quantum ad dignitatem naturae et quantum ad eminentiam gratiae et quantum ad excellentiam gloriae supra nos sunt: ergo videtur, quod non debeant proximi nostri, sed domini reputari. — Item, Christus dominus noster est, qui fuit *paulo minus ab Angelis minoratus*, secundum quod dicitur in Psalmo[^p634-5]: ergo videtur, quod ipsi Angeli sint sicut domini nostri, non sicut proximi reputandi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis Angeli supra nos sint sive quantum ad *dignitatem naturae*, sive quantum ad *sublimitatem gratiae*; tamen quantum ad *actum dilectionis* non sunt supra nos diligendi, pro eo quod caritas nostra *principaliter* respicit summum Bonum, in quod facit tendere et ad quod inclinat; *secundo* vero respicit subiectum, quod informat; *tertio* vero respicit aliud subiectum consimile, cum quo ligat[^p634-6]; unde quantumcumque creatura sit in se ipsa excellens, tamen secundum legem caritatis iuxta est, et ideo sub nomine proximi debet contineri.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicit, quod supra nos sunt sub ratione naturae, gratiae et gloriae; iam patet responsio: quia, quamvis sint supra nos secundum ordinem universi, non tamen sunt supra nos secundum ordinem caritatis[^p634-7]. — Potest etiam aliter dici, quod quamvis sint supra nos ratione simplicitatis, spiritualitatis et incorruptibilitatis, sunt tamen iuxta nos ratione imaginis, secundum quam nos et ipsi habemus immediate in Deum ordinari[^p634-8]; et ratione huius possunt nostri proximi appellari.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur de Christo, quod illud dicitur ratione passibilitatis assumtae[^p634-9].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Christum, in quantum homo est, sicut nos diligere debemus.* Contra: Christus est caput nostrum secundum conformitatem naturae assumtae[^p634-10]; sed caput magis est diligendum quam aliud membrum: ergo plus debemus diligere Christum, secundum quod homo, quam nos. — Item, tantum debemus diligere Redemptorem, quantum et Creatorem; sed Creator est diligendus plus quam nos: ergo et Redemptor. Sed Christus, in quantum homo, est Redemptor[^p634-11]: ergo Christum, in quantum est homo, debemus diligere plus quam nos.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum dicitur: *Christus, in quantum homo, diligendus est quantum nos, vel plus quam nos*, haec determinatio *in quantum* potest importare *unitatem personae*, vel *conditionem naturae*, iuxta illud quod dictum fuit su-

<!-- page 635 -->

pra distinctione undecima[^p635-1]. Et si importet *unitatem personae*; sic diligendus est *supra nos*, quia sic est noster creator, redemptor et salvator. Si vero importet *conditionem naturae* assumtae, sic diligendus est *iuxta nos*, et sic est proximus noster. Unde si consideremus Christum solum ratione humanitatis, hoc est *pure* ratione naturae creatae, non debetur ei principalitas dilectionis, sicut nec adoratio latriae[^p635-2]; nec hoc modo dicitur redemptor noster, vel caput, quia tam ratio redemptoris quam capitis respicit personam secundum utramque naturam. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta[^p635-3].

english:
<!-- page 633 -->

# Doubts concerning the text of the Master

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says: *There was no need for it to be handed down by a special precept, that each one should love himself or his own body* etc. For this does not seem true, because, if precepts are given to direct our affections, since it most of all happens that everyone[^p633-4] errs concerning love of himself, it seems that about this a precept ought most of all to have been given. — Likewise, in the precepts of charity carnal love is not commanded, but spiritual; but it is most difficult to love oneself spiritually: if therefore this is necessary for salvation, it seems that this ought to have been specially commanded. If you say that it was not necessary to command [it], because it is included in the other two precepts[^p633-5]; then it is asked: why is the love of neighbor not included, but expressed?

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a threefold reason why it is not necessary that a special commandment be given concerning love of oneself or of the body: one is that which Augustine gives, and is had in the text[^p633-6], because it is sufficiently understood by what is said: *As thyself.* Another reason is that nature inclines to this very thing. The third reason is that to love God from the whole heart and from the whole soul and from the whole mind, this is to love oneself spiritually. For he loves himself spiritually who totally devotes his heart and body to the honor of God: and thus love of oneself is implied in those two commandments, and he who well fulfills the first commandment has facility and rectitude for loving himself; and on that account it was not necessary that a third commandment be added, according as Augustine says[^p633-7].

And by this the determination of the objections is clear. For that which it objects, that concerning love of oneself there is deviation and difficulty; this is now clear: because man is sufficiently instructed by those two commandments for the removal of that deviation and difficulty.

To that which is asked last: why is the commandment concerning love of neighbor not given so implicitly, as the one concerning love of oneself? it must be said that the reason for this is that it is not so [natural] in the inclination and appetite of nature to be turned toward another, as to be turned toward oneself; and besides[^p633-8], it is most difficult to love one's neighbor, especially when he is hostile to him: therefore it was fitting that a special commandment be given concerning this.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *It is manifest that every man is to be reckoned a neighbor.* For it is objected concerning the blessed Virgin: for if a neighbor is he who is beside us, and the blessed Virgin is not only above us, but «exalted above the Angels[^p633-9]»; it does not seem that she is to be loved only as a neighbor, but rather as a lady. — Likewise, the blessed

<!-- page 634 -->

Virgin is to be honored with a special honor, which is called *hyperdulia*[^p634-1]: therefore she is to be loved with a special love: therefore it does not seem that she is understood under the name of neighbor, by which we understand that which is beside [us].

**I respond:** It must be said that under the name of neighbor is understood every man of whatever sex, of whatever dignity, of whatever virtue. Whence also the love of the glorious Virgin is included under the love of neighbor.

But to that which is objected, that she is not beside us, but rather above; it must be said that although she is above us by reason of the dignity of grace and of her most noble conception, she is nevertheless beside us according to the conformity of nature; and since love regards likeness, but honor regards dignity[^p634-2], hence it is that the love of her is generally contained under the love of neighbor, although the veneration of her is set above the others. — It is nevertheless true that she ought to be loved with a special affection by all; but from this it does not follow that the love of her ought not to be contained under the love of neighbor, because, however much some creature is to be loved with great affection, charity itself first orders the soul to love its own salvation, as will be better shown below[^p634-3]. — By this the response to the objections is clear, since he argues from the sublimity of dignity, when he objects[^p634-4] that the blessed Virgin is above us, according to which she is *to be venerated*; but under the name of *neighbor* she is contained as to the conformity of nature, according to which she is *to be loved.*

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *It is manifest that even the holy Angels are contained under the precept of love of neighbor.* But on the contrary: the holy Angels, as to the dignity of nature and as to the eminence of grace and as to the excellence of glory, are above us: therefore it seems that they ought not to be reckoned our neighbors, but lords. — Likewise, Christ is our Lord, who was *made a little less than the Angels*, according as it is said in the Psalm[^p634-5]: therefore it seems that the Angels themselves are to be reckoned as our lords, not as neighbors.

**I respond:** It must be said that although the Angels are above us either as to the *dignity of nature*, or as to the *sublimity of grace*; nevertheless as to the *act of love* they are not to be loved above us, for the reason that our charity *principally* regards the supreme Good, toward which it makes [us] tend and to which it inclines; but *secondly* it regards the subject which it informs; but *thirdly* it regards another like subject, with which it binds[^p634-6]; whence however much a creature is excellent in itself, nevertheless according to the law of charity it is beside [us], and therefore ought to be contained under the name of neighbor.

To that, therefore, which it objects, that they are above us under the aspect of nature, grace and glory; the response is now clear: because, although they are above us according to the order of the universe, they are nevertheless not above us according to the order of charity[^p634-7]. — It can also be said otherwise, that although they are above us by reason of simplicity, spirituality and incorruptibility, they are nevertheless beside us by reason of the image, according to which both we and they have to be ordered immediately to God[^p634-8]; and by reason of this they can be called our neighbors.

And by this the response is clear to that which is objected concerning Christ, that that is said by reason of the assumed passibility[^p634-9].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *We ought to love Christ, inasmuch as he is man, as ourselves.* On the contrary: Christ is our head according to the conformity of the assumed nature[^p634-10]; but the head is more to be loved than another member: therefore we ought to love Christ, according as he is man, more than ourselves. — Likewise, we ought to love the Redeemer as much as the Creator; but the Creator is to be loved more than ourselves: therefore also the Redeemer. But Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is the Redeemer[^p634-11]: therefore we ought to love Christ, inasmuch as he is man, more than ourselves.

**I respond:** It must be said that when it is said: *Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is to be loved as much as ourselves, or more than ourselves*, this determination *inasmuch as* can import *unity of person*, or *condition of nature*, according to what was said a-

<!-- page 635 -->

bove in the eleventh distinction[^p635-1]. And if it imports *unity of person*; thus he is to be loved *above us*, because thus he is our creator, redeemer and savior. But if it imports the *condition* of the assumed *nature*, thus he is to be loved *beside us*, and thus he is our neighbor. Whence if we consider Christ only by reason of his humanity, that is, *purely* by reason of the created nature, the primacy of love is not owed to him, just as neither the adoration of latria[^p635-2]; nor in this way is he called our redeemer, or head, because both the character of redeemer and that of head regard the person according to each nature. — And by this the response to the objections is clear[^p635-3].

la: Multi codd. atque edd. *unumquodque.*

en: Many codices and the editions read *unumquodque.*

la: Ut dicit Magister, hic c. 1.

en: As the Master says, here c. 1.

la: Hic c. 1. — Subinde pro *intelligitur* codd. A K bb *intelligebatur.*

en: Here c. 1. — Thereupon, in place of *intelligitur* codices A K bb read *intelligebatur.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Superius pro *dilectio sui* edd. *dilectio ipsius.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Above, in place of *dilectio sui* the editions read *dilectio ipsius.*

la: Edd. *et propter hoc.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The editions read *et propter hoc.* — Cf. on this doubt Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Ut Bernardus docet nec non Hieronymus; de quo vide supra pag. 57, nota 5. Edd., supra pro *si enim* substituto *sicut enim*, hic ante *non videtur* inserunt *ergo.*

en: As Bernard teaches, and also Jerome; on which see above p. 57, note 5. The editions, having substituted above *sicut enim* for *si enim*, here before *non videtur* insert *ergo.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Paulo inferius pro *sub nomine* edd. exhibent *sub ratione* et in fine arg. adiiciunt *nos.*

en: Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 3. — A little below, in place of *sub nomine* the editions exhibit *sub ratione* and at the end of the argument add *nos.*

la: Pro *dignitatem* codd. B C D G *humilitatem* (fortasse a librariis vitiose scriptum pro *sublimitatem*, quae lectio habetur circa finem respons.), alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 *humiliationem.* Paulo ante pro *secundum conformitatem* codd. A K *per conformitatem.*

en: In place of *dignitatem* codices B C D G read *humilitatem* (perhaps written corruptly by the scribes for *sublimitatem*, which reading is had near the end of the response), other codices and editions 1, 2 *humiliationem.* A little before, in place of *secundum conformitatem* codices A K read *per conformitatem.*

la: Dist. seq. quaest. 3. — Verbis *per prius* edd. praemittunt *tamen.*

en: The following distinction, q. 3. — To the words *per prius* the editions prefix *tamen.*

la: Edd., pro *ad obiecta* substituto *ad obiectum*, omittunt *cum obiicit*, deinde pro *quod* ponunt *quia.* — De hoc dubio cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: The editions, having substituted *ad obiectum* for *ad obiecta*, omit *cum obiicit*, then in place of *quod* put *quia.* — On this doubt cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Psalm. 8, 6. — Paulo superius post *sed domini* cod. Z supplet *nostri.*

en: Psalm 8:6. — A little above, after *sed domini* codex Z supplies *nostri.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et ad 1. — Edd., paulo superius *secundo vero* mutato in *et hoc modo*, sic prosequuntur: *respicit subiectum, ad quod informat. Secundo modo respicit aliquod subiectum consimile, quod ligat.* Proxime post pro *quantumcumque* codd. E F G I L N T V exhibent *quantacumque*, et mox post *iuxta* edd. supplent *nos.*

en: Cf. above, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, in the body and to 1. — The editions, a little above having changed *secundo vero* into *et hoc modo*, continue thus: *it regards the subject which it informs. In a second mode it regards some like subject which it binds.* Immediately after, in place of *quantumcumque* codices E F G I L N T V exhibit *quantacumque*, and soon after *iuxta* the editions supply *nos.*

la: Edd. *secundum ordinem sub ratione caritatis.* Superius eaedem edd. omittunt *gratiae.*

en: The editions read *secundum ordinem sub ratione caritatis.* Above, the same editions omit *gratiae.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. — Circa finem solut. pro *quod illud dicitur* cod. V *quia illud dicitur.*

en: Cf. II *Sentences*, d. 15, a. 2, q. 1. — Near the end of the solution, in place of *quod illud dicitur* codex V reads *quia illud dicitur.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Vide supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: See above, d. 13, a. 2, q. 1 f.

la: Cfr. supra d. 19. a. 2. q. 1.

la: Art. 2. q. 1. seqq. et praesertim d. 10, tam in lit. Magistri, c. 1, quam in Comment. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Superius edd. omittunt *quantum nos, vel*, inferius post *quia sic* addunt *supra nos.*

en: Article 2, q. 1 ff., and especially d. 10, both in the text of the Master, c. 1, and in the Commentary, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — Above, the editions omit *quantum nos, vel*, [and] below after *quia sic* add *supra nos.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro *ratio* edd. cum paucis codd. *nomen.*

en: Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 1. — Soon, in place of *ratio* the editions with a few codices read *nomen.*

la: Hoc dubium solvunt etiam B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: This doubt is also solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**New chunk — created 2026-06-11.** The auto-chunker skipped the d.28 DUBIA block entirely; no skeleton existed. This file was scaffolded fresh and built directly to Tier 2. Confirmed by the d28-a1-q6 agent that the block exists (raw 44017–44139).

**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 44017–44139, `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` opener) collated column-by-column against 450 dpi PDF column bands for pp.633–635 (PDF 655–657, offset pdf = printed + 22). The PDF bands are authoritative per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion. Four dubia: **Dub. I** (*Nec speciali praecepto opus erat… ut quisque se vel corpus suum diligat* — why no special precept to love oneself); **Dub. II** (*omnem hominem proximum esse deputandum* — the blessed Virgin objection: loved as neighbor, venerated as lady); **Dub. III** (*sanctos Angelos contineri* under love of neighbor — Angels above us in nature/grace/glory yet beside us in the order of charity); **Dub. IV** (*Christum, in quantum homo est, sicut nos diligere debemus* — the *in quantum* determination imports unity of person → loved above us, or condition of nature → loved beside us / as neighbor).

**Page span.** Printed pp.633–635. The DUBIA header + Dub. I begin mid-p.633 (the q6 tail of Art. II precedes it at the top of the page); Dub. II/III/IV run through p.634; Dub. IV's *Respondeo* tail spills onto the top of p.635, immediately before `DISTINCTIO XXIX` (raw 44141).

**Footer split (per-page restart).** p.633 carries nn.1–9; **q6 took nn.1–3, the dubia owns nn.4–9** (6 entries). p.634 carries nn.1–11, all belonging to the dubia (Dub. II tail + III + IV). p.635 carries the Dub. IV resolution-tail footers nn.1–3 (3 entries); the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` nn.1–2 that follow on p.635 belong to the **d.29 littera** and are NOT claimed here. Total apparatus: **15 entries** (p.633 nn.4–9, p.634 nn.1–11, p.635 nn.1–3).

**Hand-off forward → d29-littera.** `DISTINCTIO XXIX` begins at raw **44141** (theme *De ordine caritatis*): littera Cap. I *De ordine diligendi, quid prius, quid post* + Cap. II *An omnes homines pariter diligendi sunt.* The d.29 littera's `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` (p.635 nn.1–2: `Cant. 2, 4`; `Libr. 1. de Doctr. christ. c. 27. n. 28…`) begin on p.635, immediately below this chunk's Dub. IV footers.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All four dubia openers, resolutions, the DISTINCTIO XXIX boundary, and all 15 footer entries were confirmed eyes-on against the 450 dpi PDF column bands; the OCR garbles (`DL'BIA`, `Drn. I`, `RespOndeo`, `hgperdulia`, `assumtae`) resolved unambiguously against the printed page.

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. 29

title_alt: Distinctio XXIX — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction XXIX — text of the Master of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 635 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXIX.

### Cap. I. *De ordine diligendi, quid prius, quid posterius.*

Post praedicta de *ordine* caritatis agendum est, quia dicit sponsa[^p635-1]: *Introduxit me rex in cellam vinariam et ordinavit in me caritatem.* Videamus igitur ordinem, quid prius, quid posterius esse debeat. Peccat enim qui praepostere agit. Nam scire, quid facias, et nescire ordinem faciendi non est perfectae cognitionis. Ordinis namque ignorantia conturbat meritorum formam. Ordinem autem diligendi Augustinus[^p635-2] insinuat dicens: «Ipse est qui ordinatam habet dilectionem, ne aut *diligat* quod non est diligendum, aut *non diligat* quod diligendum est, aut *aeque diligat* quod minus vel amplius diligendum est, aut *minus vel amplius* quod aeque diligendum est. Omnis *peccator,* in quantum peccator est, non est diligendus; et omnis *homo,* in quantum homo est, diligendus est propter Deum; *Deus* vero propter se ipsum. Et Deus omni *homine amplius* diligendus est; et *amplius* quisque Deum debet diligere quam *se ipsum.* Item, *amplius* alius *homo* diligendus est quam *corpus* nostrum, quia propter Deum omnia ista diligenda sunt, et potest nobiscum Deo perfrui, quod non potest *corpus,* quia corpus per animam vivit, qua fruimur Deo». — Audisti aliqua de ordine caritatis, ubi expressum est, nos amplius debere diligere Deum quam omnes homines, vel nos ipsos, et amplius animam alicuius hominis quam corpus nostrum. In enumeratione etiam quatuor diligendorum, superius[^p635-3] posita, prius ponitur quod *supra nos* est; secundo, quod *nos* sumus; tertio, quod *iuxta nos* est; quarto, quod *infra nos* est. Ubi ordo diligendi insinuari videtur ex ratione enumerationis. Non est autem apertum, utrum omnes homines *pariter* debeamus diligere et tantum, quantum nos, vel minus.

### Cap. II. *An omnes homines pariter diligendi sunt.*

Unde super hoc saepe movetur quaestio, quam perplexam faciunt Sanctorum verba varie prolata. — Quidam enim tradere videntur, quod *pari affectu* omnes diligendi sint; sed in *effectu,* id est in exhibitione obsequii, distinctio observanda sit. Unde Augustinus[^p635-4]: «Omnes homines *aeque* diligendi sunt. Sed cum omnibus *prodesse* non possis, his potissimum consulendum est, qui pro locorum et temporum vel quarumlibet rerum opportunitatibus constrictius tibi quasi quadam sorte iunguntur. Pro sorte enim habendum est, quo quisque tibi temporaliter colligatius adhaeret, ex quo eligis potius illi dandum esse». Idem super Epistolam ad Galatas[^p635-5]: *Operemur bonum ad omnes, maxime autem ad domesticos fidei,* id est ad Christianos: «Omnibus enim pari dilectione vita aeterna optanda est, etsi non omnibus eadem possunt exhiberi dilectionis officia, quae fratribus maxime sunt exhibenda, quia sunt invicem membra, qui habent eundem Patrem». — His aliisque testimoniis innituntur qui dicunt, omnes homines *pariter* diligendos esse caritatis affectu, sed in *operis exhibitione* differentiam faciunt[^p635-6].

Quibus obviat illud praeceptum Legis[^p636-7] de diligendis parentibus: *Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, ut sis longaevus super terram.* Ut quid enim specialiter illud praeciperetur de parentibus, nisi maiori dilectione forent diligendi? — Sed hoc illi referendum dicunt ad *exteriorum*[^p636-8] exhibitionem, in qua praeponendi sunt parentes. Unde *honora,* dixit, non *dilige.* — Obviat etiam illis quod Hieronymus super Ezechielem[^p636-9] ait, scilicet «ut ordine caritatis, sicut scriptum est: *Ordinavit in me caritatem,* post omnium patrem, Deum, carnis quoque pater diligatur et mater, filius

<!-- page 636 -->

et filia, frater et soror». Ambrosius[^p636-1] quoque, diligendi exprimens ordinem, super illud Canticorum: *Ordinavit in me caritatem,* capitulo secundo ait: «Multorum caritas inordinata est: quod in primo est ponunt tertium vel quartum. Primo Deus diligendus est, secundo parentes, inde filii, post domestici, qui si boni sunt, malis filiis praeponendi sunt. Secundum hoc in Evangelio ad cuiusque dilectionem proprium ponit: *Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex omnibus viribus tuis et proximum tuum sicut te ipsum,* et inimicos non ex tota virtute, non sicut te ipsum, sed simpliciter. Sufficit enim, quod diligimus et non odio habemus». — Ecce[^p636-2] ex praemissis aperte insinuatur, quae in affectu caritatis distinctio sit habenda, ut differenti affectu, non pari, homines diligamus, et ante omnia Deum, secundo nos ipsos, tertio parentes, inde filios et fratres, post domesticos, demum inimicos diligamus.

Sed inquiunt illi, quae de ordine dilectionis supra dicuntur esse referenda ad operum exhibitionem, quae differenter proximis exhibenda sunt: primo parentibus, inde filiis, post domesticis, demum inimicis, Deum vero tam affectu quam obsequii exhibitione ante omnia diligendum. — Quorum etiam nonnulli tradunt, affectu caritatis tantum proximos esse diligendos, quantum nos ipsos diligimus. Quod confirmant auctoritate Augustini[^p636-3], qui ait: «Nec illa iam quaestio moveat, quantum caritatis fratri debeamus impendere, quantum Deo. Incomparabiliter plus Deo quam nobis; fratri vero, quantum nobis. Nos autem tanto magis diligimus, quanto magis diligimus Deum». — Ex hoc et praemissis testimoniis Augustini asserunt, omnes homines pariter diligendos a nobis et tantum, quantum nos, Deum autem plus quam nos, corpus vero nostrum minus quam nos, vel proximos. Nec in enumeratione praemissa quatuor diligendorum ordinem diligendi assignari dicunt, sed tantum quae sunt diligenda.

Verum quia praemissa verba Ambrosii ordinem diligendi secundum *affectum* magis quam secundum *effectum* diligenter intuentibus explicare videntur, non indocte alii dicunt, non modo in exhibitione operis, sed etiam in affectu caritatis ordinem differentem esse statutum, ut ante omnia diligamus Deum, secundo nos, tertio parentes, quarto filios vel fratres et huiusmodi, postea domesticos, demum inimicos. Quod vero Augustinus dicit, pariter omnes esse diligendos, et pari dilectione omnibus vitam optandam, ita accipi potest, ut paritas non ad *affectum*[^p636-4] referatur, sed ad *bonum,* quod eis optatur, quia caritatem omnibus optare debemus, ut paria bona mereantur; sicut Apostolus dicit: *Volo, omnes vos esse sicut me.* Optanda est enim minoribus perfectio maiorum, ut ipsi fiant perfecti et sic parem mereantur beatitudinem; vel *pari dilectione,* id est *eadem dilectione,* omnes diligendi sunt. Item, quod ait: *Ut tantum diligamus fratres, quantum nos,* ita intelligi potest, id est *ad tantum bonum* diligamus fratres, ad quantum nos, ut *tantum bonum* eis optemus in aeternitate, quantum nobis, etsi non *tanto affectu;* vel ibi *quantum* similitudinis est, non quantitatis.

Solet etiam quaeri: si parentes nostri mali sunt, vel filii, vel fratres, an magis vel minus diligendi sint aliis bonis, hac ratione nobis non copulatis. — Videtur, quod magis sint diligendi boni, qui nobis carne non sunt coniuncti, quam mali carne coniuncti; quia nobis sunt coniuncti corde glutino caritatis. Sanctior est enim copula cordium quam corporum. Unde Beda[^p636-5] de illis verbis Domini: *Mater mea et fratres mei hi sunt, qui verbum Dei faciunt;* ait: «Non iniuriose negligit matrem, nec mater negatur, quae etiam de cruce agnoscitur, sed religiosiores monstrantur copulae mentium quam corporum». — Verumtamen latebrosa quaestio est haec nec a nobis plene absolvenda, properantibus ad alia. Movemur enim super verbis illis[^p636-6]: «*Inimicos non ex tota virtute, non sicut te ipsum* iubet diligere, sed simpliciter. Sufficit enim, quod diligimus et non odio habemus». Quod non ita accipiendum est, quasi sufficiat tibi diligere inimicum et non sicut te ipsum, quia omnes, amicos et inimicos sicut te ipsum diligere debes. Sed ad ostendendum *gradus* diligendi Deum et proximum et inimicum, qui tamen proximus est, propria Dominus ponit, cum ait[^p636-7b]: *Diliges Deum ex tota virtute et proximum sicut te ipsum,* non ait, *ex tota virtute,* ut ostendat, proximum diligendum minus quam Deum. Dicit etiam: *Diligite inimicos,* nec addit *ex tota virtute* nec *sicut te ipsum,* sed simpliciter. Sufficit enim, quod diligimus et non odio habemus, id est, sufficit dicere, ut diligamus et non odio habeamus, non quin eos diligere debeamus sicut nos, quia proximi sunt; sed sufficit, si eos minus diligimus quam alios proximos; quod dilectionis *genus*[^p636-8b] innuit.

Quaeri etiam solet, «cur Dominus praeceperit diligere inimicos, cum alibi praecipiat odio habere parentes et filios[^p636-9b]». — Ad quod dicendum est, duo esse diligenda in homine: *naturam* et *virtutem,* *vitium* vero et peccatum odiendum. Et parentes ergo, in quantum mali sunt, odiendi sunt, et inimici diligendi, in quantum homines. Diligamus ergo inimicos lucrandos regno Dei, et odiamus in propinquis[^p636-10], si impediunt a regno Dei, et in omnibus communiter naturam diligamus, quam Deus fecit.

<!-- page 637 -->

### Cap. III. *De gradibus caritatis.*

Sciendum quoque est, diversos esse gradus caritatis. Est enim caritas incipiens, proficiens, perfecta, perfectissima. Unde Augustinus[^p637-1]: «Perfecta caritas haec est, ut quis paratus sit pro fratribus etiam mori. Sed numquid mox, ut nascitur, iam prorsus perfecta est? Immo ut perficiatur, nascitur; cum fuerit nata, nutritur; cum fuerit nutrita, roboratur; cum fuerit roborata, perficitur; cum ad perfectionem venerit, dicit: *Cupio dissolvi*» etc. — Hic aperte progressus et perfectio caritatis insinuatur, quam perfectionem etiam Veritas commendat dicens: *Maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis.* Quod utique dictum est de *opere* dilectionis, quia maior dilectionis effectus non est quam ponere animam pro aliis. Nec te moveat quod ait *pro amicis;* qui enim ponit animam pro amicis, ponit et pro inimicis, ad hoc ut ipsi[^p637-2] fiant amici.

---

english:
### Cap. I. *On the order of loving, what is prior, what posterior.*

After the foregoing the *order* of charity is to be treated, for the bride says[^p635-1]: *The king brought me into the wine-cellar and set charity in order in me.* Let us therefore see the order, what ought to be prior, what posterior. For he sins who acts in a preposterous order. For to know what thou doest and not to know the order of doing is not of perfect knowledge. For ignorance of order disturbs the form of merits. And Augustine[^p635-2] intimates the order of loving, saying: «He is the one who has love set in order, that he neither *love* what is not to be loved, nor *not love* what is to be loved, nor *love equally* what is to be loved less or more, nor *love less or more* what is to be loved equally. Every *sinner,* in so far as he is a sinner, is not to be loved; and every *man,* in so far as he is man, is to be loved for the sake of God; but *God* for his own sake. And God is to be loved *more than every man;* and each one ought to love God *more* than *himself.* Likewise, another *man* is to be loved *more* than our *body,* because for the sake of God all these are to be loved, and he can enjoy God together with us, which the *body* cannot, because the body lives by the soul, by which we enjoy God». — Thou hast heard some things concerning the order of charity, where it was expressed that we ought to love God more than all men, or than ourselves, and the soul of any man more than our body. In the enumeration also of the four things to be loved, set down above[^p635-3], that which is *above us* is placed first; secondly, that which *we* are; thirdly, that which is *beside us;* fourthly, that which is *beneath us.* Where the order of loving seems to be intimated by the rationale of the enumeration. But it is not clear whether we ought to love all men *equally* and as much as ourselves, or less.

### Cap. II. *Whether all men are to be loved equally.*

Whence concerning this a question is often raised, which the words of the Saints, variously brought forward, make perplexing. — For some seem to hand down that all are to be loved with *equal affection;* but in *effect,* that is in the showing of service, a distinction is to be observed. Whence Augustine[^p635-4]: «All men are to be loved *equally.* But since thou canst not *be of profit* to all, those especially are to be cared for who, by occasions of places and times or of any things whatever, are more closely bound to thee as by a certain lot. For that is to be held as a lot whereby anyone temporally cleaves more closely to thee, from which thou choosest that it be given rather to him». The same on the Epistle to the Galatians[^p635-5]: *Let us work good toward all, but most of all toward those of the household of faith,* that is, toward Christians: «For to all eternal life is to be wished with equal love, even if the same offices of love cannot be shown to all, which are to be shown most of all to the brethren, because they are members one of another, who have the same Father». — On these and other testimonies they rely who say that all men are to be loved *equally* by the affection of charity, but in the *showing of work* they make a difference[^p635-6].

Against them stands that precept of the Law[^p636-7] concerning the loving of parents: *Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be long-lived upon the earth.* For to what end would that be specially commanded concerning parents, unless they were to be loved with a greater love? — But they say this is to be referred to the showing of *outward things*[^p636-8], in which parents are to be set first. Whence he said *honor,* not *love.* — There stands against them also what Jerome on Ezekiel[^p636-9] says, namely «that by the order of charity, as it is written: *He set charity in order in me,* after the Father of all, God, the father of the flesh also be loved and the mother, the son

and the daughter, brother and sister». Ambrose[^p636-1] also, expressing the order of loving, on that text of the Canticle: *He set charity in order in me,* in the second chapter says: «The charity of many is disordered: what is in the first place they put third or fourth. First God is to be loved, secondly parents, then children, after them members of the household, who if they are good are to be set before bad children. According to this in the Gospel he sets down for the love of each one its proper measure: *Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself,* and enemies not with the whole power, not as thyself, but simply. For it suffices that we love and do not hold in hatred». — Behold[^p636-2], from the foregoing it is plainly intimated what distinction is to be had in the affection of charity, that with differing affection, not equal, we love men, and before all things God, secondly ourselves, thirdly parents, then children and brothers, after them members of the household, lastly enemies.

But those others say that what is said above concerning the order of love is to be referred to the showing of works, which are to be shown differently to neighbors: first to parents, then to children, after them to the household, lastly to enemies, but God is to be loved before all things both in affection and in the showing of service. — Of whom some also hand down that by the affection of charity neighbors are to be loved only as much as we love ourselves. Which they confirm by the authority of Augustine[^p636-3], who says: «Let not that question now be moved, how much of charity we ought to bestow on a brother, how much on God. Incomparably more on God than on ourselves; but on a brother, as much as on ourselves. But we love ourselves so much the more, the more we love God». — From this and the foregoing testimonies of Augustine they assert that all men are to be loved equally by us and as much as ourselves, but God more than ourselves, and our body less than ourselves, or than neighbors. Nor in the foregoing enumeration of the four things to be loved do they say that an order of loving is assigned, but only what things are to be loved.

But because the foregoing words of Ambrose seem to set forth the order of loving according to *affection* rather than according to *effect* to those who attend diligently, others not unlearnedly say that not only in the showing of work, but also in the affection of charity a differing order has been established, that before all things we love God, secondly ourselves, thirdly parents, fourthly children or brothers and the like, afterward members of the household, lastly enemies. But as for what Augustine says, that all are to be loved equally, and that life is to be wished to all with equal love, it can be so understood, that the equality be referred not to *affection*[^p636-4], but to the *good* which is wished them, because we ought to wish charity to all, that they may merit equal goods; as the Apostle says: *I wish all of you to be as I am.* For the perfection of the greater is to be wished for the lesser, that they may become perfect and so merit equal blessedness; or *with equal love,* that is *with the same love,* all are to be loved. Likewise, as to what he says: *That we love brothers as much as ourselves,* it can be so understood, that is, let us love brothers *unto so great a good* as ourselves, so that we wish them *so great a good* in eternity as to ourselves, even if not with *so great an affection;* or there the *as much* is of likeness, not of quantity.

It is also wont to be asked: if our parents are bad, or children, or brothers, whether they are to be loved more or less than other good men not joined to us by this bond. — It seems that the good who are not joined to us in the flesh are to be loved more than the bad joined to us in the flesh; because to us they are joined in heart by the glue of charity. For the bond of hearts is holier than that of bodies. Whence Bede[^p636-5] on those words of the Lord: *My mother and my brethren are they who do the word of God;* says: «He does not injuriously neglect his mother, nor is the mother denied, who is even acknowledged from the cross, but bonds of minds are shown to be more religious than those of bodies». — Yet this is a hidden question and not to be fully settled by us, hastening to other matters. For we are moved by those words[^p636-6]: «He bids enemies to be loved *not with the whole power, not as thyself,* but simply. For it suffices that we love and do not hold in hatred». Which is not so to be taken as if it sufficed thee to love an enemy and not as thyself, since all, friends and enemies, thou oughtest to love as thyself. But to show the *degrees* of loving God and neighbor and enemy, who is nonetheless a neighbor, the Lord sets down their proper measures, when he says[^p636-7b]: *Thou shalt love God with the whole power and the neighbor as thyself,* he does not say *with the whole power,* to show that the neighbor is to be loved less than God. He says also: *Love enemies,* and he adds neither *with the whole power* nor *as thyself,* but simply. For it suffices that we love and do not hold in hatred, that is, it suffices to say that we love and do not hold in hatred, not but that we ought to love them as ourselves, because they are neighbors; but it suffices if we love them less than other neighbors; which *kind*[^p636-8b] of love he intimates.

It is also wont to be asked, «why the Lord commanded enemies to be loved, since elsewhere he commands parents and children to be held in hatred[^p636-9b]». — To which it must be said that two things are to be loved in man: *nature* and *virtue,* but *vice* and sin are to be held in hatred. And therefore parents, in so far as they are bad, are to be held in hatred, and enemies to be loved, in so far as they are men. Let us therefore love enemies as to be won for the kingdom of God, and let us hate in kinsfolk[^p636-10], if they hinder from the kingdom of God, and in all things let us love in common the nature which God made.

### Cap. III. *On the degrees of charity.*

It is also to be known that there are diverse degrees of charity. For there is charity beginning, advancing, perfect, most perfect. Whence Augustine[^p637-1]: «This is perfect charity, that one be ready to die even for the brethren. But is it at once, as soon as it is born, already wholly perfect? Nay rather, it is born that it may be perfected; when it has been born, it is nourished; when it has been nourished, it is strengthened; when it has been strengthened, it is perfected; when it has come to perfection, it says: *I desire to be dissolved*» etc. — Here the progress and perfection of charity is plainly intimated, which perfection Truth also commends, saying: *Greater love hath no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.* Which indeed was said of the *work* of love, because there is no greater effect of love than to lay down one's life for others. Nor let it move thee that he says *for friends;* for he who lays down his life for friends lays it down also for enemies, to the end that they themselves[^p637-2] may become friends.

---

la: Libr. I. de Doctr. christ. c. 27. n. 28. Paulo superius post *ignorantia* cod. D addit *saepe.* In ipso testimonio Augustini pro *Et Deus omni* sola Vat. cum originali *Et a Deo omni,* et deinde ante *amplius* omittit *et.* Denique in iisdem ante *perfrui* additur *homo.*

en: Book I, *On Christian Doctrine* c. 27, n. 28. A little above, after *ignorantia* (ignorance) codex D adds *saepe* (often). In the testimony of Augustine itself, for *Et Deus omni* (and God than every) the Vatican edition alone with the original has *Et a Deo omni* (and by God than every), and then before *amplius* (more) omits *et* (and). Finally, in the same, before *perfrui* (to enjoy) *homo* (man) is added.

la: Dist. XXVIII. c. I. — Paulo superius pro *alicuius* cod. C et edd. 1, 8 *alterius.* In fine edd. 1, 8 transponunt particulam *et* post *quantum.*

en: Dist. XXVIII, c. I. — A little above, for *alicuius* (of any) codex C and editions 1, 8 have *alterius* (of another). At the end editions 1, 8 transpose the particle *et* (and) after *quantum* (as much).

la: Loc. cit. c. 28. n. 29, sed multis a Magistro omissis.

en: In the place cited, c. 28, n. 29, but with many things omitted by the Master.

la: Super c. 6, 10. et n. 61; sed verba magis conveniunt cum Glossa (ibi), quae conflata est ex verbis Augustini et Hieronymi. In fine testimonii Vat. et edd. 1, 6 addunt *scilicet Deum.*

en: On c. 6, 10, and n. 61; but the words agree more with the Gloss (there), which is compounded from the words of Augustine and Jerome. At the end of the testimony the Vatican edition and editions 1, 6 add *scilicet Deum* (namely God).

la: Ed. 6 *esse,* sed in aliis edd., exceptis 1, 8, et in codd. *est* neutrum verbum. Fortasse primitus legebatur *differenter.*

en: Edition 6 has *esse* (to be), but in the other editions, except 1, 8, and in the codices *est* (is) — neither verb. Perhaps originally it read *differenter* (differently).

la: Exod. 20, 12. Cfr. Deuter. 5, 16; Matth. 15, 4.: in quo loco codd. Vat. et edd., exceptis 1, 8, omittunt *tuam.*

en: Exod. 20:12. Cf. Deut. 5:16; Matt. 15:4: in which passage the Vatican codices and editions, except 1, 8, omit *tuam* (thy).

la: Edd., exceptis 1, 8, *exteriorem,* refragantibus codd. Paulo inferius pro *illis quod* codd. BC cum plurimis edd. *illud quod,* edd. 1, 8 vero *illis illud quod.*

en: The editions, except 1, 8, have *exteriorem* (outward), the codices opposing. A little below, for *illis quod* codices BC with most editions have *illud quod,* but editions 1, 8 *illis illud quod.*

la: Libr. XIII. (in Ezech. 44, 25.).

en: Book XIII (on Ezek. 44:25).

la: Ex Origene (hom. II. n. 8.) sumta, verba haec inveniuntur in Glossa *ordinaria* in hunc locum (v. l.). A Scholasticis erronee tribuitur hic locus Ambrosio. — Edd., excepta 1, transpositione et additione usae, post *Canticorum* ponunt *capitulo secundo, id est.* Pro *inde filii* cod. D et edd. 1, 8 *tertio filii.* — Locus Scripturae est Matth. 22, 37.

en: Taken from Origen (hom. II, n. 8), these words are found in the *Ordinary* Gloss on this passage (variant reading). By the Scholastics this passage is erroneously attributed to Ambrose. — The editions, except 1, using transposition and addition, after *Canticorum* (of the Canticle) place *capitulo secundo, id est* (in the second chapter, that is). For *inde filii* (then children) codex D and editions 1, 8 have *tertio filii* (children third). — The passage of Scripture is Matt. 22:37.

la: Edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt *hic.*

en: Editions 1, 8 add *hic* (here).

la: Libr. VIII. de Trin. c. 8 n. 12.

en: Book VIII, *On the Trinity* c. 8, n. 12.

la: Edd., exceptis 1, 8, perperam *effectum.* — Seq. locus Scripturae est I. Cor. 7, 7.

en: The editions, except 1, 8, wrongly have *effectum* (effect). — The following passage of Scripture is 1 Cor. 7:7.

la: Expositio in Evang. Lucae 8, 19 (cfr. Matth. 12, 49; Marc. 3, 34; Ioan. 19, 25.). Verba sumta sunt ex Ambrosio in eundem locum libr. VI. n. 38.

en: Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 8:19 (cf. Matt. 12:49; Mark 3:34; John 19:25). The words are taken from Ambrose on the same passage, book VI, n. 38.

la: Scil. Ambrosii, vel potius Origenis; cfr. supra nota 1. — Vat. et edd. 5, 8, 9 *ex verbis illis* pro *super verbis illis,* et deinde ante *inimicos* addunt *quibus.*

en: Namely of Ambrose, or rather of Origen; cf. note 1 above. — The Vatican edition and editions 5, 8, 9 have *ex verbis illis* (from those words) for *super verbis illis* (upon those words), and then before *inimicos* (enemies) add *quibus* (by which).

la: Matth. 22, 37; seq. locus est Luc. 6, 27.

en: Matt. 22:37; the following passage is Luke 6:27.

la: Vat. et ed. 1 *locutionis,* codd. A (a prima manu) B *dictionis,* cod. C *dictionis vel locutionis gradus;* edd. *dilectionis.* Utraque lectio explicari potest, cum revera in isto testimonio *gradus dilectionis* insinuentur. Cfr. de eodem loco Origenis infra q. 6. et quoad dilectionem inimicorum d. 30. q. 4.

en: The Vatican edition and edition 1 have *locutionis* (of speech), codices A (by the first hand) B *dictionis* (of expression), codex C *dictionis vel locutionis gradus* (a degree of expression or of speech); the editions *dilectionis* (of love). Either reading can be explained, since in truth in that testimony *degrees of love* are intimated. Cf. concerning the same passage of Origen below, q. 6, and as to the love of enemies, d. 30, q. 4.

la: Ex August. I. Retract. c. 19. n. 5, et l. de Sermone Domini in monte, c. 15. n. 41, ex quibus locis sumtae sunt sententiae sequentes.

en: From Augustine, *Retractations* I, c. 19, n. 5, and the book *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount,* c. 15, n. 41, from which passages the following sentences are taken.

la: Ita codd. et August., I. Retract. loc. cit. Sed Vat. cum plurimis edd. suprimit *in* ante *propinquos,* edd. 1, 8 *vitia in propinquis, quae.*

en: So the codices and Augustine, *Retractations* I, in the place cited. But the Vatican edition with most editions suppresses *in* (in) before *propinquos* (kinsfolk); editions 1, 8 have *vitia in propinquis, quae* (vices in kinsfolk, which).

la: In I. Epist. Ioan. tr. 5. n. 4. — Locus Scripturae primus est Phil. 1, 23; secundus Ioan. 15, 13.

en: On the First Epistle of John, tract 5, n. 4. — The first passage of Scripture is Phil. 1:23; the second John 15:13.

la: Codd. BE et edd. 1, 8 praefigunt *et.*

en: Codices BE and editions 1, 8 prefix *et* (and).

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Lombard's text (*littera Magistri*) for Distinctio XXIX (*De ordine caritatis* — the order of charity: what is to be loved prior and posterior, whether all men are loved equally, and the degrees of charity). Re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{635,636,637}-{L,R}-*.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 44141–44287) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The OCR for this distinction is two-column interleaved and the footers cascade; the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout, per the Vol II/III override (offset pdf = printed + 22). `type: littera`, **`has_scholion: false`** — the littera carries no scholion; its apparatus is the editorial *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM*. The outer-margin tags (`Augustinus.`, `Dubium 1.`–`Dubium 6.`, `Opinio 1.`, `Opinio 2.`, `Replicatur.`, `Hieronymus.`, `Ambrosius vel potius Origenes.`, `Opinio nonnullorum.`, `Replicant fautores 1. opinionis.`, `Sententia Magistri.`, `Difficultas 1.`, `Item alia.`, `Item tertia.`) printed beside the body are editorial cross-reference marginalia keyed to the Bonaventure commentary, not Lombard's text, and are omitted from the body.

**Cap. count + incipits (THREE chapters, confirmed eyes-on):**
- **Cap. I** (p.635-L) — *De ordine diligendi, quid prius, quid posterius.* (opener *Post praedicta de ordine caritatis agendum est, quia dicit sponsa…*)
- **Cap. II** (p.635-R → p.636-L → R, continues to p.637-L top) — *An omnes homines pariter diligendi sunt.* (opener *Unde super hoc saepe movetur quaestio…*)
- **Cap. III** (p.637-L → R) — *De gradibus caritatis.* (opener *Sciendum quoque est, diversos esse gradus caritatis…*, ending *…ad hoc ut ipsi fiant amici.*)

**Reading-order note (two-column interleave).** On p.635 the d.28 commentary tail (*…patet responsio ad obiecta³.*) fills the R-column top; the DISTINCTIO XXIX head spans both columns beneath it. Cap. I opens in the L-column and runs its whole length there; Cap. II opens at the top of the R-column (*Unde super hoc saepe movetur quaestio…*). On p.636 Cap. II runs L→R; the page break p.635→636 falls inside Cap. II at *…carnis quoque pater diligatur et mater, filius* (p.635-R close) → *et filia, frater et soror…* (p.636-L open). On p.637 Cap. II's tail (*…quam Deus fecit.*) closes the p.636-R column; Cap. III opens p.637-L (*Sciendum quoque est…*) and continues at the top of p.637-R (*rata, perficitur…*), ending *…ad hoc ut ipsi fiant amici.*; the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX then begins, spanning both columns at the foot of p.637 (the next chunk, d29-divisio). True reading order was reconstructed from the column bands, not raw-line order (the raw OCR splices the two columns line-for-line and is badly fragmented).

**Page-split map.** Littera spans **printed pp.635–637** (PDF 657–659). The littera begins lower on **p.635** (the DISTINCTIO XXIX head + Cap. I in L-column, Cap. II opening R-column), immediately after the d.28 commentary tail closes (*…patet responsio ad obiecta³.* in the p.635 R-column). **Page break p.635→636** falls inside Cap. II. **Page break p.636→637** falls between Cap. II's close (*…quam Deus fecit.* p.636-R) and Cap. III's opener (*Sciendum quoque est…* p.637-L). Cap. III ends *…ad hoc ut ipsi fiant amici.* (raw 44287); the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX` begins at raw 44288 (the next chunk, d29-divisio). Running heads: p.635 OCR `635`, p.636 OCR `636`, p.637 OCR `637` (the p.637 running head is the `DIST. XXIX. DIVISIO TEXTUS` form because the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO begins at the foot of that page); trusted via the +22 offset + running-head text `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III`.

**Apparatus (14 entries), NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, per-page restart:**
- **p.635** → nn. 1–2 (the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* header appears in the p.635 L-column footer, **beneath** the d.28 commentary's own numbered source-notes ¹Art.2 q.1 / ²Cfr supra d.9 / ³Hoc dubium solvunt — those upper notes belong to the d.28 commentary tail atop p.635-L and are NOT mine): n.1 (Cap. I, *sponsa* — Cant. 2:4), n.2 (Cap. I, *Augustinus* — Aug. de Doctr. christ. I c.27 + variant note).
- **p.636** → nn. 1–10 (NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, restarting at n.1; the p.635 nn.7,8,9 carrying Cap. II's lower half are physically printed in the p.636 L-column footer, so the body markers for them are the page-635-prefixed `p636-7/8/9` and the page-636-prefixed `p636-7b/8b/9b`): n.1 (*Ambrosius* — Origen/Gloss + Matth. 22:37), n.2 (*Ecce* — Edd. add *hic*), n.3 (*Augustini* — Aug. de Trin. VIII c.8), n.4 (*affectum* — *effectum* variant + 1 Cor. 7:7), n.5 (*Beda* — Expos. in Luc. 8:19), n.6 (*verbis illis* — Ambros./Origen variant), n.7 (Cap. II, *Legis* — Exod. 20:12), n.8 (Cap. II, *exteriorum* — *exteriorem* variant), n.9 (Cap. II, *Ezechielem* — Hieron. libr. XIII), n.10 (Cap. II, *propinquis* — Aug. Retract. variant); plus the b-suffixed body markers (*cum ait* = Matth. 22:37, *genus* = *locutionis/dictionis* variant, *parentes et filios* = Aug. Retract./de Serm. Dom.) carry footer nn.7b/8b/9b.
- **p.637** → nn. 1–2 (NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, restarting at n.1, in the p.637 L-column footer **above** the COMMENTARIUS's own *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block): n.1 (Cap. III, *Augustinus* — Aug. in I Epist. Ioan. tr.5 + Phil. 1:23 / Ioan. 15:13), n.2 (Cap. III, *ipsi* — Codd. BE prefix *et*).

**Footer ownership.**
- **Footers IN:** the p.635 *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–2 + the p.636 *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–10 + the p.637 *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–2 migrate IN to this littera chunk (14 total). Per the hand-off, the p.635 *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–2 were confirmed to belong to THIS chunk (they begin below the d.28 commentary footers).
- **Footers OUT / NOT MINE:** the p.635 L-column upper numbered source-notes (¹Art.2 q.1 seqq. et praesertim d.10; ²Cfr supra d.9 a.1 q.1; ³Hoc dubium solvunt etiam B. Albert. + S. Thom. + Richard.) belong to the **d.28 commentary tail** printed atop the p.635 L-column (already Tier-2, d28-a1-q6). On p.637 the *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block (DIVISIO TEXTUS notes ¹In I.Epist.Ioan + ²Codd.BE praefigunt et, then `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` header n.1 *Codd…quantum ad* / n.2 *Edd. hic addunt auctoritate Augustini…*, then the TRACTATIO notes nn.3,4,5 in the R-column footer) is a SEPARATE block for the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX (the next chunk, d29-divisio); do not touch it.

**Seam status.** CLEAN at both ends.
- **Open seam:** continuous after the d.28 commentary close (*…patet responsio ad obiecta³.* p.635 R-col) → DISTINCTIO XXIX / Cap. I opens at raw 44141.
- **Close seam:** Cap. III ends *…ad hoc ut ipsi fiant amici.* (raw 44287); the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX` (subtitle *De caritate quantum ad diligendi ordinem*; incipit echo *Post praedicta de ordine caritatis agendum est;* raw 44288) is a fresh COMMENTARIUS head, not a continuation of Cap. III — seam clean.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All three chapter rubrics, all incipits, and all 14 footers were read eyes-on from the 450 dpi bands without ambiguity.

**HAND-OFF TO d29-divisio (CREATE NEW — separate divisio block confirmed):** the next chunk is **bon-sent-III-d29-divisio** (does NOT yet exist) — `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX` (subtitle *De caritate quantum ad diligendi ordinem*; incipit echo *Post praedicta de ordine caritatis agendum est.*) + `DIVISIO TEXTUS` + `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM`. `type: divisio`, OMIT `articulus`/`quaestio`, **`has_scholion: false`**, apparatus = `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`. **Raw anchors:** COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX header at raw **44288**; DIVISIO TEXTUS at raw **44293** (*Supra determinavit Magister de caritate quantum ad essentiam et definitionem et quantum ad diligibilium numerum et distinctionem. Hic sequitur tertia pars, in qua determinat de ipsa quantum ad diligendi ordinem. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes tres…*); TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM at raw **44316**; ARTICULUS UNICUS at raw **44342** + QUAESTIO I at raw **44347** (*Utrum ordo sit in caritate respectu diligibilium*) — these belong in the **d29-a1-q1** chunk, NOT the divisio. **Page span:** the COMMENTARIUS begins at the FOOT of printed **p.637** (PDF 659, spanning both columns beneath Cap. III) and the DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM run onto **p.638** (PDF 660), with ARTICULUS UNICUS / QUAESTIO I body opening at the foot of p.638 onto p.639. pdf = printed + 22. So the divisio chunk = **printed pp.637–638**. **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** footer block: the DIVISIO TEXTUS notes (¹*In I.Epist.Ioan.*-style + ²*Codd. BE et edd. 1,8 praefigunt et*) sit at the foot of p.637-L, then the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` header with **n.1** = *Codd…quantum ad* and **n.2** = *Edd. hic addunt auctoritate Augustini et paulo inferius post ad partem alteram subiungunt auctoritate Legis.*; the TRACTATIO notes **nn.3,4,5** (n.3 *In edd. desideratur haec ultima propositio: Summa autem… in littera;* n.4 *Pro eiusdem codd. AKUX ipsius;* n.5 *Edd. 1,2 cum plurimis codd. adaffectum…*) are in the p.637-R footer; more NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM on p.638. **d.29 ARTICLE/QUESTION STRUCTURE (read eyes-on from TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, raw 44316–44340):** the part has **ONE article only — ARTICULUS UNICUS, *De ordine caritatis*** — with **SIX questions** (the TRACTATIO heads them as *circa hoc autem incidunt sex dubitabilia*): **I.** *de ordine caritatis communiter respectu diligendorum* (body QUAESTIO I = *Utrum ordo sit in caritate respectu diligibilium,* raw 44347); **II.** *de ordine ipsius per comparationem nostri ad Deum;* **III.** *de ordine eiusdem per comparationem nostri ad proximum;* **IV.** *de ordine ipsius per comparationem patris ad filium;* **V.** *de ordine caritatis per comparationem domestici ad extraneum;* **VI. (et ultimo)** *utrum ordo caritatis attendatur quantum ad effectum tantum, an simul quantum ad affectum et effectum.* Like d.28, d.29 has **ONE article (ARTICULUS UNICUS), SIX questions, and a separate dubia file** (d29-dubia already scaffolded). The body QUAESTIO I opens directly at *Utrum ordo sit in caritate respectu diligibilium* (raw 44347, p.638→639) — the TRACTATIO list and the body q-order align 1:1, no q-swap offset (the auto-chunker alignment check should pass; QUAESTIO II confirmed at raw 44571). Use `vol3/bon-sent-III-d28-divisio.md` as the structural template for the divisio chunk. So the full d.29 chunk slate is: **littera (DONE) · divisio (CREATE NEW) · a1-q1 · q2 · q3 · q4 · q5 · q6 · dubia** = 9 chunks (the existing d29-a1-q1..q6 + d29-dubia scaffolds remain; only d29-divisio must be created).


title: Dist. 29, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XXIX — divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XXIX — division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 637 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX.

#### *De caritate quantum ad diligendi ordinem.*

*Post praedicta de ordine caritatis agendum est.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister de caritate quantum ad essentiam et[^1] definitionem et quantum ad diligibilium numerum et distinctionem. Hic sequitur tertia pars, in qua determinat de ipsa quantum ad diligendi ordinem. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes tres. In quarum prima determinat de ordine caritatis per comparationem ad ea quae per caritatem diliguntur. In secunda per comparationem ad ea beneficia, quae per caritatem impenduntur, ibi: *Unde et super hoc saepe movetur quaestio.* Tertio per comparationem ad gradus, qui in caritate reperiuntur, ibi: *Sciendum quoque est, diversos esse gradus caritatis.*

Prima et ultima partibus remanentibus indivisis, media pars dividitur in partes duas. In quarum prima ponit Magister circa hanc materiam diversorum opiniones. In secunda dissolvit incidentes dubitationes, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, si parentes nostri* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima opponit ad partem unam[^2]. In secunda vero opponit ad partem alteram, ibi: *Quibus obviat illud praeceptum Legis.* In tertia vero subiungit opinionem suam, ibi: *Verum quia praemissa verba Ambrosii* etc.

Similiter alia pars, in qua removet dubitationes incidentes, tres habet partes secundum tres dubitationes, quas dissolvit, quarum una oritur ex alia. Primam dissolvit, ibi: *Solet quaeri: si parentes.* Secundam ibi: *Verumtamen latebrosa quaestio haec est.* Tertiam ibi: *Solet quaeri, cur Deus praeceperit inimicos diligere* etc. Summa autem harum partium satis est manifesta ex his quae dicuntur in littera[^3].

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis quaeritur hic de ordine caritatis. Circa hoc autem incidunt sex dubitabilia.

Primum est de ordine caritatis communiter respectu diligendorum.

Secundum est de ordine ipsius per comparationem nostri ad Deum.

Tertium est de ordine eiusdem[^4] per comparationem nostri ad proximum.

Quartum est de ordine ipsius per comparationem patris ad filium.

Quintum est de ordine caritatis per comparationem domestici ad extraneum.

Sextum et ultimum est, utrum ordo caritatis attendatur quantum ad effectum[^5] tantum, an simul quantum ad affectum et effectum.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXIX.

#### *On charity as regards the order of loving.*

*After what has been said, we must now treat of the order of charity.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master determined concerning charity as regards its essence and[^1] definition and as regards the number and distinction of the things to be loved. Here follows the third part, in which he determines concerning it as regards the order of loving. Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the order of charity by comparison to the things that are loved through charity. In the second by comparison to the benefits that are bestowed through charity, there: *Hence also concerning this a question is often raised.* Thirdly by comparison to the degrees that are found in charity, there: *It is also to be known that there are diverse degrees of charity.*

While the first and last parts remain undivided, the middle part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master sets down the opinions of various men concerning this matter. In the second he resolves the incidental doubts, there: *It is also wont to be asked whether our parents,* etc.

The first part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he argues against the one side[^2]. But in the second he argues against the other side, there: *Against whom that precept of the Law stands.* And in the third he adds his own opinion, there: *But since the foregoing words of Ambrose,* etc.

Likewise the other part, in which he removes the incidental doubts, has three parts according to the three doubts which he resolves, of which one arises from another. The first he resolves, there: *It is wont to be asked: whether parents.* The second there: *Yet this is an obscure question.* The third there: *It is wont to be asked why God commanded us to love our enemies,* etc. Now the sum of these parts is sufficiently clear from what is said in the text[^3].

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part it is asked here concerning the order of charity. And concerning this there fall under it six doubtful points.

The first is concerning the order of charity considered in general with respect to the things to be loved.

The second is concerning the order of it by comparison of ourselves to God.

The third is concerning the order of the same[^4] by comparison of ourselves to neighbor.

The fourth is concerning the order of it by comparison of father to son.

The fifth is concerning the order of charity by comparison of the member of the household to the stranger.

The sixth and last is whether the order of charity is regarded as to effect[^5] only, or at the same time as to both affection and effect.

---

la: Codd. *GBb vel,* codd. *AK et quantum ad.*

en: The codices *GBb* read *vel,* the codices *AK* read *et quantum ad.*

la: Edd. hic addunt *auctoritate Augustini* et paulo inferius post *ad partem alteram* subiungunt *auctoritate Legis.*

en: The editions here add *auctoritate Augustini* (by the authority of Augustine), and a little below, after *ad partem alteram* (against the other side), they append *auctoritate Legis* (by the authority of the Law).

la: In edd. desideratur haec ultima propositio: *Summa autem… in littera.*

en: In the editions this last sentence is wanting: *Summa autem… in littera* (Now the sum… in the text).

la: Pro *eiusdem* codd. *AKUX ipsius,* et paulo inferius pro *ipsius* multi codd. *eiusdem.*

en: For *eiusdem* (of the same) the codices *AKUX* read *ipsius* (of it), and a little below, for *ipsius,* many codices read *eiusdem.*

la: Edd. 1, 2 cum plurimis codd. *ad affectum,* sed cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, nec non infra quaestio ipsa. De ordine enim caritatis non fuit dubitatum nisi quoad affectum.

en: Editions 1 and 2, with most of the codices, read *ad affectum* (as to affection), but compare here the text of the Master, c. 2, and likewise the question itself below. For concerning the order of charity there was no doubt except as regards affection.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** NEW chunk — the auto-chunker skipped the d.29 divisio entirely (it created d29-littera + d29-a1-q1..q6 + d29-dubia, but no divisio file); this file was scaffolded fresh on 2026-06-11. Holds the *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX* front-matter (subtitle *De caritate quantum ad diligendi ordinem*; incipit *Post praedicta de ordine caritatis agendum est.*) + `DIVISIO TEXTUS` + `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM`. Re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p637-{L,R}-*.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 44288–44341) as the base for clean running prose; the OCR for the DIVISIO/TRACTATIO body and **especially the footers is heavily cascade-garbled on this two-column page**, so the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout (Vol II/III override, offset pdf = printed + 22). `type: divisio`, **`has_scholion: false`** — a divisio chunk carries no scholion; its apparatus is the editorial *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*.

**Structure (ARTICULUS UNICUS, six questions, separate dubia).** Distinction XXIX has a **single article — ARTICULUS UNICUS, *De ordine caritatis*** — with **six questions** (the TRACTATIO heads it *circa hoc … incidunt sex dubitabilia*): **I.** *de ordine caritatis communiter respectu diligendorum;* **II.** *de ordine ipsius per comparationem nostri ad Deum;* **III.** *de ordine eiusdem per comparationem nostri ad proximum;* **IV.** *de ordine ipsius per comparationem patris ad filium;* **V.** *de ordine caritatis per comparationem domestici ad extraneum;* **VI. (et ultimum)** *utrum ordo caritatis attendatur quantum ad effectum tantum, an simul quantum ad affectum et effectum.* The TRACTATIO list and the body q-order align 1:1 (no q-swap offset). A **separate `d29-dubia` file** exists (the dubia circa litteram), distinct from this divisio.

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed p.637 only** (PDF 659). The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX` head + subtitle + incipit span both columns at the **foot of p.637** (the R-column, beneath Cap. III of the littera, *…ad hoc ut ipsi fiant amici.*), followed by `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` The DIVISIO TEXTUS reflows L-column top→bottom then R-column (*Supra determinavit Magister … in littera.*); then `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.` and the six-question list (L→R). The whole COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO/TRACTATIO block is contained on p.637. **The page break p.637→638 falls AFTER the TRACTATIO:** at the running head `638 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` begins `ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De ordine caritatis. / QUAESTIO I.` — that ARTICULUS opener + QUAESTIO I header belong to the **next chunk (d29-a1-q1)**, whose body opens at *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum…* (raw ~44347). Running head p.637 OCR `637`; p.638 OCR `638 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (trusted via the +22 offset + running-head text).

**Apparatus (5 entries), NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart — all p.637:**
- **p.637** → nn. 1–5. The `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` header appears in the p.637 footer, **beneath** the littera's *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–2 (those upper footers belong to the d29-littera and are NOT mine). **n.1** (DIVISIO, marker after *essentiam et*) = *Codd. GBb vel, codd. AK et quantum ad.*; **n.2** (DIVISIO, marker after *partem unam*) = *Edd. hic addunt auctoritate Augustini et paulo inferius post ad partem alteram subiungunt auctoritate Legis.*; **n.3** (DIVISIO, marker after *in littera*) = *In edd. desideratur haec ultima propositio: Summa autem… in littera.*; **n.4** (TRACTATIO Tertium, marker after *eiusdem*) = *Pro eiusdem codd. AKUX ipsius, et paulo inferius pro ipsius multi codd. eiusdem.*; **n.5** (TRACTATIO Sextum, marker after *effectum*) = *Edd. 1,2 cum plurimis codd. ad affectum, sed cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c.2, nec non infra quaestio ipsa. De ordine enim caritatis non fuit dubitatum nisi quoad affectum.* Markers n.1–3 fall in the DIVISIO TEXTUS; n.4–5 in the TRACTATIO list.

**Footer ownership.**
- **Footers IN:** the p.637 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* nn.1–5 migrate IN to this divisio chunk (5 total). All five mark text inside the DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
- **Footers OUT / NOT MINE:** on p.637 the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–2 (the upper footer block: n.1 *In I. Epist. Ioan. tr.5 n.4. — Locus Scripturae primus est Phil. 1,23; secundus Ioan. 15,13.*; n.2 *Codd. BE et edd. 1,8 praefigunt et.*) belong to the **d29-littera** (already Tier-2) — they key to Cap. III of the littera, not the COMMENTARIUS.

**Seam status.** CLEAN at both ends.
- **Open seam:** continuous after Cap. III of the littera (*…ad hoc ut ipsi fiant amici.* p.637 R-col); the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIX` head (raw 44288) is a fresh COMMENTARIUS head spanning both columns at the foot of p.637 — seam clean.
- **Close seam:** the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM closes *…an simul quantum ad affectum et effectum.* (raw ~44341); the `ARTICULUS UNICUS / De ordine caritatis / QUAESTIO I` header + body (*Circa primum sic proceditur…*, raw ~44347) is the next chunk (d29-a1-q1), opening the top of p.638. The ARTICULUS/QUAESTIO header is a fresh article head, not a continuation of the TRACTATIO list — seam clean.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The COMMENTARIUS head, subtitle, incipit, all DIVISIO TEXTUS paragraphs, the full six-question TRACTATIO, and all five p.637 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footers were read eyes-on from the 450 dpi bands (the OCR being too garbled to trust). No ambiguity survives.

**HAND-OFF TO d29-a1-q1 (forwarded):** the next chunk is **bon-sent-III-d29-a1-q1** — `ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De ordine caritatis. / QUAESTIO I. / Utrum ordo sit in caritate` (body: *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum…* — the TRACTATIO head is *de ordine caritatis communiter respectu diligendorum*). `type: quaestio`, `articulus: 1` (single article), `quaestio: 1`. **Raw anchors:** ARTICULUS UNICUS header at raw **44342**; QUAESTIO I header at raw **44343**; QUAESTIO I body opens *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur…* at raw **~44347** (top of p.638-L, below the running head `638 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III`). **Page span:** QUAESTIO I body begins at the top of printed **p.638** (PDF 660, L-column) and runs onto p.639+. pdf = printed + 22. **Footer split (p.638):** a fresh *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* sequence on p.638 keys to the QUAESTIO I body — NONE of the p.637 footers belong to a1-q1; read p.638's footers eyes-on. **quaeritur alignment:** the TRACTATIO's *Primum est de ordine caritatis communiter respectu diligendorum* matches the QUAESTIO I body subject 1:1 — alignment check passes, no q-swap. The d.29 chunk slate: **littera (DONE) · divisio (NEW, this chunk) · a1-q1 · q2 · q3 · q4 · q5 · q6 · dubia** = 9 chunks.