title: Cap. 7

source_text:
<!-- page 312 -->

### Cap. VII. *De excessu mentali et mystico, in quo requies datur intellectui, affectu totaliter in Deum per excessum transeunte.*

1. His igitur sex considerationibus excursis tanquam *sex gradibus throni veri Salomonis*, quibus pervenitur ad pacem, ubi verus pacificus in mente pacifica tanquam in interiori Hierosolyma requiescit; tanquam etiam *sex alis Cherub*, quibus mens veri contemplativi plena illustratione supernae sapientiae valeat sursum agi; tanquam etiam *sex diebus primis*, in quibus mens exercitari habet, ut tandem perveniat ad sabbatum quietis[^p312-3]; postquam mens nostra contuita est Deum *extra se* per vestigia et in vestigiis, *intra se* per imaginem et in imagine, *supra se* per divinae lucis similitudinem super nos relucentem et in ipsa luce, secundum quod possibile est secundum statum viae et exercitium mentis nostrae; cum tandem in *sexto* gradu ad hoc pervenerit, ut speculetur in principio primo et summo et mediatore *Dei et hominum*, Iesu Christo[^p312-4] ea quorum similia in creaturis nullatenus reperiri possunt, et quae omnem perspicacitatem humani intellectus excedunt: restat, ut haec speculando transcendat et transeat non solum mundum istum sensibilem, verum etiam semetipsam; in quo transitu Christus est *via et ostium*[^p312-5], Christus est *scala* et *vehiculum* tanquam *propitiatorium super arcam Dei collocatum* et *sacramentum a saeculis absconditum*.

2. Ad quod propitiatorium qui aspicit plena conversione vultus, aspiciendo eum in cruce suspensum per fidem, spem et caritatem, devotionem, admirationem, exsultationem, appretiationem, laudem et iubilationem; *pascha*, hoc est transitum[^p312-6], cum eo facit, ut per virgam crucis transeat mare rubrum, ab Aegypto intrans desertum, ubi gustet *manna absconditum*, et cum Christo requiescat in tumulo quasi exterius mortuus, sentiens tamen, quantum possibile est secundum statum viae, quod in cruce dictum est latroni cohaerenti Christo: *Hodie mecum eris in paradiso.*

3. Quod etiam ostensum est beato Francisco, cum in excessu contemplationis in monte excelso — ubi haec, quae scripta sunt, mente tractavi — apparuit Seraph sex alarum in cruce confixus, ut ibidem a socio eius, qui tunc cum eo fuit, ego et plures alii audivimus; ubi in Deum transiit per contemplationis excessum; et positus est in exemplum perfectae *contemplationis*, sicut prius fuerat *actionis*, tanquam alter *Iacob* et *Israel*[^p312-7], ut omnes viros vere spirituales Deus per eum invitaret ad huiusmodi transitum et mentis excessum magis exemplo quam verbo.

4. In hoc autem transitu, si sit perfectus, oportet quod relinquantur omnes intellectuales operationes, et apex affectus totus transferatur et transformetur in Deum. Hoc autem est mysticum et secretissimum, quod *nemo novit, nisi qui accipit*[^p312-8], nec accipit nisi qui desiderat, nec desiderat nisi quem ignis Spiritus sancti medullitus inflammat, quem Christus misit in terram. Et ideo dicit Apostolus[^p312-9], hanc mysticam sapientiam esse per Spiritum sanctum revelatam.

5. Quoniam igitur ad hoc nihil potest natura, modicum potest industria, parum est dandum inquisitioni, et multum unctioni; parum dandum est linguae, et plurimum internae laetitiae; parum dandum
<!-- page 313 -->
est verbo et scripto, et totum Dei dono, scilicet Spiritui sancto; parum aut nihil dandum est creaturae, et totum creatrici essentiae, Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto, dicendo cum Dionysio[^p313-1] ad Deum Trinitatem: « Trinitas superessentialis et superdeus et superoptime Christianorum inspector theosophiae, dirige nos in mysticorum eloquiorum superincognitum et superlucentem et sublimissimum verticem; ubi nova et absoluta et inconversibilia theologiae mysteria secundum superlucentem absconduntur occulte docentis silentii caliginem in obscurissimo, quod est supermanifestissimum, supersplendentem, et in qua omne relucet, et invisibilium superbonorum splendoribus superimplentem invisibiles intellectus ». Hoc ad Deum. Ad amicum autem, cui haec scribuntur, dicatur cum eodem: « Tu autem, o amice, circa mysticas visiones, corroborato itinere, et sensus desere et intellectuales operationes et sensibilia et invisibilia et omne non ens et ens, et ad unitatem, ut possibile est, inscius restituere ipsius, qui est super omnem essentiam et scientiam. Etenim te ipso et omnibus immensurabili et absoluto purae mentis excessu[^p313-2], ad superessentialem divinarum tenebrarum radium, omnia deserens et ab omnibus absolutus, ascendes[^p313-3] ».

6. Si autem quaeras, quomodo haec fiant, interroga gratiam, non doctrinam; desiderium, non intellectum; gemitum orationis, non studium lectionis; sponsum, non magistrum; Deum, non hominem; caliginem, non claritatem; non lucem, sed ignem totaliter inflammantem et in Deum excessivis unctionibus et ardentissimis affectionibus transferentem. Qui quidem *ignis* Deus est, et huius *caminus est in Ierusalem*[^p313-4], et Christus hunc accendit in fervore suae ardentissimae passionis, quem solus ille vere percipit, qui dicit: *Suspendium elegit anima mea, et mortem ossa mea.* Quam mortem qui diligit videre potest Deum, quia indubitanter verum est: *Non videbit me homo et vivet.* — Moriamur igitur et ingrediamur in caliginem, imponamus silentium sollicitudinibus, concupiscentiis et phantasmatibus; transeamus cum Christo crucifixo *ex hoc mundo ad Patrem*[^p313-5], ut, ostenso nobis Patre, dicamus cum Philippo: *Sufficit nobis*; audiamus cum Paulo: *Sufficit tibi gratia mea*; exultemus cum David[^p313-6] dicentes: *Defecit caro mea et cor meum, Deus cordis mei et pars mea Deus in aeternum. Benedictus Dominus in aeternum, et dicet omnis populus: Fiat, fiat.* Amen.

**EXPLICIT ITINERARIUM IN DEUM.**

---

english:
<!-- page 312 -->

### Cap. VII. *On the mental and mystical transport, in which rest is given to the intellect, the affection passing over wholly into God by transport.*

1. These six considerations having therefore been run through, as by *the six steps of the throne of the true Solomon*, by which one arrives at peace, where the true peaceable one rests in a peaceable mind as in an interior Jerusalem; and as by the *six wings of the Cherub*, by which the mind of the true contemplative may be borne upward in the full illumination of supernal wisdom; and as through the *first six days*, in which the mind has to be exercised, that it may at last arrive at the sabbath of rest[^p312-3]; after our mind has beheld God *outside itself* through vestiges and in vestiges, *within itself* through the image and in the image, *above itself* through the likeness of the divine light shining upon us and in that light itself, according to what is possible in the state of the wayfarer and by the exercise of our mind; when at last on the *sixth* step it has come to this, that it speculates in the first and highest principle and the mediator *of God and men*, Jesus Christ[^p312-4], those things whose like can in no way be found in creatures, and which exceed all the perspicacity of the human intellect: it remains that, by speculating on these, it transcend and pass over not only this sensible world but even itself; in which passing-over Christ is the *way and the door*[^p312-5], Christ is the *ladder* and the *vehicle*, as the *propitiatory placed above the ark of God* and the *sacrament hidden from the ages*.

2. He who looks to that propitiatory with a full turning of the face, gazing upon him hanging on the cross through faith, hope and charity, devotion, admiration, exultation, appreciation, praise and jubilation; makes with him the *pasch*, that is, the passing-over[^p312-6], so that by the rod of the cross he may cross the Red Sea, entering the desert from Egypt, where he may taste the *hidden manna*, and may rest with Christ in the tomb as though outwardly dead, yet feeling, as far as is possible in the state of the wayfarer, what was said on the cross to the thief who clung to Christ: *This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.*

3. Which was also shown to blessed Francis, when, in the transport of contemplation on the lofty mountain — where I turned over in my mind these things which have been written — there appeared to him a Seraph of six wings fastened to a cross, as I and several others heard on that very spot from his companion, who was then with him; where he passed over into God through the transport of contemplation; and he was set as an example of perfect *contemplation*, as he had earlier been of *action*, as another *Jacob* and *Israel*[^p312-7], so that through him God might invite all truly spiritual men to a passing-over and a transport of mind of this kind, more by example than by word.

4. Now in this passing-over, if it is to be perfect, it is necessary that all intellectual operations be left behind, and that the whole apex of the affection be transferred and transformed into God. But this is mystical and most secret, which *no man knoweth but he that receiveth it*[^p312-8], nor does he receive it unless he desires it, nor does he desire it unless the fire of the Holy Spirit inflames him to the marrow, whom Christ sent upon the earth. And therefore the Apostle says[^p312-9] that this mystical wisdom is revealed through the Holy Spirit.

5. Since, therefore, nature can do nothing toward this, and industry can do little, little is to be given to inquiry and much to unction; little is to be given to the tongue, and very much to interior gladness; little is to be given
<!-- page 313 -->
to word and writing, and everything to the gift of God, namely to the Holy Spirit; little or nothing is to be given to the creature, and everything to the creating essence, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, saying with Dionysius[^p313-1] to God the Trinity: «Trinity superessential and superdivine and supremely good overseer of the theosophy of Christians, direct us into the superunknown and supershining and most sublime summit of the mystic utterances; where the new and absolute and unconvertible mysteries of theology are hidden, according to the supershining darkness of the silence that teaches secretly, in the most obscure — which is most supermanifest — supershining, and in which everything shines forth, and which superfills invisible intellects with the splendours of invisible supergoods». This to God. But to the friend for whom these things are written, let it be said with the same Dionysius: «But do thou, O friend, as concerns mystical visions, thy journey being made strong, forsake both the senses and the intellectual operations, and things sensible and invisible, and every non-being and being, and, so far as is possible, restore thyself unknowing to the unity of him who is above all essence and knowledge. For by an immeasurable and absolute transport of the pure mind, out of thyself and out of all things[^p313-2], forsaking all and freed from all, thou shalt ascend[^p313-3] to the superessential ray of the divine darkness».

6. But if you ask how these things come about, question grace, not doctrine; desire, not the intellect; the groaning of prayer, not the study of reading; the Bridegroom, not the master; God, not man; darkness, not clarity; not light, but the fire that wholly inflames and carries over into God by excessive unctions and most ardent affections. Which *fire* indeed is God, and its *furnace is in Jerusalem*[^p313-4], and Christ kindles it in the fervour of his most ardent passion, which he alone truly perceives who says: *My soul hath chosen hanging, and my bones death.* And he who loves this death can see God, because it is beyond doubt true: *Man shall not see me and live.* — Let us then die and enter into the darkness, let us impose silence upon our cares, our concupiscences and our phantasms; let us pass over with the crucified Christ *out of this world to the Father*[^p313-5], so that, the Father being shown to us, we may say with Philip: *It is enough for us*; let us hear with Paul: *My grace is sufficient for thee*; let us exult with David[^p313-6], saying: *My flesh and my heart have failed, God of my heart and my portion, God for ever. Blessed be the Lord for ever, and let all the people say: So be it, so be it.* Amen.

**HERE ENDS THE JOURNEY INTO GOD.**

---

la: Vide supra c. 1. n. 5, ubi haec consideratio tanquam principium contemplationis constituitur. — Superius pro *supernae* B D H K N *aeternae*.

en: See above, c. 1, n. 5, where this consideration is established as the principle of contemplation. — Above, for *supernae* B D H K N read *aeternae*.

la: Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5. Verba vide supra pag. 306, nota 4.

en: 1 Timothy 2:5. For the words see above, p. 306, note 4.

la: Ioan. 14, 6. et 10, 7. — Subinde respicitur Exod. 25, 20. et Eph. 3, 9: Dispensatio sacramenti absconditi a saeculis in Deo.

en: John 14:6 and 10:7. — Thereafter Exodus 25:20 is had in view, and Ephesians 3:9: *The dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God.*

la: Exod. 12, 11: Et comedetis [agnum paschalem] festinanter; est enim *phase*, id est transitus, Domini. — Subinde respicitur Exod. 14, 16. seqq. (de virga etc.) et 16, 15. (de manna), pro quo allegatur Apoc. 2, 17: Vincenti dabo manna absconditum. Seq. textus est Luc. 23, 43.

en: Exodus 12:11: *And you shall eat [the paschal lamb] in haste; for it is the* phase, *that is, the passage, of the Lord.* — Thereafter Exodus 14:16 ff. is had in view (on the rod, etc.) and 16:15 (on the manna), for which Apocalypse 2:17 is cited: *To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna.* The text following is Luke 23:43.

la: Gen. 35, 10: Non vocaberis ultra *Iacob*, sed *Israel* erit nomen tuum. Cfr. supra Prolog. — Vat., 3 et 4 *Iacob mutatus in Israel*. Superius vocibus *excessu contemplationis* non pauci codd. interserunt *mentis seu*.

en: Genesis 35:10: *Thou shalt not be called any more* Jacob, *but* Israel *shall be thy name.* Cf. above, the Prologue. — The Vatican edition and 3 and 4 read *Iacob mutatus in Israel*. Above, between the words *excessu contemplationis* not a few codices insert *mentis seu*.

la: Apoc. 2, 17: Nemo scit, nisi etc. — Subinde respicitur Luc. 12, 49: Ignem veni mittere in terram. — Superius post *oportet* C allegat quaedam verba Dionys., de Mystica Theolog. c. 3. circa finem et de Div. Nom. c. 7. § 3.

en: Apocalypse 2:17: *No man knoweth but* etc. — Thereafter Luke 12:49 is had in view: *I am come to cast fire on the earth.* — Above, after *oportet*, C cites certain words of Dionysius, *On Mystical Theology* c. 3, near the end, and *On the Divine Names* c. 7, § 3.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 2, 10. seqq. — Subinde respicitur I. Ioan. 2, 20. et 27. (de unctione).

en: 1 Corinthians 2:10 ff. — Thereafter 1 John 2:20 and 27 is had in view (on the unction).

la: De Mystica Theolog. c. 1. § 1, ubi etiam seq. locus occurrit. Bonav. affert verba secundum versionem Scoti Erigenae, cum qua circa medium primae sententiae pro *absconditam* substituimus *absconduntur* (G *abscondunt*, N P *absconditum*). Pro verbis, quae inter primum et secundum textum ponuntur *Hoc ad Deum… eodem*, D G M cum originali substituunt *Mihi quidem haec opto*.

en: *On Mystical Theology* c. 1, § 1, where the passage following also occurs. Bonaventure brings the words according to the version of Scotus Eriugena, with which, near the middle of the first sentence, we have substituted *absconduntur* for *absconditam* (G *abscondunt*, N P *absconditum*). For the words placed between the first and the second text, *Hoc ad Deum… eodem*, D G M with the original substitute *Mihi quidem haec opto*.

la: In Graeco: Τῇ γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ πάντων ἀσχέτῳ καὶ ἀπολύτῳ καθαρῶς ἐκστάσει. Sensus est: Dum te ipsum et omnia superexcedis etc.

en: In the Greek: Τῇ γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ πάντων ἀσχέτῳ καὶ ἀπολύτῳ καθαρῶς ἐκστάσει. The sense is: While you exceed yourself and all things, etc.

la: Praeter locc. supra pag. 260, nota 3. allegatos cfr. III. Sent. d. 23. dub. 4. — Auctores catholici de mystica theologia scribentes communiter approbant hanc S. Bonav. doctrinam, quam accepit a laudato Dionysio, quod scil. in animis perfectis detur sublimis quidam gradus contemplationis supernaturalis et infusae, quam vocant contemplationem *puram*, quia fit sine concursu phantasmatum. Item docent, quod ad hunc contemplationis gradum pertineat illa *oratio in caligine*, de qua auctor noster hic loquitur. De his cfr. Dionys. Carthus. in suo Commentar. ad Dionys. Areopag. Inter recentiores autem de *pura contemplatione* loquitur Philipp. a Ss. Trinitate, Sum. theol. myst. p. II. tr. 3. discurs. 2. a. 2, ubi melius determinat quod in contrarium docuerat in sua Sum. philos. II. II. q. 44. a. 6; nec non Scaramelli, Direttorio mistico, tr. 2. c. 15. n. 166-172; de *oratione in caligine* Philipp. a Ss. Trin. loc. cit. a. 3; Scaramelli c. 8. n. 80-85.

en: Besides the passages cited above, p. 260, note 3, cf. III *Sentences*, d. 23, dub. 4. — Catholic authors writing on mystical theology commonly approve this doctrine of St Bonaventure, which he received from the Dionysius he has praised, namely that there is given in perfect souls a certain sublime step of supernatural and infused contemplation, which they call *pure* contemplation, because it comes about without the concurrence of phantasms. They teach likewise that to this step of contemplation belongs that *prayer in darkness* of which our author here speaks. On these matters cf. Denys the Carthusian in his *Commentary* on Dionysius the Areopagite. Among more recent writers, Philip of the Most Holy Trinity speaks of *pure contemplation* in his *Summa of Mystical Theology* p. II, tr. 3, discourse 2, a. 2, where he determines better what he had taught to the contrary in his *Summa of Philosophy* II, II, q. 44, a. 6; and likewise Scaramelli, *Direttorio mistico*, tr. 2, c. 15, nn. 166-172; on *prayer in darkness*, Philip of the Most Holy Trinity, in the place cited, a. 3; Scaramelli, c. 8, nn. 80-85.

la: Isai. 31, 9: Caminus eius in Ierusalem. — Seq. locus est Iob 7, 15; tertius Exod. 33, 20.

en: Isaiah 31:9: *His furnace is in Jerusalem.* — The passage following is Job 7:15; the third, Exodus 33:20.

la: Ioan. 13, 1. — Seq. locus est ibid. 14, 8; tertius II. Cor. 12, 9.

en: John 13:1. — The passage following is ibid. 14:8; the third, 2 Corinthians 12:9.

la: Psalm. 72, 26. et 105, 48: Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel a saeculo et usque in saeculum, et dicet etc.

en: Psalm 72:26 and 105:48: *Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from eternity to eternity, and let* etc. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin base from the IA djvu raw (L55301–55511), re-set against the 450 dpi column bands of pp. 312–313. All 13 apparatus entries read off the four footer bands only — the Vol V raw carries no footnote numerals.

**Page span — closed positively, and this chunk closes the work.** Cap. VII runs **pp. 312–313**, opening in **p. 312's LEFT column** ~39 % down, under the in-place `Cap. VII.` heading and subtitle, and closing in **p. 313's RIGHT column** at *…Fiat, fiat. Amen.* followed by the colophon **EXPLICIT ITINERARIUM IN DEUM**, about 40 % down that column. Six numbered paragraphs, §§ 1–6, no interior headings. **There is no `Cap. VIII.` to close against** — the terminus is the colophon, as it was for the Breviloquium's last capitulum (`p7-c7`, closed on `EXPLICIT BREVILOQUIUM`). The volume index's claim of 312–313 turned out right and was used for nothing.

**★★ THE COLOPHON IS SHORTER THAN THE TITLE AND SHORTER THAN THE RUNNING HEAD.** It reads **`EXPLICIT ITINERARIUM IN DEUM`** — *without* **MENTIS** — while the running head three inches above it on the same leaf reads `ITINERARII MENTIS IN DEUM SCHOLION.` and the work's own half-title (p. 293) and prologue give *Itinerarium mentis in Deum*. Transcribed exactly as printed and **not silently normalised to the fuller form**; the discrepancy is the plate's, not a reading error, and it is recorded here rather than emended. Quaracchi prints no note on it.

**Page-break map.** The single joint, 312→313, falls **inside § 5**, at *…parum dandum | est verbo et scripto*. Verified on the band at both feet; continuous, nothing dropped.

**★★ A GUTTER THAT IS NOT A PAGE CONSTANT — p. 313 CARRIES TWO DIFFERENT ONES, AND THE TOOL RETURNS THE WRONG ONE.** p. 313 is the first Itinerarium leaf that stacks **three regions set to different measures**: Cap. VII's body (two columns) at the top, then the full-width `SCHOLION` display heading and the Scholion's own two-column body in a smaller type, then the footer register. **The two body regions do not share a gutter.**

| Region | Zero-ink band | Centre rule inside it | Midpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Cap. VII body** (rows ~7–41 %) | 1137–1195 (59 px) | 1165–1170 | **1166** |
| **Scholion body** (rows ~50–63 %) | 1129–1194 (66 px) | 1160–1162 | **1161** |
| footer register (rows ~65–80 %) | 1127–1275 (149 px) | — | unusable |

`colcrop.py`'s default row window (45–92 % of page height) **straddles both bodies and returns 1161 — the Scholion's value, not this chunk's.** It reports a 49 px run, which is the tell, but a 5 px error is small enough to survive a glance at the crop. **This chunk owns the Cap. VII region and takes 1166.** ★ The rule that follows generalises past this leaf: **the standing three-step gutter method assumes one measure per page, and that assumption fails on any leaf where a work ends and the next unit begins in a different type.** In Vols VI–X — the Collationes and above all the Sermones, where short pieces will end mid-leaf constantly — **profile the region you are transcribing, not the page.** The footer row is recorded to show the third failure mode as well: the footer's left block is narrower than the column, so its "band" runs on into white space and reports 149 px.

**Apparatus — 13 entries.**

| Page | Page total | c7's | Block split | Anchor split | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 312 | 9 | **nn. 3–9** | 6 L / 3 R | 4 L / 5 R | left block **overruns by two notes** |
| 313 | **6** | nn. 1–6 (all) | 3 L / 3 R | 3 L / 3 R | **coincide** |

**7 + 6 = 13.**

⚠ **A CORRECTION TO `bon-itin-c6`'s OWN FORWARDED HAND-OFF — and it is the same failure c6 caught in c5, one chunk later.** c6 forwarded that p. 312's "n. 3 anchors at § 1's *ad sabbatum quietis*³, n. 4 at *Iesu Christo*⁴, n. 5 at *via et ostium*⁵ — **all three in the LEFT column**." **n. 5 is in the RIGHT column**: *in quo transitu Christus est via et ostium*⁵ stands seven lines into p. 312's right column, and n. 4's anchor is the **last** one on the left, at the foot of that column (*…mediatore Dei et hominum, Iesu Christo*⁴ *ea quorum* | *similia in creaturis…*). c6's per-note list was right about which notes are c7's and about their positions; the column attribution appended to it was not. **Two consecutive chunks have now had their `## Notes` summary contradict the data beside it. This is not a run of bad luck — it is what the standing rule predicts, and the rule earns its place: a hand-off tells you which notes are yours and never where they land.**

★ On p. 313 block and anchor structure **coincide exactly**, 3/3 — the second coincidence in three leaves (p. 312 comes apart by two, p. 313 not at all), after five consecutive leaves earlier in the work that came apart. Both splits were derived independently.

**★★ A PAGE'S WHOLE FOOTER REGISTER CAN BELONG TO A UNIT THAT OCCUPIES ONLY THE TOP OF THE PAGE.** Cap. VII fills barely the upper two-fifths of p. 313; the Scholion fills the middle. **All six of p. 313's footer notes are Cap. VII's** — each answers to an anchor in Cap. VII's § 5 or § 6 (nn. 1–3 in the left column, nn. 4–6 in the right), and **the Scholion's text carries no footnote anchors at all**, citing its authorities inline instead (*supra pag. 47*, *Quaest. disputatam*, the 1883 Collegio S. Bonaventurae edition). A reader dividing the register by *where the text sits on the page* would hand three notes to the wrong chunk. **Divide by anchor, as always — but note that here the anchors are not merely in a different column, they are in a different work-unit.** `bon-itin-scholion` inherits **nothing** from p. 313.

**Runovers — ONE, a gutter runover.**
- **p. 313 n. 3 — GUTTER RUNOVER.** The left block's n. 3 breaks at *…quam vocant contemplationem* puram*, quia* at the foot of the left footer and continues **unnumbered** at the head of p. 313's right footer: *fit sine concursu phantasmatum. Item docent…*. Rendered joined. ⚠ **The printer's signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` prints between the two halves**, at the very foot of the left block — so the break is separated from its continuation by a line of matter that belongs to neither. It is a signature mark, not text, and is not transcribed.
- **⚠ p. 312 n. 6 was forwarded by c6 as a gutter runover and is logged HERE**, not by c6: the left block's n. 6 breaks at *…Et comedetis [agnum paschalem] festi-* and continues **unnumbered** in the right footer at *nanter; est enim* phase*, id est transitus, Domini*. The break falls **mid-word** (*festi-|nanter*). Rendered joined.
- **★ THE PAGE-FOOT JOINT WAS CHECKED FOR A PAGE-CROSSING RUNOVER AND IS CLEAN.** p. 313's left footer block opens **numbered ¹**; nothing crosses from p. 312. Recorded as a negative, per the rule c6 froze.
- **⚠ Do NOT re-log p. 310 n. 7 or p. 311 n. 5** — both are in the ledger under `bon-itin-c6`.

**Hand-off received from `bon-itin-c6` — re-derived item by item.**
1. **p. 312 nn. 3–9 — OWNERSHIP verified for all seven.** POSITION verified for each; **COLUMN attribution corrected** (see above): nn. 3–4 anchor **left**, nn. 5–9 **right**. The forwarded block split of 6 L / 3 R is correct.
2. **p. 312 n. 6's gutter runover — verified and logged here**, as forwarded, including that it breaks mid-word.
3. **Cap. VII's opening position — verified** at ~39 % down p. 312's left column, heading and subtitle both in that column.
4. **The Cap. VII title — verified against the in-place heading**, which is the only witness that is the text: *…affectu **totaliter** in Deum per excessum transeunte*. **The `WORKS` registry carried the capitula table's transposition and has been corrected in this commit.** The table's reading is transmitted text and is recorded at `bon-itin-capitula`; it is not the title.
5. **p. 312 gutter = 1388** accepted on c6's evidence. **p. 313 was flagged NOT settled and that flag was right** — see the region table above.

**Hand-off forwarded to `bon-itin-scholion`** (the last chunk of the work).
- **p. 313's footer register is entirely c7's; the Scholion inherits NOTHING from p. 313.** `KNOWN_TOTALS` is fed with 6.
- **The Scholion opens on p. 313** beneath a **full-width centred `SCHOLION` display heading** at ~48 % down, with its own two-column body in a smaller measure beginning *Aurei huius opusculi doctrina a viris etiam doctis non raro vel imperfecte, vel omnino perperam intellecta est…*. It runs pp. 313–316 by the index's claim — **verify the end on the plate**; *De reductione*'s half-title is at p. 317/319 and that span is still unverified.
- **⚠ Take p. 313's gutter for the SCHOLION region as 1161, not 1166** — the two regions differ, and 1166 is Cap. VII's. Re-profile p. 314–316 per region rather than per page; the Scholion may be the only region on those leaves, in which case the page value is the region value.
- **The Scholion's own body carries no footnote anchors on p. 313.** Whether that holds on pp. 314–316 is unverified — check each leaf's footer against the Scholion's text rather than assuming.
- **Marginalia:** Cap. VII's on p. 313 are "Allocutio ad Deum." · "Exhortatio." · "Via et media supernaturalia." · "Amor Christi." · "Exhortatio." (the last is a second occurrence of the word, in the right column — both are transcribed). **The Scholion region carries no marginalia.**

**Marginalia** (trimmed from the body, transcribed here in body order, per the frozen Vol V convention).
- **p. 312:** "Transitus supra se ipsum." · "Per Christum." · "Pascha cum Christo." · "Franciscus exemplum perfectae contemplationis." · "Modus huius transitus." · "Sapientia mystica." · "Quomodo veniatur ad eam."
- **p. 313:** "Allocutio ad Deum." · "Exhortatio." · "Via et media supernaturalia." · "Amor Christi." · "Exhortatio."

**Register — additions frozen at c7, the chapter where *excessus* pays off.** ★ ***excessus* → "transport" throughout, and c7 is the vindication of that choice**, frozen at the pilot and defended at c4. The chapter uses the word five times in three senses that must stay one English word — the title's *excessus mentalis*, § 3's *excessus contemplationis* (twice, of Francis on La Verna), § 4's *mentis excessum*, and the Dionysian quotation's *purae mentis excessu* at § 5, which the apparatus itself glosses with the Greek **ἐκστάσει**. **Had "ecstasy" been spent on *excessus*, n. 2's Greek could not have been rendered at all**; and § 6's *excessivis unctionibus* takes "excessive unctions" in the ordinary English sense, in the same paragraph, without collision. — *transitus* → **"passing-over"** (hyphenated), and *transire* → "to pass over": § 2 makes *pascha* mean exactly *transitum*, and the Red Sea, the tomb and Francis's *in Deum transiit* are all the one word. "Transit" and "crossing" were both rejected as losing the paschal sense the note supplies. — *apex affectus* → **"the apex of the affection"**, keeping *apex* as at c1 (*apex mentis*) and *affectus* as at c4 and the capitula. — The Dionysian *super-* compounds are rendered one-to-one with English *super-* (*superessentialis* "superessential", *superdeus* "superdivine", *superincognitus* "superunknown", *superlucens* "supershining", *supermanifestissimus* "most supermanifest", *supersplendens* "supershining", *superimplere* "to superfill", *superbona* "supergoods", *superexcedere* "to exceed"), because the pile-up **is** the rhetorical point of the passage and varying them into idiomatic English destroys it. ⚠ *superoptime* is a **vocative adjective** agreeing with *inspector*, not an adverb — "supremely good overseer", not "supremely well". — *caligo* → **"darkness"** against *tenebrae* → "shadows" as frozen at c5; ⚠ but **§ 5's Dionysian *divinarum tenebrarum radium* takes "the ray of the divine darkness"**, because there *tenebrae* is the Dionysian term of art that the whole tradition names "the divine darkness", and rendering it "shadows" would sever the phrase from n. 3's *oratio in caligine* discussion, which is about this very passage. **The one place in the work where the c5 rule is deliberately set aside, and it is set aside on the apparatus's own evidence.** — *omne non ens et ens* → **"every non-being and being"**, on c5's frozen *esse*/*ens* distinction. — *inscius* → "unknowing", *insciu* adverbially. — *propitiatorium* → "the propitiatory" as frozen at c5–c6.

**Digits settled off the band — five corrections to the raw, each corroborated independently.**
- **p. 312 n. 4: *Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5* — the raw prints `2, K`**, the verse numeral lost to a letterform. Settled to **5** at the band and by sense: 1 Tim 2:5 is *mediator Dei et hominum*, which is the phrase the anchor sits on. The same note's ***nota 4*** is raw `nota i` — the 1/4 class — settled to **4** at the band.
- **p. 312 n. 5: *Exod. 25, 20* — the raw prints `Exod. 2o, 20`.** Settled to **25** at the band and by sense (Exod 25:20 is the cherubim over the propitiatory; the note's whole point).
- **p. 312 n. 6: *Exod. 16, 15* — the raw prints `16, l.j.`** Settled at the band; Exod 16:15 is the manna, which the note names.
- **★ p. 313 n. 3: *III. Sent. d. 23. dub. 4* — the raw prints `dub. i`.** The 1/4 class. Settled to **4** at the band and corroborated **from this corpus**: `vol3/bon-sent-III-d23-dubia` carries **six** dubia (Dub. I–VI), so a fourth exists and the reference resolves. ⚠ Per the frozen index conventions `dub. 4` is **display text, not a match coordinate** — the whole `-dubia` chunk is the target.
- **p. 313 n. 6: *Psalm. 105, 48* — the raw prints `105, 48` and the band confirms it.** Recorded because 72:26 and 105:48 are two different psalms in one note and the pair is easy to collapse; both were read separately.

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


site: bonaventure

collection: Itinerarium mentis in Deum

title: Scholion

title_alt: Scholion Scholion

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 313 -->

### SCHOLION

Aurei huius opusculi doctrina a viris etiam doctis non raro vel imperfecte, vel omnino perperam intellecta est. Nonnulli enim aliquas eiusdem propositiones non in rigore verborum intelligendas, sed benigna quadam interpretatione exponendas sive excusandas esse censuerunt, utpote dictas in libro *mystico*, non scientifice theologico. Alii non pauci quibusdam loquendi modis ibi occurrentibus abusi sunt ad confirmandas proprias suas opiniones falsas. — Considerata huius libelli sublimitate et expositionis brevitate, non est mirum, quod erroneae interpretationes elapsae sint sive parum versatis in doctrina seraphici Doctoris, sive specialem indolem totumque contextum huius scripti non attendentibus. Attamen a sapientissimis viris ultimorum saeculorum hic libellus recte celebratus est ut prorsus in genere suo singularis, mira arte compositus et nunquam satis laudandus. Reapse continet documenta sana, altissima, saluberrima et diligenti verborum electione expressa; totaque doctrina omnino consentanea est ei quam Sanctus in scriptis suis theologicis profitetur et diffusius exponit. Hoc satis constare potest iam per testimonia a nobis in notis allegata; quoad pauca quaedam difficiliora remittimus lectorem ad Quaestionem disputatam supra pag. 47 denuo impressam et cum aliis auctorum scholae Bonaventurianae quaestionibus primo in opusculo *de Humanae Cognitionis ratione* a nobis typis Collegii S. Bonaventurae 1883 publicatam, praesertim ad praeambulam Dissertationem (ibid. pag. 1-47).

In commodum tamen lectoris visum est opportunum breves quasdam observationes hic subiicere, ut via paretur facilior ad rectam difficiliorum locorum intelligentiam.
<!-- page 314 -->

1. Quoad indolem opusculi peculiarem notamus, quod recte quidem recensetur inter opera *mystica*, quin tamen suo loco inter opera ad scientiam *theologicam* et etiam *philosophicam* spectantia privandum sit. Est opus *mysticum*, spectatis tum *fine* ab auctore intento tum animi *dispositionibus*, quas idem in legentibus requirit; quod manifeste constat ex Prologo et initio 1. capituli. Non enim auctor eo consilio scripsit, ut more scholarum doceat scientiam pure theoreticam, vel confutet errores, sed ut directe promoveat devotionem et divinorum contemplationem. Dicit enim: « Vacare volentibus ad Deum magnificandum, admirandum et etiam degustandum speculationes subiectas propono » (Prolog. n. 4.). Pro *dispositione* autem lectoris non sufficere dicitur intellectus humanus, quantumvis acutus et excultus, ne adiunctis quidem principiis, quae fides omnibus Christianis proponit; sed ipse sit « *vir desideriorum* », sit praeventus gratia, humilis, pius, compunctus, devotus et contemplationi addictus; quia, ut observatur, « parum aut nihilum est speculum exterius propositum, nisi speculum mentis nostrae tersum fuerit et politum ». Immo, quasi eventus futuros praesagiens, auctor praemonet, deficiente illa ad contemplationem dispositione, et mentis oculo male disposito, cavendum esse, « ne forte ex ipsa radiorum speculatione in graviorem incidas foveam tenebrarum » (ibid. n. 4.). Requiritur igitur ad bene hoc libello fruendum ille *oculus contemplationis*, de quo, agens de triplici oculo, Sanctus loquitur supra Breviloq. p. II. c. 12. (cfr. de dono contemplationis II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. et ad 6.).

Nihilominus pars, ut ita dicam, *materialis* huius opusculi, quae proponit ipsa *obiecta* consideranda, sumta est ex disciplinis theologicis et philosophicis; et haec docte ac profunde exhibet recondita quaedam philosophiae christianae documenta de *multiplici relatione* tum naturalis tum supernaturalis ordinis, quam res creatae habent ad primam causam efficientem, exemplarem et finalem. Omnia enim a Deo in ordine naturali et supernaturali, reali et ideali causata quasi specula quaedam oculo mentis purgato et illuminato proponuntur ad contemplanda divina attributa et Trinitatis et incarnationis mysteria. Dum igitur vulgares libri meditationum ipsa fidei mysteria plurima meditanda utiliter exhibent; hic proponit arcanum illum *nexum*, quo ordo creaturarum naturalis et supernaturalis coniungitur cum primo principio, quod, teste Augustino, est omnium « causa essendi, ratio intelligendi et ordo vivendi ». Ita fieri potest, ut « secundum statum conditionis nostrae ipsa rerum universitas sit scala ad ascendendum in Deum » (c. 1. n. 2.).

2. Notandae sunt tres *distinctiones*. — a. Triplex est creaturarum *comparatio et dependentia ad Deum:* « aut sicut ad *principium creativum*, aut sicut ad *obiectum motivum*, aut sicut ad *donum inhabitativum*. Primo modo comparatur ad ipsum omnis eius *effectus*, secundo modo omnis *intellectus*, tertio modo omnis *spiritus iustus et Deo acceptus*. Omnis enim *effectus*, quantumcumque parum habens de *esse*, habet Deum sicut principium. Omnis *intellectus*, quantumcumque parum habens de lumine, natus est per cognitionem et amorem capere Deum. Omnis autem *spiritus iustus et sanctus* habet donum Spiritus S. sibi infusum » (Breviloq. p. II. c. 12.). — Cum hac distinctione cohaeret alia de quatuor gradibus eius cognitionis Dei, quae haberi potest *in via*. « Cognoscitur enim Deus in *vestigio*, cognoscitur in *imagine*, cognoscitur et in *effectu gratiae*, cognoscitur etiam per intimam *unionem Dei et animae*; iuxta quod dicit Apostolus [I. Cor. 6, 17.]: *Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est.* Et haec est cognitio excellentissima, quam docet Dionysius, quae quidem est in ecstatico amore et elevat supra cognitionem fidei secundum statum communem » (III. Sent. d. 24. dub. 4.).

b. Triplex est *modus existentiae rerum*. « Res tripliciter habent *esse*, scilicet in *materia* vel natura propria, in *intelligentia creata* et in *arte aeterna*; secundum quae tria dicit Scriptura: *Dixit Deus: fiat; fecit, et factum est* » (Breviloq. p. II. c. 12; cfr. ibi Prolog. § 3; I. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 6; Quaest. disp. de scientia Christi, q. 4. in corp.).

c. Triplici modo *intellectus se vertere potest* ad considerandum creaturarum speculum tum exterius tum interius; quia « sensus carnis [et idem valet de sensu interiore] aut deservit intellectui *rationabiliter investiganti*, aut *fideliter credenti*, aut *intellectualiter contemplanti* » (hic c. 1. n. 10.). Unde triplici modo intellectus *transire* potest ab effectibus ad causas, a creatura ad Deum, scilicet vel sola vi luminis naturalis et modo philosophico, vel adiunctis fidei principiis, vel etiam donis Spiritus S. illuminantibus.

3. Circa modum, quo intellectus *rationabiliter investigans* transit, praesertim ab imagine interiore ad Deum, notanda est alia distinctio inter intellectum *apprehendentem* et *resolventem*, et resolventem vel *semiplene*, vel *plene*; qua distinctione etiam intelligitur ratio cognitionis *explicitae* et *implicitae*, et quo sensu verum sit, quod ens creatum non possit cognosci ab intellectu *plene resolvente*, nisi iuvetur ab intellectu primi entis (c. 3. n. 3. et c. 5. n. 3. cum notis.). — Dicit igitur de hoc S. Doctor (I. Sent. d. 28. dub. 1.): « Quantum ad intellectum *apprehendentem* non potest intelligi aliquid sine aliquo, quod est ei *ratio intelligendi*, sicut *Deus* praeter deitatem et *homo* praeter humanitatem; potest tamen intelligi *effectus*, non intellecta *causa*, et *inferius*, non intellecto *superiori*, quia potest quis apprehendere *hominem*, non intellecto aliquo superiorum. Et sic dicit Philosophus, quod qui *unum* dicit quodam modo *multa* dicit, non *simpliciter*, sed *quodam modo*, quia *implicite*. — Alio modo contingit aliquid intelligere praeter alterum intellectu *resolvente*; et iste intellectus considerat ea quae sunt rei essentialia, sicut potest intelligi subiectum sine propria passione. Et hoc potest esse dupliciter: aut intellectu *resolvente plene* et *perfecte*, aut intellectu deficiente et *resolvente semiplene*. Intellectu *resolvente semiplene* potest intelligi, aliquid esse, non intellecto primo ente. Intellectu autem *resolvente perfecte* non potest intelligi aliquid, primo ente non intellecto ». Cfr. II. Sent. d. 1. p. II. dub. 2, ubi docetur, quod *esse*, abstracta *bonitate*, « potest intelligi intellectu *apprehendente* et intellectu *semiplene resolvente*; sed intellectu *plene ad causas comparante* non potest intelligi, non intellecto illo ».

4. Licet « omnis creatura magis ducat in Deum quam in aliquod aliud » (I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 2.), tamen, cum cognitio actualis incipiat a sensu et ab exteriore ad interius, ab imperfecto ad perfectius progrediatur; intellectui adhuc rudiori vix alia via *rationabiliter investigandi* Deum aperta est, nisi ascendendo a mundo sensibili sive a *vestigio* Dei. Hinc dicitur: « Primum gradum ascensionis collocemus in imo, ponendo totum istum mundum *sensibilem* nobis tanquam speculum, per quod transeamus ad Deum, opificem summum » (c. 1. n. 9.). Porro umbrae creaturarum et vestigia sunt « proposita mentibus adhuc rudibus et sensibilibus, ut per sensibilia, quae vident, transferantur ad intelligibilia, quae non vident, tanquam per signa ad signata » (c. 2. n. 11.). — Tamen auctor parum moratur in describendis rebus particularibus mundi sensibilis (c. 1.), sed continuo transit (c. 2.) a mundo *materiali* (reali) ad mundum *idealem* sive ad illud *esse* non physicum, sed metaphysicum, quod mundus habet in mente humana. Ipse enim intellectus *apprehendens* naturaliter et necessario supergreditur ordinem existendi concretum rerum particularium et contingentium, quarum species abstrahendo et depurando in se concipit, et ita res super ordinem materialem quasi elevat et induit quodam spiritualis ordinis vestimento, id est quibusdam proprietatibus idealibus, scilicet universalitatis, immutabilitatis, aeternitatis et necessitatis, quae ipsi ordini reali rerum materialium minime conveniunt. Porro, ordo ille idealis supremam *radicem* et *ultimum fundamentum* habet in Deo et ducit in ipsum. « Veritates intellectae *fundantur in aliquo aeterno*. Fundantur autem in ipsa prima Veritate sicut in causa universali, contentiva omnis veritatis » (S. Thom., S. c. Gent. II. c. 84.). « Regulae (intellectus) incommutabiles radicantur in luce aeterna et ducunt in eam » (S. Bonav., Hexaëm. collatio 2.). « Hinc ipse intellectus, considerans conditiones entis secundum relationem causae ad causatum, *transfert se ab effectu ad causas et transit ad rationes aeternas* » (ibid. coll. 5.). Hic transitus
<!-- page 315 -->
fieri potest arguendo et resolvendo ab intellectu *rationabiliter investigante*; perfectius autem fit ab eodem illuminato et *intellectualiter contemplante*. — Ordo hic *idealis*, vulgari intellectui obscurus et fere ignotus, a S. Bonaventura, duce S. Augustino, praecipuo studio in capp. 2. 3. 5. 6. proponitur, ut oculus contemplativus *transeat* ad divina contemplanda. Supposito triplici illo *esse* eiusdem rei, talis transitus non difficulter intelligitur; attamen bene attendendum est, quod alia est ratio et via, qua intellectus transit ab ordine *reali* ad *idealem*, et alia, qua ab hoc ascendit ad ordinem *divinum* (cfr. de hoc Dissertatio cit. pag. 22-25).

5. Communiter antiqui Scholastici cum S. Thoma (de Verit. q. 22. a. 2. ad 1.) docuerunt, « quod omnia cognoscentia *cognoscunt implicite Deum in quolibet cognito* » (cfr. cit. Dissert. pag. 17. 18); et secundum hanc *implicitam* et *confusam* qualemcumque cognitionem dici posse asserunt, naturaliter notam esse existentiam Dei (S. Thom., S. I. q. 2. a. 1. ad 1.). « Motus ergo nostri intellectus, dum intelligit, dum ratiocinatur, a cognitione *implicita* Dei incipit et in cognitionem explicitam Dei terminatur »; ita cl. P. Lepidi O. Praed. (Period. *Divus Thomas* 1881, n. 11. seqq.).

6. Inter mentem humanam et Deum, quatenus est suprema « causa essendi, ratio intelligendi et ordo vivendi », nulla creatura est intermedia; hoc tamen non impedit, quominus creaturae sint medium *disponens* et quasi manuducens ad cognitionem Dei, ut bene explicat S. Bonav. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 3. ad 1. et II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. — Licet igitur intellectus humanus in statu viae minime Deum cognoscat *immediate*, sed tantum in speculo creaturarum; recte tamen dicitur in se ipso *coniunctus Deo*, *Deo proximus*, vel *pertingens ad Deum*, ut passim occurrit hic c. 2. et 3. et apud Augustinum docentem, naturam intelligibilem *connecti* non solum intelligibilibus, verum etiam immutabilibus rebus (I. Retract. c. 8. n. 2.). Monet tamen Seraphicus (Quaest. disp. de scientia Christi, q. 4. ad 19.): « Pauci sunt, qui isto modo illas rationes sciant se attingere; immo, quod plus est, pauci sunt, qui velint hoc credere, quia difficile videtur intellectui ad aeterna contemplanda nondum elevato, quod ita habeat Deum praesentem et propinquum, cum tamen dicat Paulus (Act. 17, 27.), quod *non longe est ab unoquoque nostrum* ».

7. Communis item sententia ut certum docet *concursum Dei generalem*, activum et immediatum ad quaslibet actiones creaturarum; unde « lumen creatum non potest perficere operationem suam *absque aliqua cooperatione luminis increati*, per quod illuminatur omnis homo, qui venit in hunc mundum » (S. Bonav., II. Sent. d. 28. a. 2. q. 3. in corp.). Nam « in hoc continuo Deus operatur in mente, quod in ipsa lumen naturale causat *et ipsum dirigit ad videndum;* et *sic* mens non sine operatione causae primae in suam operationem procedit » (S. Thom., Opusc. 63, sive in librum Boethii de Trin. q. 1. a. 1. ad 6.). Haec immediata cooperatio primae lucis vocatur ab Augustino et Scholasticis quaedam mentium *irradiatio* sive *illuminatio*, quae praeter intellectum creatum suo modo est quoddam supremum *principium*, *quo* cognoscitur; sive, ut S. Bonav. dicit, ipsa est ratio *motiva*, in *aliud ductiva*, sive *regulans*; et hoc sensu « ad modum candelabri relucet lux veritatis in facie nostrae mentis » (c. 3. n. 1.); tamen prima lux non est *principium*, *quod* (directe) cognoscitur, sive obiectum *terminans*, *quietans* et *in se* ducens. De hoc agit tota q. 4. inter Qq. disput. de scientia Christi, quae magis explicatur a Matth. ab Aquasparta (de Hum. Cognitionis ratione, pag. 87-108; cfr. ibid. Dissert. cit. pag. 26-44). Summi momenti est tum haec *distinctio* inter cognitionis *principium quo* et *principium quod*, sive inter *medium* (ratio) et *obiectum* cognoscendi, tum *doctrina* omnium Scholasticorum, quod aliquid potest esse medium *quo* sive *ratio cognoscendi*, quin ipsum sit *obiectum* cognitionis, ita ut « *lateat* ut obiectum cognitionis, sed *pateat* ut ratio cognoscendi » (sic Matth. ab Aquasparta, q. disp. 3. ad 4; cfr. ibid. ad 6. et S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 3. q. 4. ad 5.). Praecipue propter neglectam hanc distinctionem et doctrinam exortae sunt falsae Itinerarii interpretationes, de quibus continuo agimus.

8. His suppositis, genuinus sensus aliquorum loquendi modorum, qui ex Augustino sumti sunt, patere potest, simulque falsitas quarundam interpretationum, quae duplicem errorem seraphico Doctori imposuerunt.

Primo enim dictum est, eum consentire ontologismo Malebranchii, quasi docuerit, veritates intellectuales cognosci *formaliter* in rationibus aeternis. Attamen eiusdem testimoniis irrefragabilibus iam toties demonstratum est, ab ipso admitti pro hac vita ne « *exilem* » quidem gradum *immediatae* Dei cognitionis, nec in *altissima contemplatione* (saltem ordinarie), nec ullum transitum ad rationes aeternas, nisi eum quo intellectus « transfert se ab *effectu* ad causas ». « Unde si quae auctoritates id dicere inveniantur, quod Deus in praesenti ab homine videtur et cernitur, non sunt intelligendae, quod videtur *in sua essentia, sed quod in aliquo effectu inferiori* cognoscitur » (II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. in corp.). Ipsi Angeli *naturali* cognitione non poterant Deum cognoscere nisi « per *effectus*. Cognoscitur autem Deus per *effectus visibiles* et per *substantias spirituales* et per *influentiam luminis connaturalis potentiae cognoscenti*, quod est similitudo quaedam Dei, non abstracta, sed infusa, inferior Deo, quia in inferiori natura, sicut dicit Augustinus » (IX. de Trin. c. 11. n. 16). Ita II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4. Plura vide I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. scholion et cit. Dissert. pag. 7-12. — Mirum videtur, quod de genuina doctrina S. Bonaventurae propter quasdam male intellectas formulas huius Itinerarii potuerit dubitari, cum in eodem clarissime (c. 1. 2. 3.) non nisi ascensionem *a creaturis* ad Deum doceat; et quando adhibet verba *videre Deum*, se explicet additis aliis verbis, ut: « conari debemus *per speculum* videre Deum » (c. 3. n. 1.) et « videre poteris Deum *per te* tanquam per imaginem, quod est videre *per speculum in aenigmate* » (ibid.).

9. Alius error impositus est auctori nostro per falsam capituli 5. interpretationem, quasi docuerit, tum quod primum cognitum *intellectus apprehendentis* sit *esse divinum*, tum quod *esse commune* confuderit cum *esse divino*. Perversa haec interpretatio prorsus aliena est a mente S. Doctoris et manifeste excluditur irrefragabilibus doctrinae capitibus, quae constanter et passim asserit. Nam docet verbis peremptoriis, quod divinum *esse* in se nec ante nec post primum peccatum *immediate* cognosci possit; quod non percipiatur nisi in speculo creaturarum et per ordinem, quem *effectus* habent ad causam (I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. 2; II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. et passim); item, quod *actualis intellectio* incipiat a sensu, ita ut ab intellectione imperfecta et confusa progrediatur ad perfectiorem et explicitam (cfr. II. Sent. d. 39. a. 1. q. 2. et scholion, n. II, d. 25. p. II. q. 6; I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. dub. 4; II. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2; III. Sent. d. 37. dub. 1.). Denique toties affirmat, *esse divinum* non esse *in genere*, sed *supra omne genus*, nec *univocum*, sed tantum *analogum* cum omnibus mentis conceptibus, etiam transcendentalibus.

Insuper ex hoc Itinerario et ex ipso cap. 5. genuinus sensus auctoris satis apparet. — Nam *primo* clarissime docet ordinem et gradus cognitionis et contemplationis, per quos a creaturis ascendimus ad perfectam, quantum fas est, Dei cognitionem (c. 1. n. 2.). Primum enim gradum ponit in *imo*, incipiendo a mundo *sensibili*, ut supra (n. 4.) notavimus; scilicet « ut perveniamus ad Deum, *oportet nos transire per vestigium* » (c. 1. n. 2. et 5.). — Superiores autem gradus ab ipso deinde explicati supponunt praecedentes.

*Secundo*, de *conceptu* τοῦ *esse* iam in tertio gradu (c. 3. n. 3.) auctor locutus est secundum intellectum *apprehendentem* et *resolventem* (vide supra n. 3.); ubi dicitur, quod « non venit intellectus noster *ut plene resolvens* intellectum alicuius entium creatorum, nisi iuvetur ab intellectu entis purissimi » etc. Non igitur nisi ascendendo a causatis rebus et *resolvendo*, immo resolvendo non *semiplene*, sed *plene*, intellectus concipit ens purissimum et absolutissimum.

Hoc supposito, etiam in c. 5. n. 3. triplex distinguit *esse*, scil. in rebus (extra nos) « *esse particulare*, quod est *esse* arctatum, quia permixtum est cum potentia »; in intellectu (intra nos) « *esse analogum*, quod minime habet de actu, eo quod minime
<!-- page 316 -->
est »; denique *esse supra nos*. Sed breviter commemoratis duobus prioribus, totus versatur in contemplatione illius *esse*, quod est « *supra nos* » nec attingitur nisi ab oculo contemplativo. Ne igitur lector a genuino huius capituli sensu aberret, ea quae in cap. 3. dicta sunt et nexus gradus quinti cum tertio mente retinenda sunt.

*Tertio*, contemplatio huius 5. gradus fundatur in axiomate Avicennae communiter a Scholasticis recepto, quod « *ens* (*esse*) est quod primo cadit in intellectu ». Haec sententia intelligitur proprie de illo *ente communi*, primo actu intellectus concepto, quod nullo modo manifestari nobis potest per aliquid notius illo. Hoc tamen ens, quatenus concipitur ab intellectu *apprehendente*, « non est aliquid determinatum, nec actu nec potentia, nec praesens nec futurum, nec homo vel equus et huiusmodi, sed ens, quod est superius ad omnia ista; et ego dico, quod quidditas illa est ens in *intellectu*… licet non sit ens *in actu*, quia nec hoc est de intellectu suo » (Matth. ab Aquasparta, in cit. Opusc. de Hum. Cognitionis ratione, pag. 120; sive in quaest. disp.: Utrum ad cognitionem rei requiratur ipsius rei existentia etc., ad 4; cfr. ad 5. 6. 7. et corp., ubi etiam alia sunt ad rem spectantia). S. Thom. (S. I. II. q. 94. a. 2. corp.) dicit: « Illud quod primo cadit in *apprehensione*, est *ens*, cuius intellectus includitur in omnibus, quaecumque quis apprehendit; et ideo primum principium indemonstrabile est, quod *non est simul affirmare et negare*, quod fundatur super rationem entis et non entis, et super hoc principio omnia alia fundantur » (cfr. idem de Potentia q. 9. a. 7. ad 15. et in fine; S. I. q. 11. a. 2. ad 4.).

Hoc *esse* analogum, ab intellectu apprehendente primo cognitum, non est nisi tenuissima umbra *divini esse*, a quo ratione *realitatis* toto caelo distat eique quasi est oppositum; nihilominus ratione suae *maximae universalitatis*, *primitatis* et *simplicitatis* aptum est *contemplativo oculo* fieri speculum ad divina contemplanda. Observat etiam Richardus a Med. (I. Sent. d. III. p. I. a. 3. q. 3.): « Cum intelligimus *ens in communi*, non descendendo ad ens creatum vel increatum, intelligimus Deum intellectione *generalissima*, in quantum intelligimus aliquid commune sibi et cuilibet creaturae, non communitate *univoca*, sed *analoga*. Et haec *naturalis* cognitio de Deo prior est quam Dei cognitio [propria] per *vestigium*; quia ista praesupponit in intellectu alicuius alterius cognitionem, sed illa non. Unde secundum Avicennam… ens commune omnibus rebus nullo modo potest manifestari nobis per aliquid notius illo. Alio modo cognoscitur Deus a nobis *in generali*, in quantum cognoscimus, esse aliquod ens increatum, cuiuslibet entis creati causam efficientem et finalem; et hanc cognitionem habemus de Deo per naturam *primo* per vestigium ». — Omnia haec confirmari possunt testimoniis nostri auctoris, quorum unum insigne iuvat transcribere, in quo loquitur de genere generalissimo et specie specialissima et sic concludit: « Et hinc est, quod *genus* in aliquo assimilatur Deo magis quam *species*, in aliquo e converso. Deus enim, quia nobilissimus est in fine totius nobilitatis, simul habet in se omnem perfectionem, ita quod ipse est *simplicissimus* et omnino *incorruptibilis*, est etiam *perfectus* et in omnimoda *actualitate constitutus*. Creatura vero, secundum quod potest, semiplene assimilatur Deo; et quantum ad rationem *simplicitatis* et *incorruptibilitatis* magis assimilatur magis universale, quantum ad rationem *actualitatis* magis assimilatur minus universale » (II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 3. in corp. circa finem). Eo fortius hoc valet de universalibus *transcendentalibus*, quorum primum et generalissimum est *esse*.

*Quarto*, ipsa verba auctoris in cap. 5. satis manifestant, quod bene distinguat ab *esse divino*, quod est actus purus, illa duo alia. Dicit enim: « Sed hoc non est *esse particulare* [*extra nos* realiter existens], quod est *esse* arctatum, quia permixtum est cum potentia; nec *esse analogum* [in intellectu *intra nos*], quia minime habet de actu, eo quod minime est ». De *esse analogo* sive communissimo, quod est quasi infimum inter omnia, quibus competit *esse*, auctor hic non loquitur, nisi quatenus occasionem dat contemplandi *ipsum esse* (supra nos). Unde monet: « Volens contemplari Dei invisibilia quoad essentiae unitatem *defigat aspectum in ipsum esse et videat* » etc. (n. 3.). Item: « Vide igitur ipsum purissimum *esse*, si *potes*, et occurrit tibi » etc. (n. 5.). Haec verba de « *ipso esse* » manifeste non intelliguntur de primo illo actu intellectus *apprehendentis*, qui naturaliter et necessario exercetur, et cuius obiectum est tenuissimum illud *esse*, quod non est *primum* et *purum esse*, sed potius eiusdem longinqua *umbra*. Intellectus autem reflectens et resolvens, et praecipue oculus contemplativus facile advertere potest, ipsum *esse per se*, quod est primum a parte rei essendi et cognoscendi principium, esse aliquid *supra nos* et *ante nos*, in quo omne *esse* creatum et etiam illud communissimum primi universalis *esse* radicatur, et in quod omnia ducunt intellectum resolventem. Hoc sensu etiam S. Thomas (S. I. q. 3. a. 5, sed contra) proclamat: « Nihil prius est Deo, nec secundum *rem* nec secundum *intellectum* ». Quod manifeste dictum est non ex parte intellectus humani, qui in caecitate sua prius *umbram* veritatis quam ipsam *veritatem in se* apprehendit, sed ex parte *rei* vel intellectus *superioris*, qui bene videt, *ipsum esse* praecedere *umbram* ipsius. — Hoc sensu accipienda sunt illa verba, quae multis fuerunt lapis offensionis: « *Esse* igitur est, quod primo cadit in intellectu; et illud *esse* est, quod est purus actus » (n. 3.). Sensus igitur genuinus hic est: ipsum *esse* non est in rebus particularibus nisi *per participationem* et *modo arctato* et *imperfecto*, nec ab intellectu humano primo suo actu *apprehenditur* in sua puritate et distinctione, sed tantum imperfectissime in illa communissimi *esse* umbra; idem tamen ab oculo *contemplativo* cognoscitur distincte ut illud *esse*, quo revera « nihil prius est, nec secundum rem nec secundum intellectum ». Quia autem intellectus *apprehendens* propter suam caecitatem illud *esse purissimum* « *non videt* », « *nec advertit* », immo « videtur sibi nihil videre » (ut inculcatur, ibid. n. 4.); S. Doctor miro acumine secundum intellectum *reflectentem* et *resolventem* ex ipso conceptu τοῦ *esse per se* evolvit praecipua attributa divina.

In toto autem Itinerario suo Seraphicus innititur doctrinae S. Augustini; ad cuius profunditatem intelligendam simul optimam quasi clavem praebet. Qui igitur sublime hoc opusculum bene vult intelligere legat vel potius meditetur S. Augustini libros de Vera Religione, VI. de Musica et II. et III. de Libero Arbitrio, vel saltem conferat locos a nobis in notis allegatos.

---

english:
<!-- page 313 -->

### SCHOLION

The teaching of this golden little work has not rarely been understood, even by learned men, either imperfectly or altogether wrongly. For some have judged that certain of its propositions are not to be understood in the strict sense of the words, but to be expounded or excused by a kindly interpretation, as having been said in a *mystical* book and not in a scientifically theological one. Others, not a few, have abused certain manners of speaking that occur there to confirm their own false opinions. — Considering the sublimity of this little book and the brevity of its exposition, it is no wonder that erroneous interpretations should have slipped in, whether among those little versed in the teaching of the Seraphic Doctor, or among those not attending to the special character and the whole context of this writing. Nevertheless this little book has been rightly celebrated by the wisest men of the last centuries as altogether singular in its kind, composed with marvellous art, and never sufficiently to be praised. It contains in fact teachings sound, most lofty, most wholesome, and expressed with a careful choice of words; and the whole doctrine is wholly consonant with that which the Saint professes in his theological writings and there expounds more at large. This can already be sufficiently established from the testimonies we have adduced in the notes; as to a few of the more difficult matters, we refer the reader to the Disputed Question reprinted above at page 47, and published, together with other questions of authors of the Bonaventurian school, first in the little work *On the Manner of Human Cognition*, brought out by us from the press of the College of St. Bonaventure in 1883 — and especially to the introductory Dissertation (ibid. pp. 1–47).

For the reader's convenience, however, it has seemed opportune to subjoin here a few brief observations, so that an easier way may be prepared toward the right understanding of the more difficult passages.
<!-- page 314 -->

1. As to the peculiar character of the little work, we note that it is rightly reckoned among the *mystical* works, without its being on that account deprived of its place among the works pertaining to *theological* and even *philosophical* science. It is a *mystical* work, regard being had both to the *end* intended by the author and to the *dispositions* of soul which he requires in his readers; which is manifestly established from the Prologue and the beginning of chapter 1. For the author did not write with the design of teaching, after the manner of the schools, a purely theoretical science, or of refuting errors, but in order directly to promote devotion and the contemplation of divine things. For he says: « To those willing to be at leisure for magnifying, admiring, and even tasting God, I propose the speculations set forth below » (Prolog. n. 4.). But for the *disposition* of the reader the human intellect is said not to suffice, however acute and cultivated, not even with the addition of those principles which faith sets before all Christians; rather let him be « *a man of desires* », let him be prevented by grace, humble, pious, compunct, devout, and given to contemplation; because, as is observed, « of little or no avail is the mirror set outwardly before us, unless the mirror of our mind has been wiped clean and polished ». Indeed, as though presaging events to come, the author forewarns that, when that disposition to contemplation is wanting and the mind's eye is ill disposed, one must beware « lest perchance from the very speculation of the rays you fall into a graver pit of darkness » (ibid. n. 4.). There is required therefore, for enjoying this little book well, that *eye of contemplation* of which, treating of the threefold eye, the Saint speaks above in Breviloq. p. II. c. 12. (cf. on the gift of contemplation II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. and ad 6.).

Nevertheless the, so to speak, *material* part of this little work, which sets forth the very *objects* to be considered, is drawn from the theological and philosophical disciplines; and this learnedly and profoundly exhibits certain recondite teachings of Christian philosophy concerning the *manifold relation*, of the natural as well as of the supernatural order, which created things have to the first efficient, exemplar, and final cause. For all things caused by God in the natural and supernatural order, the real and the ideal, are set forth as so many mirrors to the purified and illumined eye of the mind, for contemplating the divine attributes and the mysteries of the Trinity and of the incarnation. While therefore ordinary books of meditations usefully set forth the very mysteries of faith, many of them, to be meditated upon, this one sets forth that hidden *bond* by which the natural and supernatural order of creatures is joined with the first principle, which, on Augustine's testimony, is of all things the « cause of being, the ground of understanding, and the order of living ». Thus it can come about that « according to the state of our condition the very universality of things is a ladder for ascending into God » (c. 1. n. 2.).

2. Three *distinctions* are to be noted. — a. Threefold is the creatures' *comparison and dependence upon God:* « either as to a *creative principle*, or as to a *motive object*, or as to an *indwelling gift*. In the first mode every *effect* of his is compared to him, in the second mode every *intellect*, in the third mode every *spirit just and acceptable to God*. For every *effect*, however little it has of *being*, has God as its principle. Every *intellect*, however little it has of light, is born to lay hold of God through cognition and love. And every *just and holy spirit* has the gift of the Holy Spirit infused into it » (Breviloq. p. II. c. 12.). — With this distinction coheres another, concerning the four degrees of that knowledge of God which can be had *on the way*. « For God is known in a *vestige*, he is known in an *image*, he is known also in the *effect of grace*, he is known too through the intimate *union of God and the soul*; according to which the Apostle says [I. Cor. 6, 17.]: *He who adheres to God is one spirit.* And this is the most excellent knowledge, which Dionysius teaches, which indeed lies in ecstatic love and raises above the knowledge of faith according to the common state » (III. Sent. d. 24. dub. 4.).

b. Threefold is the *mode of existence of things*. « Things have *being* in three ways, namely in *matter* or their proper nature, in *created intelligence*, and in *the eternal art*; according to which three Scripture says: *God said: let it be made; he made it, and it was made* » (Breviloq. p. II. c. 12; cf. there Prolog. § 3; I. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. and II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 6; Quaest. disp. de scientia Christi, q. 4. in corp.).

c. In a threefold mode *the intellect can turn itself* to considering the mirror of creatures, both outward and inward; because « the sense of the flesh [and the same holds of the interior sense] either serves the intellect *rationally investigating*, or *faithfully believing*, or *intellectually contemplating* » (here c. 1. n. 10.). Whence in a threefold mode the intellect can *pass over* from effects to causes, from creature to God, namely either by the sole force of the natural light and in the philosophical mode, or with the principles of faith adjoined, or even with the illuminating gifts of the Holy Spirit.

3. Concerning the mode by which the intellect *rationally investigating* passes over, especially from the interior image to God, another distinction is to be noted, between the *apprehending* and the *resolving* intellect, and the resolving either *half-fully* or *fully*; by which distinction is also understood the account of *explicit* and *implicit* cognition, and in what sense it is true that a created being cannot be known by the *fully resolving* intellect unless it be helped by the understanding of the first being (c. 3. n. 3. and c. 5. n. 3. with the notes.). — The holy Doctor therefore says of this (I. Sent. d. 28. dub. 1.): « As regards the *apprehending* intellect, nothing can be understood without something which is to it *the ground of understanding*, as *God* apart from deity and *man* apart from humanity; yet an *effect* can be understood without the *cause* being understood, and an *inferior* without the *superior* being understood, because one can apprehend *man* without any of the superiors being understood. And so the Philosopher says that he who says *one* in a certain manner says *many*, not *simply*, but *in a certain manner*, because *implicitly*. — In another way it happens that something is understood apart from another by the *resolving* intellect; and this intellect considers those things which are essential to the thing, just as a subject can be understood without its proper attribute. And this can be in two ways: either by the intellect *resolving fully* and *perfectly*, or by the intellect falling short and *resolving half-fully*. By the intellect *resolving half-fully* it can be understood that something is, without the first being being understood. But by the intellect *resolving perfectly* nothing can be understood without the first being being understood ». Cf. II. Sent. d. 1. p. II. dub. 2, where it is taught that *being*, with *goodness* abstracted, « can be understood by the *apprehending* intellect and by the intellect *half-fully resolving*; but by the intellect *fully comparing to causes* it cannot be understood without that being understood ».

4. Although « every creature leads more into God than into anything else » (I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 2.), nevertheless, since actual cognition begins from sense and advances from the exterior to the interior, from the imperfect to the more perfect, scarcely any other way of *rationally investigating* God lies open to a still ruder intellect than by ascending from the sensible world or from the *vestige* of God. Hence it is said: « Let us place the first step of the ascent at the bottom, setting this whole *sensible* world before us as a mirror, through which we may pass over to God, the supreme craftsman » (c. 1. n. 9.). Further, the shadows and vestiges of creatures are « set before minds still rude and sensible, so that through the sensible things which they see they may be carried over to the intelligible things which they do not see, as through signs to the things signified » (c. 2. n. 11.). — Yet the author lingers little over describing the particular things of the sensible world (c. 1.), but passes over at once (c. 2.) from the *material* (real) world to the *ideal* world, or to that *being*, not physical but metaphysical, which the world has in the human mind. For the *apprehending* intellect itself naturally and necessarily transcends the concrete order of existing of particular and contingent things, whose species it conceives within itself by abstracting and purifying, and thus as it were raises things above the material order and clothes them with a certain garment of the spiritual order, that is, with certain ideal properties, namely of universality, immutability, eternity, and necessity, which by no means belong to the real order itself of material things. Further, that ideal order has its supreme *root* and *ultimate foundation* in God, and leads into him. « Truths understood *are founded upon something eternal*. And they are founded upon the first Truth itself as upon a universal cause, containing all truth » (S. Thom., S. c. Gent. II. c. 84.). « The unchangeable rules (of the intellect) are rooted in the eternal light and lead into it » (S. Bonav., Hexaëm. collation 2.). « Hence the intellect itself, considering the conditions of being according to the relation of cause to caused, *carries itself over from the effect to the causes and passes over to the eternal grounds* » (ibid. coll. 5.). This passage
<!-- page 315 -->
can be made by arguing and resolving on the part of the intellect *rationally investigating*; but it is made more perfectly by the same intellect illumined and *intellectually contemplating*. — This *ideal* order, obscure and almost unknown to the ordinary intellect, is set forth by St. Bonaventure, under the lead of St. Augustine, with special care in chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, so that the contemplative eye may *pass over* to contemplating divine things. That threefold *being* of the same thing being supposed, such a passage is not understood with difficulty; yet it must be well attended to that one is the account and the way by which the intellect passes from the *real* order to the *ideal*, and another that by which from this it ascends to the *divine* order (cf. on this the Dissertation cited, pp. 22–25).

5. The ancient Scholastics commonly, with St. Thomas (de Verit. q. 22. a. 2. ad 1.), taught « that all knowing things *know God implicitly in whatever is known* » (cf. the Dissert. cited, pp. 17, 18); and according to this *implicit* and *confused* cognition of whatever sort they assert that it can be said that the existence of God is naturally known (S. Thom., S. I. q. 2. a. 1. ad 1.). « The motion therefore of our intellect, while it understands, while it reasons, begins from an *implicit* cognition of God and terminates in an explicit cognition of God »; so the distinguished Fr. Lepidi O. Praed. (the periodical *Divus Thomas* 1881, n. 11. ff.).

6. Between the human mind and God, inasmuch as he is the supreme « cause of being, ground of understanding, and order of living », no creature is intermediate; this however does not prevent creatures from being a *disposing* medium and, as it were, one leading by the hand to the knowledge of God, as St. Bonaventure well explains, I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 3. ad 1. and II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. — Although therefore the human intellect in the state of the way by no means knows God *immediately*, but only in the mirror of creatures, it is nevertheless rightly said in itself to be *joined to God*, *near to God*, or *reaching unto God*, as occurs throughout here in cc. 2 and 3, and in Augustine, who teaches that the intelligible nature is *connected* not only with intelligible but also with immutable things (I. Retract. c. 8. n. 2.). Yet the Seraphic Doctor warns (Quaest. disp. de scientia Christi, q. 4. ad 19.): « Few there are who know that they attain to those grounds in that manner; nay, what is more, few there are who are willing to believe this, because it seems difficult to an intellect not yet raised to contemplating eternal things that it should have God so present and near, although Paul says (Acts 17, 27.) that *he is not far from every one of us* ».

7. The common opinion likewise teaches as certain the *general concurrence of God*, active and immediate, in any actions whatever of creatures; whence « created light cannot perfect its own operation *without some cooperation of the uncreated light*, by which every man is illumined who comes into this world » (S. Bonav., II. Sent. d. 28. a. 2. q. 3. in corp.). For « in this God works continually in the mind, that he causes in it the natural light *and directs it to seeing;* and *thus* the mind does not proceed to its operation without the operation of the first cause » (S. Thom., Opusc. 63, or on Boethius's book de Trin. q. 1. a. 1. ad 6.). This immediate cooperation of the first light is called by Augustine and the Scholastics a certain *irradiation* or *illumination* of minds, which besides the created intellect is in its own way a certain supreme *principle*, *by which* knowledge is had; or, as St. Bonaventure says, it is itself the *motive* ground, *leading into another*, or *regulating*; and in this sense « after the manner of a candlestick the light of truth shines back in the face of our mind » (c. 3. n. 1.); yet the first light is not the *principle* *which* is (directly) known, or the object *terminating*, *bringing to rest*, and leading *into itself*. Of this the whole q. 4 among the Disputed Questions de scientia Christi treats, which is more fully explained by Matthew of Aquasparta (de Hum. Cognitionis ratione, pp. 87–108; cf. ibid. the Dissert. cited, pp. 26–44). Of the highest moment is both this *distinction* between the *principium quo* and the *principium quod* of cognition, or between the *medium* (ground) and the *object* of knowing, and the *teaching* of all the Scholastics that something can be the medium *by which*, or the *ground of knowing*, without its being itself the *object* of cognition, so that « it *lies hidden* as an object of cognition, but *lies open* as a ground of knowing » (so Matthew of Aquasparta, q. disp. 3. ad 4; cf. ibid. ad 6. and S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 3. q. 4. ad 5.). Chiefly because this distinction and teaching were neglected did the false interpretations of the Itinerarium arise, of which we treat immediately.

8. These things being supposed, the genuine sense of certain manners of speaking which are taken from Augustine can be clear, and at the same time the falsity of certain interpretations which have imputed a twofold error to the Seraphic Doctor.

For first it has been said that he agrees with the ontologism of Malebranche, as though he had taught that intellectual truths are known *formally* in the eternal grounds. Yet from his own irrefragable testimonies it has already so often been demonstrated that he admits for this life not even a « *slender* » degree of *immediate* cognition of God, not even in the *highest contemplation* (at least ordinarily), nor any passage to the eternal grounds except that by which the intellect « carries itself over from the *effect* to the causes ». « Whence if any authorities be found to say this, that God is in the present seen and discerned by man, they are not to be understood as though he were seen *in his essence, but that he is known in some inferior effect* » (II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. in corp.). The Angels themselves by *natural* cognition could not know God except « through *effects*. And God is known through *visible effects* and through *spiritual substances* and through the *influence of the light connatural to the knowing power*, which is a certain likeness of God, not abstracted but infused, inferior to God, because in an inferior nature, as Augustine says » (IX. de Trin. c. 11. n. 16). So II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4. See more, I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. scholion and the Dissert. cited, pp. 7–12. — It seems astonishing that the genuine teaching of St. Bonaventure could have been doubted on account of certain ill-understood formulas of this Itinerarium, since in the same work he most clearly (cc. 1, 2, 3) teaches nothing but an ascent *from creatures* to God; and when he employs the words *to see God*, he explains himself by adding other words, as: « we must strive *through a mirror* to see God » (c. 3. n. 1.) and « you will be able to see God *through yourself* as through an image, which is to see *through a mirror in an enigma* » (ibid.).

9. Another error has been imputed to our author through a false interpretation of chapter 5, as though he had taught both that the first thing known by the *apprehending intellect* is the *divine being*, and that he confounded *common being* with the *divine being*. This perverse interpretation is utterly foreign to the mind of the holy Doctor and is manifestly excluded by irrefragable heads of doctrine which he constantly and everywhere asserts. For he teaches in peremptory words that the divine *being* in itself can neither before nor after the first sin be known *immediately*; that it is not perceived except in the mirror of creatures and through the order which *effects* have to their cause (I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. 2; II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. and everywhere); likewise, that *actual understanding* begins from sense, so that from an imperfect and confused understanding it advances to a more perfect and explicit one (cf. II. Sent. d. 39. a. 1. q. 2. and scholion, n. II, d. 25. p. II. q. 6; I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. dub. 4; II. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2; III. Sent. d. 37. dub. 1.). Finally he so often affirms that the *divine being* is not *in a genus*, but *above every genus*, nor *univocal*, but only *analogous* with all the concepts of the mind, even the transcendental ones.

Moreover, from this Itinerarium and from chapter 5 itself the genuine sense of the author sufficiently appears. — For *first* he most clearly teaches the order and the degrees of cognition and contemplation, through which we ascend from creatures to a perfect knowledge of God, so far as is permitted (c. 1. n. 2.). For he places the first degree at the *bottom*, beginning from the *sensible* world, as we noted above (n. 4.); namely « that we may come to God, *it behoves us to pass through the vestige* » (c. 1. n. 2. and 5.). — And the higher degrees thereafter explained by him presuppose the preceding ones.

*Secondly*, concerning the *concept* of τοῦ *esse* the author has already spoken in the third degree (c. 3. n. 3.) according to the *apprehending* and the *resolving* intellect (see above n. 3.); where it is said that « our intellect does not come *as fully resolving* to the understanding of any one of created beings unless it be helped by the understanding of the purest being » etc. Not therefore except by ascending from caused things and by *resolving* — nay, by resolving not *half-fully* but *fully* — does the intellect conceive the purest and most absolute being.

This being supposed, in c. 5. n. 3. also he distinguishes a threefold *being*, namely in things (outside us) « *particular being*, which is *being* constricted, because it is mingled with potency »; in the intellect (within us) « *analogous being*, which has least of act, in that it least
<!-- page 316 -->
is »; finally *being above us*. But having briefly recalled the two former, he is wholly occupied in the contemplation of that *being* which is « *above us* » and is not attained except by the contemplative eye. Lest therefore the reader stray from the genuine sense of this chapter, the things which were said in chapter 3 and the connection of the fifth degree with the third must be kept in mind.

*Thirdly*, the contemplation of this fifth degree is founded on the axiom of Avicenna commonly received by the Scholastics, that « *a being* (*being*) is what first falls into the intellect ». This opinion is properly understood of that *common being*, conceived by the first act of the intellect, which can in no way be manifested to us through anything better known than it. This being, however, inasmuch as it is conceived by the *apprehending* intellect, « is not anything determinate, neither in act nor in potency, neither present nor future, neither man nor horse and the like, but a being which is superior to all these; and I say that that quiddity is a being in the *intellect*… although it is not a being *in act*, since neither is this part of its understanding » (Matthew of Aquasparta, in the cited Opusc. de Hum. Cognitionis ratione, p. 120; or in the disputed question: Whether for the cognition of a thing the existence of the thing itself is required etc., ad 4; cf. ad 5. 6. 7. and corp., where there are also other things pertaining to the matter). St. Thomas (S. I. II. q. 94. a. 2. corp.) says: « That which first falls into *apprehension* is *a being*, the understanding of which is included in all things whatsoever anyone apprehends; and therefore the first indemonstrable principle is that *it is not possible at once to affirm and to deny*, which is founded upon the account of being and non-being, and upon this principle all others are founded » (cf. the same, de Potentia q. 9. a. 7. ad 15. and at the end; S. I. q. 11. a. 2. ad 4.).

This analogous *being*, first known by the apprehending intellect, is nothing but the slenderest shadow of the *divine being*, from which by reason of *reality* it stands as far as heaven is wide and is as it were opposed to it; nevertheless by reason of its *greatest universality*, *priority*, and *simplicity* it is fitted to become for the *contemplative eye* a mirror for contemplating divine things. Richard of Middleton also observes (I. Sent. d. III. p. I. a. 3. q. 3.): « When we understand *being in common*, not descending to created or uncreated being, we understand God by a *most general* understanding, inasmuch as we understand something common to him and to any creature whatever, not by a *univocal* community, but by an *analogous* one. And this *natural* cognition of God is prior to the [proper] cognition of God through a *vestige*; because the latter presupposes in the intellect the cognition of some other thing, but the former does not. Whence according to Avicenna… being common to all things can in no way be manifested to us through anything better known than it. In another way God is known by us *in general*, inasmuch as we know that there is some uncreated being, the efficient and final cause of any created being whatever; and this cognition of God we have by nature *first* through a vestige ». — All these things can be confirmed by the testimonies of our author, one notable one of which it is well to transcribe, in which he speaks of the most general genus and the most special species and concludes thus: « And hence it is that *genus* in something is likened to God more than *species*, and in something conversely. For God, since he is most noble at the term of all nobility, has at once in himself every perfection, so that he is *most simple* and altogether *incorruptible*, and is also *perfect* and *constituted in every mode of actuality*. But a creature, according as it can, is half-fully likened to God; and as regards the account of *simplicity* and *incorruptibility* the more universal is the more likened, while as regards the account of *actuality* the less universal is the more likened » (II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 3. in corp. near the end). So much the more strongly does this hold of the *transcendental* universals, of which the first and most general is *being*.

*Fourthly*, the very words of the author in chapter 5 sufficiently make manifest that he well distinguishes from the *divine being*, which is pure act, those two others. For he says: « But this is not *particular being* [existing really *outside us*], which is *being* constricted, because it is mingled with potency; nor *analogous being* [in the intellect *within us*], because it has least of act, in that it least is ». Of *analogous* or most common *being*, which is as it were the lowest among all the things to which *being* belongs, the author does not here speak, except inasmuch as it gives occasion for contemplating *being itself* (above us). Whence he admonishes: « Let him who wishes to contemplate the invisible things of God as regards the unity of the essence *fix his gaze upon being itself and see* » etc. (n. 3.). Likewise: « See therefore the purest *being* itself, if *you can*, and it occurs to you » etc. (n. 5.). These words about « *being itself* » are manifestly not understood of that first act of the *apprehending* intellect, which is exercised naturally and necessarily, and whose object is that slenderest *being* which is not the *first* and *pure being*, but rather the far-off *shadow* of the same. But the intellect reflecting and resolving, and especially the contemplative eye, can easily advert that *being per se* itself, which is the first principle on the part of the thing both of being and of knowing, is something *above us* and *before us*, in which every created *being* and also that most common *being* of the first universal is rooted, and into which all things lead the resolving intellect. In this sense also St. Thomas (S. I. q. 3. a. 5, sed contra) proclaims: « Nothing is prior to God, neither according to the *thing* nor according to the *intellect* ». Which is manifestly said not on the part of the human intellect, which in its blindness apprehends the *shadow* of truth before *truth itself in itself*, but on the part of the *thing* or of the *superior* intellect, which sees well that *being itself* precedes the *shadow* of it. — In this sense are to be taken those words which to many have been a stone of stumbling: « *Being* therefore is what first falls into the intellect; and that *being* is what is pure act » (n. 3.). The genuine sense therefore is this: *being* itself is not in particular things except *by participation* and *in a constricted* and *imperfect mode*, nor is it *apprehended* by the human intellect in its first act in its purity and distinctness, but only most imperfectly in that shadow of most common *being*; yet the same is known distinctly by the *contemplative* eye as that *being* than which in truth « nothing is prior, neither according to the thing nor according to the intellect ». But because the *apprehending* intellect on account of its blindness « *does not see* », « *nor advert to* » that purest *being*, nay « seems to itself to see nothing » (as is inculcated, ibid. n. 4.); the holy Doctor with marvellous acumen, according to the *reflecting* and *resolving* intellect, unfolds from the very concept of τοῦ *esse per se* the chief divine attributes.

In his whole Itinerarium, moreover, the Seraphic Doctor leans upon the teaching of St. Augustine; and to understanding the profundity of that teaching he at the same time furnishes as it were the best key. Whoever therefore wishes rightly to understand this sublime little work, let him read, or rather meditate upon, St. Augustine's books de Vera Religione, VI. de Musica, and II. and III. de Libero Arbitrio, or at least let him compare the passages adduced by us in the notes.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column bands for printed pp. 313–316 (pdf 389–392), reading each leaf left column top-to-bottom then right column. The plate scouting banked at `manual-review/itin-scholion-plate-scouting.md` was used as written and is confirmed in every particular; nothing in it needed re-deriving.

**Span.** Opens on p. 313 beneath the full-width centred `SCHOLION` display heading at ~48 % down, in a smaller measure than Cap. VII above it; closes on p. 316 at *…vel saltem conferat locos a nobis in notis allegatos.* **p. 317 is *De reductione*'s half-title** (verified at scouting), so nothing is forwarded past this chunk. This is the last chunk of the Itinerarium and the work is now complete.

**★★ NO APPARATUS — the first Vol V chunk of which that is true.** pp. 314, 315 and 316 carry **no footer register whatsoever**; p. 313's six footer notes are Cap. VII's and are owned by `bon-itin-c7`. `has_apparatus: false`, with zero footnote anchors in either body and zero apparatus definitions. The scholion cites its authorities **inline in the body**, in parentheses, which is why it needs no anchors at all. `KNOWN_TOTALS` takes no new entry (p. 313 is already fed with 6, all c7's); the runover ledger takes a **negative** line — no runover is possible on a chunk with no footers.

**Gutters (from the scouting, all confirmed in use).** 313 = **1161** — the *Scholion region's* value, not Cap. VII's 1166 on the same leaf · 314 = **1375** · 315 = **1189** · 316 = **1385**. pp. 314–316 are single-region, so page = region there.

**★ p. 316's two columns end level, and that is the work's shape, not a truncation.** The left column ends mid-word at *…semiplene assimilatur Deo; et quan-* and the right column ends a few lines lower at the closing sentence, both at ~62 % down; the lower two-fifths of both columns are blank. Checked against a whole-page view before continuing, precisely because the frozen rule is that **blank space at a column foot is never a boundary** — here it is the end of the work, established positively from p. 317's half-title, not from the white space. The `et quan-` | `tum ad rationem` join across the columns was read directly off the bands.

**Digits and readings settled.** `supra pag. 47` (p. 313) was settled at scouting in the 1/4 class against a known `1` and a known `4` of the same size three lines below (*ibid. pag. 1-47*) — ★ the risk ran in the **unusual** direction, a true `4` nearly read as `1`. On p. 316 the same class recurs four times in the printed digits and each resolves against its own context: `de Potentia q. 9. a. 7. ad 15.` · `S. I. q. 11. a. 2. ad 4.` · `pag. 120` · and `II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 3.` — the last corroborated independently by the scouting file, which had read it the same way from the plate before this session.

**Greek.** The printed text sets the Greek article in the genitive at both occurrences — *conceptu* **τοῦ** *esse* (§ 9) and *ex ipso conceptu* **τοῦ** *esse per se* (§ 9, near the end). **Transcribed as printed in both languages, and deliberately NOT normalised to τό in the English**, even though the English "of" then duplicates the genitive: changing it would be an emendation of Quaracchi, which this corpus never makes silently.

**Register additions (this chunk).** *intellectus apprehendens / resolvens* → "the apprehending / resolving intellect" · *semiplene / plene resolvens* → "resolving half-fully / fully" (the pair is the whole point of § 3 and must stay visibly one pair in English) · *ordo realis / idealis* → "the real / the ideal order" · *irradiatio* → "irradiation" against *illuminatio* → "illumination" (they stand together in § 7) · *principium quo / quod* → **kept in Latin as a technical pair**, on the corpus's standing *quod est / quo est* convention; the text glosses them itself one clause later (*medium* / *obiectum*) · *lapis offensionis* → "a stone of stumbling" · *ontologismus Malebranchii* → "the ontologism of Malebranche" · *Richardus a Med.* → "Richard of Middleton". The frozen cc. II–VII register carries over unchanged; *esse* → "being" and *ens* → "a being" are kept rigorously apart here too, which § 9's Avicenna axiom (*ens* (*esse*) *est quod primo cadit in intellectu*) makes load-bearing.

**No `[?]` flags.** Nothing on these four leaves was illegible and no structural doubt remains open.

**Session note.** This chunk was interrupted by a terminal crash with the Latin ~88 % written and no English. Nothing was lost: the partial file survived on disk **because it was being built by the Péguy incremental-append method**, and the plate work had been committed ahead of it as a scouting file. Resumed by appending, same method, no content-filter kills.

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