title: Pars 6, Cap. 2

title_alt:
De Sacramentorum variatione
On the variation of the Sacraments

source_text:
<!-- page 266 -->

### Capitulum II. *De Sacramentorum variatione.*

De *variatione* autem Sacramentorum hoc tenendum est, quod Sacramenta ab initio ad curationem hominis instituta sunt et semper cum morbo hominis cucurrerunt et usque in finem saeculi perdurabunt; sed alia fuerunt in *lege naturae*, alia sub *lege scripta*, alia sub *gratia*. Et in his omnibus illa quae posteriora sunt, significatione sunt evidentiora et effectu gratiae digniora. — In lege enim naturae fuerunt *oblationes, sacrificia* et *decimationes*. In lege autem scripta introducta est *circumcisio*, superaddita est *expiatio*, et superadiecta est *oblationum, decimationum* et *sacrificiorum multiformis distinctio*. — In lege autem nova « statuta sunt Sacramenta numero pauciora, utilitate potiora, virtute efficaciora[^p266-2] » et praeeminentia digniora; in quibus est impletio simul et evacuatio Sacramentorum omnium praedictorum.

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia Verbum incarnatum, quod est reparationis nostrae principium et fons et origo Sacramentorum, cum sit clementissimum et sapientissimum; eo quod clementissimum est, non permisit, quod curreret morbus peccati sine remedio Sacramenti; eo vero, quod sapientissimum est, ideo iuxta dictamen suae immutabilis sapientiae cuncta ordinatissime gubernantis diversa adhibuit medicamenta et varia, secundum mutationem variam temporum diversorum. Quoniam ergo « ab initio, procurrente tempore, et adventu Salvatoris magis ac magis appropinquante, semper magis ac magis *effectus* salutis crevit et *cognitio* veritatis; congruum fuit, et ipsa *signa* salutis per successionem temporum alia post alia variari, ut *effectus* gratiae divinae in salutem cresceret, simulque et ipsa *significatio* in ipsis signis visibilibus evidentior appareret[^p266-3] ». Et ideo « primum per *oblationem* et postea per *circumcisionem*, ad ultimum per *baptismalem ablutionem* expiationis et iustificationis Sacramentum formari institutum est; quia eiusdem mundationis forma et similitudo in *oblatione* quidem occulte invenitur, in *circumcisione* vero evidentius exprimitur, per *baptismum* autem manifestius declaratur ». Et hinc est, quod « illa primi temporis Sacramenta, sicut dicit Hugo[^p266-4], fuerunt sicut veritatis *umbra*, medii temporis sicut *figura* seu imago, postremi, scilicet gratiae; sicut *corpus* », quia intra se veritatem et gratiam curatricem continent, quam praesentant, et praesentialiter conferunt quod promittunt.

Rursus, quoniam praesentia veritatis et gratiae[^p266-5], quae in lege gratiae exhibetur, ratione suae excellentiae et multiformitatis in opere et virtute per unum signum exprimi non poterat, ut decebat; hinc est, quod in omni tempore et lege plura fuerunt Sacramenta data ad illam veritatem et gratiam exprimendam; sed praecipue in tempore legis figurae, cuius est figurare, multa signa et varia praecesserunt, quae sua varietate Christi gratiam multipliciter exprimerent et excellentius commendarent, et multipliciter commendando nutrirent parvulos, exercerent imperfectos[^p266-6] et duros onerando frangerent et ad iugum gratiae domarent et quodam modo emollirent.

Postremo, quoniam, veritate superveniente, cessat umbra, et figura praenuntians sortitur finem intentum, quo habito, cessare debet eius usus et
<!-- page 267 -->
actus; hinc est, quod gratia superveniente, vetera Sacramenta et signa impleta sunt pariter et sublata, quia signa erant *prognostica* futurorum et quasi praenuntiantia de longinquo[^p267-1]; et nova nihilominus instituta tanquam *demonstrativa* praesentis gratiae et *rememorativa* quodam modo passionis dominicae, quae fons est et origo gratiae curativae sive in nobis, sive in his qui praecesserunt Christi adventum; sed in his qui praecesserunt, tanquam pretium *promissum*, in his qui sequuntur, tanquam pretium *persolutum*. Et quoniam non debetur gratia promissioni pretii nisi ratione persolutionis; et abundantior debetur persoluto pretio quam promisso: hinc est, quod passio Christi immediatius sanctificat Sacramenta temporis legis novae et pleniori[^p267-2] gratia in eis redundat. Propter quod illa praeparaverunt et perduxerunt ad haec, sicut via ad terminum, sicut signum ad signatum, sicut figura ad veritatem, et sicut imperfectum reducit et praeparat ad perfectum.

---

english:
### Chapter II. *On the variation of the Sacraments.*

Concerning the *variation* of the Sacraments, moreover, this must be held: that the Sacraments were from the beginning instituted for the curing of man, and have always run their course together with man's disease, and will endure until the end of the age; but some were under the *law of nature*, others under the *written law*, others under *grace*. And among all these, those which are later are more evident in signification and more worthy in the effect of grace. — For in the law of nature there were *oblations, sacrifices* and *tithings*. In the written law, however, *circumcision* was introduced, *expiation* was superadded, and there was further added the *manifold distinction of oblations, tithings* and *sacrifices*. — But in the new law « the Sacraments have been appointed fewer in number, more powerful in usefulness, more efficacious in strength[^p266-2] », and more worthy in preeminence; in which there is at once the fulfilment and the voiding of all the foresaid Sacraments.

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the Word incarnate, which is the principle of our reparation and the fount and origin of the Sacraments, is most clement and most wise; in that it is most clement, it did not permit that the disease of sin should run its course without the remedy of a Sacrament; but in that it is most wise, therefore, according to the dictate of its own unchangeable wisdom that governs all things in the most orderly way, it applied medicines diverse and various, according to the varying change of diverse times. Since therefore « from the beginning, as time ran on and the coming of the Saviour drew nearer and nearer, always more and more the *effect* of salvation grew and the *knowledge* of the truth; it was fitting that the very *signs* of salvation should, through the succession of times, be varied one after another, so that the *effect* of divine grace unto salvation might increase, and at the same time the *signification* itself in those visible signs might appear more evident[^p266-3] ». And therefore « first through *oblation* and afterwards through *circumcision*, and at the last through the *baptismal washing*, the Sacrament of expiation and justification was instituted to be formed; because the form and likeness of the same cleansing is in *oblation* indeed found hiddenly, in *circumcision* is expressed more evidently, but through *baptism* is declared more manifestly ». And hence it is that « those Sacraments of the first time, as Hugh says[^p266-4], were as the *shadow* of the truth, those of the middle time as its *figure* or image, those of the last time, namely of grace, as its *body* » — because within themselves they contain the truth and the curing grace which they make present, and they confer in present fact what they promise.

Again, since the presence of truth and of grace[^p266-5], which is exhibited in the law of grace, could not be expressed by one sign as it was fitting, by reason of its excellence and its manifoldness in operation and in power; hence it is that in every time and law there were several Sacraments given for expressing that truth and grace; but chiefly in the time of the law of figure, whose office it is to figure, many and various signs went before, which by their variety might express Christ's grace in manifold ways and commend it more excellently, and by commending it manifoldly might nourish the little ones, exercise the imperfect[^p266-6], and by burdening might break the hard and tame them to the yoke of grace and in a certain manner soften them.

Lastly, since, when the truth supervenes, the shadow ceases, and the foreannouncing figure obtains the end intended, and this once had, its use and
<!-- page 267 -->
act must cease; hence it is that, when grace supervened, the old Sacraments and signs were at once fulfilled and taken away — because they were signs *prognostic* of things to come and as it were announcing them beforehand from afar[^p267-1]; and new ones were nonetheless instituted as *demonstrative* of present grace and in a certain way *commemorative* of the Lord's passion, which is the fount and origin of curing grace both in us and in those who went before Christ's coming; but in those who went before, as a price *promised*, in those who follow, as a price *paid*. And since grace is not owed to the promise of a price except by reason of the payment; and more abundantly is it owed to a price paid than to one promised: hence it is that Christ's passion sanctifies more immediately the Sacraments of the time of the new law, and with fuller[^p267-2] grace overflows in them. On account of which those prepared for these and led on to them, as the way to the terminus, as the sign to the thing signified, as the figure to the truth, and as the imperfect leads back and prepares to the perfect.

---

la: August., IX. contra Faustum, c. 13, ubi pro *statuta* ponitur *instituta*, quod exhibent etiam D E. Cfr. Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 12. et p. XI. c. 6. — De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. per totam et d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Superius, communissimam lectionem codd. et 2 secuti, substituimus *sub gratia* (ita etiam Hug. a S. Vict., locis citt.) pro *sub lege gratiae*. Inferius pro *omnium praedictorum* I K L U V *omnium praeteritorum*.

en: Augustine, *contra Faustum* IX, c. 13, where in place of *statuta* is put *instituta*, which D E also exhibit. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, p. VIII, c. 12, and p. XI, c. 6. — On this chapter see IV Sent. d. 1, p. II, throughout, and d. 2, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — Above, following the commonest reading of the codices and of edition 2, we have substituted *sub gratia* (so too Hugh of St. Victor in the passages cited) for *sub lege gratiae*. Below, for *omnium praedictorum* I K L U V have *omnium praeteritorum*.

la: Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6, nonnullis tamen mutatis. Pro *ipsa significatio* editio originalis *ipsa sanctificatio*; quae lectio potius videtur esse vitium editionis, quam, relictis codicibus, non satis consulte ipsi secuti sumus, referentes eundem locum tom. IV. pag. 50, col. II; cfr. nota 6. Ibid. et seq. sententia invenitur, in qua pro *formari* Vat., 1 et 3 perperam *formaliter*.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, p. XI, c. 6, with some things nevertheless altered. For *ipsa significatio* the original edition has *ipsa sanctificatio*; which reading seems rather to be a fault of that edition — one which we ourselves, leaving the codices aside, followed with too little deliberation when we reported the same passage in tom. IV, p. 50, col. II; cf. note 6 there. In the same place and the following there is found the sentence in which, for *formari*, the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 wrongly have *formaliter*.

la: Loc. in praeced. nota cit. Cfr. etiam ipsius liber de Sacram. legis naturalis et scriptae.

en: The passage cited in the preceding note. Cf. also his own book *On the Sacraments of the natural and of the written law*.

la: Ioan. 1, 17: Quia Lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. — Inferius pro *opere* I K L *operatione*, et pro *non poterat, ut decebat* P *non potest nec* (F L T Z etiam *nec*) *decet*.

en: John 1, 17: "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." — Below, for *opere* I K L have *operatione*, and for *non poterat, ut decebat* P has *non potest nec* (F L T Z also *nec*) *decet*.

la: Plurimi codd. et 2 perperam *perfectos*. Respicitur Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 4: Primum igitur ante Legem parvulos consilio nutrivit, postea sub Lege exercitatos praecepto tentavit, novissime sub gratia perfectos in libertate spiritus ambulare permittit.

en: Very many codices and edition 2 wrongly have *perfectos*. Hugh of St. Victor is being looked to, *On the Sacraments* I, p. XI, c. 4: "First, therefore, before the Law he nourished the little ones with counsel; afterwards under the Law he tried them, exercised, with precept; last of all under grace he permits them, made perfect, to walk in the liberty of the spirit."

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 4, ubi triplex genus signorum sacramentalium explicatur;

en: Cf. IV Sent. d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 4, where the threefold kind of sacramental signs is explained.

la: A C T *plenior*. I K L O omittunt *temporis*. In fine cap. D addit *adipiscendum*.

en: A C T read *plenior*. I K L O omit *temporis*. At the end of the chapter D adds *adipiscendum*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 266–267, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** `Cap. II.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De Sacramentorum variatione.` stands centred in p. 266's LEFT column about **55 %** down the leaf, immediately below Cap. I's closing `…ita ut merito dici debeant Sacramenta.` — exactly where `bon-brev-p6-c1` said it stood, and re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted. Cap. II fills the rest of p. 266's left column to `…non permisit, quod curreret`; crosses p. 266's gutter **AT A CLAUSE BOUNDARY WITH NO PUNCTUATION** (`quod curreret` / `morbus peccati sine remedio Sacramenti`), the verb stranded from its subject; fills p. 266's right column entire, to `…cessare debet eius usus et`; breaks across the leaf **ON A STRANDED CO-ORDINATING CONJUNCTION** (`usus et` / `actus`), which is the *tenth* attested break species in this work and again leaves neither half readable alone; and closes about **62 % down p. 267's LEFT column** at `…sicut imperfectum reducit et praeparat ad perfectum.`
★★ **THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `Cap. III.` HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** `Cap. III.` with the subtitle `De Sacramentorum numero et distinctione.` stands centred in p. 267's left column immediately below Cap. II's last line, with a further eight body lines of Cap. III below it in the same column before the footer rule. **The volume index's p. 267 for Cap. III was a HYPOTHESIS on arrival and is now CONFIRMED from type.** No inference was drawn from white space at any column foot.

**Gutters — one re-derived, one settled against an unverified inherited value.**
- **p. 266 = 1422, RE-DERIVED, not adopted.** `colcrop.py vol5 266` with no constant still returns **1425 on a 53 px run**, and 53 px is inside the suspect band, so the default stays rejected. Eleven fresh row windows: 15–35 % → 1414/61 · 20–40 % → 1416/61 · 25–45 % → 1417/61 · 30–50 % → 1417/60 · 35–55 % → 1419/61 · 40–60 % → 1421/61 · 45–65 % → 1421/60 · 50–70 % → 1424/61 · 55–75 % → 1425/58 · 60–80 % → 1427/58 · 65–85 % → 1427/58 — a monotonic ~13 px rightward drift down the leaf on uniformly sound runs. **The per-column ink profile, printed rather than taken on trust:** over rows 20–80 % the near-zero band runs **x = 1398–1446** (residual ink = 1 px per column, i.e. a single speck row), with Quaracchi's printed column rule inked at **x = 1413–1431, peaking 517 rows on x = 1415**. Band midpoint **1422**, which is the value `bon-brev-p6-c1` reached by the same route; bands regenerated at 1422 and both columns read clean edge to edge.
- **★★ p. 267 = 1163, SETTLED — the inherited 1163 was UNVERIFIED and is now verified, not merely re-used.** The coordinator's `colcrop.py vol5 267` gave **1163 on a 55 px run**, inside the suspect band, so the three-step method ran in full. **Step 2, eleven row windows, and two of them blow out:** 15–35 % → 1331 on a **387 px** run and 25–45 % → 1141 on a **119 px** run — both discarded, and both are the *`Cap. III.`-heading-inside-a-column* failure named in the frozen rule after p. 263, since Cap. III's heading and its one-line subtitle sit in the upper half of p. 267's left column. The nine surviving windows are 20–40 % → 1169/63 · 30–50 % → 1168/62 · 35–55 % → 1166/61 · 40–60 % → 1165/60 · 45–65 % → 1164/58 · 50–70 % → **1163/60** · 55–75 % → 1163/59 · 60–80 % → 1163/59 · 65–85 % → 1161/59 — an 8 px spread on runs 58–63 px, settling on **1163** across the three lowest windows. **Step 3, the per-column ink profile, decides it independently:** over rows 30–85 % the near-zero band (residual 2–3 px) runs **x = 1137–1190**, with the column rule inked at **x = 1159–1171, peaking 590 rows on x = 1169** and a second peak of 583 on x = 1161. Band midpoint **(1137 + 1190) / 2 = 1163**. **1163 adopted, on the 0.50–0.70 window's 60 px run.** The rule sits essentially centred in the band here, which is why the default was right despite its narrow run — the narrow run measures how hard the rule inked, not how wide the gutter is.

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All seven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands**; the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument, and **p. 266's total of 6 is established here and entered into its `KNOWN_TOTALS`** (`bon-brev-p6-c1` deliberately did not enter it, having read only n. 1).

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL, AND ITS SCOPE STATEMENT HELD EXACTLY.** `bon-brev-p6-c1` forwarded p. 266 from n. 2 onward and stated its verification level precisely: **BLOCK POSITION and VERBATIM TEXT of nn. 2–3 read off the LEFT block; NO anchor read and none claimed; the RIGHT block not read at all; p. 266's total UNKNOWN.** Every clause of that is correct, and the caution was earned — **both of the forwarded notes' anchors turned out to be things the hand-off could not have supplied, and one of them lands in the other column.** Verification level of every note as established **here**, per the frozen per-note convention:
- **p. 266 n. 2** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here. Anchors on `virtute efficaciora ² »` in the **LEFT** column, closing the Augustine quotation inside *Thesis 3*. Footer entry in the **left** block. Text as forwarded, with every digit and both siglum runs re-read (below).
- **p. 266 n. 3** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here. **★ Anchors on `evidentior appareret ³ »` in the RIGHT column, although its footer entry OPENS in the LEFT block and runs over the gutter.** The hand-off carried the entry's block correctly and said nothing about the column; the column is the opposite one. Block structure and column structure are again two different things.
- **p. 266 n. 4** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `sicut dicit Hugo ⁴` in the **RIGHT** column. Footer entry in the **right** block, immediately below n. 3's unnumbered continuation.
- **p. 266 n. 5** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `veritatis et gratiae ⁵,` in the **RIGHT** column, opening the *Pro thesi 2* paragraph. Footer entry in the **right** block.
- **p. 266 n. 6** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `exercerent imperfectos ⁶` in the **RIGHT** column. Footer entry in the **right** block; its variant is confirmed by the body, which prints `imperfectos` against the codices' `perfectos`, and the Hugh quotation it supplies ends `…perfectos in libertate spiritus ambulare permittit`, so the two words stand a line apart in the same note.
- **p. 267 n. 1** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `de longinquo ¹;` in p. 267's **LEFT** column, inside Cap. II's tail. Footer entry opens p. 267's left block.
- **p. 267 n. 2** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `et pleniori ²` in p. 267's **LEFT** column, seven lines above the `Cap. III.` heading. Footer entry second in p. 267's left block.

**★ p. 266's SPLIT MAP — THE BLOCK SPLIT AND THE ANCHOR SPLIT ARE 3/3 AND 2/4 AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME 3/3.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3 (n. 3 breaking off mid-entry). Right footer block: n. 3's unnumbered continuation, then nn. 4, 5, 6. **Anchors:** nn. 1–2 in the left column, nn. 3–6 in the right. So the block division falls one note *below* the column division, and n. 3 is the note that straddles both — its anchor in the right column, its entry beginning in the left block and finishing in the right.

**★★ THE TWO LIVE SIGLUM RUNS IN n. 2, BOTH SETTLED — BY STROKE COUNT, ALPHABETICAL ASCENT AND GRAMMATICAL SLOT, NEVER BY HUNTING A CROSSBAR.**
1. **`I K L U V` — settled as printed, at 9× magnification on the plate.** The first glyph is a **single** upright with head and foot serifs, therefore `I` and not a crossbar-less `H` by the one-upright rule. The second is unmistakably `K` — two diagonals meeting the stem, no bowl — and not the volume's chronic raw `R`: `I R L U V` would break the ascent between `I` and `L`, while `I K L U V` is strictly ascending. `U` and `V` are distinct sorts (round-bottomed against pointed) and both are present, which is itself the check that the run was not mis-segmented. The grammatical slot is a codex-siglum run governing the variant *omnium praeteritorum*.
2. **`D E` — settled as printed.** Two letters, ascending, in the slot *quod exhibent etiam D E*; no upright is involved and neither glyph is of the confusable class.
3. **The other three runs on these two leaves, all settled the same way and all strictly ascending:** p. 266 n. 5's `I K L` (single upright, then `K` not `R`), its `P`, and its parenthetical `F L T Z`; p. 267 n. 2's `A C T`, `I K L O` (again a single upright, again `K` not `R`) and `D`. **Not one flattened `H` appears in this chunk's register** — the sort that dominated pp. 238, 246 and 265 is simply absent here, which is worth recording precisely because its absence is the remarkable thing.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule):
- **★ A CALIBRATED `1`/`4` DISCRIMINATOR WAS BUILT ON THE PAGE ITSELF BEFORE ANY DIGIT WAS READ.** p. 266 n. 1's `text. 49. (c. 4.)` — a `4` already settled by sense in `bon-brev-p6-c1` — was cropped at 12× beside the disputed glyphs. In this fount the **`4` carries a horizontal crossbar that protrudes to the LEFT of the stem**, while the **`1` is a bare stem with a small flag rising to the upper left and no crossbar at all**. Every `1`/`4` decision below was made against that pair, not against a general impression.
- n. 2 `p. VIII. c. 12` — the disputed glyph shows the flag and no crossbar → **`1`**, giving `c. 12`. The raw agrees (`c. 12.`), independently of the plate reading.
- n. 2 `IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. per totam et d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. seq.` — **all three disputed glyphs are `1`s**, and the line supplies its own control: the clean `2` of `d. 2.` stands between them. Corroborated three ways: the raw reads the same; `IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II.` is the exact structural mate of p. 265 n. 1's `IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. per totam` on Cap. I one leaf back, Cap. I citing Pars I and Cap. II citing Pars II; and both targets exist in the corpus (`bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-*`, `bon-sent-IV-d2-a1-q1`).
- n. 2 `c. 13` — the `3`/`5` class. Read as **3** on the band's double-bowled sort, the raw agrees, and the sense settles it: the quoted sentence *statuta sunt Sacramenta numero pauciora…* is Augustine's *contra Faustum* c. 13, the locus the scholastics cite throughout.
- **★ n. 2's BOOK NUMBER IS `IX.` ON THE PLATE AND IS TRANSCRIBED AS PRINTED, NOT EMENDED.** At 10× the token is two glyphs, `I` then `X`, with a clear word space after `August.,` and nothing before the `I`; the raw reads `IX.` independently. The locus itself is *contra Faustum* **XIX**, 13 — this volume prints `XIX. contra Faustum` correctly elsewhere (raw L78175) — so Quaracchi's `IX.` here is almost certainly the editors' own slip. **It is their text and it stands; the reading is certain and no `[?]` is warranted.** Flagged here only so that no later pass "corrects" a band-verified transcription.
- n. 3 `p. XI. c. 6` (twice, with n. 2's second Hugh citation) and n. 6 `p. XI. c. 4` — the `c. 4` shows the left-protruding crossbar and is a true **4**, decided against the same calibration pair; the raw agrees on both.
- n. 3 `tom. IV. pag. 50, col. II` and `cfr. nota 6` — the `50` is the `3`/`5` class and reads **5** on the flat-topped sort; the raw agrees.
- n. 5 `Ioan. 1, 17` — the `1`/`4` class in the chapter slot; settled by the quoted text itself, *Quia Lex per Moysen data est…* being **John 1, 17**. A tier-A scripture record whose join is checkable against the words the note prints, per the index conventions.
- p. 267 n. 1 `d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 4` — **the single best-controlled digit pair in the chunk: the `1` of `d. 1.` and the `4` of `ad 4` stand nine words apart ON THE SAME LINE**, one with the flag and no crossbar, the other with the crossbar. The raw agrees, and the target `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q2` exists (Quaracchi omits the articulus because that pars has only one; `ad 4` is display text, not a coordinate).
- p. 267 n. 3's `pag. 203` and `c. 10` were read while closing the ownership question and are **NOT settled here** — they are Cap. III's and are forwarded unverified.

**No `[?]` flags.** Every reading on both leaves was decided on band evidence with something independent agreeing.

**One typographic oddity, recorded rather than emended:** p. 267 n. 1 ends `…explicatur;` — at 11× the mark is a dot above a descending tail, i.e. a **semicolon**, where a note-final period is the norm; the raw reads a semicolon too. Transcribed as printed. It is not a `[?]`: the glyph is legible and both witnesses agree, and a damaged period cannot be distinguished from a set semicolon by any evidence available.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 266 left column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3." — "Ratio." — "Pro thesi 1."; p. 266 right column — "Pro thesi 2." — "Pro thesi 3."; p. 267 left column — **none in Cap. II's stretch**, which is consistent rather than suspicious: p. 267's share of the chapter is the tail of the single *Postremo* paragraph whose gloss ("Pro thesi 3.") was already set beside its opening on p. 266. The glosses stand in the outer margin of each column — left of column 1, right of column 2.

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE BREAK, NOT AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY** — as throughout Pars V and in `p6-c1`, and for the same reason. The leaf break falls mid-sentence, between `eius usus et` and `actus`, and that sentence runs on well into p. 267; `<!-- page 267 -->` therefore stands at the break itself in both languages, so that the printed page each line belongs to stays recoverable.

**★ THE RUNNING HEAD, read and used for nothing.** p. 266's reads `266   BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. II.` and p. 267's reads `PARS VI. C. III.   267`. Both happen to name a chapter that is on the leaf, but p. 267's names the chapter that *opens* below the middle of the first column while more than half the leaf is Cap. II — the same asymmetry attested at pp. 237, 248 and 266. **Both boundaries were set from `Cap. N.` headings on the bands.**

**★ NEITHER LEAF CARRIES A PRINTER'S OR QUIRE SIGNATURE.** p. 265 carried both (`S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` and quire `34`); the next quire mark is due around p. 273 on the eight-leaf cadence. Nothing on pp. 266–267 was mistaken for an entry.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 266 body — good** in both columns, with the usual scatter (`Sacrainenta`, `cucurreruut`, `linein`, `signilicatione`, `snnt`, `mentii` for *Sacramenta* twice, `Qndniam`, `ips;» s«V;Ha` for *ipsa signa*, `co/'p((5` for *corpus*, `dicit-Hugo`); the five marginal glosses splice in as separate line-blocks and were trimmed. **p. 266 footer — unusable for numerals as always, but for once NOT corrupt in the sigla**: `I K LU V`, `D E`, `I K L`, `F L T Z` and `P` all came through, and only n. 1's `D U H` (for `D G H`, p6-c1's note) is wrong — the one leaf in Pars V–VI so far whose footer sigla are essentially sound. **p. 267 body — good** (`redmulat`, `perfectiim`, `hacc`). **p. 267 footer — good in the sigla too** (`A C T`, `1 K L 0` with the usual digit-for-letter substitutions, `D`), and the digits `d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 4` came through correctly. **This is a materially better raw than pp. 258–265 gave, and the grade is stated per region precisely so that the next chunk does not inherit the optimism** — p. 267's *right* block was not cross-checked here at all.

**Runover tests — BOTH OWED TESTS RUN; ONE POSITIVE, ONE NEGATIVE.**
- *p. 266's own gutter — **POSITIVE**, and logged as `p.266 n.3:gutter`.* The left block's last entry, n. 3, **breaks off at a COMMA** on `…quae lectio potius videtur esse vitium editionis,` at the foot of the block, and **p. 266's right block opens UNNUMBERED** with `quam, relictis codicibus, non satis consulte ipsi secuti sumus, referentes eundem locum tom. IV. pag. 50, col. II; cfr. nota 6.` — the relative pronoun `quam` picking up `lectio` across the gutter. Rendered joined in the p266-3 entry. `bon-brev-p6-c1` saw this and correctly declined to log it, the note being Cap. II's.
- *Page-crossing, p. 266 → p. 267 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 266's right block ends **complete** at n. 6's `…in libertate spiritus ambulare permittit.`, and **p. 267's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 4…`
- *Noted but NOT this chunk's and NOT logged:* p. 267 carries a **positive gutter runover in its own left block** — n. 4 (`Epist. I. Cor. 1, 24, ubi Apostolus dicit: « Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam ». — Superius post *reparativum* Vat.,`) breaks off at a comma at the block foot and continues unnumbered in the right block. **n. 4 anchors on `Dei virtus et sapientia ⁴` in Cap. III's body, so both the note and its runover belong to `bon-brev-p6-c3`, which must re-derive and log it.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 page-crossing test (both `bon-brev-p6-c1`, both NEGATIVE); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s own do-not-re-log list. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c3`.** p. 266 is **fully consumed** — six notes, six anchors, nothing left, and its total of 6 is now in `KNOWN_TOTALS`. **p. 267's register is NOT fully read and its total is deliberately NOT fed to `KNOWN_TOTALS`**: this chunk read nn. 1–2, which are Cap. II's. **What was seen on p. 267's bands beyond n. 2, stated with its verification level and claiming nothing more:** the LEFT block continues with **n. 3** (`Cfr. supra pag. 203, nota 8. et p. V. c. 10. in fine. — De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 2. a. 1. q. 3. — Inferius voci *introductum* P praefigit *institutum et* (cfr. Gen. 2, 21.), quod Vat., 1 et 3 circa finem cap. eidem voci praemittunt.`) and **n. 4** (`Epist. I. Cor. 1, 24, ubi Apostolus dicit: « Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam ». — Superius post *reparativum* Vat.,`), n. 4 breaking off at a comma at the block foot and continuing into the right block. **BLOCK POSITION and VERBATIM TEXT of nn. 3–4 were read; NO anchor for n. 3 was read and none is claimed; n. 4's anchor was read only far enough to establish that it is Cap. III's (`Dei virtus et sapientia ⁴`, LEFT column) and its POSITION is not otherwise verified; the RIGHT block was NOT read at all and p. 267's total is UNKNOWN. Every digit and siglum in nn. 3–4 above is UNVERIFIED — `pag. 203`, `nota 8`, `c. 10`, `d. 2. a. 1. q. 3.`, `Gen. 2, 21`, `I. Cor. 1, 24` are transcribed off a single band pass and are exactly the classes that have failed before.** `bon-brev-p6-c3` owns p. 267 from n. 3 onward, must read the right block, must fix p. 267's total, must log the p. 267 gutter runover, and must re-derive everything here forwarded. Cap. III (`De Sacramentorum numero et distinctione`) opens ~62 % down p. 267's left column and runs at least to p. 268, where the running head reads `BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. IV.` — **that is a running head and therefore not evidence; Cap. III's end must be set from the `Cap. IV.` heading on the band.**

**Register — Pars VI's vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided.** `bon-brev-p6-c1` locked it and the Vol IV d.1–d.21 sacramental settlement stands behind it; both were consulted. Terms carried forward unchanged: *signum sensibile* → "sensible sign"; *institutio* → "institution"; *significatio* → "signification"; *sanctificatio* → "sanctification"; *gratia curativa* → "curing grace"; *morbus / curatio* → "disease / curing"; *medicamentum* → "medicine". Established here for the historical-dispensation vocabulary this capitulum introduces: *lex naturae / lex scripta / lex gratiae* → "law of nature / written law / law of grace"; *oblatio, sacrificium, decimatio, circumcisio, expiatio* → "oblation, sacrifice, tithing, circumcision, expiation"; *umbra / figura / corpus* → "shadow / figure / body"; *prognostica / demonstrativa / rememorativa* → "prognostic / demonstrative / commemorative"; *pretium promissum / persolutum* → "price promised / price paid"; *signum ad signatum* → "the sign to the thing signified". Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence throughout — the *Ratio autem* period and the *Postremo* period each run as a single sentence in English, the latter across the page break.


site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 6, Cap. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 267 -->

### Capitulum III. *De Sacramentorum numero et distinctione.*

De *distinctione* autem et numero Sacramentorum novae legis hoc tenendum est, quod ipsa sunt septem secundum correspondentiam ad gratiam septiformem, quae per septenarium temporis nos reducit ad principium, quietem et circulum aeternitatis, sicut ad octavam resurrectionis universalis[^p267-3]. — Horum vero Sacramentorum ianua est *baptismus*, deinde *confirmatio, eucharistia, poenitentia, unctio extrema, ordo* et *matrimonium*, quod licet ultimo collocetur propter morbum concupiscentiae annexum, ipsum tamen fuit ante omnia introductum in paradiso etiam ante peccatum.

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia principium nostrum reparativum, Christus Dominus, Verbum incarnatum, cum sit *Dei virtus et sapientia*[^p267-4] et misericordia nostra; sic potenter, sic sapienter, sic clementer, sic decenter sua debet instituere Sacramenta in lege gratiae, ut nihil prorsus desit curationi nostrae, quantum competit statui praesentis vitae. Ad perfectam autem curationem aegritudinis concurrunt haec tria, scilicet *expulsio aegritudinis, introductio sanitatis* et *conservatio introductae salutis*[^p267-5]. — Primum igitur, quoniam ad perfectam curationem perfecta et universalis requiritur *morbi expulsio*; et morbus est septiformis, triplex *culpabilis*, scilicet culpa originalis, mortalis et venialis; et quadruplex *poenalis*, scilicet ignorantia, malitia, infirmitas et concupiscentia; et « non sanat oculum quod sanat calcaneum », sicut dicit Hieronymus[^p267-6]: hinc est, quod oportuit, adhiberi contra haec septenarium medicamentorum ad hunc septiformem morbum plenius expellendum, scilicet contra originalem *baptismum*, contra mortalem *poenitentiam*, contra venialem *unctionem extremam*, contra ignorantiam *ordinem*, contra malitiam *eucharistiam*, contra infirmitatem *confirmationem*, et contra concupiscentiam *matrimonium*, quod eam temperat et excusat.

Rursus, quia perfecta curatio non potest esse sine *restitutione integrae sanitatis*; et sanitas animae integra consistit in usu septem virtutum, trium scilicet theologicarum et quatuor cardinalium: hinc est, quod ad harum usum sanum restituendum institui oportuit septiforme Sacramentum. Nam *baptismus* sanando disponit ad fidem, *confirmatio* ad spem, *eucharistia* ad caritatem, *poenitentia* ad iustitiam, *unctio extrema* ad perseverantiam, quae est fortitudinis complementum et summa[^p267-7], *ordo* ad prudentiam, *matrimonium* ad temperantiam conservandam, quam maxime persequitur infirmitas carnis, sed honestas remediat nuptiarum.

Postremo, quoniam perfecta curatio esse non potest sine *conservatione salutis introductae*; et salus introducta conservari non potest in conflictu certaminis nisi in acie Ecclesiae, quae est *terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata*[^p267-8]; et hoc quidem fit per septiformis gratiae armaturam: hinc est, quod necesse est, septem esse Sacramenta. Nam ut haec acies sit perfecte et continue communita; cum constet ex partibus corruptibilibus, indiget Sacramentis *munientibus, relevantibus* et *renovantibus*: *munientibus* pugnantes, *relevantibus* cadentes et *renovantibus* morientes. Sacramentum autem *muniens* aut munit *ingredientes*, et sic est *baptismus*; aut *stantes*, et sic est *confirmatio*; aut *exeuntes*, et sic est *extrema unctio*. — Sacramentum vero *relevans* aut relevat a casu *veniali*, et sic est *eucharistia*; aut a *mortali*, et sic est *poenitentia*. — Sacramentum autem *renovans* aut renovat in *esse spirituali*, et sic est
<!-- page 268 -->
*ordo*, cuius est administrare Sacramenta; aut in *esse naturali*, et sic est *matrimonium*, quod quia renovat multitudinem in *esse* naturae, quod est omnium fundamentum, ideo primo fuit ante omnia introductum; licet propter morbum concupiscentiae annexum, et quia minime est *sanctificativum*, quamvis *significatione* sit *Sacramentum magnum*[^p268-1], inter medicamenta spiritualia ultimo collocetur et locum sortiatur extremum. Unde quia baptismus est ingredientium, confirmatio pugnantium, eucharistia vires resumentium, poenitentia resurgentium, extrema unctio exeuntium, ordo novos milites introducentium, matrimonium novos milites praeparantium; patet ex his sufficientia et ordo medicamentorum sacramentalium et armorum.

---

english:
### Chapter III. *On the number and distinction of the Sacraments.*

Concerning the *distinction* and number of the Sacraments of the new law, moreover, this must be held: that they are seven, according to their correspondence to the sevenfold grace which through the sevenfold course of time leads us back to the beginning, to the rest and circle of eternity, as to the eighth day of the universal resurrection[^p267-3]. — Now the door of these Sacraments is *baptism*, then *confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order* and *marriage* — which, although it is placed last on account of the annexed disease of concupiscence, was nevertheless itself introduced before all the rest in paradise, even before sin.

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since our reparative principle, Christ the Lord, the Word incarnate, is *the power and the wisdom of God*[^p267-4] and our mercy; so powerfully, so wisely, so clemently, so becomingly ought he to institute his own Sacraments in the law of grace, that nothing whatever should be lacking to our curing, so far as befits the state of the present life. Now for the perfect curing of sickness these three things concur, namely the *expulsion of the sickness, the introduction of health*, and the *conservation of the health introduced*[^p267-5]. — First, therefore, since for a perfect curing a perfect and universal *expulsion of the disease* is required; and the disease is sevenfold, threefold as *culpable*, namely original, mortal and venial fault, and fourfold as *penal*, namely ignorance, malice, infirmity and concupiscence; and « that does not heal the eye which heals the heel », as Jerome says[^p267-6]: hence it is that against these it behoved a sevenfold set of medicines to be applied for the fuller expelling of this sevenfold disease, namely against the original *baptism*, against the mortal *penance*, against the venial *extreme unction*, against ignorance *order*, against malice *the eucharist*, against infirmity *confirmation*, and against concupiscence *marriage*, which tempers and excuses it.

Again, since a perfect curing cannot be without the *restitution of entire health*; and the entire health of the soul consists in the use of the seven virtues, namely of the three theological and the four cardinal: hence it is that for the restoring of the sound use of these it behoved a sevenfold Sacrament to be instituted. For *baptism* by healing disposes to faith, *confirmation* to hope, *the eucharist* to charity, *penance* to justice, *extreme unction* to perseverance, which is the completion and sum of fortitude[^p267-7], *order* to prudence, *marriage* to the conserving of temperance, which the infirmity of the flesh most of all pursues, but which the honourableness of the nuptials remedies.

Lastly, since a perfect curing cannot be without the *conservation of the health introduced*; and health once introduced cannot be conserved in the conflict of the struggle except in the battle-line of the Church, which is *terrible as an army set in array*[^p267-8]; and this indeed comes about through the armour of sevenfold grace: hence it is that it is necessary that the Sacraments be seven. For that this battle-line may be perfectly and continuously fortified, since it is composed of corruptible parts, it stands in need of Sacraments *fortifying, raising up* and *renewing*: *fortifying* those who fight, *raising up* those who fall, and *renewing* those who die. Now the Sacrament which *fortifies* either fortifies those *entering*, and thus it is *baptism*; or those *standing*, and thus it is *confirmation*; or those *going out*, and thus it is *extreme unction*. — But the Sacrament which *raises up* either raises up from a *venial* fall, and thus it is *the eucharist*; or from a *mortal* one, and thus it is *penance*. — And the Sacrament which *renews* either renews in *spiritual being*, and thus it is
<!-- page 268 -->
*order*, whose office it is to administer the Sacraments; or in *natural being*, and thus it is *marriage*, which, because it renews the multitude in the *being* of nature, which is the foundation of all things, was therefore first introduced before all the rest; although, on account of the annexed disease of concupiscence, and because it is least of all *sanctifying* — although in *signification* it is *a great Sacrament*[^p268-1] — it is placed last among the spiritual medicines and obtains the last place. Hence, since baptism is of those entering, confirmation of those fighting, the eucharist of those recovering their strength, penance of those rising again, extreme unction of those going out, order of those bringing in new soldiers, marriage of those preparing new soldiers; there appears from these the sufficiency and the order of the sacramental medicines and arms.

---

la: Cfr. supra pag. 203, nota 8. et p. V. c. 10. in fine. — De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 2. a. 1. q. 3. — Inferius voci *introductum* P praefigit *institutum et* (cfr. Gen. 2, 21.), quod Vat., 1 et 3 circa finem cap. eidem voci praemittunt.

en: Cf. above, p. 203, note 8, and p. V, c. 10, at the end. — On this chapter see IV Sent. d. 2, a. 1, q. 3. — Below, to the word *introductum* P prefixes *institutum et* (cf. Gen. 2, 21), which the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 put before the same word near the end of the chapter.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 1, 24, ubi Apostolus dicit: « Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam ». — Superius post *reparativum* Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *et curativum nostrorum morborum*, nonnulli codd. *scilicet*.

en: The Epistle I Cor. 1, 24, where the Apostle says: « Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God ». — Above, after *reparativum*, the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 add *et curativum nostrorum morborum*, and several codices *scilicet*.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 750, nota 11. verba Augustini.

en: Cf. tom. III, p. 750, note 11, the words of Augustine.

la: In Comment. in Marc. 9, 28. (inter opera Hieron.); cfr. tom. IV. pag. 52, nota 9. — De septiformi morbo cfr. supra p. III. c. 5. et 8. — Inferius post *mortalem* B H addunt *actualem*.

en: In the *Commentary on Mark* 9, 28 (among the works of Jerome); cf. tom. IV, p. 52, note 9. — On the sevenfold disease cf. above, p. III, c. 5 and 8. — Below, after *mortalem*, B H add *actualem*.

la: P *complementum summum*.

en: P reads *complementum summum*.

la: Cantic. 6, 3. et 9.

en: Canticles 6, 3 and 9.

la: Eph. 5, 32: Sacramentum hoc magnum est. — Edd., refragantibus pluribus et melioribus codd., perperam *collocatur* et *sortitur* pro *collocetur* et *sortiatur*. In fine cap. I L O V addunt *spiritualium* (etiam K a secunda manu, sed primitus *supernaturalium*).

en: Eph. 5, 32: "This is a great sacrament." — The editions, against the more numerous and better codices, wrongly have *collocatur* and *sortitur* for *collocetur* and *sortiatur*. At the end of the chapter I L O V add *spiritualium* (K too, by a second hand, but originally *supernaturalium*). ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 267–268, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** `Cap. III.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De Sacramentorum numero et distinctione.` stands centred in p. 267's LEFT column about **62 %** down the leaf, immediately below Cap. II's closing `…sicut imperfectum reducit et praeparat ad perfectum.` — where `bon-brev-p6-c2` said it stood, and re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted. Cap. III fills the rest of p. 267's left column to `…introductio sanitatis et conser-`; crosses p. 267's gutter **MID-WORD AND HYPHENATED** (`conser-` / `vatio introductae salutis`), splitting the third member of a three-member enumeration; fills p. 267's right column entire to `…renovat in esse spirituali, et sic est`; breaks across the leaf **ON A COPULA STRANDED FROM ITS PREDICATE NOMINATIVE** (`et sic est` / `ordo`), neither half readable alone; and closes about **45 % down p. 268's LEFT column** at `…patet ex his sufficientia et ordo medicamentorum sacramentalium et armorum.`

**★★ THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `Cap. IV.` HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** `Cap. IV.` with the subtitle `De Sacramentorum institutione.` stands centred in p. 268's LEFT column immediately below Cap. III's last line, with a further two body lines of Cap. IV beneath it in the same column (`De *institutione* autem Sacramentorum hoc tenendum est, quod septem Sacramenta legis gratiae Christus instituit tanquam *novi testamenti media-*…`). **The volume index's "Cap. IV on p. 268" and p. 268's running head `BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. IV.` were BOTH hypotheses on arrival; the heading on the band is what closes Cap. III, and the running head was used for nothing.** No inference was drawn from white space at any column foot.

**Gutters — one re-derived, one settled fresh with no constant.**
- **p. 267 = 1163, RE-DERIVED rather than re-used.** `colcrop.py vol5 267` with no constant returns **1163 on a 55 px run**; 55 px is inside the suspect band, so the sweep was run again from scratch. Eleven windows: 15–35 % → **1331 on a 387 px run** and 25–45 % → **1141 on a 119 px run**, both discarded as the `Cap. N.`-heading-inside-a-column failure named after p. 263 (Cap. III's heading and its subtitle sit in the upper half of p. 267's left column); then 20–40 % → 1169/63 · 30–50 % → 1168/62 · 35–55 % → 1166/61 · 40–60 % → 1165/60 · 45–65 % → 1164/58 · 50–70 % → **1163/60** · 55–75 % → 1163/59 · 60–80 % → 1163/59 · 65–85 % → 1161/59. **Nine sound windows, 8 px spread, runs 58–63 px, settling on 1163 across the three lowest** — figure for figure what `bon-brev-p6-c2` reached independently, which is the check that both passes measured the same thing. Bands read clean edge to edge.
- **★★ p. 268 = 1370, SETTLED FRESH, and the tool's default REJECTED.** `colcrop.py vol5 268` with no constant returns **1374 on a 49 px run** — inside the suspect band, so the three-step method ran in full. **Step 2 forks badly:** 15–35 % → 1270/**273 px** · 20–40 % → 1300/**208 px** · 25–45 % → 1335/**138 px** · 30–50 % → 1405/**129 px** · 45–65 % → 1410/**141 px** are all blow-outs and discarded (p. 268 carries the `Cap. IV.` heading and its subtitle mid-left-column, the same failure as p. 267's upper windows); the survivors are 35–55 % → 1377/74 · 40–60 % → 1377/75 · 50–70 % → 1371/64 · 55–75 % → 1376/54 · 60–80 % → 1375/52 · 65–85 % → 1375/51 — a 6 px spread but on runs that decay to 51 px, i.e. exactly the quiet-failure profile. **Step 3 decides it.** Over rows 35–85 % the per-column ink profile shows the left column's ink dying at x = 1340 (x = 1341–1349 carry a residual of 2 px out of 1911 rows, a single speck) and the right column's ink resuming at x = 1401; **the near-zero band is therefore x = 1341–1400**, and standing inside it is Quaracchi's printed **column rule, inked at x = 1367–1373, peaking 176 rows on x = 1369** with a second peak of 151 on x = 1372. **Band midpoint (1341 + 1400) / 2 = 1370, adopted**, and the bands regenerated at 1370 read clean edge to edge in both columns. The default's 1374 is four px right of centre because the tool's `≤ min+1` test excludes the 2-px speck columns at the band's left edge and so measures from 1350 rather than 1341; the rule itself is very nearly centred, which is why the error is small — but 49 px is still not a run to trust a value on.

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All seven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands**; the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument, and **p. 267's total of 8 is established here and entered into its `KNOWN_TOTALS`** (`bon-brev-p6-c2` deliberately did not enter it, having read only nn. 1–2 and never having read p. 267's right block at all).

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL, AND ITS SCOPE STATEMENT HELD.** `bon-brev-p6-c2` forwarded p. 267 from n. 3 onward and stated its verification level precisely: **BLOCK POSITION and VERBATIM TEXT of nn. 3–4 read off the LEFT block; NO anchor read for n. 3 and none claimed; n. 4's anchor read only far enough to establish that it is Cap. III's; the RIGHT block not read at all; p. 267's total UNKNOWN.** Every clause of that is correct. The verbatim text of both notes is confirmed word for word, and **every digit and siglum it explicitly flagged as unverified re-derived to the same reading** — which is a result, not a formality, since the same predecessor's `p6-c1` hand-off had a wrong column in it and its own predecessor a wrong digit. Verification level of every note as established **here**:
- **p. 267 n. 3** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here. **Anchors on `ad octavam resurrectionis universalis ³. —` in the LEFT column**, closing *Thesis 1*; no anchor was claimed by the hand-off and this one is first-read. Footer entry third in the left block.
- **p. 267 n. 4** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here. Anchors on `Dei virtus et sapientia ⁴` in the **LEFT** column, in the *Pro utraque thesi* period, as the hand-off's ownership claim implied. Footer entry last in the left block, **breaking off at a comma and continuing unnumbered at the head of the right block** (below).
- **p. 267 n. 5** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `conservatio introductae salutis ⁵. —` in the **RIGHT** column, on the second word of the column, the enumeration's third member having been split across the gutter. Footer entry second in the right block.
- **p. 267 n. 6** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `sicut dicit Hieronymus ⁶:` in the **RIGHT** column. Footer entry third in the right block.
- **p. 267 n. 7** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `complementum et summa ⁷,` in the **RIGHT** column, inside the *Item, ex usu septem virtutum* paragraph. Footer entry fourth in the right block.
- **p. 267 n. 8** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `castrorum acies ordinata ⁸;` in the **RIGHT** column. Footer entry last in the right block and complete.
- **p. 268 n. 1** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `sit Sacramentum magnum ¹,` in p. 268's **LEFT** column, seven lines above the `Cap. IV.` heading and inside Cap. III's closing period. Footer entry opens p. 268's left block, NUMBERED.

**★ p. 267's SPLIT MAP — THE BLOCK SPLIT AND THE ANCHOR SPLIT ARE BOTH 4/4 AND THIS TIME THEY COINCIDE.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 (n. 4 breaking off mid-entry). Right footer block: n. 4's unnumbered continuation, then nn. 5, 6, 7, 8. **Anchors:** nn. 1–4 in the left column, nn. 5–8 in the right. **p. 267's TOTAL IS 8.** This coincidence is recorded as a fact about this leaf only and is drawn on for nothing: p. 266, one leaf back, had a 3/3 block split against a 2/4 anchor split, and the frozen rule that block structure and column structure are independent is not weakened by a leaf on which they happen to agree.

**★★ SIGLA — THREE RUNS, ALL SETTLED BY STROKE COUNT, ALPHABETICAL ASCENT AND GRAMMATICAL SLOT.**
1. **`P` (p. 267 n. 3, and again alone in n. 7)** — a single unambiguous sort, in the slot of a codex siglum governing *institutum et* and *complementum summum* respectively. The same siglum stood alone in p. 266 n. 5 one leaf back.
2. **`B H` (p. 267 n. 6)** — **two glyphs, and the second is properly crossbarred at 3×**, so this is a true `H` and not the crossbar-less sort that dominated pp. 238, 246 and 265, nor a mis-segmented `II`. `B` before `H` ascends. The slot is a codex-siglum pair governing the addition of *actualem*.
3. **`I L O V` (p. 268 n. 1)** — the first glyph is a **single** upright with head and foot serifs, therefore `I` by the one-upright rule and not a flattened `H`; `I L O V` is strictly ascending, which is what excludes the volume's chronic raw `R` and any two-letter reading. `K`, named separately in the same note's parenthesis, is unmistakable (two diagonals meeting the stem, no bowl) and is a different codex, not a mis-read of this run.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). The `1`/`4` discriminator calibrated on p. 266 — in this fount a **`4` carries a crossbar protruding LEFT of the stem** while a **`1` is a bare stem with a flag and no crossbar** — was re-applied at 3.2–9× on this leaf, and **the `3`/`5` class turned out to be the busier one here**, which is the leaf-to-leaf swing the rule warns about:
- n. 3 **`pag. 203`** (`3`/`5` class) and **`nota 8`** — settled together and decisively by the target itself: `supra pag. 203, nota 8` resolves to `bon-brev-prol-s2`'s note `p203-8`, which is Augustine on the *octava* of the resurrection — precisely what the anchored clause (`sicut ad octavam resurrectionis universalis`) says. A wrong `205` would point at `prol-s3`/`prol-s4`, which discuss nothing of the kind. The raw agrees on `203`.
- n. 3 **`p. V. c. 10`** (`1`/`4` class) — the disputed glyph shows the flag and no crossbar → `1`. Corroborated structurally: Pars V's last capitulum is `bon-brev-p5-c10`, and `in fine` fits a chapter that exists; `c. 40` names nothing.
- n. 3 **`IV. Sent. d. 2. a. 1. q. 3.`** — the `a. 1.` glyph is a flagged bare stem with a damaged following point (the band's apparent `4_` is the point, not a crossbar); the `q. 3.` shows the double-bowled `3`. Both targets exist: `bon-sent-IV-d2-a1-q3`. `bon-brev-p6-c2` cited `d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. seq.` one leaf back from the same editors' hand, and this note's `q. 3.` sits inside that `seq.`
- n. 3 **`Gen. 2, 21`** and **`Vat., 1 et 3`** — flagged bare stems, no crossbars, → `21` and `1`. Gen. 2, 21 is the rib and the institution of marriage in paradise, which is exactly the clause the note glosses; the raw agrees on both.
- n. 4 **`I. Cor. 1, 24`** — **settled by the quoted words the note itself prints**: `« Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam »` is I Cor. 1, 24 verbatim. A tier-A scripture record checked against its own quotation, per the index conventions. The leading `I.` is a single upright and is the book numeral, not a siglum.
- n. 5 **`tom. III. pag. 750, nota 11.`** — the `750` reads `5` on the flat-topped sort; **`nota 11` is two flagged bare stems with no crossbar on either**, against a `14` reading. The raw's `nota U.` is its usual flattening of a `11` pair and agrees.
- n. 6 **`Marc. 9, 28`**, **`tom. IV. pag. 52, nota 9`**, **`p. III. c. 5. et 8.`** — the `52` and the `c. 5` are both the flat-topped `5`; `p. III. c. 5` and `c. 8` both name existing chunks (`bon-brev-p3-c5`, `bon-brev-p3-c8`), and Pars III is indeed where the septiform disease is set out, which is what the clause claims. The raw agrees throughout.
- n. 8 **`Cantic. 6, 3. et 9.`** — settled by the quoted words: `terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata` stands at Canticles 6, 3 and again at 6, 9 in the Vulgate, which is exactly why the note gives two verses and no more.
- p. 268 n. 1 **`Eph. 5, 32`** — settled by the words the note prints, `Sacramentum hoc magnum est` being Eph. 5, 32 verbatim; at 9× the `5` is flat-topped and the `32` unambiguous.

**No `[?]` flags.** Every reading on both leaves was decided on band evidence with something independent agreeing.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 267 left column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Ratio." — "Pro utraque thesi." — "Tria concurrunt ad sanationem."; p. 267 right column — "Congruentia septenarii ex septemplici morbo." — "Item, ex usu septem virtutum." — "Item, ex armatura septiformis gratiae."; p. 268 left column — "Notandum." **The gloss form is exactly what `bon-brev-p6-c2` predicted for the opening and nothing like it thereafter**: the dense `Thesis N.` / `Ratio.` series belongs to the chapter's head, and the right column's three glosses are descriptive phrases marking the three *congruentiae*, one per paragraph. Glosses stand in the outer margin of each column — left of column 1, right of column 2.

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE BREAK, NOT AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY** — as throughout Partes V–VI, and for the same reason. The leaf break falls mid-clause between `et sic est` and `ordo`, and that sentence runs on well into p. 268; `<!-- page 268 -->` therefore stands at the break itself in both languages, so that the printed page each line belongs to stays recoverable.

**★ THE RUNNING HEAD, read and used for nothing.** p. 267's reads `PARS VI. C. III.   267` and p. 268's reads `268   BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. IV.` Both name a chapter that is on the leaf, and p. 268's names the chapter that *opens* below the middle of the first column while the top 45 % of the leaf is still Cap. III — the same asymmetry attested at pp. 237, 248, 266 and 267. **Both boundaries were set from `Cap. N.` headings on the bands.**

**★ NEITHER LEAF CARRIES A PRINTER'S OR QUIRE SIGNATURE.** The last was p. 265's (`S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` with quire `34`); the next is due around p. 273 on the eight-leaf cadence. Nothing on pp. 267–268 was mistaken for an entry.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 267 body — good in the left column** (`Domiuus`, `Verhum`, `legegratiae` run together, `poenitetitia`, `confirmatiOy`, `Thosis`/`Thcsis` in the glosses) and **good in the right column** (`connrmalionem`, `eucliaristiam`, `ca^trorum`, `nxAcxeuntes` for *aut exeuntes*, `justitiam` for *iustitiam*, `unetio`); the eight marginal glosses splice in as separate line-blocks and were trimmed. **p. 267 footer — usable and, unusually, sound in the sigla** (`P`, `BH`, and the digits `203`, `10`, `2, 21`, `1 et 3`, `5. et 8.`, `6, 3. et 9.` all came through), the only numeral casualties being `nota U.` for *nota 11* and `1, 2i` for *1, 24*. **p. 268 body — good** (`Sticramcntum`, `[jropler`, `sulficientia`, `conlirniatio`). **p. 268 footer — good, with `I L O V` surviving intact.** **This continues the materially better raw that pp. 266–267 gave, and the grade is stated per region so that the next chunk does not inherit the optimism** — p. 268's *right* block was not cross-checked here at all.

**Runover tests — BOTH OWED TESTS RUN; ONE POSITIVE, ONE NEGATIVE.**
- *p. 267's own gutter — **POSITIVE**, and logged as `p.267 n.4:gutter`.* The left block's last entry, n. 4, **breaks off at a COMMA** on `…Superius post *reparativum* Vat.,` at the foot of the block, and **p. 267's right block opens UNNUMBERED** with `1 et 3 addunt *et curativum nostrorum morborum*, nonnulli codd. *scilicet*.` — the edition sigla `1 et 3` completing the subject that `Vat.,` began across the gutter. Rendered joined in the `p267-4` entry. `bon-brev-p6-c2` saw the break and correctly declined to log it, the note being Cap. III's.
- *Page-crossing, p. 267 → p. 268 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 267's right block ends **complete** at n. 8's `Cantic. 6, 3. et 9.`, and **p. 268's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Eph. 5, 32: Sacramentum hoc magnum est…`
- *NOT re-logged here:* `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 page-crossing test (both `bon-brev-p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `bon-brev-p6-c1`, both NEGATIVE); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s and `p6-c2`'s own do-not-re-log lists. **p. 268's own gutter test is Cap. IV's and is forwarded UNLOGGED.** Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c4`.** p. 267 is **fully consumed** — eight notes, eight anchors, nothing left, and its total of 8 is now in `KNOWN_TOTALS`. **p. 268's register is NOT fully read and its total is deliberately NOT fed to `KNOWN_TOTALS`**: this chunk read n. 1, which is Cap. III's. **What was seen on p. 268's bands beyond n. 1, stated with its verification level and claiming nothing more:** the LEFT block continues with **n. 2** (`Hebr. 9, 15. — Inferius pro *Instituit vero* S *Instituit enim*.`), **n. 3** (`Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1; d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. seq.; d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1-3. et dub. 4; d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1-3; d. 23. a. 1. q. 2; d. XXIV. lit. Magistri, c. 1, et Comment. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. seq.; d. 26. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Pro *plene instituit* multi codd. et 2 *plene statuit*.`) and **n. 4** (`Ioan. 14, 6. — Superius pro *beatificantia* A S *beneficia*.`), the left block ending complete at n. 4. **BLOCK POSITION and VERBATIM TEXT of nn. 2–4 were read; NO anchor for any of them was read and none is claimed; the RIGHT block was NOT read at all and p. 268's total is UNKNOWN.** ★ **EVERY DIGIT AND SIGLUM IN nn. 2–4 ABOVE IS UNVERIFIED** — `Hebr. 9, 15`, the whole `d. 3 … d. 26` chain, `Ioan. 14, 6`, and the sigla `S`, `A S` come off a single band pass. **n. 3's chain is the largest concentration of `1`/`4` risk anywhere in Pars VI so far — a dozen `1`s and `4`s in six lines — and the frozen rule that a chain states `Sent.` once and then lists distinctions bare applies to it in full, so every locus in it is a live target.** `Ioan. 14, 6` is checkable against the words Cap. IV quotes; `Hebr. 9, 15` likewise. **Re-derive all of it.** `bon-brev-p6-c4` owns p. 268 from n. 2 onward, must read the right block, must fix p. 268's total, must run p. 268's own gutter test and the p. 268 → p. 269 test, and must extract p. 269 fresh with no constant. Cap. IV (`De Sacramentorum institutione`) opens ~55 % down p. 268's left column; **its end must be set from the `Cap. V.` heading on the band and from nothing else.**

**Register — Pars VI's vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided, and the Vol IV settlement was CONSULTED rather than re-argued.** `bon-brev-p6-c1` locked the sacramental core (*signum sensibile, institutio, sanctificatio, gratiae vasa et causa, medicina sacramentalis, aegrotans / aegritudo / morbus / curatio, ortus, usus, fructus*) and `p6-c2` the historical-dispensation vocabulary; both stand unchanged. **The seven sacrament names are taken from the Vol IV d.1–d.21 settlement, not coined here** — `bon-sent-IV-d2-littera`'s enumeration gives *baptismus, confirmatio, eucharistia, poenitentia, unctio extrema, ordo, matrimonium* → "baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, marriage", and Vol IV's dominant rendering of *matrimonium* is "marriage" (d.26 measured: 26 "marriage" against 7 "matrimony"), so "marriage" is used here and *nuptiae* is kept distinct as "nuptials", the form Vol IV uses 46 times. The seven virtues follow the Sentences tables unchanged: *fides, spes, caritas, prudentia, iustitia, fortitudo, temperantia* → "faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance". Established here for this capitulum's military figure: *acies* → "battle-line"; *munire / relevare / renovare* → "to fortify / to raise up / to renew"; *armatura* → "armour"; *ingredientes / stantes / exeuntes* → "those entering / standing / going out". *Octava* is rendered "the eighth day" on the strength of the apparatus's own cross-reference to `pag. 203, nota 8`, where Quaracchi gloss it as the Lord's day. Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence throughout — the *Ratio autem* period, the *Rursus* period and the *Postremo* period each run as a single sentence in English, the last across the page break.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0