site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 6, Cap. 13

title_alt:
De integritate matrimonii
On the integrity of marriage

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 279 -->

### Capitulum XIII. *De integritate matrimonii.*

De Sacramento *matrimonii* hoc in summa tenendum est, quod « matrimonium est coniunctio legitima maris et feminae, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens[^p279-2] ». Haec autem coniunctio non solum fuit post peccatum, verum etiam ante peccatum; sed prius fuit institutum Sacramentum coniugii in *officium*, nunc autem non solum in *officium*, verum etiam in *remedium* contra libidinis morbum; prius significabat coniunctionem Dei et animae, nunc autem praeter hoc significat coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae et duarum naturarum in unitate personae. — *Introducitur* autem haec coniunctio in *esse* per liberum consensum animorum ex parte utriusque personae, exterius expressum in aliquo signo sensibili, *consummari* autem habet in copula carnali. Nam per verba de futuro dicitur matrimonium *initiari*, per verba de praesenti *ratificari*, sed per carnalem copulam habet *consummari*. — Huius autem Sacramenti tria sunt *bona*, « scilicet fides, proles et Sacramentum[^p279-3] »: et duodecim *impedimenta*, quae impediunt contrahendum et dirimunt iam contractum, quae in his versibus continentur:

*Error, conditio, votum, cognatio, crimen,*
*Cultus disparitas, vis, ordo, ligamen, honestas;*
*Si sis affinis, si forte coire nequibis:*
*Haec socianda vetant coniugia, iuncta retractant.*

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum scilicet incarnatum, eo ipso quod *Verbum Dei*, est *fons sapientiae in excelsis*[^p279-4]; eo ipso quod *incarnatum*, est *clementiae* fons in terris; et ideo, eo ipso quod *Verbum increatum*, est humani generis *formativum* ex summa *sapientia*; eo ipso quod *incarnatum*, est ipsius *reformativum* ex summa *clementia*. Ideo enim humanum genus reparat per clementiam, quia prius reparabile fecit ex sapientia, quae pro suo summo ordine exigebat, quod genus humanum faceret potens *stare*, potens *labi*, potens etiam *reparari*, sicut in praecedentibus[^p279-5] ostensum fuit. Quoniam ergo Verbum Dei in sua sapientia hominem fecit, sicut et congruum fuit, potentem *stare*, *cadere* et *surgere*; hinc est, quod genus humanum eo modo propagandum ordinavit, quod ex ipso modo propagandi haberet quod manuduceret ipsum ad *standum*; haberet etiam quod manuduceret ad *remedium*, sicut etiam in propagatione illa est aliquid per peccatum, scilicet libido, quod traducit morbum. Et quia *status* hominis erat ex coniunctione ipsius animae ad Deum per amorem unitivum modo castissimo, singulari et individuo; *remedium* veniebat ex coniunctione divinae naturae et humanae in unitatem hypostasis et personae, unitatem, inquam, divina gratia introductam ut *singularem* et *individuam*: hinc est, quod Deus ab initio instituit, ut propagatio fieret per coniunctionem maris et feminae *individuam* et *singularem*, quae significaret *ante* peccatum coniunctionem Dei et animae, seu Dei et subcaelestis[^p279-6] hierarchiae, *post* peccatum vero coniunctionem Dei et humanae naturae, seu Christi et Ecclesiae; et ideo utrobique est *Sacramentum*, scilicet *ante* et *post*, licet alio et alio modo, quantum ad *significationem* et *usum*. Cum enim esset *Sacramentum*, antequam superveniret morbus; libido, quae supervenit per peccatum, potius habet per matrimonium excusari, quam ipsum valeat vitiare; quia non morbus medicamentum corrumpit, sed medicamentum habet curare morbum[^p279-7]. — Ex quo manifeste apparet, quid *sit* matrimonium, et qualiter divinitus *sit introductum* in *esse*.

Rursus, quia quaelibet praedictarum spiritualium unionum in Sacramento matrimonii significatarum est unio unius sicut *agentis* et influentis, alte-
<!-- page 280 -->
rius sicut *patientis* et suscipientis; et hoc, faciente amoris vinculo, qui ex mera *voluntate* procedit: hinc est, quod matrimonium debet esse coniunctio duplicis personae, differentis secundum rationem *agentis* et *patientis*, scilicet virilis sexus et muliebris, et hoc ex mero *consensu voluntatis*. — Et quia voluntas exterius non apparet nisi per signa ipsam exprimentia; hinc est, quod necesse est, ut consensus mutuus *exterius exprimatur*[^p280-1]. — Quia vero consensus ut de *futuro* non est proprie consensus, sed ipsius promissio; consensus vero ante commixtionem non facit plenariam unionem, quia nondum sunt *una caro*: hinc est, quod per verba de futuro dicitur matrimonium esse *initiatum*, de praesenti *confirmatum*, sed in carnali copula *consummatum*, quia tunc sunt *una caro* et *unum corpus* fiunt; ac per hoc plene significat unionem illam, quae est inter nos et Christum. Tunc enim plene traducitur corpus unius in corpus alterius secundum sui comparis potestatem[^p280-2] ad procreandam prolem.

Et ideo ipsius matrimonii sunt tria *bona*, scilicet *Sacramentum* propter vinculum insolubile, *fides* propter debiti solutionem, *proles* vero sicut effectus consequens ad utrumque.

Postremo, quia dicta coniunctio matrimonialis debet esse ex libero consensu procedens ad copulationem personarum distantium in unam matrimonii legem; et hoc potest duodecim modis impediri: hinc est, quod duodecim sunt impedimenta matrimonii; quod patet sic. — Ad matrimonialem namque consensum requiritur *libertas in consensu*, *libertas in consentiente* et *idoneitas ad coniunctionem*. Sed *libertas in consensu* tollitur per duo secundum duas partes involuntarii, scilicet per *ignorantiam* et per *violentiam*[^p280-3]. Et sic sunt duo impedimenta, scilicet *error* et *violentia*. — *Libertas* autem *in consentiente* tollitur per hoc, quod quis est alligatus alteri, et hoc vel *Deo*, vel *homini*. Si *Deo*, hoc est vel per *votum expressum*, vel per aliquid, quod habet *votum annexum*. Primum est in *voto*, secundum in *ordine*. Si autem *homini*, hoc dupliciter: aut per *ligamen existens*, aut per *praecedens*. Primum est in *ligamine*, quo quis ligatus est uxori; secundum est in *crimine*, quando moechus, vel moecha machinatus est in mortem coniugis, vel, ipso vivente, fidem de contrahendo dedit. Et sic sunt quatuor impedimenta, scilicet *votum*, *ordo*, *ligamen* et *crimen*. — *Idoneitas* autem *ad unionem* est distantia personarum conveniens, quae tollitur per nimiam *proximitatem*, vel per nimiam *elongationem*. Nimia autem *proximitas* venit[^p280-4] per *generationem*, sive per aliquid *simile generationi*, ut est *cognatio legalis* et *spiritualis*; aut venit per *commixtionem sexuum*, aut per *contractionem sponsalium*. Et sic sunt tria impedimenta, scilicet *cognatio*, *affinitas* et *publicae iustitiae honestas*. — Nimia autem *distantia* aut attenditur quantum ad ea quae sunt *naturae*, ut cum non possunt commisceri carnaliter; aut quantum ad ea quae sunt *fortunae*, quae non sunt in nostra potestate, ut patet, cum est unus servus, et alter liber; aut quantum ad ea quae sunt *religionis christianae*, ut cum quis est baptizatus, alter vero minime. Et sic sunt tria impedimenta, scilicet *impotentia coeundi*, *error conditionis* et *disparitas religionis*. — Ac per hoc sunt in universo duodecim impedimenta, quae, Spiritu sancto dictante, introducta sunt in Ecclesia, cui, etsi omnia Sacramenta sint commissa, potissime[^p280-5] coniugii Sacramentum commissum est regulandum propter *varietates*, quae circa hoc Sacramentum incidere possunt, et propter *morbum* annexum, qui est maxime infectivus et minime tenens modum; et ideo ipsius Ecclesiae est *gradus cognationum* limitare, sicut pro tempore expedire videt, et *personas legitimas* vel *illegitimas* iudicare et *divortia facere*. Sed nunquam debet nec potest matrimonium, quod legitime introductum est, annullare, quia *quos Deus coniunxit non potest homo*, quantumcumque sit magnae potentiae, *separare*[^p280-6], cum ipsius Dei iudicio iudicandi remaneant universi.

---

english:
### Chapter XIII. *On the integrity of marriage.*

Concerning the Sacrament of *marriage* this must be held in summary: that « marriage is the lawful conjunction of a male and a female, retaining an undivided common manner of life[^p279-2] ». Now this conjunction was not only after sin, but also before sin; but formerly the Sacrament of marriage was instituted unto an *office*, whereas now it is instituted not only unto an *office*, but also unto a *remedy* against the disease of lust; formerly it signified the conjunction of God and the soul, whereas now, besides this, it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church and of the two natures in the unity of a person. — Now this conjunction *is introduced* into *being* through the free consent of minds on the part of each person, outwardly expressed in some sensible sign, but it has *to be consummated* in carnal union. For through words concerning the future marriage is said *to be initiated*, through words concerning the present *to be ratified*, but through carnal union it has *to be consummated*. — Now of this Sacrament there are three *goods*, « namely faith, offspring and Sacrament[^p279-3] »; and twelve *impediments*, which impede the contracting and dissolve what is already contracted, which are contained in these verses:

*Error, condition, vow, kinship, crime,*
*Disparity of worship, force, [holy] order, [prior] bond, [public] decency;*
*If you be a kinsman by affinity, if perchance you be unable to have intercourse:*
*These things forbid marriages that are to be allied, and undo them when joined.*

Now the reason for the understanding of the aforesaid is this: since our reparative principle, the Word namely incarnate, by this very fact that he is the *Word of God*, is the *fount of wisdom on high*[^p279-4]; by this very fact that he is *incarnate*, is the fount of *clemency* on earth; and therefore, by this very fact that he is the *uncreated Word*, he is the *formative* [principle] of the human race out of the highest *wisdom*; by this very fact that he is *incarnate*, he is its *reformative* [principle] out of the highest *clemency*. For he repairs the human race through clemency for this reason, that he first made it reparable out of wisdom, which for its own highest order required that he should make the human race able *to stand*, able *to fall*, able also *to be repaired*, as was shown in the preceding[^p279-5]. Since therefore the Word of God in his wisdom made man — as also it was fitting — able *to stand*, *to fall* and *to rise*; hence it is that he ordained the human race to be propagated in that mode by which, from the very mode of propagating, it should have that which might lead it by the hand *to standing*; it should have also that which might lead it by the hand *to a remedy*, just as also in that propagation there is something through sin, namely lust, which transmits the disease. And because the *state* of man was from the conjunction of his soul to God through a unitive love in a mode most chaste, single and undivided; the *remedy* came from the conjunction of the divine nature and the human into the unity of hypostasis and of person — a unity, I say, introduced by divine grace as *single* and *undivided*: hence it is that God from the beginning instituted that propagation should come about through an *undivided* and *single* conjunction of male and female, which should signify *before* sin the conjunction of God and the soul, or of God and the subcelestial[^p279-6] hierarchy, but *after* sin the conjunction of God and human nature, or of Christ and the Church; and therefore in both cases there is a *Sacrament*, namely *before* and *after*, although in one mode and another, as regards *signification* and *use*. For since it was a *Sacrament* before the disease supervened, lust, which supervened through sin, is rather to be excused through marriage than able to vitiate it; because the disease does not corrupt the medicine, but the medicine has to cure the disease[^p279-7]. — From which it manifestly appears what marriage *is*, and how it *was introduced* divinely into *being*.

Again, since each of the aforesaid spiritual unions signified in the Sacrament of marriage is a union of the one as of the *agent* and of that which flows in, of the o-
<!-- page 280 -->
ther as of the *patient* and of that which receives; and this, by the bond of love effecting it, which proceeds from the mere *will*: hence it is that marriage ought to be a conjunction of a twofold person, differing according to the account of the *agent* and of the *patient*, namely of the male sex and of the female, and this from the mere *consent of the will*. — And because the will does not outwardly appear save through signs expressing it; hence it is that it is necessary that the mutual consent *be outwardly expressed*[^p280-1]. — But because consent as concerning the *future* is not properly consent, but a promise of it; and consent before the mingling does not make a full union, because they are not yet *one flesh*: hence it is that through words concerning the future marriage is said to be *initiated*, through words concerning the present *confirmed*, but in carnal union *consummated*, because then they are *one flesh* and become *one body*; and through this it fully signifies that union which is between us and Christ. For then the body of the one is fully transferred into the body of the other according to the power of one's own consort[^p280-2] for the procreating of offspring.

And therefore of marriage itself there are three *goods*, namely the *Sacrament* on account of the indissoluble bond, *faith* on account of the rendering of the debt, and *offspring* as an effect following upon both.

Lastly, since the said matrimonial conjunction ought to be one proceeding from free consent to the coupling of persons standing apart into one law of marriage; and this can be impeded in twelve modes: hence it is that there are twelve impediments of marriage, which appears thus. — For to matrimonial consent there is required *liberty in the consent*, *liberty in the one consenting*, and *fitness for the conjunction*. But *liberty in the consent* is taken away through two things according to the two parts of the involuntary, namely through *ignorance* and through *violence*[^p280-3]. And thus there are two impediments, namely *error* and *violence*. — But *liberty in the one consenting* is taken away through this, that someone is bound to another, and this either to *God* or to *man*. If to *God*, this is either through an *express vow* or through something which has a *vow annexed*. The first is in the *vow*, the second in *order*. But if to *man*, this in two ways: either through an *existing bond* or through a *preceding* one. The first is in the *bond* by which someone is bound to a wife; the second is in *crime*, when an adulterer or an adulteress has machinated the death of the spouse, or, while that one is living, has given a pledge concerning contracting. And thus there are four impediments, namely *vow*, *order*, *bond* and *crime*. — But *fitness for the union* is a fitting distance of persons, which is taken away through too great *nearness* or through too great *remoteness*. Now too great *nearness* comes[^p280-4] through *generation*, or through something *like generation*, as is *legal* and *spiritual kinship*; or it comes through the *mingling of the sexes*, or through the *contracting of betrothals*. And thus there are three impediments, namely *kinship*, *affinity* and *the decency of public justice*. — But too great *distance* is attended to either as regards those things which are of *nature*, as when they cannot be mingled carnally; or as regards those things which are of *fortune*, which are not in our power, as is plain when the one is a slave and the other free; or as regards those things which are of the *Christian religion*, as when one is baptized but the other not at all. And thus there are three impediments, namely *impotence for intercourse*, *error of condition* and *disparity of religion*. — And through this there are in all twelve impediments, which, the Holy Spirit dictating, have been introduced in the Church, to which, although all the Sacraments are committed, most especially[^p280-5] the Sacrament of marriage has been committed to be regulated, on account of the *varieties* which can befall concerning this Sacrament, and on account of the annexed *disease*, which is most of all infective and least of all keeps measure; and therefore it belongs to the Church herself to limit the *degrees of kinship*, as she sees to be expedient for the time, and to judge persons *legitimate* or *illegitimate* and to *make divorces*. But never ought she, nor is she able, to annul a marriage which has been legitimately introduced, because *those whom God has joined man cannot*, however great his power may be, *separate*[^p280-6], since all men remain to be judged by the judgment of God himself.

---

la: Secundum Iustinian., Institut. imper. lib. I. tit. 9. de Patria potestate. Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 684, nota 4. — Distinctio finis coniugii, scil. *in officium* et *in remedium*, est ex August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 7. n. 12. — Subinde respicitur Eph. 5, 22. seqq. (ubi de coniunctione Christi et Ecclesiae).

en: According to Justinian, *Imperial Institutes* lib. I, tit. 9, *On paternal power*. Cf. tom. IV, p. 684, note 4. — The distinction of the end of marriage, namely *unto an office* and *unto a remedy*, is from Augustine, *On Genesis according to the letter* IX, c. 7, n. 12. — Thereafter Eph. 5:22 and following is regarded (where the conjunction of Christ and the Church is treated).

la: August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 7. n. 12. De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 26-42. — Impedimentis post Tridentinum (praeter impedimentum *aetatis*, quod includitur secundum Bonav., IV. Sent. d. 36. Divis. textus, in impedimento *conditionis*) duo alia adiunguntur: / Si parochi et duplicis desit praesentia testis, / Raptave sit mulier nec parti reddita tutae.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the letter* IX, c. 7, n. 12. On this chapter see IV *Sent.* d. 26–42. — To the impediments after Trent (besides the impediment of *age*, which according to Bonaventure, IV *Sent.* d. 36, *Division of the text*, is included under the impediment of *condition*) two others are joined: / *If the presence of the parish priest and of a double witness be lacking,* / *Or the woman have been carried off and not restored to a place of safety.*

la: Eccli. 1, 5: *Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis.*

en: Ecclus. 1:5: *The fount of wisdom is the word of God on high.*

en: Of Part I, c. 1; of Part II, c. 9 and following; and of Part III, c. 1.

la: Sive, ut supra Prolog. § 3. et p. IV. c. 3. dicitur, *ecclesiasticae* sive *humanae*, quae ibid. distinguitur *a divina* et *angelica*. — D G H et 1 *supercaelestis* (!). Post pauca pro *coniunctionem Christi* substituimus ex M T *coniunctionem Dei*.

en: Or, as is said above in the Prologue § 3 and in Part IV c. 3, of the *ecclesiastical* or *human* [hierarchy], which is there distinguished *from the divine* and *the angelic*. — D, G, H and edition 1 read *supercelestial* (!). A little further on, for *the conjunction of Christ* we have substituted from M and T *the conjunction of God*.

en: Cf. IV *Sent.* d. 26, a. 2, q. 2, and d. 31, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.

la: Vide IV. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — De seq. propositione, in qua respicitur Matth. 19, 6. et I. Cor. 6, 16, cfr. ibid. d. 28. q. 1. — Inferius post *de praesenti* Vat. 1 et 2 addunt *ratum vel* (de ista triplici matrimonii distinctione cfr. IV. Sent. d. 27. dub. 5.).

en: See IV *Sent.* d. 27, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — On the following proposition, in which Matt. 19:6 and I Cor. 6:16 are regarded, cf. the same, d. 28, q. 1. — Below, after *concerning the present*, the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 2 add *ratified or* (on that threefold distinction of marriage cf. IV *Sent.* d. 27, dub. 5).

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 7, 4. — Inferius post *scilicet* M addit *fides, proles et Sacramentum*, et pro *consequens* 2 cum D ponit *communis*.

en: I Cor. 7:4 is regarded. — Below, after *namely*, M adds *faith, offspring and Sacrament*; and for *following* edition 2, with D, puts *common*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 240, nota 5.

en: Cf. above, p. 240, note 5.

la: Plures codd. *aut est*, Vat., 1 et 3 *venit sive*. Inferius ante *spiritualis* 1 omittit *et*, pro quo Vat. *aut*.

en: Several codices read *or it is*; the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 read *comes, or*. Below, before *spiritual*, edition 1 omits *and*, for which the Vatican edition reads *or*.

la: E addit *tamen*. Inferius pro *limitare* C *terminare*, et vocibus *et personas* plures codd. interserunt *inter*.

en: E adds *nevertheless*. Below, for *to limit* C reads *to terminate*; and between the words *and persons* several codices insert *among*.

la: Matth. 19, 6: *Quod [ita etiam E K M] ergo Deus coniunxit, homo non separe*[?]

en: Matt. 19:6: *What [so also E, K, M] therefore God has joined together, let not man separ*[?] ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 279–280, TWO LEAVES, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS ON THE PLATE.** `CAP. XIII.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De integritate matrimonii.` stands centred in p. 279's **LEFT** column about **43 %** down the leaf, immediately below Cap. XII's closing `…non debent dispensari nisi ab his qui habent praeeminentiam potestatis.` — where `bon-brev-p6-c12` said it stood, and re-set here off the band rather than adopted. **The title is taken from THIS heading, never from the volume index**, whose Pars VI titles are OCR-garbled throughout the block (`Dc inlegritatc matrimonii`, `,\1II.`). Cap. XIII fills the lower **57 %** of p. 279's left column, crosses that leaf's gutter **MID-CLAUSE** (`quia principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum` / `scilicet incarnatum, eo ipso quod Verbum Dei` — stranding the appositive from its noun, ★ **the SAME `Verbum` / `scilicet incarnatum` break at which Cap. XI's leaf-crossing fell on p. 276**), crosses to p. 280 **MID-WORD** (`alte-` / `rius`, splitting `alterius`), and closes about **63 %** down p. 280's **RIGHT** column at `…cum ipsius Dei iudicio iudicandi remaneant universi.`

**★★ THE CLOSE — AND WITH IT THE CLOSE OF PARS VI — IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `PARS SEPTIMA` DISPLAY HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** p. 281 carries, across the full width of the leaf above both columns, the display heading `PARS SEPTIMA.` with the subtitle `De statu finalis iudicii.` beneath it, and below that the centred `Cap. I.` with its own subtitle `De iudicio in communi.` and the opening `Postquam aliqua breviter dicta sunt de Trinitate Dei…`. **That heading, read directly off the band, is what closes Cap. XIII; nothing else was used.** The index's hypothesis — Pars VII at p. 281, therefore Cap. XIII running 279–280 — turns out to be right and **was used for nothing**, exactly as the fourth caution requires, because this same index had already been caught under-reporting Cap. IX's span by a whole leaf in this very pars. ★ **In particular, NO inference was drawn from the very large white space on p. 280**, which is the most tempting blank in the whole pars: Cap. XIII's body stops at 63 % of the leaf and **17 % of the page height below it is bare paper** before the footer register begins at 80 %. Under the standing rule that blank space at a column foot is never a boundary, that white space was treated as evidence of nothing whatever, and the boundary was gone and found on the next leaf. The running head was likewise used for nothing: **p. 279's reads `PARS VI. C. XIII.` while 43 % of its left column is still Cap. XII, and p. 280's reads `BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. XIII.`, which for once is true of the whole leaf** — the twelfth misleading leaf and the second accidental hit in this pars. Nor was any inference drawn from the shape of a crossing: this chunk's two body crossings are mid-clause and mid-word, where p. 275 → p. 276 fell at a complete paragraph and p. 277 → p. 278 mid-sentence, and not one of them told anyone anything.

**Gutters — one re-derived from the hand-off, one settled fresh with no constant. ★ And p. 280 adds a NEW form of the "the body window is not safe" failure that the frozen rule does not yet name.**
- **p. 279 = 1191, RE-DERIVED rather than re-used.** `colcrop.py vol5 279` with no constant returns **1191 on a 51 px run** — below the 58–64 px trust band and therefore suspect, reproducing `p6-c12`'s default exactly. Thirteen row windows reproduce its sweep window for window, with the same single blow-out discarded (10–30 % → 1188/63 · **15–35 % → 1151 on a 138 px run, DISCARDED** · 20–40 % → 1192/59 · 25–45 % → 1194/62 · 30–50 % → 1195/61 · 35–55 % → 1195/60 · 40–60 % → 1196/62 · 45–65 % → 1197/63 · 50–70 % → 1197/64 · 55–75 % → 1197/64 · 60–80 % → 1197/63 · 65–85 % → 1191/51 · 70–89 % → 1190/52), and the ink profile over rows 45–92 % again finds the printed column rule as an ink island at **x = 1189–1199, peaking 747 rows**, i.e. **OFF CENTRE**, exactly as `p6-c12` reported. ★ **One refinement worth recording: the zero band's RIGHT edge on this leaf is threshold-sensitive** — at a noise floor of 1 row it closes at x = 1184, at a floor of 3 rows it runs to x = 1222, so the band midpoint computed from it moves between 1175 and 1194 while the rule centre stays fixed at 1194. **This is precisely why `p6-c12` said the body-band midpoint decides and the windows reading 1195–1197 are reading the rule, and it is why the value must not be re-derived from a single threshold.** **1191 confirmed and retained**, and the six bands cut there read clean edge to edge in both columns across the whole leaf, body and footer.
- **★★ p. 280 = 1331, SETTLED FRESH ON A LEAF NEVER BEFORE CROPPED — and the default fails here for a reason that has not arisen before in Vol V.** `colcrop.py vol5 280` returns **1328 on a 30 px run** — half the trust band and squarely in "do not use" territory. The window sweep shows why, and the pattern is unmistakable: the **upper** windows are perfect and the **lower** ones blow out. 10–30 % → 1330/64 · 15–35 % → 1331/63 · 20–40 % → 1330/62 · 25–45 % → 1330/62 · 30–50 % → 1330/62 · 35–55 % → 1330/62 · 40–60 % → 1331/61 · 45–65 % → 1331/62 — **eight consecutive windows spread 1 px on runs of 61–64 px, the tightest agreement met anywhere in this quire** — and then 50–70 % → 1265 on a **195 px** run · 55–75 % → 1306/**415** · 60–80 % → 1304/**418** · 65–85 % → 1291/**389** · 70–89 % → 1278/**356**. ★ **The cause is the pars boundary itself: Cap. XIII's body ENDS at row 2415 of 3823 (63.2 %), the leaf is then blank from 63 % to 80 %, and the footer register occupies 80–89 %. The tool's default 45–92 % body window therefore straddles the body's early end, a 656 px band of bare paper and the whole footer block — three regions with three different ink geometries — and returns a plausible-looking 1328 on a 30 px run.** The row profile settles it: the zero band over **body rows only (12–62 %)** runs **x = 1301–1361** with the printed column rule inside it as an ink island at **x = 1328–1334, peaking 1622 rows** (the heaviest inking of the rule met in this quire, above p. 278's 1062), **band midpoint 1331 and rule centre 1331 coinciding exactly** — the rule is dead square in the band and simply inked hard. **1331 adopted.** By contrast the same profile taken over the default 45–92 % rows gives a band of x = 1304–1362 with the "island" smeared to x = 1328–1344 by the footer's ink — the corrupted picture the default was reading. ★ **This is a NEW member of the family the frozen rule names (display heading crosses the gutter · mid-column `Cap. N.` heading floods one side): A UNIT'S EARLY END, WITH THE BLANK TAIL AND THE FOOTER BOTH INSIDE THE DEFAULT WINDOW. Expect it at every pars and work boundary in Vols V–X, and confine the windows to the rows the body actually occupies.** The bands were cut at 1330, one pixel left of the adopted 1331, and read clean edge to edge in both columns; the 1 px is well inside the method's tolerance and is recorded here rather than silently absorbed. **Sixteen consecutive leaves now measure 1150 · 1422 · 1163 · 1370 · 1186 · 1373 · 1202 · 1326 · 1164 · 1403 · 1145 · 1392 · 1247 · 1351 · 1191 · 1331 — parity predicts nothing, proximity predicts nothing, and the run width remains the only confidence signal.**

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All twelve notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands** (6 bands at 2.6× for the body read, then 14 at 4.6× and, for the last line of p. 280's right block, 24 at 7.0×); the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 279's total of 7 was established by `bon-brev-p6-c12` and was already in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; p. 280's total of 6 is established here and entered**, with **nothing forwarded** — the pars closes with its last register complete.

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL. EVERY DIGIT AND EVERY SIGLUM HELD — AND ONE NOTE'S EXTENT DID NOT, WHICH IS THE CORRECTION.** `bon-brev-p6-c12` forwarded p. 279's nn. 2–7 with its verification level stated exactly: block positions, verbatim text and anchor columns read off the bands, the anchor word read for n. 2 only, and **no digit verified**. All of that is confirmed here, and every digit is now settled (below). ★ **The one correction: p. 279 n. 3's unnumbered continuation in the right block is LONGER than the hand-off knew.** The hand-off described it as "the two closing impediment verses"; the band shows the right block opens `Bonav., IV. Sent. d. 36. Divis. textus, in impedimento *conditionis*) duo alia adiunguntur:` **and only then** prints the two verses. The clause that closes the parenthesis opened on p. 279's left side (`praeter impedimentum *aetatis*, quod includitur secundum`) and the whole `IV. Sent. d. 36.` citation were invisible until the right block was read at 4.6×. **This is a completion of the hand-off, not a contradiction of it — the second consecutive chunk in which an inherited note's TEXT turned out to be its HEAD ONLY, `p6-c12` having found the same of p. 277 n. 7.** Verification level of every note as established **here**:
- **p. 279 nn. 2–7** — POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD, OWNERSHIP, EXTENT, DIGITS and SIGLA all verified here. n. 2 anchors on `individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens ² ».` in the **LEFT** column, closing Cap. XIII's *Thesis 1* (the one anchor word the hand-off had read; confirmed); n. 3 on `et Sacramentum ³ »:` in the **LEFT**, closing *Thesis 3*; n. 4 on `fons sapientiae in excelsis ⁴;` in the **RIGHT**; n. 5 on `sicut in praecedentibus ⁵ ostensum fuit.` in the **RIGHT**; n. 6 on `seu Dei et subcaelestis ⁶ hierarchiae,` in the **RIGHT**; n. 7 on `medicamentum habet curare morbum ⁷.` in the **RIGHT**, closing the *Ratio* period.
- **p. 280 nn. 1–6** — all first-read here and all owned here. POSITION, COLUMN, OWNERSHIP, EXTENT and DIGITS verified: n. 1 anchors on `consensus mutuus *exterius exprimatur* ¹.` in the **LEFT**; n. 2 on `secundum sui comparis potestatem ²` in the **LEFT**; n. 3 on `per *ignorantiam* et per *violentiam* ³.` in the **LEFT**; n. 4 on `Nimia autem *proximitas* venit ⁴ per *generationem*` in the **RIGHT**; n. 5 on `potissime ⁵ coniugii Sacramentum` in the **RIGHT**; n. 6 on `*separare* ⁶,` in the **RIGHT**, closing the capitulum and the pars. **All six are Cap. XIII's; the leaf is wholly inside this capitulum.**

**★ p. 279's SPLIT MAP — the leaf is now fully consumed.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3 — n. 3 straddling the gutter, breaking off at `(praeter impedimentum *aetatis*, quod includitur secundum`. Right footer block: n. 3's unnumbered continuation (`Bonav., IV. Sent. d. 36. Divis. textus, in impedimento *conditionis*) duo alia adiunguntur:` plus the two verses), then nn. 4, 5, 6, 7, ending complete at `in corp.` with blank paper beneath. **Anchors:** n. 1 in the LEFT column (Cap. XII's, `p6-c12`'s), nn. 2 and 3 also LEFT but below the `CAP. XIII.` heading, nn. 4–7 RIGHT. **Total 7.** Block 3/4, anchors 3/4, capitulum 1/6 — as `p6-c12` established; re-reading the register here changed nothing except the extent of n. 3.

**★★ p. 280's SPLIT MAP — A TWELFTH DISTINCT ARRANGEMENT, AND THE FIRST IN PARS VI IN WHICH BLOCK, COLUMN AND CAPITULUM ALL FALL IN THE SAME PLACE.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, ending complete at `ponit *communis*.` with blank paper beneath. Right footer block: nn. 3, 4, 5, 6, opening NUMBERED. **Anchors:** nn. 1–3 in the **LEFT** column, nn. 4–6 in the **RIGHT**. **p. 280's TOTAL IS 6, established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; all six are Cap. XIII's.** So the block split is 2/4, the anchor split 3/3 and the capitulum split 6/0 — ★ and note that **block and anchor STILL disagree by one note even on the cleanest leaf of the pars**, the left block ending one note above the column break. **Block, column and capitulum structure remain three independent things, and the twelfth arrangement is no more predictable from the eleventh than any of the others were. Read anchors, only anchors.**

**★ SIGLA — ONE RUN THAT TURNS ON THE ONE-UPRIGHT RULE, AND THREE THAT DO NOT.**
1. **★ `D G H et 1` (p. 279 n. 6)** — the third sort carries **two uprights**, so by the one-upright rule it can be a crossbar-less `H`; a single upright would have had to be `I`, and both `D G H` and `D G I` ascend, so **order does not decide this one — stroke count does**, and at 4.6× the sort is plainly two uprights with a faint crossbar. **The `1` immediately following is the EDITION siglum, an arabic sort standing in the same clause as the codex sigla without being one** — the p. 278 n. 3 shape exactly, met again three words apart. Its independent check is that Vol V has only three editions (1, 2, 3) beside `Vat.`, and `1 et 3` recurs twice within two leaves (p. 280 n. 4, p. 281 n. 5), so an arabic sort in this position is an edition and can be nothing else. ★ **The `(!)` after *supercaelestis* is Quaracchi's own mark of surprise at the variant, not a transcription artefact, and is transcribed.**
2. **`M T` (p. 279 n. 6), `M` and `D` (p. 280 n. 2), `E` and `C` (p. 280 n. 5)** — all unambiguous sorts with no uprights in question; the raw prints them correctly.
3. **★ `E K M` (p. 280 n. 6)** — inside square brackets, Quaracchi's own bracket, and the `K` is the sort the raw chronically corrupts to `R`; here the raw happens to get it right (`EKM`). Read off the 7.0× band.
4. **`Vat., 1 et 3` and `Vat. 1 et 2` (p. 280 nn. 1, 4)** — edition sigla throughout, no codex letter in either clause.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). ★ **The `1`/`4` class dominates these two leaves almost completely — eight of the ten decisions — and there is not one `3`/`5` decision on either leaf. Do not calibrate on it.**
- **★ p. 279 n. 2's `Institut. imper. lib. I. tit. 9. de Patria potestate` — settled by the note's own title.** Justinian's *Institutes* I, tit. 9 **is** *De patria potestate* ✓; the note prints the title beside the number, so the coordinate corroborates itself.
- **★ p. 279 n. 2's `tom. IV. pag. 684, nota 4.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by checking the target exists AND matches.** Printed p. 684 of Tomus IV is owned by `bon-sent-IV-d27-a3-q2` and `bon-sent-IV-d27-dubia`, and **`d27-dubia`'s own apparatus on that page cites `in definitione matrimonii a Iustiniano (l. Institut. tit. 9. de patria potestate) data`** ✓ — the very same Justinian citation, on the very same definition. Decisive, and it corroborates `tit. 9.` a second time.
- **★ p. 279 nn. 2 and 3's `August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 7. n. 12.` — settled by subject, and by standing twice.** *De Genesi ad litteram* IX, 7, 12 is the classic *officium / remedium* locus on marriage, which is exactly what n. 2 says it is ex; the same coordinate is printed again, independently, at the head of n. 3.
- **★ p. 279 n. 2's `Eph. 5, 22. seqq.` — settled by the note's own gloss.** The note appends `(ubi de coniunctione Christi et Ecclesiae)`, and Eph. 5:22ff is that passage ✓.
- **★★ p. 279 n. 3's `IV. Sent. d. 26-42.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled DECISIVELY against the corpus.** `bon-sent-IV-d26-*` through `bon-sent-IV-d42-*` is exactly the marriage treatise and nothing else: d. 26 institution and signification, d. 27 the definition and consent, d. 28 words of the future, d. 29 coerced consent, d. 30 erroneous consent, d. 31 the three goods, d. 32 the debt, d. 33 plurality, and **d. 34–d. 42 the impediments one by one**, ending at d. 42 spiritual kinship ✓. The range begins and ends precisely where the treatise does; no other pair of numbers does.
- **★★ p. 279 n. 3's `Bonav., IV. Sent. d. 36. Divis. textus, in impedimento *conditionis*` — the citation recovered from the previously unread continuation, and it verifies itself.** `bon-sent-IV-d36-a1-q1` is ***Utrum conditio servitutis, domino contradicente, impediat matrimonium*** ✓ — d. 36 **is** the impediment of *condition*, which is what the note says it is. Decisive.
- **★ p. 279 n. 4's `Eccli. 1, 5` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by the quotation the note itself prints.** The note gives the verse verbatim, `Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis`, which is Ecclus. 1:5 ✓ and which the anchored body quotes. `4, 5` — exactly the shape the hand-off warned of — is not that verse.
- **★★ p. 279 n. 5's `Partis I. c. 1; II. c. 9. seq. et p. III. c. 1.` — three `1`/`4` decisions in one line, all three settled by reading the targets.** The anchor is `potens *stare*, potens *labi*, potens etiam *reparari*, sicut in praecedentibus ⁵ ostensum fuit`. **`bon-brev-p1-c1`** says in so many words `creatura rationalis, quae est quodam modo finis omnium, non stetit, sed suo casu indiguit reparari` ✓ — standing, falling and repair, in that order, in the very chapter cited. **`bon-brev-p2-c9` and `-c10`** are the production of man as to spirit and as to body ✓ (`c. 9. seq.` — the *seq.* is why two chapters are meant). **`bon-brev-p3-c1`** is *De origine mali in communi* ✓ — the falling. All three exist and all three match.
- **★★ p. 279 n. 6's `Prolog. § 3. et p. IV. c. 3.` — two more decisions, both settled DECISIVELY by reading the targets, and the second explains the variant.** **`bon-brev-prol-s3`** sets out `hierarchiarum gradatim ordinatarum, quae sunt hierarchia *ecclesiastica, angelica* et *divina*, seu *supercaelestis*` ✓ — the exact threefold distinction the note describes, **and it prints the word *supercaelestis* that D G H and edition 1 substitute here**, which is almost certainly how the variant arose. **`bon-brev-p4-c3`** names `hierarchia, scilicet divina, angelica et humana` ✓. Both coordinates confirmed, and `§ 3` is confirmed twice over.
- **★ p. 279 n. 7's `IV. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.` — settled by checking both targets exist and match.** `bon-sent-IV-d26-a2-q2` is on whether grace is given in the Sacrament of marriage ✓, and **`bon-sent-IV-d31-a2-q1`, *Utrum coitus causa prolis possit esse sine omni culpa*** ✓ — precisely the *libido excusatur per matrimonium* doctrine this anchor states.
- **★ p. 280 n. 1's `IV. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. seq.` and `ibid. d. 28. q. 1.` — two `1`/`4` decisions settled by reading the targets.** `bon-sent-IV-d27-a2-q1` is ***Utrum consensus sit causa matrimonii*** ✓ — the anchor is precisely that the mutual consent must be outwardly expressed. `bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q1` is ***Utrum consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium*** ✓ — the *verba de futuro* the next sentence turns on, and d. 28 has a single articulus, so `q. 1.` with the articulus unstated resolves uniquely, per the standing rule that Quaracchi omits coordinates unambiguous in the print.
- **★ p. 280 n. 1's `Matth. 19, 6. et I. Cor. 6, 16` — both settled by content.** I Cor. 6:16 is `erunt duo in carne una` ✓, which is the `nondum sunt *una caro*` of the anchored sentence; Matt. 19:6 is `quos Deus coniunxit homo non separet` ✓, which this same register quotes verbatim at n. 6.
- **★ p. 280 n. 1's `IV. Sent. d. 27. dub. 5.` — the target exists** (`bon-sent-IV-d27-dubia`, which holds all of d. 27's dubia) and the note's own gloss names its subject, `de ista triplici matrimonii distinctione` — *initiatum / ratum / consummatum* ✓. Per the frozen index convention `dub. 5` is display text on the link, not a match coordinate.
- **★ p. 280 n. 2's `I. Cor. 7, 4` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by the body it anchors.** I Cor. 7:4 is `mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir` ✓, and the anchored clause reads `secundum sui comparis potestatem`. Decisive from the text itself.
- **★★ p. 280 n. 3's `Cfr. supra pag. 240, nota 5.` — a `1`/`4` decision AND a `3`/`5` decision in five characters, both settled DECISIVELY by reading the target.** Printed p. 240 is owned by **`bon-brev-p3-c11`**, and **that chunk's note `p240-5` anchors on `Cum enim dupliciter dicatur involuntarium, scilicet per *violentiam* et per *ignorantiam*`** ✓ — which is word for word the `duas partes involuntarii, scilicet per ignorantiam et per violentiam` that p. 280 n. 3 glosses. Neither `pag. 210` nor `nota 3` of p. 240 (which is on the appropriation of power, wisdom and will) matches anything here. Decisive on both digits.
- **★ p. 280 n. 6's `Matth. 19, 6` — settled by the quotation the note prints.** See the `[?]` flag below for the note's defective final word, which is a separate question and is not a digit question.

**⚠ ONE NEW `[?]` FLAG — p. 280 n. 6's FINAL WORD, AND THE PAGE-CROSSING TEST THAT PROVES IT IS NOT A RUNOVER.** p. 280's last footer entry reads, in full, `⁶ Matth. 19, 6: Quod [ita etiam E K M] ergo Deus coniunxit, homo non separe` — **and there the line stops, with no final `t`, no closing period, and blank paper beneath it.** The Vulgate and the sense both require *separet*, and the body it annotates prints *separare*. **The obvious hypothesis is a runover into p. 281, and it is FALSE, tested from the far side:** p. 281's **left** footer block opens **NUMBERED** at `¹ Cfr. Matth. 16, 27; 25, 31; Apoc. 22, 12; ibid. 20, 15. de libro vitae.`, and p. 281's **right** block opens unnumbered at `pra p. II. c. 9. et 12.` — which is unmistakably the continuation of p. 281's **own** n. 3 (`Ut insinuat August., XIV. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11. Cfr. su-`), that is, p. 281's own gutter straddle and not a page runover. **There is nowhere for p. 280 n. 6's missing letter to be.** The reading was checked at 4.6× and again at 7.0×; the last glyph is a round `e`, there is no worn `t` and no period, and the raw independently reads `liorno non separc`. **So the plate is defective: Quaracchi dropped the final `t` and the stop.** It is transcribed exactly as printed with a `[?]` — the reading is certain, the text is not — and it is **NOT** treated as a forwarded pending note, because the register is complete and nothing crosses the pars boundary. ★ **This is the one place in Pars VI where the correct answer to "does this note continue?" was NO, and only the far-side test could say so.**

**⚠ TWO INHERITED `[?]` FLAGS TRAVEL FORWARD, NEITHER RESOLVED, NEITHER RE-FLAGGED.**
1. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c6`, whose entry carries it; flagged by `p6-c6`, re-examined by `p6-c7` with **no disposition recorded**, and untouched by `p6-c8` through `p6-c12`). **p. 271 is off this chunk's leaves entirely, nothing read here bears on it, and it is neither resolved nor re-flagged.** It stands as `p6-c6` left it and is forwarded to `bon-brev-p7-c1` unchanged.
2. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 272 n. 6, `Respicitur Col. 6, 12.`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c7`, whose entry carries it; the plate confirmed by `p6-c7` and again by `p6-c8` at 4.6×, with no disposition recorded either time). **p. 272 is off this chunk's leaves entirely.** Colossians still has four chapters and the sense still requires Ephes. 6:12; **no disposition is recorded, it is neither resolved nor re-flagged as new**, and `build-citations.py`'s QA line on it remains expected behaviour, not a defect. Forwarded to `bon-brev-p7-c1`.
★ **Two further flags are DISCHARGED and are NOT resurrected here: `p6-c10`'s `d. 23.` (discharged by `p6-c11`) and the `c. 13.` flag on p. 277 n. 7 (discharged by `p6-c12` against Lombard's own chapter division).**

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 279 left column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3." — "Thesis 4." — "Ratio."; p. 279 right column — "Pro thesi 1." — "De statu et remedio." — "Significatio." — "Sacramentum." — "Pro thesi 2."; p. 280 left column — "Pro thesi 3" — "Pro thesi 4." — "Congruentia 12 impedimentorum." — "Libertas in consensu." — "Libertas in consentiente."; p. 280 right column — "Idoneitas." — "Nimia proximitas." — "Nimia distantia." — "Causae matrimoniales spectant ad Ecclesiam." — "Notandum." ★ **Twenty glosses, and a NINTH distinct form in nine consecutive chapters.** Cap. XIII sets four theses and answers them with a `Pro thesi 1/2/3/4` series, as Capp. XI and XII did — but where Cap. XII interleaved that series with ten bare TOPIC nouns and closed on no summary gloss at all, **Cap. XIII interleaves it with only three topic nouns in the first half (`De statu et remedio.`, `Significatio.`, `Sacramentum.`) and then, in the second half, with a run of five ANALYTICAL labels that name the argument's own divisions rather than its subject — `Congruentia 12 impedimentorum.`, `Libertas in consensu.`, `Libertas in consentiente.`, `Idoneitas.`, `Nimia proximitas.`, `Nimia distantia.` — mapping the twelvefold division term by term**, and it closes on **`Notandum.`**, the summary gloss Cap. XII omitted and Cap. XI ran bare. ★ **Note also that `Pro thesi 3` is printed WITHOUT its closing period while all three of its siblings carry one** — transcribed as seen. **Nothing was inferred from any neighbour in advance.** Glosses stand in the outer margin of each column, and the raw's rendering (`Causae ni.i-trimoniale^ spectant ad Ecciesiam.`, `'''>  ">«■  *`) is unusable; all twenty are band reads.

**★★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE IS DUE ON THESE LEAVES AND FALLS ONE LEAF LATER THAN THE CADENCE SUGGESTED.** p. 265 carried `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` with quire `34` and p. 273 the same line with quire `35`; the eight-leaf cadence put the next around p. 281. **Neither p. 279 nor p. 280 carries a signature line** — their footer blocks end in blank paper, which is part of what closes both runover tests from the upper side — and **p. 281 carries it: `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` at the foot of its left column and quire `36` at the foot of its right.** The cadence therefore holds exactly at eight leaves (265 · 273 · 281), and **the signature falls on the leaf that opens Pars VII, so it is `bon-brev-p7-c1`'s to expect, not to transcribe** — it is not a footer entry.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 279 body — poor in the left column, moderate in the right.** The left column carries the bracket-substitution damage `p6-c12` graded on the Cap. XII stretch of the same leaf (`indivMluam`, `insliliUum`, `libidinis` correct but `signiflcabat`, `Inlrodudlur`, `im[)ediunt`), and the heading shatters as usual; the right column is markedly better, with damage confined to single letters and ligatures (`incarnalum`, `clementiac`, `formalivum`, `manuduccret`, `subcaelcstis`, `medicamenlum`) — **so the leaf IMPROVES across the gutter, the shape p. 277 showed and the reverse of p. 279's Cap. XII stretch, which is the sixth distinct within-page pattern in this pars.** **p. 279 footer — clean**, reproducing all six of this chunk's entries substantially right, including the whole `Bonav., IV. Sent. d. 36.` clause the hand-off had not seen, and both siglum runs. **p. 280 body — good in both columns and, unusually, EVEN**: damage is sparse and confined to single letters (`onlinavit` for `ordinavit` no — read `ordinavit`; `puhlicae`, `affmitas`, `disparitus`, `comlitionis`, `stitmae`, `varielates`, `morhuni`, `pcrsomis`, `illegilimas`, `diictnni`, `[lotest`, `«'parare^`), and **it is the best body grade of any leaf in this quire.** **p. 280 footer — clean**, reproducing all six entries and every digit decision correctly, including `2iO` for 240 in the shape the `1`/`4` class always takes, and independently confirming the defective `separc`. ★ **So across two leaves the body grade ran poor → moderate → good → good while both footers graded clean: the footer has now outgraded the body on every leaf since p. 275, six leaves running.**

**Runover tests — THREE RUN, ALL THREE NEGATIVE, ALL THREE CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 279 → p. 280 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 279's right block ends **complete** at n. 7's `Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.`, with blank paper beneath it to the foot of the column and no signature line; and **p. 280's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Vide IV. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. seq.` Nothing logged.
- *p. 280's own gutter — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* The left block's last entry, n. 2, ends **complete** at `et pro *consequens* 2 cum D ponit *communis*.`, with blank paper beneath it; and **p. 280's right block opens NUMBERED** at `³ Cfr. supra pag. 240, nota 5.` Nothing logged. ★ **Note that the leaf's BODY crosses this same gutter at a clean sentence end (`Primum est in *voto*, secundum in *ordine*.` / `Si autem *homini*, hoc dupliciter`) while its footer does not straddle at all — the first leaf in Pars VI on which neither body nor footer straddles the gutter, and it is the leaf that closes the pars.**
- *★ Page-crossing, p. 280 → p. 281 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, and this is the PARS BOUNDARY test.* p. 280's right block ends at n. 6's defective `homo non separe` with blank paper beneath it (see the `[?]` flag above); and **p. 281's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Cfr. Matth. 16, 27; …`, while p. 281's right block opens unnumbered with the continuation of p. 281's **own** n. 3. **Nothing crosses the pars boundary. Nothing is forwarded to `bon-brev-p7-c1`.** ★ **A note forwarded across this boundary would have been legitimate — p. 265's register was forwarded into Pars VI in exactly that way — and the test was run precisely because it would have been. It is not.** Nothing logged.
- *NOT re-logged here:* **`p.279 n.3:gutter` (`p6-c12`, POSITIVE), `p.278 n.2:gutter` (`p6-c12`, POSITIVE), `p.277 n.7:page` (`p6-c12`, POSITIVE) and the p. 278 → p. 279 test (`p6-c12`, NEGATIVE)**; p. 277's own gutter test and the p. 276 → p. 277 test (both `p6-c11`, both NEGATIVE); `p.276 n.3:gutter` (`p6-c10`, POSITIVE) and the p. 275 → p. 276 test (`p6-c10`); `p.274 n.5:gutter`, `p.275 n.4:gutter`, the p. 273 → p. 274 test and the p. 274 → p. 275 test (all four `p6-c9`); `p.273 n.5:gutter` and the p. 272 → p. 273 test (both `p6-c8`); `p.272 n.5:gutter` and the p. 271 → p. 272 test (both `p6-c7`); `p.270 n.4:gutter`, the p. 270 → p. 271 test and p. 271's own gutter test (all three `p6-c6`); `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 test (both `p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s through `p6-c12`'s own do-not-re-log lists. **p. 281's own gutter test is NOT run here** — it is `bon-brev-p7-c1`'s, on the standing rule that a leaf's gutter test belongs to the chunk that first reaches the leaf. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p7-c1` — NO APPARATUS, AND THAT IS THE POINT.** pp. 279 and 280 are **fully consumed**: p. 279's seven notes are now all owned (n. 1 by `p6-c12`, nn. 2–7 here, n. 3 joined across the gutter), and all six of p. 280's are owned here. **PARS VI CLOSES WITH ITS LAST REGISTER COMPLETE AND NOTHING PENDING.** What is forwarded is observation, not ownership: **p. 281 has been imaged and its gutter measured at 1230 on a 55 px run** — a value that must be re-derived, because p. 281 carries a **full-width `PARS SEPTIMA` display heading that crosses the gutter** and will destroy the blank-column run over the upper page exactly as pp. 201, 219, 241 and 252 did, so the measurement must be confined to body rows; **p. 281's own gutter test is POSITIVE and belongs to `p7-c1`** (its n. 3 breaks off at `Cfr. su-` and its right block opens unnumbered with `pra p. II. c. 9. et 12.`); **p. 281's left block carries nn. 1–3 and its right block nn. 4–5**, read here only as far as closing the pars-boundary test, with the anchors NOT located and no total claimed; and **p. 281 carries the printer's signature `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` and quire `36`**, which is not a footer entry. **Both `[?]` flags travel forward unresolved: p. 271 n. 2's `minus, aptae` and p. 272 n. 6's `Col. 6, 12`. The new flag on p. 280 n. 6's `separe` stays with this chunk and is not forwarded** — the note is owned, complete as printed, and settled as a plate defect.

**Register — the marriage vocabulary was CONSULTED from the Vol IV settlement, not coined here, and Pars VI's own vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided.** `p6-c1`'s sacramental core, `p6-c2`'s historical-dispensation vocabulary, `p6-c3`'s seven sacrament names, `p6-c4`'s institution vocabulary, `p6-c5`'s dispensation-and-minister vocabulary, `p6-c6`'s iteration-and-character vocabulary, `p6-c7`'s *integritas* vocabulary, `p6-c8`'s confirmation settlement, `p6-c9`'s eucharistic settlement, `p6-c10`'s penitential settlement, `p6-c11`'s unction settlement and `p6-c12`'s order settlement all stand unchanged. **Vol IV chunks consulted for this chapter — the marriage treatise d. 26–d. 42, which p. 279 n. 3 names as a whole (*De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 26-42*) and which nn. 2, 7 and p. 280 nn. 1–2 name piecemeal:** `bon-sent-IV-d26-littera` (Lombard's chapter division, whose Cap. I is *De Sacramento coniugii*), `bon-sent-IV-d26-a1-q1` (*Quando institutum sit matrimonium* — the *ante peccatum / post peccatum* institution), `-a2-q1` (*Quid in matrimonio sit signum et quid signatum*), `-a2-q2` (whether grace is given, the target of p. 279 n. 7), `-a2-q3` (*integritas* as to necessary and as to full being — **the exact *officium / remedium* and *coniunctio animorum / corporum* parallel to this capitulum's opening**); `bon-sent-IV-d27-littera` (Lombard's definition and his Cap. V *De opinione quorundam, qui dicunt, coniugium non esse ante carnalem copulam*), `-a1-q1` (*Utrum matrimonium sit coniunctio maris et feminae*), `-a2-q1` (*Utrum consensus sit causa matrimonii*, the target of p. 280 n. 1), `-a3-q1`/`-a3-q2` (the indissolubility of the consummated and of the ratified marriage), `-dubia` (**whose apparatus prints Justinian's definition from *Institut. tit. 9. de patria potestate*, and which is the target of p. 279 n. 2's `tom. IV. pag. 684, nota 4` and of p. 280 n. 1's `d. 27. dub. 5.`**); `bon-sent-IV-d28-a1-q1` (*Utrum consensus de futuro faciat matrimonium*, the target of p. 280 n. 1's `d. 28. q. 1.`); `bon-sent-IV-d31-a2-q1` (the target of p. 279 n. 7); `bon-sent-IV-d34-a1-q1` (*Utrum matrimonium habeat impedimentum*) and **`-a1-q2`, which prints the twelve-impediment verses and their whole fourfold rationale**; and `bon-sent-IV-d36-a1-q1` (the impediment of *condition*, the target of the newly recovered clause in p. 279 n. 3). **Carried from that settlement, not re-decided:** ***matrimonium* → "marriage"** (Pars VI's own lock from `p6-c3`, and Vol IV's dominant rendering) with ***coniugium* → "marriage" also**, following Vol IV, which renders `Sacramentum coniugii` "the Sacrament of marriage" and treats the two as synonyms — **the one place a distinction is lost, and it is lost because Vol IV loses it, not because it was innovated here**; *nuptiae* kept distinct as "nuptials" (`p6-c3`); ***coniunctio* → "conjunction"** throughout, following Vol IV d. 26 a. 2 q. 3's *coniunctio animorum / corporum* → "the conjunction of minds / of bodies" — the exact parallel passage — with *unio* → "union" and *copulatio* → "coupling" kept distinct from it; ***individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens* → "retaining an undivided common manner of life"**, Vol IV d. 27 littera's own rendering of this very definition, and *individuus* → "undivided" throughout; *copula carnalis / carnalis copula* → "carnal union" (Vol IV d. 27 littera); *commixtio sexuum* → "the mingling of the sexes" (ibid.); *consensus* → "consent" and *consentiens* → "the one consenting"; *sponsalia* → "betrothals" (Vol IV's *sponsus / sponsa* → "betrothed man / woman"); *matrimonium initiatum / ratum / consummatum* → "initiated / ratified / consummated" (Vol IV d. 27 a. 3); *bona matrimonii — fides, proles, Sacramentum* → "the goods of marriage — faith, offspring, Sacrament" (Vol IV d. 31); *debiti solutio* → "the rendering of the debt"; *vinculum insolubile* → "the indissoluble bond"; **and the twelve impediments in Vol IV d. 34 a. 1 q. 2's own forms, the verse translation adopted verbatim from it save for the fourth line, which the Breviloquium prints differently (`Haec socianda vetant coniugia, iuncta retractant` against Vol IV's `Haec facienda vetant connubia, iuncta retractant`)** — *error* → "error", *conditio* → "condition", *votum* → "vow", *cognatio* → "kinship", *crimen* → "crime", *cultus disparitas* → "disparity of worship", *vis / violentia* → "force / violence", *ordo* → "order", *ligamen* → "bond", *honestas* → "decency", *affinis / affinitas* → "kinsman by affinity / affinity", *impotentia coeundi* → "impotence for intercourse", *error conditionis* → "error of condition", *disparitas religionis* → "disparity of religion", *cognatio legalis et spiritualis* → "legal and spiritual kinship", *gradus cognationum* → "degrees of kinship". ★ **One reading transcribed as printed and NOT flagged: the Breviloquium prints `publicae iustitiae honestas` where Vol IV d. 34 prints `publicae honestatis iustitia` — the two nouns are inverted.** The plate is unambiguous at 4.6× and the raw agrees (`puhlicae iustitiae honestas`), so there is no question about what Quaracchi printed; it is rendered literally as "the decency of public justice" against Vol IV's "the justice of public decency", and no `[?]` is raised, per the standing rule that a flag records an unsettled *reading*, not an author's variation. **Fixed here for the close of the per-sacrament run:** *libido* → "lust" against *concupiscentia* → "concupiscence" (`p6-c3`), *morbus* → "disease" and *medicamentum* → "medicine" (both from `p6-c1`); *unitivus* → "unitive"; *formativum / reformativum* → "formative / reformative"; *manuducere* → "to lead by the hand"; *traducere* → "to transmit" of the disease and "to transfer" of the body, the two senses the same verb carries two paragraphs apart; *comparis* → "of one's own consort"; *moechus / moecha* → "adulterer / adulteress"; *machinari in mortem* → "to machinate the death of"; *elongatio* → "remoteness" against *distantia* → "distance" and *proximitas* → "nearness"; *idoneitas* → "fitness"; *annullare* → "to annul"; *divortia facere* → "to make divorces"; *tenens modum* → "keeping measure". Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved throughout, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence — the opening *thesis* period, the whole *Ratio* period (which runs unbroken across the gutter), the *Rursus* period (unbroken across the page break), and the closing *Postremo* period with its entire twelvefold enumeration each run as a single sentence.

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