title: Dist. 44, Part 1

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XLIV — De qualitate et conditione resurgentium (Capp. I–VIII)

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XLIV — On the quality and condition of those who rise (Chapters I–VIII)

source_text:
<!-- page 904 -->

### Pars I.

#### *Cap. I. De aetate et statura resurgentium.*

Solent autem nonnulli percontari et quaerere, an in eadem aetate et statura corporis omnes resurrecturi sint. — Quidam putaverunt, omnes resurrecturos secundum mensuram aetatis et staturae Christi, ideo quia Apostolus[^p904-n1] ait: *Donec occurramus omnes in virum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi.* — Sed his verbis non eadem resurgentibus assignatur statura, sed aetas. «Omnes enim in eadem aetate resurgent, in qua Christus mortuus est et resurrexit, cuiuscumque aetatis mortui fuerint»; *virum* autem posuit, non ut distingueret sexum, sed ut significaret perfectionem virium, quam tunc habebunt; sed non omnes eandem staturam corporis obtinebunt. Unde Augustinus[^p904-n2]: «Non, ait, in mensuram corporis vel staturae, sed aetatis, quia unusquisque suam recipiet mensuram corporis, quam vel habuit in iuventute, etiam si senex obiit, vel fuerat habiturus, si ante est defunctus. Aetas vero erit illa, ad quam pervenit Christus, scilicet iuvenilis, ut circa triginta annos». Triginta enim duorum annorum et trium mensium erat aetas Christi, in qua mortuus est et resurrexit. «Non est autem fas dicere, quod in resurrectione accedat corpori magnitudo, quam nec habuit hic nec erat habiturum diu vivendo, nec maiora corpora redigenda sunt ad modum dominici corporis. Periret enim multum de illis corporibus, cum nec periturus sit capillus, ut ait Dominus: *Capillus de capite vestro non peribit*».

<!-- page 905 -->

#### *Cap. II. Quod resurget quidquid fuit de substantia et natura corporis, etsi non in eadem parte corporis.*

«Non enim perit Deo terrena materies, de qua mortalium creatur caro; sed in quemlibet pulverem cineremve solvatur, in quoslibet halitus aurasque diffugiat, in quamcumque aliorum corporum substantiam, vel in ipsa elementa vertatur, in quorumcumque animalium, etiam hominum cibum carnemque mutetur, illi animae in puncto temporis redibit, quae illam primitus, ut homo fieret, cresceret, viveret, animavit[^p905-1]». «Ipsa ergo terrena materies, quae, discedente anima, fit cadaver, non ita resurrectione reparabitur, ut ea quae dilabuntur et in alias atque alias rerum species vertuntur, quamvis ad corpus redeant, unde dilapsa sunt, ad easdem quoque corporis partes, ubi fuerunt, redire necesse sit. Alioquin, si capillis redit quod tam crebra tonsura detraxit, si unguibus quod toties dempsit[^p905-2] exsectio, immoderata et indecens cogitantibus resurrectionem carnis, et ideo non credentibus occurrit informitas. Sed quemadmodum, si statua cuiuslibet solubilis metalli igne liquesceret, vel contereretur in pulverem, vel confunderetur in massam, et eam vellet artifex rursum ex illius materia et quantitate reparare; nihil interesset ad eius integritatem, quae particula materiae cui membro statuae redderetur, dum tamen totum, ex quo constituta fuerat, restituta resumeret. Ita Deus, mirabiliter atque ineffabiliter artifex, de toto, quo caro nostra constiterat, eam mirabili celeritate restituet; nec aliquid attinebit ad eius redintegrationem, utrum capilli ad capillos redeant, et ungues ad ungues; an quidquid eorum perierat, mutetur in carnem et in partes alias corporis revocetur; curante artificis providentia, ne quid indecens fiat». «Indecorum quippe aliquid ibi non erit, sed quidquid futurum est, hoc decebit, quia nec futurum est, si non decebit».

#### *Cap. III. Quod sine omni deformitate resurgent.*

Hoc autem in corporibus Sanctorum intelligendum est, de quibus consequenter adiungit: «Resurgent igitur Sanctorum corpora sine ullo vitio, sine ulla deformitate, sicut sine ulla corruptione, onere, difficultate; in quibus tanta facilitas, quanta felicitas erit; propter quod et spiritualia dicta sunt, cum procul dubio corpora sint futura, non spiritus[^p905-3]». — Ex his apparet, quod una aetas erit omnium resurgentium, scilicet iuvenilis, statura vero diversa, scilicet quam quisque habuit in iuvenili aetate, vel erat habiturus, si ante est defunctus. Nec de substantia, de qua hominis caro creatur, aliquid peribit, sed omnium particularum ante dispersarum collectione redintegrabitur naturalis substantia corporis. Sanctorum quoque corpora sine omni vitio fulgida sicut sol resurgent, praecisis cunctis deformitatibus, quas hic habuerunt.

#### *Cap. IV. Utrum reproborum corpora cum deformitatibus resurgant, quas hic habuerunt.*

De reprobis autem quaeri solet, an cum deformitatibus hic habitis resurgant. Hoc autem Augustinus[^p905-4] non asserit, sed dubium relinquit, ita inquiens: «Quicumque ab illa perditionis massa, quae per Adam facta est, non liberantur per Christum, resurgent quidem etiam ipsi, unusquisque cum sua carne, sed ut cum diabolo eiusque angelis puniantur. Utrum vero ipsi cum vitiis et deformitatibus suorum corporum resurgant, quaecumque in eis gestarunt, inquirendo laborare quid opus est? Non enim fatigare nos debet incerta eorum habitudo vel pulcritudo, quorum erit certa et sempiterna damnatio». — Ecce, non definit, an tunc habeant deformitates, quas hic habuerunt, reproborum corpora.

### Pars II.

#### *Cap. V. Quod non consumentur malorum corpora, quae tunc ardebunt.*

Si vero quaeritur de corporibus malorum, quomodo in igne ardeant et non consumantur; Augustinus[^p905-5] variis exemplis astruit, et sempiternis ignibus ea ardere et non consumi illa combustione; sicut animus, cuius praesentia corpus vivit, et dolorem pati potest et mori non potest. Hoc enim erit tunc etiam in corporibus damnatorum, quod nunc esse scimus in animis omnium.

#### *Cap. VI. Si daemones corporali igne cremabuntur.*

Quaeri etiam solet, an daemones corporali igne ardeant. — Ad quod Augustinus respondens[^p905-6] ait: «Cur non dicamus, quamvis miris veris tamen modis, etiam spiritus incorporeos posse poena corporalis ignis affligi, si spiritus hominum, etiam ipsi incorporei, et nunc potuerunt includi corporalibus membris et tunc poterunt corporum suorum vinculis insolubiliter alligari»? «Gehenna illa, quae stagnum ignis et sulphuris dicta est, corporeus ignis erit et cruciabit <!-- page 906 -->damnatorum corpora, hominum, vel daemonum, sed solida hominum, aerea daemonum. Unus enim utrisque ignis erit, ut Veritas ait». De quo igne si quaeritur, qualis vel ubi sit; Augustinus sic respondet: «Ignis aeternus cuiusmodi sit et in qua mundi vel rerum parte futurus sit, hominem scire arbitror neminem, nisi forte cui Spiritus divinus ostendit».

#### *Cap. VII. Si animae sine corporibus sentiant ignem materialem.*

Cum autem constet, animas igne materiali in corporibus cruciandas; quaeri solet, an interim ante resurrectionem corporum animae defunctorum reproborum materiali igne crementur. — De hoc Iulianus[^p906-1], Toletanae Ecclesiae episcopus, Gregorii dicta secutus, ita scripsit: «Si viventis hominis incorporeus spiritus tenetur in corpore, cur non post mortem etiam corporeo igne teneatur? Teneri autem per ignem spiritum dicimus, ut in tormento ignis sit *videndo* atque *sentiendo*. Quod autem non solum videndo sed etiam experiendo anima ignis tormentum patiatur; ex Evangelio colligitur, ubi Veritatis voce dives mortuus dicitur *in inferno sepultus*; cuius anima, quod in igne teneatur, insinuat, cum Abraham deprecatur dicens: *Mitte Lazarum, ut intingat extremum digiti sui in aquam, ut refrigeret linguam meam, quia crucior in hac flamma.* Dum ergo peccatorem divitem damnatum in ignibus Veritas perhibet, quis sapiens reproborum animas teneri ignibus neget»? praecipue cum humanam animam corporis similitudinem habere doceat Augustinus[^p906-2], ita inquiens: «Profiteri, animam habere posse similitudinem corporis et corporalium omnino membrorum, quisquis renuit, potest negare, animam esse, quae in somnis videt, vel se ambulare vel sedere vel huc atque illuc gressu vel etiam volatu ferri; hoc sine quadam similitudine corporis non fit: proinde, si hanc similitudinem etiam apud inferos gerit, non corporalem, sed corpori similem; ita etiam in locis videtur esse non corporalibus, sed corporalium similibus, sive in requie, sive in doloribus». In Cassiani[^p906-3] etiam voluminibus legitur, quod «non sint otiosae atque nihil non sentiant, cum dives ille in inferno se flamma cruciari clamat». «Unde probatur, animas defunctorum non solum suis sensibus non privari, sed nec istis affectibus, scilicet spe, tristitia, gaudio ac metu, carere et ex his quae sibi in illo generali examine reservantur, quiddam eas iam incipere praegustare».

#### *Cap. VIII. De abortivis fetibus et monstris.*

Illud etiam investigari oportet, si abortivi fetus et monstra resurgent, et qualia. — De quo Augustinus[^p906-4] ita ait: «Occurrit de abortivis fetibus quaestio, qui iam nati sunt in uteris matrum, sed non ita, ut iam possint renasci. Si enim resurrecturos eos dixerimus; de his qui iam *formati* sunt, tolerari potest utcumque quod dicitur. *Informes* vero quis non proclivius perire arbitretur, sicut semina, quae concepta non fuerunt»? «Scrupulose quidem inter doctores quaeri ac disputari potest, quando incipit homo in utero vivere; an sit quaedam vita occulta, quae nondum motibus viventis appareat. Negare enim, vixisse puerperia, quae ideo membratim exsecantur, ut eiiciantur ex uteris praegnantium, ne matres etiam, si mortua ibi relinquantur, occidant, impudentia nimia videtur. Ex quo autem incipit homo vivere, ex illo utique iam mori potest; mortuus vero, ubicumque illi mors potuit evenire, quomodo ad resurrectionem non pertineat, reperire nequeo». «Neque enim et monstra, quae nascuntur et vivunt, quantumlibet cito moriantur, aut resurrectura negabuntur, aut ita resurrectura credenda sunt; sed potius correcta emendataque natura. Absit enim, ut illum bimembrem, quem nuper natum in oriente fratres fidelissimi, qui cum viderunt, retulerunt, et sanctus Hieronymus scriptum reliquit, ut unum hominem duplicem, ac non potius duos, quod futurum erat, si gemini nascerentur, resurrecturos existimemus. Ita et cetera, quae nimia deformitate monstra dicuntur, ad humanae naturae figuram resurrectione revocabuntur».

---

english:
### Part I.

#### *Ch. I. On the age and stature of those who rise.*

Now some are wont to inquire and ask whether all will rise in the same age and stature of body. — Certain persons have supposed that all will rise according to the measure of the age and stature of Christ, on this ground, because the Apostle[^p904-n1] says: *Until we all attain unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ.* — But by these words it is not the same stature that is assigned to those who rise, but the same age. «For all will rise in the same age in which Christ died and rose again, of whatever age they may have died»; but he set down *a man* not to distinguish sex, but to signify the perfection of powers which they will then have; yet not all will obtain the same stature of body. Whence Augustine[^p904-n2]: «Not, he says, in the measure of body or of stature, but of age; because each one will receive his own measure of body, which he either had in youth, even if he died an old man, or would have had, if he was carried off before. But the age will be that to which Christ attained, namely the youthful, about thirty years». For the age of Christ was thirty-two years and three months, in which he died and rose again. «But it is not lawful to say that in the resurrection there accrues to the body a magnitude which it neither had here nor was going to have by living long, nor are greater bodies to be reduced to the measure of the Lord's body. For much of those bodies would perish, since not even a hair is to perish, as the Lord says: *A hair of your head shall not perish*».

#### *Ch. II. That whatever was of the substance and nature of the body will rise again, even if not in the same part of the body.*

«For the earthly matter from which the flesh of mortals is created does not perish for God; but though it be dissolved into any dust or ash whatever, though it scatter into any breaths and breezes, though it be turned into the substance of any other bodies whatever, or into the very elements, though it be changed into the food and flesh of any animals whatever, even of men, in a point of time it will return to that soul which first animated it, that a man might come to be, and grow, and live[^p905-1]». «That earthly matter, therefore, which, when the soul departs, becomes a corpse, will not be so restored in the resurrection that those things which slip away and are turned into other and other kinds of things must, although they return to the body from which they slipped away, of necessity return also to the same parts of the body where they were. Otherwise, if to the hairs there returns what such frequent shearing has taken away, if to the nails what cutting has so often removed[^p905-2], an excessive and unseemly deformity presents itself to those who ponder the resurrection of the flesh, and therefore do not believe it. But just as, if a statue of any meltable metal were to melt in the fire, or were ground to dust, or were confounded into a mass, and the craftsman wished to restore it again from the material and quantity of the same; it would make no difference to its integrity which particle of matter were rendered to which member of the statue, provided only that the whole, from which it had been constituted, being restored, it should take up again. So God, the wondrously and ineffably skilled craftsman, will restore it with wondrous swiftness from the whole of which our flesh had consisted; nor will it matter at all to its reintegration whether hairs return to hairs, and nails to nails; or whether whatever of them had perished be changed into flesh and recalled into other parts of the body; the craftsman's providence taking care that nothing unseemly be done». «For nothing unbecoming will be there, but whatever is to be, this will be fitting, since it is not to be, if it will not be fitting».

#### *Ch. III. That they will rise without any deformity.*

But this is to be understood of the bodies of the Saints, concerning which he consequently adds: «The bodies of the Saints, therefore, will rise without any defect, without any deformity, as also without any corruption, burden, or difficulty; in which there will be as great facility as felicity; on account of which they are also called spiritual, though beyond doubt they will be bodies, not spirits[^p905-3]». — From these things it appears that there will be one age of all who rise, namely the youthful, but a diverse stature, namely the one which each had in his youthful age, or was going to have, if he was carried off before. Nor will anything perish of the substance from which the flesh of man is created, but by the collection of all the particles previously dispersed the natural substance of the body will be reintegrated. The bodies of the Saints too will rise without any defect, shining like the sun, with all the deformities cut away which they had here.

#### *Ch. IV. Whether the bodies of the reprobate rise with the deformities they had here.*

But concerning the reprobate it is wont to be asked whether they rise with the deformities had here. This, however, Augustine[^p905-4] does not assert, but leaves in doubt, thus speaking: «Whosoever are not freed by Christ from that mass of perdition which was made through Adam, will indeed rise themselves also, each with his own flesh, but so as to be punished with the devil and his angels. But whether they rise with the vices and deformities of their bodies, whatever they bore in them, what need is there to labor by inquiring? For the uncertain condition or beauty of those whose damnation will be certain and everlasting ought not to weary us». — Behold, he does not determine whether the bodies of the reprobate then have the deformities which they had here.

### Part II.

#### *Ch. V. That the bodies of the wicked, which will then burn, will not be consumed.*

But if it is asked concerning the bodies of the wicked, how they burn in the fire and are not consumed; Augustine[^p905-5] establishes by various examples that they both burn in everlasting fires and are not consumed by that combustion; just as the soul, by whose presence the body lives, both can suffer pain and cannot die. For this will then be in the bodies of the damned which we now know to be in the souls of all.

#### *Ch. VI. Whether the demons will be burned by bodily fire.*

It is also wont to be asked whether the demons burn in bodily fire. — To which Augustine, answering[^p905-6], says: «Why should we not say that, although in wondrous yet true ways, even incorporeal spirits can be afflicted by the pain of bodily fire, if the spirits of men, even they themselves incorporeal, were both able now to be enclosed in bodily members and will then be able to be bound inseparably by the chains of their bodies»? «That Gehenna, which is called the pool of fire and brimstone, will be a bodily fire and will torment <!-- page 906 -->the bodies of the damned, of men, or of demons—but the solid bodies of men, the airy bodies of demons. For there will be one fire for both, as the Truth says». And if it is asked concerning this fire, of what sort or where it is; Augustine answers thus: «Of what kind the eternal fire is, and in what part of the world or of things it is to be, I think no man knows, unless perhaps to whom the divine Spirit reveals it».

#### *Ch. VII. Whether souls without bodies feel material fire.*

But since it is agreed that souls are to be tormented by material fire in bodies; it is wont to be asked whether meanwhile, before the resurrection of bodies, the souls of the deceased reprobate are burned by material fire. — Concerning this Iulianus[^p906-1], bishop of the Church of Toledo, following the sayings of Gregory, wrote thus: «If the incorporeal spirit of a living man is held in the body, why should it not after death also be held by bodily fire? But we say that the spirit is held by the fire so that it is in the torment of the fire by *seeing* and by *feeling*. But that the soul suffers the torment of the fire not only by seeing but also by experiencing; is gathered from the Gospel, where by the voice of the Truth the rich man who died is said to be *buried in hell*; whose soul intimates that it is held in the fire, when it beseeches Abraham, saying: *Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, that he may cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.* Since therefore the Truth affirms that the rich sinner was damned in the fires, what wise man would deny that the souls of the reprobate are held by the fires»? especially since Augustine[^p906-2] teaches that the human soul has a likeness of the body, thus speaking: «Whoever refuses to profess that the soul can have a likeness of the body and of bodily members altogether, can deny that it is the soul which sees in dreams, or is borne to walk or to sit or hither and thither by a step or even by flight; this does not happen without a certain likeness of the body: accordingly, if it bears this likeness even among those below, it is not bodily, but like a body; so also it is seen to be in places not bodily, but like bodily ones, whether in rest or in pains». In the volumes of Cassian[^p906-3] too it is read that «they are not idle nor perceive nothing, since that rich man in hell cries out that he is tormented by the flame». «Whence it is proved that the souls of the deceased are not only not deprived of their senses, but neither lack these affections, namely hope, sadness, joy, and fear, and that from those things which are reserved for them in that general examination, they already begin to foretaste something».

#### *Ch. VIII. On abortive fetuses and monsters.*

That too must be investigated, whether abortive fetuses and monsters will rise, and of what kind. — Concerning which Augustine[^p906-4] speaks thus: «There occurs a question about abortive fetuses, which have already been born in their mothers' wombs, but not in such a way that they could yet be reborn. For if we say that they will rise; concerning those who are already *formed*, what is said can somehow be tolerated. But who would not more readily judge that the *unformed* perish, like seeds which were not conceived»? «It can indeed be scrupulously inquired and disputed among the learned when a man begins to live in the womb; whether there is a certain hidden life which does not yet appear by the movements of the living. For to deny that those infants have lived, which are for that reason cut out limb by limb, so that they may be cast out from the wombs of the pregnant, lest the mothers too be killed if the dead be left there, seems excessive shamelessness. But from the point at which a man begins to live, from that point assuredly he can already die; and once dead, wherever death was able to befall him, how he should not pertain to the resurrection, I am unable to discover». «For neither will the monsters which are born and live, however quickly they die, either be denied to be going to rise, or be believed to rise in such a state; but rather with their nature corrected and amended. For far be it that we should suppose that two-bodied one—recently born in the East, whom most faithful brethren, who saw him, reported, and holy Jerome left in writing—will rise as one double man, and not rather as two, which would have been the case if twins had been born. So too the rest, which by excessive deformity are called monsters, will be recalled by the resurrection to the figure of human nature».

---

la: Eph. 4, 13. Seq. locus est Haymonis ibid.

en: Eph. 4:13. The following passage is Haymo's, at the same place.

la: Libr. XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 15. (secundum sensum); verbotenus apud Lyranum in Glossa ad Eph. 4, 13. Seq. locus est citt. locis Augustini et Glossae, ubi citatur Luc. 12, 21.

en: Book XXII of *The City of God*, c. 15 (according to the sense); word for word in Lyra in the Gloss on Eph. 4:13. The following passage is from the cited places of Augustine and of the Gloss, where Luke 12:21 is cited.

la: Totum hoc cap. (etiam duo seqq.) sumtum est ex August., Enchirid. c. 88. 89. 90. n. 23.

en: This whole chapter (and the two following) is taken from Augustine, *Enchiridion* cc. 88, 89, 90, n. 23.

la: Ita etiam originale; edd. *depressit*, male solutis siglis; deinde pro *informitas* codd. et edd., exceptis 6, 8 et Vat., male *infirmitas*, refragante etiam originali.

en: So also the original [reads *dempsit*]; the editions read *depressit*, the abbreviation-marks being wrongly resolved; then for *informitas* the codices and editions, except 6, 8 and the Vatican, wrongly [read] *infirmitas*, the original too gainsaying it.

la: Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 3. — Infra ante *in corporibus* codd. (non vero Erf.) et plurimae edd. omittunt *etiam*; deinde pro *damnatorum* codd. A E et edd. 4, 5, 9 *damnandorum*.

en: Book XXI of *The City of God*, c. 3. — Below, before *in corporibus*, the codices (but not the Erfurt one) and most editions omit *etiam*; then for *damnatorum* the codices A E and editions 4, 5, 9 [read] *damnandorum*.

la: Loc. cit. c. 10. n. 1. Seq. locus ibid. n. 2, ubi respicitur Apoc. 20, 9, et Matth. 25, 41. Tertius ibid. XX. c. 16.

en: At the place cited, c. 10, n. 1. The following passage is at the same place, n. 2, where Apoc. 20:9 and Matth. 25:41 are alluded to. The third passage is at the same work, Book XX, c. 16.

la: Libr. II. Prognosticon, c. 17; cfr. Gregor., IV. Dialog. c. 28. seq. Ibi citatur Luc. 16, 22-24. — Superius pro *crementur* codd. A B D E *concrementur*; infra post *sentiendo* Vat. et edd. 6, 8 [addunt] *puniatur*, omittentes *sit*.

en: Book II of the *Prognosticon*, c. 17; cf. Gregory, *Dialogues* IV, c. 28 f. There Luke 16:22-24 is cited. — Above, for *crementur* the codices A B D E [read] *concrementur*; below, after *sentiendo* the Vatican and editions 6, 8 [add] *puniatur*, omitting *sit*.

la: Libr. XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 33. n. 62; cfr. Iulian, loc. cit. c. 16.

en: Book XII of *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 33, n. 62; cf. Iulianus, at the place cited, c. 16.

la: Collatio I. c. 14, et apud Iulian., loc. cit. c. 15. Seq. locus ibid., parum inferius.

en: *Conference* I, c. 14, and in Iulianus, at the place cited, c. 15. The following passage is at the same place, a little below.

la: Enchirid. c. 85; seq. locus est ibid. c. 86, tertius c. 87. n. 23.

en: *Enchiridion* c. 85; the following passage is at the same place, c. 86, the third at c. 87, n. 23. [The Augustine passages on abortive fetuses/monsters are drawn, per Augustine himself, from *The City of God* XXII, c. 13; the *Enchiridion* citation is the Quaracchi editors' locus for the linked passages.] ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (raw L96182–96400) collated against the p.904–906 column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{904,905,906}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); English is a fresh literal translation, chapter-for-chapter. This chunk holds the Master's (Peter Lombard's) *littera* for Distinctio XLIV, his Caps I–VIII, divided into his Pars I (Caps I–IV) and Pars II (Caps V–VIII), rendered as headings within the littera. The littera occupies the upper two-column band of each page; Bonaventure's COMMENTARIUS (which opens in the lower band of p.906 with the DIVISIO TEXTUS / NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM) is a **separate** chunk and is not included here.

**Cap. VIII belongs here (correction).** Cap. VIII (*De abortivis fetibus et monstris*), printing in the right column of p.906 after Cap VII, is Peter Lombard's own text — the last chapter of his Pars II hell-fire treatise, which the Pars II commentary cross-refers to as "TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 905." No other chunk carries it, so it is included here rather than dropped; its footer (p.906 note 4 = Enchirid. c. 85) is claimed as `[^p906-4]`.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Editorial left-margin glosses were deleted as non-textual: the "Dubium 1 / Dubium 2 / Dubium 3" pointers on p.904 (which flag which of Bonaventure's dubia treats a passage), and the printed source-attribution margin-tags (Ratio, Modus explicatur dupliciter, Exemplum triplex — all belonging to the d.43 dubia — and Haymo, Augustinus, Iulianus, Cassianus alongside the littera). The author names remain in the Master's flowing text ("Unde Augustinus", "De hoc Iulianus", "In Cassiani … voluminibus", etc.).

**p.904 footer-ownership split (hand-off from d.43-dubia).** Printed p.904 is shared with the tail of d.43's dubia (Dub. IV–V, in the upper columns). The numbered footer block on p.904 (`Damasc.` / `Epist. I. Ioan. 4, 18` / `Codd. L Y confessor` / `De Similitudinibus` … through no. 7) glosses **the dubia** and was already claimed by the d.43-dubia chunk as `[^p904-1]`…`[^p904-7]`; those are **not** re-claimed here. This chunk claims only the SEPARATE `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block on p.904 (2 entries: Eph. 4:13 + Haymo; De Civ. Dei XXII c.15), which glosses the Master's littera. To avoid a numbering collision with the dubia's `[^p904-1/2]`, the two NOTAE entries are labeled `[^p904-n1]` and `[^p904-n2]`.

**Apparatus count:** 12 entries — p.904 NOTAE (n1–n2, 2), p.905 footers (1–6, 6), p.906 footers (1–4, 4). The p.906 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block (a single entry, `Codd. F I et qualiter, edd. et quomodo`) is excluded — it glosses Bonaventure's commentary and belongs to the commentary chunk.

**Page breaks.** p.904→p.905 falls at the Cap I / Cap II boundary (clean). p.904→d.43 material: the littera begins mid-p.904, below the dubia. p.905→p.906 falls **inside Cap VI**, splitting the word *damnatorum* ("cruciabit damna-|torum corpora"); the `<!-- page 906 -->` marker is placed at that word so the shared-page seam is grammatically continuous.

**`[?]` flags.**
- `[?]` p906-1 apparatus: the middle of p.905→p.906 footer note 1 is partly cut at the colcrop split; the variant clause is reconstructed as "*Superius pro crementur codd. A B D E concrementur; infra post sentiendo Vat. et edd. 6, 8 puniatur, omittentes sit*" from the L-2/R-2 band fragments (`Supe-`/`rius pro cre-`, `sentiendo Vat.`). The two source citations (Prognosticon II c.17; Gregor. IV Dialog. c.28; Luc. 16, 22-24) are read clean; only the intra-note variant wording carries mild uncertainty.
No `[?]` flags stand in either body text — all Latin was resolved unambiguously against the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 44, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars I)

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (Part I)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 906 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLIV.
#### Pars I.

*De resurrectione quantum ad modum, scilicet qualia et quanta corpora resurgant.*

*Solent autem nonnulli percontari et quaerere* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de resurrectione, si est. Hic determinat, quomodo est, ostendendo, quid et quantum[^p906-1] et quale resurgat; et habet haec pars duas. In prima ostendit, qualia et quanta corpora resurgant. In secunda determinat de abortivis fetibus, ostendens, quod in nulla quantitate resurgent, quia non vixerunt, ibi: *Illud etiam investigari oportet* etc.

<!-- page 907 -->

Prima pars habet duas. In prima parte determinat, quanta et qualia erunt resurgentium corpora. In secunda vero determinat, quomodo damnatorum corpora erunt passibilia, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur de corporibus malorum, quomodo.* Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat, in quanta statura resurgent[^p907-1]. In secunda determinat, qualia resurgent, ibi: *Hoc autem in corporibus Sanctorum.* Prima pars duas habet. In prima determinat, in qua aetate et statura resurgent. In secunda determinat, qualiter statura corporis debet reparari, et per quid; ubi determinat, quid in quo resurget, ibi: *Non enim perit Deo terrena materies* etc.

Similiter secunda pars, in qua agit de qualitate corporum, duas habet. In prima ostendit, quod corpora electorum carebunt omni deformitate. In secunda vero de corporibus reproborum relinquit sub dubio; innuit tamen, quod deformitatibus non carebunt, ibi: *De reprobis autem quaeri solet* etc. Et sic tria determinat. Primo, quid resurget hominis ad staturam complendam; secundo, quid in qua parte resurgat; et tertio, quale, utrum cum deformitatibus, an sine.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, quid resurget in corpore humano.

Secundo, quid in quo[^p907-2].

Tertio quaeritur, qualia resurgent corpora.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, quid resurgat quantum ad indigentiam.

Secundo, quid resurgat quantum ad superfluitatem.

---

english:
<!-- page 906 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XLIV.
#### Part I.

*On the resurrection with respect to its mode—namely, of what quality and of what magnitude the bodies rise.*

*But some are wont to inquire and ask* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the resurrection, whether it is. Here he determines how it is, by showing what and how much[^p906-1] and of what quality rises; and this part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he shows of what quality and of what magnitude the bodies rise. In the second he determines concerning aborted fetuses, showing that they rise in no magnitude, because they did not live, there: *This too must be investigated* etc.

<!-- page 907 -->

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first part he determines how great and of what quality the bodies of those rising will be. In the second, however, he determines how the bodies of the damned will be passible, there: *But if it is asked concerning the bodies of the wicked, in what manner.* The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines in what stature they rise[^p907-1]. In the second he determines of what quality they rise, there: *But this [belongs] in the bodies of the Saints.* The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines in what age and stature they rise. In the second he determines in what manner the stature of the body ought to be restored, and by what; where he determines what rises in what, there: *For the earthly matter does not perish for God* etc.

Likewise the second part, in which he treats of the quality of the bodies, has two [subdivisions]. In the first he shows that the bodies of the elect will lack all deformity. In the second, however, concerning the bodies of the reprobate he leaves [it] in doubt; yet he suggests that they will not lack deformities, there: *But concerning the reprobate it is wont to be asked* etc. And thus he determines three things. First, what of a man rises unto the completion of his stature; second, in what part it rises; and third, of what quality—whether with deformities, or without.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part three things principally are asked.

First it is asked, what rises in the human body.

Second, in what[^p907-2].

Third it is asked, of what quality the bodies rise.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked, what rises with respect to deficiency.

Second, what rises with respect to superfluity.

---

la: Codd. F I *et qualiter,* edd. *et quomodo.*

en: Codices F and I [read] *et qualiter* ("and in what manner"); the editions [read] *et quomodo* ("and how").

la: Cod. C supplet *corpora.*

en: Codex C supplies *corpora* ("bodies").

la: Cum ed. 1 omisimus *membro,* quod est in Vat. et codd.; tamen infra in rubrica 2. art. etiam ab his recte omittitur.

en: With edition 1 we have omitted *membro* ("member/part"), which is [found] in the Vatican [edition] and the codices; yet below, in the rubric of article 2, it too is rightly omitted by these.

translators_notes:
- **Page-footer split (p. 907).** The Quaracchi *Notae ad Commentarium* restart their numbering on each printed page. P. 906 carries only *Nota* 1 (claimed here as `[^p906-1]`). P. 907 carries *Notae* 1–9; only nn. 1–2 anchor in this divisio body (`[^p907-1]`, `[^p907-2]`). Nn. 3–9 (phlebotomiam³, resurgere⁴, impassibile⁵, and the *contra* markers 6–9) anchor in **Article I, Question I** (*Utrum humores resurgant*) and are rendered in the `bon-sent-IV-d44-p1-a1-q1` chunk. The p. 907 apparatus footer is thus split by body anchor, not by which chunk physically holds the block.
- **Distinct footnote systems on p. 906.** The Master's littera on p. 906 uses its own footnote sequence (¹ Prognosticon, ² de Gen. ad lit., ³ Collatio/Cassian, ⁴ Enchirid.); those belong to the d.44 littera chunk, not to this commentary. The commentary's own apparatus is the separate *Notae ad Commentarium* block, numbered afresh from 1.
- **`[^p906-1]` marker position.** In the print the superscript stands between *quantum* and *et quale* (`quid et quantum¹ et quale resurgat`); the note documents the variant on the third member (*et quale* / *et qualiter* / *et quomodo*). Anchor placed as printed, after *quantum*. No `[?]` — reading clear from the band.
- **Seam.** Chunk begins at `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLIV. / Pars I.` (after the d.44 littera, which fills the p. 906 upper columns) and ends after the *Circa primum … quantum ad superfluitatem* tractatio listing, immediately before `ARTICULUS I.` (p. 907, raw L96464). QUAESTIO I not swallowed.
- No `[?]` flags: all readings resolved from the p. 906–907 bands + IA djvu OCR.
- **Disk note:** the regenerable colcrop bands for pp. 906–907 were deleted to reclaim space so this file could be written (disk was 100% full); regenerate via `colcrop.py vol4 906 1880` / `907 1880` if re-verify is needed.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 44, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars II)

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (Part II)

source_text:
<!-- page 919 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XLIV.
#### Pars II.

*Quomodo ignis damnatorum corpora et daemones animasque separatas cruciat.*

*Si vero quaeritur de corporibus malorum, quomodo in igne ardeant etc.*

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 905.

### Divisio textus.

Supra determinavit Magister, quanta et qualia sunt resurgentium corpora. In hac parte determinat, quomodo damnatorum corpora ab igne sunt cremabilia, et tamen sunt immortalia. Et quoniam ille ignis cremat corpora, cremat daemones, cremat etiam animas separatas; ideo pars ista habet tres.

<!-- page 920 -->

In prima determinat, qualiter cruciet corpora. In secunda, qualiter cruciet daemones, et hoc ibi: *Quaeri autem solet, an daemones* etc. In tertia vero, qualiter cruciet animas, ibi: *Cum*[^p920-1] *autem constet, animas* etc. In ultimo vero capitulo determinat, utrum resurgant monstra, ibi: *Illud etiam investigari oportet* etc.

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de passibilitate damnatorum. Quaeritur igitur, qualiter patiuntur. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de punitione, si est.

Secundo quaeritur, quid est.

Tertio, qualiter agit.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum infernus sit.

Secundo, ubi sit.

---

english:
## Commentary on Distinction XLIV.
#### Part II.

*How the fire of the damned torments bodies and demons and separated souls.*

*But if it is asked concerning the bodies of the wicked, how they burn in fire, etc.*

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 905.

### Division of the text.

Above, the Master determined how great and of what kind are the bodies of those who rise. In this part he determines how the bodies of the damned are burnable by fire, and yet are immortal. And since that fire burns bodies, burns demons, and also burns separated souls, therefore this part has three [members].

In the first he determines how it torments bodies. In the second, how it torments demons, and this here: *It is usually asked, whether demons* etc. In the third, how it torments souls, here: *When*[^p920-1] *however it is established, souls* etc. In the last chapter he determines whether monsters rise, here: *This too must be investigated* etc.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning the passibility of the damned. It is asked, therefore, in what manner they suffer. And concerning this, three things are asked.

First it is asked concerning punishment, whether it is.

Second it is asked, what it is.

Third, how it acts.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked, whether hell exists.

Second, where it is.

---

la: Codd. *Quando.*

en: The codices read *Quando* ("When").

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw L97733–L97868) collated against the p.919–920 column bands (`vol4-p{919,920}-{L,R}-*`). Printed pages 919–920 confirmed from running heads (`DIST. XLIV. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS. — 919`; `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 920`); pdf = printed + 20 → pdf 939–940.
- **Scope.** Holds only the Pars II front matter: the COMMENTARIUS incipit + theme, the Master-text pointer (`TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 905` — the Master's Pars II littera was printed earlier, pp. 905–906, and is deliberately NOT re-transcribed here), the DIVISIO TEXTUS, and the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM. The tractatio lists three articles — *de punitione, si est* / *quid est* / *qualiter agit* — the first subdividing into *utrum infernus sit* / *ubi sit*.
- **Left column of p.919** (and the right column continuing it through `ut patet in littera`) is the tail of DUB. IV of the Pars I commentary (Master/dubium material) and belongs to the preceding chunk; the p.919 footers (notes 1–7) belong there, not here — no footnote marker falls inside this divisio on p.919.
- **Tail seam.** Stopped before `ARTICULUS I. — De existentia et loco inferni.` and `QUAESTIO I. — Utrum sit infernus.` (bottom of p.920 R), which open the next chunk (`p2-a1-q1`). The p.920 footer notes 2–8 belong to that quaestio's arguments and were not claimed here.
- **Apparatus.** One entry: p.920 note 1, anchored on *Cum* (var. *Quando*) — the only footnote marker inside the divisio body. Confirmed sole owner at the d.41–d.50 gate (2026-07-21): `bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a1-q1` had carried a duplicate definition of this same note, provisionally anchored on *Primo*; it was removed, since *Quando* is the codical variant of *Cum*.
- No `[?]` flags — the divisio text is clean in both the OCR and the bands.


title: Dist. 44, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum humores resurgant
Whether the humors rise again

source_text:
<!-- page 907 -->

### Articulus I. *Quid resurgat in corpore humano.*

Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, quid resurgat quantum ad indigentiam. Secundo, quid resurgat quantum ad superfluitatem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum humores resurgant.*

Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum humores resurgent. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia nihil resurget, nisi quod est de veritate humanae naturae; sed humores non sunt de veritate humanae naturae, quia quotidie mutantur et restaurantur et deperduntur: ergo etc.

2. Item, si humor resurget et est de veritate naturae humanae, ergo totaliter oportet resurgere: ergo totus sanguis, qui exit de homine per phlebotomiam[^p907-3], vel alio modo, resurget; sed hoc generaret indecentiam: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod non vivit non debet resurgere[^p907-4], quia resurrectio est ad vitam; sed humores non vivunt: ergo etc.

4. Item, nihil debet resurgere in corpore, quod non habeat aliquem usum; sed humores sunt ad restaurationem deperditi, quod non est in corpore resurgente: ergo etc.

5. Item, nihil resurget, nisi quod consonat qualitati et naturae corporis resurgentis; sed corpus resurgens erit luminosum et impassibile[^p907-5], humores autem sunt fluxibiles et variabiles: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Quod est de constitutione corporis resurget in illo; sed humores sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. Unde Augustinus[^p907-6]: «Corpus constat ex membris officialibus, officialia ex *similibus*, similia ex *humoribus*, humores ex *cibis*, cibi ex *elementis*»: ergo immediatius se habent humores ad corpus quam elementa: si ergo illa resurgent, et hi similiter.

2. Item, quod est de perfectione corporis resurget in illo; sed humores sunt huiusmodi, quia penes humores distinguuntur complexiones[^p907-7]: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc videtur: quia medium et dispositio uniendi animam corpori resurget in illo; sed sanguis est huiusmodi, et hoc patet auctoritate, Deuteronomii duodecimo[^p907-8]: *Sanguis eorum pro anima*; Glossa: «Aliquid vitale est in sanguine, et per ipsum maxime anima carni unitur».

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *ratione*: quia spiritus est medium *uniendi* animam corpori; sed spiritus, sicut dicunt physici[^p907-9], ex humoribus generantur; hoc ipsum patet *exemplo*: quia nulla laesione facta in corpore, si totus sanguis exiret, statim <!-- page 908 --> anima recederet: si ergo humores sunt medium et ratio uniendi: ergo necesse est, quod resurgant.

5. Item, si non resurgent, cum huiusmodi humores impleant corpus, resurget vacuum et imperfectum, et per hoc deforme; sed hoc est indecens in Beatis: ergo etc.

6. Item, in Sacramento altaris convertitur vinum in verum sanguinem; sed hoc esset impossibile, nisi sanguis resurrexisset in Christo; sed si in ipso resurrexit, et in quolibet alio[^p908-1]: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Humiditas complexionalis et humores resurgent.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod differt, sicut dicunt physici, *humor* et *humiditas*. Nam *humor* dicitur, prout est in venis; *humiditas* autem, prout extra venas dirigitur et extra venas est, et prout ab eis derivatur ad membra. Distinguit enim Avicenna[^p908-2] inter *humorem* et *humiditatem* et dicit, quod *humor* dicitur, prout est in venis, *humiditas* autem, prout a venis derivatur ad membra; et hoc in triplici statu: aut in *primo egressu* a venis, et sic vocatur *ros*, humiditas scilicet, quae est in foraminibus parvarum venarum; aut prout incipit *ultra* progredi et dealbari, et sic vocatur *cambium*; aut prout est iam *dealbata* et cibans in actu, et sic vocatur *gluten*. — Haec autem distinctio humiditatis ad duo membra reducitur, scilicet ad humiditatem *nutrimentalem*, et haec complectitur *rorem* et *cambium*; et *complexionalem*[^p908-3], et haec est *gluten*, quae est de complexione membri consimilis, in qua est tertia species *hecticae*. — Et *nutrimentalis*, quia respicit statum et indigentiam, non resurget; sed humiditas *complexionalis* absque dubio resurget.

Sed quid de *humoribus* dicemus, cum sint currentes et non sint de substantia membri nec de complexione radicali? Dicendum, quod absque dubio resurgent; cum vinum convertatur in Sacramento altaris in sanguinem, qui effusus est in remissionem peccatorum[^p908-4], et iste est sanguis habens speciem sanguinis. Unde non video, quomodo vere sanguis non resurrexerit in Christo; et si hoc, pari ratione et in quolibet alio. Et *praeterea*, nunquid venae remanebunt vacuae? Et quod hoc sit verum, quod sanguis resurgat, habetur in sermone sancti Ambrosii de Martyribus[^p908-5]: *Dignum et congruum.* Et ideo dicendum, quod humores resurgent. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non sunt de veritate humanae naturae; dicendum, quod aliquid est de *veritate humanae naturae* tripliciter: aut quantum ad *esse necessarium*, sicut membra principalia; aut quoad *esse integrum* et completum, ut illa quae faciunt ad corporis perfectionem; aut quoad *esse decorum*. Prima[^p908-6] *necessarium* est resurgere secundum *totalitatem*; sed quae secundo et tertio, *congruum* est resurgere secundum id, secundum quod faciunt ad *complementum et decorem*. Et quia humores ad plenitudinem et integritatem faciunt, resurgent in tanta quantitate, quanta corpori competit. — Et per hoc patet secundum, quia non oportet, quod totus sanguis, quem emittimus per minutionem, resurgat, sed quantum congruit. Similiter de carne, «quae fluit et refluit[^p908-7]», iudicandum est.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non vivunt; dicendum, quod tripliciter est aliquid vivere: aut quia *recipit* influentiam vitae, aut quia *disponit* ad vitam, aut quia *ortum* et conservationem habet ex *actu vitae*. Primo modo vivificatur substantia corporalis et caro, secundo modo vivit spiritus et humor, tertio modo capilli et etiam ungues; et quia omnia ista connexionem habent cum vita, omnia resurgent.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non habent usum; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo habent usum, scilicet ipsum corpus *disponere ad vitam*; sed nunc[^p908-8] habent ulteriorem usum, scilicet *restaurare*, et hunc habent, quia de novo generantur; et hunc ibi non habebunt.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non congruunt corpori luminoso et impassibili; dicendum, quod sicut caro et os secundum statum praesentem non congruunt[^p908-9], sed sublimabuntur et subtiliabuntur; sic est intelligendum de humoribus et membris omnibus interioribus.

<!-- page 909 -->

english:
### Article I. *What rises again in the human body.*

Concerning the first, two things are asked. First it is asked, what rises again as regards need. Second, what rises again as regards superfluity.

### Question I. *Whether the humors rise again.*

As regards the first, then, it is asked whether the humors rise again. And that they do not, it seems:

1. Because nothing will rise again except what is of the truth of human nature; but the humors are not of the truth of human nature, since they are daily changed and restored and lost: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if a humor rises again and is of the truth of human nature, then it must rise again wholly: therefore the whole of the blood which goes out of a man through phlebotomy[^p907-3], or in another way, will rise again; but this would generate unseemliness: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, what does not live ought not to rise again[^p907-4], since resurrection is unto life; but the humors do not live: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, nothing ought to rise again in the body which has not some use; but the humors are [there] for the restoration of what is lost, which is not [the case] in the risen body: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, nothing will rise again except what is consonant with the quality and nature of the rising body; but the rising body will be luminous and impassible[^p907-5], whereas the humors are fluid and changeable: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. What is of the constitution of the body will rise again in it; but the humors are of this kind: therefore etc. Whence Augustine[^p907-6]: «The body is composed of *official* members, the official [members] of *similar* [parts], the similar [parts] of *humors*, the humors of *foods*, the foods of *elements*»: therefore the humors stand in a more immediate relation to the body than the elements do: if therefore the latter rise again, so also do these.

2. Likewise, what is of the perfection of the body will rise again in it; but the humors are of this kind, since complexions are distinguished according to the humors[^p907-7]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this is seen [thus]: because the medium and disposition for uniting the soul to the body will rise again in it; but the blood is of this kind, and this is clear by authority, in Deuteronomy twelve[^p907-8]: *Their blood [is] for the soul*; the Gloss: «There is something vital in the blood, and through it especially the soul is united to the flesh».

4. Likewise, this same thing is seen *by reason*: because the spirit is the medium *for uniting* the soul to the body; but the spirit, as the physicians say[^p907-9], is generated from the humors; and this same thing is clear *by example*: because, no injury having been done to the body, if all the blood went out, at once <!-- page 908 --> the soul would depart: if therefore the humors are the medium and ground of uniting: therefore it is necessary that they rise again.

5. Likewise, if they will not rise again, since humors of this kind fill the body, [the body] will rise empty and imperfect, and thereby deformed; but this is unseemly in the Blessed: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, in the Sacrament of the altar the wine is converted into true blood; but this would be impossible unless the blood had risen again in Christ; but if it rose again in him, [it rose] also in every other[^p908-1]: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *The complexional moisture and the humors will rise again.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the physicians say, *humor* and *moisture* differ. For *humor* is so called insofar as it is in the veins; but *moisture*, insofar as it is directed outside the veins and is outside the veins, and insofar as it is derived from them to the members. For Avicenna[^p908-2] distinguishes between *humor* and *moisture* and says that *humor* is so called insofar as it is in the veins, but *moisture* insofar as it is derived from the veins to the members; and this in a threefold state: either in the *first egress* from the veins, and thus it is called *dew* (*ros*), namely the moisture which is in the openings of the small veins; or insofar as it begins to advance *further* and to whiten, and thus it is called *cambium*; or insofar as it is now *whitened* and nourishing in act, and thus it is called *gluten*. — But this distinction of moisture is reduced to two members, namely to *nutrimental* moisture, and this comprises *dew* and *cambium*; and *complexional* [moisture][^p908-3], and this is *gluten*, which is of the complexion of the like member, in which is the third species of *hectic* [fever]. — And the *nutrimental*, since it regards state and need, will not rise again; but the *complexional* moisture without doubt will rise again.

But what shall we say of the *humors*, since they are flowing and are not of the substance of the member nor of the radical complexion? It must be said that without doubt they will rise again; since the wine is converted in the Sacrament of the altar into the blood which was poured out for the remission of sins[^p908-4], and this is blood having the species of blood. Whence I do not see how truly the blood did not rise again in Christ; and if this, then by parity of reasoning also in every other. And *besides*, will not the veins remain empty? And that this is true, that the blood rises again, is had in the sermon of Saint Ambrose On the Martyrs[^p908-5]: *Worthy and fitting.* And therefore it must be said that the humors will rise again. — And the reasons for this are to be conceded.

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected, that they are not of the truth of human nature; it must be said that something is of the *truth of human nature* in three ways: either as regards *necessary being*, like the principal members; or as regards *whole and complete being*, like those [parts] which contribute to the perfection of the body; or as regards *decorous being*. The first[^p908-6] it is *necessary* to rise again according to *totality*; but as for those in the second and third [way], it is *fitting* to rise again according to that in respect of which they contribute to *completion and comeliness*. And since the humors contribute to fullness and integrity, they will rise again in as great a quantity as befits the body. — And through this the second [objection] is answered, since it is not necessary that the whole of the blood which we emit by bloodletting rise again, but [only] as much as is fitting. Likewise concerning the flesh, «which flows and flows back[^p908-7]», judgment is to be made.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that they do not live; it must be said that to live belongs to something in three ways: either because it *receives* the influence of life, or because it *disposes* toward life, or because it has its *origin* and conservation from the *act of life*. In the first way the corporeal substance and the flesh are given life; in the second way the spirit and the humor live; in the third way the hair and also the nails [live]; and since all these have a connection with life, they will all rise again.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that they have no use; it must be said that this is false, rather they do have a use, namely to *dispose the body itself toward life*; but now[^p908-8] they have a further use, namely *to restore*, and this they have because they are generated anew; and this [use] they will not have there.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that they are not consonant with the luminous and impassible body; it must be said that, just as flesh and bone according to the present state are not consonant[^p908-9], but will be sublimed and subtilized; so it is to be understood of the humors and of all the interior members.

<!-- page 909 -->

la: Id est per venae sectionem.

en: That is, through the cutting of a vein.

la: Nonnulli codd. *non resurget*, omissa seq. ratione *quia... ad vitam*. Ed. 1 cum non paucis codd. omittit hoc arg.

en: Some codices [read] *it will not rise again*, omitting the following reason *since... unto life*. Ed. 1, with not a few codices, omits this argument.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 49. p. II. — Pro *sed corpus resurgens* cod. aa *humores autem non sunt consoni corpori resurgenti, quod*.

en: As is shown below, d. 49, p. II. — For *but the rising body* cod. aa [reads] *but the humors are not consonant with the rising body, which*.

la: Libr. *de Spiritu et anima* (inter opera August.), c. 15.

en: The book *On the Spirit and the Soul* (among the works of Augustine), c. 15.

la: Sive temperamenta. Cfr. supra pag. 852, nota 5.

en: Or temperaments. Cf. above, p. 852, note 5.

la: Vers. 23. — In Glossa, quae est ordinaria, Strabus et Lyranus cum Rabano pro *anima carni unitur* substituunt *in hac carne vivitur*.

en: Verse 23. — In the Gloss, which is the Ordinary [Gloss], Strabo and Lyra with Rabanus substitute for *the soul is united to the flesh* [the reading] *in this flesh there is life*.

la: Vide Alfred. Anglic., *de Motu cordis*, c. 7: *Eo* [calore] *utens anima... cibum in humores, sanguinem in spiritum permutat.* Cfr. Costa-Ben-Lucae, *de Differentia animae et spiritus*, c. 1. seqq.

en: See Alfred of England (Alfredus Anglicus), *On the Motion of the Heart*, c. 7: *The soul, using this* [heat] *... changes food into humors, blood into spirit.* Cf. Costa-ben-Luca, *On the Difference of the Soul and the Spirit*, c. 1 ff.

la: Cfr. supra d. 43. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et q. 6. in fine. — Vat. supplet *resurget*.

en: Cf. above, d. 43, a. 1, q. 1, in the body, and q. 6, at the end. — The Vatican [edition] supplies *it will rise again*.

la: Libr. 1. *Canon*. Fen 1. Doctrina 4. c. 1. seq., IV. Fen 1. tr. 3. c. 1, et XII. *de Natura animal.* c. 5.

en: Book 1 of the *Canon*, Fen 1, Doctrine 4, c. 1 f.; [Book] IV, Fen 1, tr. 3, c. 1; and XII, *On the Nature of Animals*, c. 5.

la: Cod. K (1 a secunda manu) addit *sive radicalem* (plures codd. cum ed. 1 habent *complexionem*, cui cod. aa subiungit *naturalem*); si haec radicalis humiditas consumitur, habetur secundum Avicennam tertia species *hecticae*. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 736, nota 3.

en: Cod. K (1, by a second hand) adds *or radical* (several codices with ed. 1 have *complexion*, to which cod. aa subjoins *natural*); if this radical moisture is consumed, there results, according to Avicenna, the third species of *hectic* [fever]. Cf. vol. II, p. 736, note 3.

la: Matth. 26, 28: *Qui pro multis effundetur* in etc.

en: Matthew 26:28: *which shall be poured out for many*, etc.

la: Serm. 61, qui incipit: *Dignum et congruum est* etc., ubi n. 4. dicitur: *Illi* [Martyres de Christo] *notum, inquam, nobis faciant, quemadmodum in exanime iam corpus et frigidum sese calor insinuaverit, spiritus ingesserit, sanguis infuderit, et gelatas humore venas pristini vigoris pulsus agitaverit* etc.

en: Sermon 61, which begins: *Worthy and fitting it is*, etc., where in n. 4 it is said: *Let them* [the Martyrs, concerning Christ] *make known to us, I say, how into the now lifeless and cold body the heat has insinuated itself, the spirit has entered in, the blood has poured in, and the pulse of pristine vigor has stirred the veins frozen for want of moisture*, etc.

la: Cod. F *Primum*.

en: Cod. F [reads] *the first*.

la: Secundum Aristot., I. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 36. (c. 5.), ubi his verbis designat carnem *secundum materiam*, cui opponitur caro *secundum formam sive speciem*. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 734, nota 3.

en: According to Aristotle, [Book] I *On Generation and Corruption*, text 36 (c. 5), where by these words he designates flesh *according to matter*, to which is opposed flesh *according to form or species*. Cf. vol. II, p. 734, note 3.

la: Pro *nunc* i. e. *in praesenti vita*, cdd. perperam *non*.

en: For *now*, i.e., *in the present life*, the codices wrongly [read] *not*.

la: Vat. supplet: *statui beatitudinis*, cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *tunc*.

en: The Vatican [edition] supplies: *to the state of beatitude*; cod. K (1, by a second hand) [reads] *then*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 80. a. 3.) easdem distinctiones *humiditatis* (de distinctione inter *humorem* et *humiditatem* tacet) ex Avicenna, qui illa aetate prae ceteris peritus in arte medicinae theoretica esse censebatur, adhibet ad solvendam hanc quaestionem. Idem S. Doctor speciales quaestiunculas (4. et 5.) ibi solvit, utrum resurgat tum totum, quod pertinet ad *veritatem naturae*, tum totum, quod *materialiter* fuit in corpore; de quibus S. Bonav. agit hic ad 1. 2. et infra a. 2. q. 1. — De *veritate naturae* cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. per totum, et Scot., hic q. 1. n. 1-14.

De I. quaestione: Scot., loc. cit. n. 15. seqq., ubi et de seqq. qq. agitur. — S. Thom., locis citt. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. a. 5-10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — De hac et seqq. qq. huius partis Durand., hic q. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**II.** In solutione 2. quaestionis omnes conveniunt. De eadem praeter laudatos: S. Thom., locis citt. quaestiunc., sive a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** St. Thomas too (here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3; Supplement q. 80, a. 3) employs these same distinctions of *moisture* (he is silent about the distinction between *humor* and *moisture*), [drawn] from Avicenna — who in that age was reckoned skilled beyond the rest in the theoretical art of medicine — for solving this question. The same holy Doctor there resolves special little questions (4 and 5), whether there rises again both the whole that pertains to the *truth of nature*, and the whole that was *materially* in the body; concerning which St. Bonaventure treats here in [the replies to] 1 and 2, and below in a. 2, q. 1. — On the *truth of nature* cf. II Sent. d. 30, a. 3, throughout, and Scotus, here q. 1, n. 1-14.

On the first question: Scotus, in the place cited, n. 15 ff., where he also treats of the following questions. — St. Thomas, in the places cited. — B. Albert, on this and the following question, a. 5-10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunculae 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 2. — On this and the following questions of this part: Durandus, here q. 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** In the solution of the second question all agree. On the same, besides those praised: St. Thomas, in the places cited, quaestiuncula, or a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, quaestiuncula 3. — Richard of Middleton, in the place cited, q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
- **Page span (corrected):** the printed span is **pp. 907–909**, not 907–908 as the skeleton frontmatter held. Q1's body runs from the mid-page seam on p.907 (after the pars-divisio / *Tractatio quaestionum*) through the end of the replies on p.908; the Article I **Scholion** prints at the top of **p.909** (running head `DIST. XLIV. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`), above Quaestio II. Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` updated to include 909 (pdf = printed + 20). Running heads verified: p.907 (`... QUAEST. I. 907`), p.908 (`908 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`), p.909 (`... QUAEST. II. 909`).
- **Scholion placement (parser rule):** the source prints the Scholion at the top of p.909 *above* Quaestio II, but per the CLAUDE.md `extractLanguageBlock` rule the `### Scholion` subsection is rendered **last** in both the `## Latin` and `## English` blocks (body first, scholion last). This chunk owns the full Article I scholion (I–II), which covers **both** q1 and q2; sibling `p1-a1-q2` renders no scholion. OCR garbled the header as `SCHOLIOK` → corrected to `SCHOLION`.
- **Seam with p1-divisio (p.907):** p.907's footers **1** (`Cod. C supplet corpora`, anchored to *statura resurgent*) and **2** (`Cum ed. 1 omisimus membro...`, anchored to *Secundo, quid in quo* in the pars *Tractatio*) belong to the **pars-divisio** chunk, not to q1 — they are excluded here. The short Article I opener (`Circa primum quaeruntur duo...`) is folded into q1 per the locked chunking convention and carries no footnote marker.
- **Apparatus count:** 16 entries — p907-3…p907-9 (7) + p908-1…p908-9 (9). Numbering restarts per printed page (Quaracchi convention); labels page-qualified.
- **[?] flag (minor):** Scholion II-column, *De I. quaestione: Scot., loc. cit. n. **15**. seqq.* — the p.909-R band favors **15** (consistent with the left column's *n. 1-14* for the general treatment); the IA djvu OCR read the digit as *13*. Rendered **15** per band authority; low-confidence single-digit reading. No other ambiguous readings in the body — OCR + bands agreed throughout.
- Marginal editorial glosses bleeding into the OCR (*Fundamenta*, *Distinctio*, *Subdistinctio*, *Reductio ad 2 membra*, *Conclusio 1*, *Conclusio 2*) were trimmed as marginalia, not Bonaventure's text.


title: Dist. 44, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 909 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum resurgant quae spectant ad superfluitatem, ut sunt intestina, capilli et ungues.*

Secundo quaeritur de his quae spectant ad superfluitatem, ut sunt intestina, capilli et ungues, utrum resurgant. Et quod *intestina* resurgant, probatur.

1. Secundi Machabaeorum decimo quarto[^p909-1] dicitur, quod Razias *proiecit illa, deprecans Omnipotentem, ut redderet ei.*

2. Item, si homo stetisset, sine alicuius corruptione translatus fuisset ad immortalitatem; sed homo conditus fuit cum intestinis: ergo illa habuisset in gloria; sed modo illa habet, quae habuisset: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratio alia est ad hoc, quia, si non resurgerent, venter vacuus remaneret, et si hoc, imperfectus[^p909-2]; sed ibi nulla est imperfectio: ergo etc.

Item, de *capillis*.

4. Lucae vigesimo primo[^p909-3]: *Capillus de capite vestro non peribit;* et iterum, Matthaei decimo: *Omnes numerati sunt.*

5. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia privatio capillorum et unguium est de imperfectione naturae, ergo habitus est de perfectione; sed omne quod est de perfectione naturae, debet resurgere: ergo etc.

6. Item, capilli sunt in ornamentum a natura collati[^p909-4]; sed corpora electorum debent resurgere cum omni ornatu: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:** Quod *intestina* non resurgant, hoc videtur:

1. Quia sunt ad superfluitatis receptionem impurae[^p909-5]; sed ibi non erit talis superfluitas: ergo etc.

2. Item, intestina aut erunt *vacua*, aut *plena*. Si *vacua*, ergo imperfecta; si *plena*, ergo immunda: cum ergo nullum horum statui gloriae competat, patet etc.

Item, quod nec *capilli* resurgant, videtur:

3. Quoniam sunt ex fumosa superfluitate[^p909-6]; sed ibi non erit superfluitas fumorum: ergo etc.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, sicut folia sunt in arbore[^p909-7], sic capilli in capite; sed fructu ad maturitatem ducto, cessant folia: ergo et capilli, cum iam homo pervenit ad fructum gloriae.

5. Item, hoc potest probari, quia non sunt de veritate naturae.

6. Item, quia deforme esset corpus, si omnes capilli resurgerent; extenderetur enim nimis longitudo capillorum.

7. Item, capilli non vivunt[^p909-8], et huius signum est, quod sine dolore abscinduntur; sed quod non vivit non debet resurgere, quia resurrectio est ad vitam: ergo etc.

### Conclusio
> *Resurgent in corpore etiam ea quae sunt de integritate et decentia.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est[^p909-9], resurget in corpore non tantum quod est de eius necessitate, sed etiam quod est de integritate et de decentia et pulcritudine. Quoniam igitur *capilli* sunt de decentia et *ungues*, hoc patet, quia calvitium est imperfectio naturae; et ideo dico, quod resurgent. Similiter et *intestina* sunt de naturae pulcritudine; <!-- page 910 -->unde Augustinus in libro de Civitate Dei[^p910-1]: «In interioribus visceribus, quae nullum decus modo videntur habere, ita pulcritudo rationis delectabit, ut omni formae apparenti, quae oculis placet, secundum mentis iudicium praeferatur».

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non habebunt usum; dicendum, quod verum est de usu *imperfecto*, quem modo habent; sed *perfectum* habebunt, qui est visum intelligentiae oblectare in tam pulcra harmonia, in qua laudabit anima sapientiam Conditoris.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur: aut erunt *vacua*, aut *plena*; dicendum, quod erunt *plena*, sed non superfluitate, sed nobilibus spiritibus et humoribus, quae[^p910-2] totum corpus reddent agilius.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod capilli sunt de superfluitate; dicendum, quod superfluitas triplex est: una respectu *totius corporis et speciei*, ut est superfluitas impuritatis; et haec non erit ibi. Alia est superfluitas respectu *totius corporis*, in quo est, sed non respectu *alterius propagandi*, utpote semen; et haec similiter ibi non erit, et haec est superfluitas residuitatis[^p910-3]. Quaedam est superfluitas respectu *unius partis*, tamen in altera non est superflua, sed decens et optime collocata; et talis est superfluitas, ex qua sunt capilli, quia illa materia non est necessaria stomacho, est tamen bene locata in capite et barba.

4. 5. 6. 7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod arbores amittunt folia; dicendum, quod si arbores deberent semper suum servare decorem, nunquam folia amitterent; nunc autem non servant[^p910-4], sicut resurgentes: et ideo non est simile. — Ad alia tria, solvendum distinguendo triplicem veritatem naturae, et vivere secundum triplicem differentiam, ut in praecedenti problemate dictum est[^p910-5].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether those things rise again which pertain to superfluity, such as the intestines, hair, and nails.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning those things which pertain to superfluity, such as the intestines, hair, and nails — whether they rise again. And that the *intestines* rise again is proved.

1. In the Second [book] of Maccabees, chapter fourteen[^p909-1], it is said that Razias *cast them forth, beseeching the Almighty to restore them to him.*

2. Likewise, if man had stood [firm], he would have been translated to immortality without any corruption; but man was created with intestines: therefore he would have had them in glory; but now he has [in glory] those things which he would have had: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, there is another reason for this: because, if they did not rise again, the belly would remain empty, and if this [were so], [it would be] imperfect[^p909-2]; but there is no imperfection there: therefore etc.

Likewise, concerning the *hair*.

4. In Luke twenty-one[^p909-3]: *A hair of your head shall not perish;* and again, in Matthew ten: *They are all numbered.*

5. Likewise, by reason it seems [so]: because the privation of hair and nails belongs to the imperfection of nature, therefore the having [of them] belongs to perfection; but everything that belongs to the perfection of nature ought to rise again: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, hair is bestowed by nature for adornment[^p909-4]; but the bodies of the elect ought to rise again with every adornment: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** That the *intestines* do not rise again seems [to be the case]:

1. Because they are impure, [being] for the reception of superfluity[^p909-5]; but there such superfluity will not exist: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the intestines will be either *empty* or *full*. If *empty*, then imperfect; if *full*, then unclean: since therefore none of these befits the state of glory, it is evident etc.

Likewise, that neither does the *hair* rise again seems [so]:

3. Because they are from a smoky superfluity[^p909-6]; but there will be no superfluity of vapors there: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, by reason it seems [so]: because, just as leaves are on a tree[^p909-7], so is hair on the head; but when the fruit has been brought to maturity, the leaves cease: therefore the hair also [ceases], since man has now come to the fruit of glory.

5. Likewise, this can be proved because they do not belong to the truth of nature.

6. Likewise, because the body would be deformed if all the hairs rose again; for the length of the hair would be extended too much.

7. Likewise, hair does not live[^p909-8], and a sign of this is that it is cut without pain; but what does not live ought not to rise again, since resurrection is unto life: therefore etc.

### Conclusion
> *There shall rise again in the body even those things which pertain to integrity and comeliness.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been said[^p909-9], there shall rise again in the body not only what belongs to its necessity, but also what belongs to integrity and to comeliness and beauty. Since therefore the *hair* pertains to comeliness, and the *nails* [also], this is evident because baldness is an imperfection of nature; and therefore I say that they shall rise again. Likewise the *intestines* also belong to the beauty of nature; whence Augustine in the book *On the City of God*[^p910-1]: «In the interior organs, which now seem to have no comeliness, the beauty of reason shall so delight, that it be preferred, according to the judgment of the mind, to every apparent form that pleases the eyes».

1. To that, then, which is objected — that they will not have a use — it must be said that this is true of the *imperfect* use which they now have; but they will have a *perfect* [use], which is to delight the sight of the understanding in so beautiful a harmony, in which the soul shall praise the wisdom of the Creator.

2. To that which is objected — [that] they will be either *empty* or *full* — it must be said that they will be *full*, yet not with superfluity, but with noble spirits and humors, which[^p910-2] shall render the whole body more agile.

3. To that which is objected — that hair belongs to superfluity — it must be said that superfluity is threefold: one with respect to the *whole body and the species*, as is the superfluity of impurity; and this will not be there. Another is the superfluity with respect to the *whole body* in which it is, but not with respect to *the propagation of another*, such as semen; and this likewise will not be there, and this is the superfluity of residue[^p910-3]. A certain [superfluity] is with respect to *one part*, yet in another it is not superfluous, but seemly and most fittingly placed; and such is the superfluity from which hair [comes], because that matter is not necessary to the stomach, yet is well placed in the head and beard.

4. 5. 6. 7. To that which is objected — that trees shed their leaves — it must be said that if trees were bound always to preserve their comeliness, they would never shed their leaves; but now they do not preserve it[^p910-4], like those who rise again: and therefore it is not similar. — To the other three, it is to be resolved by distinguishing the threefold truth of nature, and living according to the threefold difference, as was said in the preceding problem[^p910-5].

---

la: Vers. 46: *Complexus intestina sua utrisque manibus proiecit super turbas, invocans Dominatorem vitae ac spiritus, ut haec illi iterum redderet.* (Pro *14.* codd. *ultimo*).

en: Verse 46: *Grasping his own intestines with both hands he cast them forth over the crowds, invoking the Lord of life and of the spirit, that He might restore these to him again.* (For *14* [i.e. chapter fourteen] the codices [read] *the last*.)

la: Cod. aa (E, bb a secunda manu) supplet *esset*.

en: Codex aa (E, bb by a second hand) supplies *esset* [would be].

la: Vers. 18. — Seq. locus est Matth. 10, 30.

en: Verse 18. — The following passage is Matthew 10:30.

la: Vide supra pag. 608, nota 3. — Pro *ornamentum* non pauci codd. *ornatum*.

en: See above, page 608, note 3. — For *ornamentum* [adornment] not a few codices [read] *ornatum* [ornament].

la: Edd. *superfluitatis imbutae receptionem*.

en: The editions [read] *superfluitatis imbutae receptionem* [the reception imbued with superfluity].

la: Avicenna, IV. Canon. Fen 7. tr. 1. c. 1: *Capillus nascitur ex vapore fumoso, quando coagulatur in poris et oritur super eos* etc.

en: Avicenna, *Canon* IV, Fen 7, tr. 1, c. 1: *Hair is born from a smoky vapor, when it coagulates in the pores and rises up over them,* etc.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 6. (c. 1.): *Folium [est] eius quod circa fructum [περικαρπίου] cooperimentum.* Cfr. V. de Generat. animal. c. 3.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 6 (c. 1): *The leaf [is] the covering of that which is around the fruit [περικαρπίου, pericarp].* Compare *On the Generation of Animals* V, c. 3.

la: Ex codd. L N Y aa [F a secunda manu] supplevimus *Item capilli non vivunt*.

en: From codices L N Y aa [F by a second hand] we have supplied *Item capilli non vivunt* [Likewise, hair does not live].

la: Quaest. praeced. ad 1. et 2.

en: The preceding question, to [the replies] 1 and 2.

la: Libr. XXII. c. 24. n. 4: *Qui [numeri harmoniae] si noti esse potuissent, in interioribus quoque visceribus, quae nullum ostentant decus, ita delectaret pulcritudo rationis, ut... placet, ipsius mentis, quae oculis utitur, praeferretur arbitrio.*

en: Book XXII, c. 24, n. 4: *Which [numbers of harmony], if they could be known, in the interior organs also, which display no comeliness, the beauty of reason would so delight, that... it pleases, [and] to the judgment of that same mind, which uses the eyes, it would be preferred.* [Quaracchi's own ellipsis; one word before *placet* obscured — see Notes.]

la: Cod. N *qui*. Pro *nobilibus* codd. N aa *nobilissimis*, et pro *humoribus* cod. bb *humiditatibus*.

en: Codex N [reads] *qui*. For *nobilibus* [noble] codices N aa [read] *nobilissimis* [most noble], and for *humoribus* [humors] codex bb [reads] *humiditatibus* [moistures].

la: Cfr. supra d. 40. q. 1. ad 3.

en: Compare above, dist. 40, q. 1, to [reply] 3.

la: Edd., post *decorem* addito *sicut resurgentes*, subinde legunt: *amitterent, sed non debent eum servare*.

en: The editions, after *decorem* [comeliness], having added *sicut resurgentes*, thereupon read: *amitterent, sed non debent eum servare* [they would shed them, but they are not bound to preserve it].

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw L96654–L96775) collated verbatim against the p.909–910 column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{909,910}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), read left column top→bottom then right column. Fresh literal English. Two-column page; PDF offset pdf = printed + 20 (pdf 929–930), confirmed by running heads ("...QUAEST. II. 909" and "910 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.").

**No scholion.** Per the Vol IV chunking convention, the Article I scholion covers both q1 and q2 and lives in sibling `bon-sent-IV-d44-p1-a1-q1`; `has_scholion: false` here. Footnote p910-5 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) points to it.

**Page seam (p.909 shared with q1).** The Article I scholion and the tail of q1 sit at the top of p.909's left/right columns; q2 begins mid-page at the `QUAESTIO II.` header. Only footers anchored in the q2 body are claimed here: p.909 notes 1–9 (all nine anchor in q2) and p.910 notes 1–5 (the Respondeo continuation + replies). **p.910 notes 6–11 belong to the next chunk, Articulus II q1** (which opens on p.910 after q2's replies) and are NOT claimed here.

**Marginal glosses trimmed.** Quaracchi's editorial side-notes (*Conclusio 1. generalis*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Conclusio 3.* in the Respondeo; *Solutio oppositorum* at reply 1; *Superfluitas triplex* at reply 3) are marginalia, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted from the body per the OCR-cleanup rule.

**Repair 2026-07-21 (d.41–d.50 decade gate).** The English body carried none of the apparatus anchors, though the Latin body and all 14 apparatus definitions were complete. All fourteen markers (p.909 notes 1–9, p.910 notes 1–5) were mirrored into the English at the positions matching their Latin counterparts, aligning the parallel paragraphs sentence-for-sentence. No text was retranslated, no Latin touched, no apparatus definition changed, and nothing was renumbered — the labels are exactly those already present in the Latin. Every position was unambiguous from the parallel text (each marker sits on a citation, a codex variant lemma, or an end-of-clause phrase that maps one-to-one), so no page images were needed for this pass.

**[?] flags:**
- **p910 nota 1** (Augustine, *De Civ. Dei* XXII.24.4): the quotation carries Quaracchi's own printed ellipsis (*...ita delectaret pulcritudo rationis, ut...*) and one word immediately before *placet* is obscured at the column split. Rendered with the ellipsis as printed; the genuine passage runs *"...ut omni formae, quae oculis apparet placens, ipsius mentis... praeferretur arbitrium."* Verify the elided phrase and whether the reading is *placet*/*placens* and *arbitrio*/*arbitrium* at higher resolution.