title: Dist. 50, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 1047 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum anima separata cognoscat ea quae circa nos geruntur.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 3–6 of page 1047 and notes 1–11 of page 1048. Notes 1 and 2 of page 1047 anchor in the preceding quaestio and are rendered there.

Secundo quaeritur de cognitione animae separatae per comparationem ad statum viatorum; et quaeritur, utrum anima separata cognoscat ea quae circa nos geruntur. Et quod sic, videtur saltem de *bonis*.

1. Gregorius[^p1047-3]: « Quid est quod non vident qui videntem omnia vident »? Sed tales sunt animae beatae: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc etiam videtur de *reprobis*: quia Gregorius narrat in Dialogo[^p1047-4], quod quidam malus homo praedixit locum suae sepulturae; et solvit, quod hoc fuit virtute animae, quae iam abstrahebatur a corpore: si ergo plus est cognoscere futura quam praesentia, et tanto magis cognoscit, quanto magis est abstracta; patet etc.

3. Item, communiter de *utraque* videtur: quia utraque habet potentiam intelligendi, quae non indiget adminiculo exterioris luminis[^p1047-5], nec est arctata ad aliquid: ergo potest per istam cognoscere quae circa nos geruntur.

4. Item, quanto substantia liberior, tanto facilius et certius[^p1047-6] exit in actum suum: ergo cum anima separata a corpore sit multo liberior quam ei coniuncta, si poterat coniuncta cognoscere quae sunt circa nos, poterit et separata.

<!-- page 1048 -->

**Contra:** 1. Quod *beatae* animae non cognoscant, videtur: quia beatae animae magis adhaerent Deo quam aliqui viatores; sed aliqui viatores ita adhaerent Deo, quod parum vel nihil sciunt de his quae hic geruntur: ergo etc.

2. Item, de *damnatis* videtur: quia lumen cognitionis non accrescit in damnatis, immo potius obscuratur; sed cum damnati erant hic, non poterant cognoscere ea quae fiunt apud inferos: ergo nec modo poterunt cognoscere ea quae fiunt apud nos.

3. Item, quod nec *isti* nec *illi*, videtur: quia tam isti quam illi habent potentiam cognoscendi finitam; sed ad hoc, quod aliquid cognoscatur de novo, necesse est praesentari ipsi virtuti cognoscenti: ergo si a nobis multum distant et absentes sunt, patet[^p1048-1] etc.

4. Item, tam isti quam illi diligunt nos; sed qui diligit alterum congaudet in bonis et contristatur in malis: ergo si mali non debent cognoscere unde gaudeant, nec boni unde doleant; videtur, quod nec isti nec illi nos cognoscant. Et hoc confirmatum est per illud quod dictum est Iosiae, quarti Regum vigesimo secundo[^p1048-2]. Dixit enim Dominus, quod auferret eum, ne videret mala gentis suae.

### Conclusio

> *Animae separatae, tam bonae quam malae, variis modis, praesertim per relationem aliorum, vel per revelationem Dei, quaedam de viatoribus cognoscere possunt.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est aliquid cognoscere dupliciter, scilicet *propria consideratione* et *alterius instructione*. Cognitio per *propriam considerationem* est duplex: aut enim est rei ut *praesentis* et per certitudinem; aut est rei ut *absentis* et per quandam coniecturationem. Similiter per *instructionem* cognitio est duplex: aut enim est per relationem[^p1048-3] *alterius*, aut per revelationem *Dei*.

Cum igitur sit quadruplex modus cognoscendi, *primus* non est in animabus separatis quantum ad actus nostros, quamdiu sunt in locis sibi deputatis; distant enim a nobis, nisi fortassis divina permissione veniant ad nos. — *Secundus* vero, qui est per quandam coniecturationem, sicut nos facimus de illis quos novimus, cum sint nobis absentes, in *damnatis* esse potest, non in *bonis*, quia huic admixtus est error et dubietas. — Tertius per relationem potest esse in *bonis*, quibus referunt Angeli boni[^p1048-4], et in *malis*, quibus referunt daemones, vel ipsi damnati. — Quartus vero per illustrationem et revelationem tantum in *bonis*. Unde Augustinus, in libro *de Cura pro mortuis agenda*[^p1048-5]: « Possunt, inquit, spiritus mortuorum aliqua, quae hic aguntur, quae necessarium est eos nosse, non solum praesentia, sed etiam praeterita et futura, Spiritu Dei revelante, cognoscere ». Et Gregorius in *Dialogo*[^p1048-6]: « Fit in electis quoddam mirabile, ut etiam illos quos hic nunquam viderunt vel noverunt bonos agnoscant ». Non tamen omnia cognoscunt, sed quaedam per revelationem.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod omnia vident boni, quia vident videntem omnia; dicendum, quod Gregorius intelligit de his quae sunt eorum saluti necessaria[^p1048-7].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de illo qui praevidit locum, dicendum, quod hoc potuit esse ex multa sollicitudine et animae abstractione, vel etiam aliqua facta interius revelatione.

*Ad 3. 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non indigent organo et sunt liberrimae; dicendum, quod quamvis non indigeant organo ad cognoscendum ea quorum habent species, indigent tamen ad accipiendum de novo et cognoscendum, maxime singularia[^p1048-8].

**Ad argumenta pro parte negativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod Sancti sunt ab his abstracti; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia, quamdiu sunt in carne, impediuntur a contemplatione Dei ex consideratione multa nostrorum actuum, sed iam beati non impediuntur.

*Ad 2. 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non habent maius lumen cognitionis; dicendum, quod sicut modo cognoscimus revelatione, ita et ipsi, et consideratione similiter; sed certius considerant[^p1048-9] nos, quam nos ipsos, quia nos hactenus cognoverunt, sed non nos ipsos.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dolerent boni; dicendum, sicut iam[^p1048-10] patebit, quod nec bonis tristitia nec malis gaudium aliquod ex hoc esset[^p1048-11].

---

english:
<!-- page 1047 -->

### Question II. *Whether the separated soul knows the things that are done about us.*

Secondly there is asked, concerning the knowledge of the separated soul, by comparison with the state of wayfarers; and it is asked whether the separated soul knows the things that are done about us. And that it does, seems [true] at least of *the good*.

1. Gregory[^p1047-3]: « What is it that they do not see, who see him who sees all things »? But such are the blessed souls: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this also seems [true] of *the reprobate*: because Gregory relates in the *Dialogue*[^p1047-4] that a certain wicked man foretold the place of his own burial; and he resolved that this came about by the power of the soul, which was already being drawn away from the body: if therefore it is more to know future things than present ones, and it knows so much the more, the more it is abstracted; it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems [true] of *both* in common: because both have the power of understanding, which does not need the support of an exterior light[^p1047-5], nor is it restricted to any one thing: therefore through that power it can know the things that are done about us.

4. Likewise, the freer a substance is, the more easily and more certainly[^p1047-6] does it go forth into its own act: therefore since the soul separated from the body is much freer than [the soul] joined to it, if when joined it could know the things that are about us, it will be able to also when separated.

<!-- page 1048 -->

**On the contrary:** 1. That the *blessed* souls do not know [them], seems [true]: because the blessed souls cleave to God more than do some wayfarers; but some wayfarers cleave to God in such a way that they know little or nothing of the things that are done here: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems [true] of *the damned*: because the light of knowledge does not increase in the damned, but rather is darkened; but when the damned were here, they could not know the things that are done among those below: therefore neither now will they be able to know the things that are done among us.

3. Likewise, that neither *these* nor *those* [know], seems [true]: because both these and those have a finite power of knowing; but for something to be known anew, it is necessary that it be presented to the very power that knows: therefore if they are far distant from us and absent, it is clear[^p1048-1] etc.

4. Likewise, both these and those love us; but he who loves another rejoices with him in good things and is saddened in evil ones: therefore if the evil ought not to know that from which they would rejoice, nor the good that from which they would grieve; it seems that neither these nor those know us. And this is confirmed by that which was said to Josiah, in the fourth [book] of Kings, chapter twenty-two[^p1048-2]. For the Lord said that he would take him away, lest he should see the evils of his people.

### Conclusion

> *Separated souls, both the good and the evil, can in various ways — especially through the report of others, or through God's revelation — know certain things about wayfarers.*

**I respond:** It must be said that to know something is twofold, namely by *one's own consideration* and by *another's instruction*. Knowledge through *one's own consideration* is twofold: for either it is of a thing as *present* and through certitude; or it is of a thing as *absent* and through a kind of conjecture. Likewise, knowledge through *instruction* is twofold: for either it is through the report[^p1048-3] *of another*, or through the revelation *of God*.

Since therefore the manner of knowing is fourfold, the *first* is not in separated souls as regards our acts, so long as they are in the places assigned to them; for they are distant from us, unless perhaps by divine permission they come to us. — The *second* however, which is through a kind of conjecture, as we do concerning those whom we know when they are absent from us, can be in *the damned*, not in *the good*, because error and doubt are mixed in with it. — The third, through report, can be in *the good*, to whom the good Angels report[^p1048-4], and in *the evil*, to whom the demons report, or the damned themselves. — The fourth however, through illumination and revelation, is only in *the good*. Hence Augustine, in the book *On the Care to Be Had for the Dead*[^p1048-5]: « The spirits of the dead, he says, can know certain things which are done here, which it is necessary for them to know, not only present things, but also past and future ones, by the Spirit of God revealing them ». And Gregory in the *Dialogue*[^p1048-6]: « There comes about in the elect something marvellous, that they recognize as good even those whom they never saw or knew here ». Yet they do not know all things, but certain things through revelation.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that the good see all things because they see him who sees all things; it must be said that Gregory understands this of those things which are necessary for their salvation[^p1048-7].

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning the man who foresaw the place, it must be said that this could have come about from great solicitude and abstraction of the soul, or also from some revelation made interiorly.

*To 3. 4.* To that which is objected, that they do not need an organ and are most free; it must be said that although they do not need an organ for knowing those things of which they have the species, they do nevertheless need one for receiving anew and for knowing, most of all singulars[^p1048-8].

**To the arguments for the negative side:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected to the contrary, that the Saints are abstracted from these things; it must be said that the case is not alike: because, so long as they are in the flesh, they are impeded from the contemplation of God by much consideration of our acts, but now the blessed are not impeded.

*To 2. 3.* To that which is objected, that they do not have a greater light of knowledge; it must be said that just as we now know by revelation, so also do they, and by consideration likewise; but they consider[^p1048-9] us more certainly than we do ourselves, because they have known us hitherto, but not themselves.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the good would grieve; it must be said, as will presently[^p1048-10] be clear, that neither would there be any sadness for the good nor any joy for the evil from this[^p1048-11].

---

la: Vide supra pag. 953, nota 8.

en: See above, p. 953, note 8.

la: Libr. IV. c. 26, ubi post narrationem facti istius subdit: Et cum eundem virum curis saecularibus obligatum lucrisque terrenis inhiantem fuisse noverimus; unde hoc praedicere potuit, nisi quia id quod futurum erat eius corpori, ipsa vis animae ac subtilitas praevidebat? — Inferius pro *abstrahebatur* cod. H *extrahebatur*. Circa finem arg. codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *cognoscit*.

en: Book IV, c. 26, where after the narration of that event he adds: "And since we know that the same man was bound by worldly cares and gaping after earthly gains; whence could he have foretold this, unless because the very power and subtlety of the soul foresaw what was to come upon his body?" — Below, for *abstrahebatur* codex H has *extrahebatur*. Near the end of the argument the codices and edition 1 omit *cognoscit*.

la: Sicut indiget visus.

en: As sight does need it.

la: Cod. H *citius*.

en: Codex H, *citius* ["more quickly"].

la: August., *de Cura gerenda pro mortuis*, c. 13. n. 16: *Ibi ergo sunt spiritus defunctorum, ubi non vident quaecumque aguntur aut eveniunt in ista vita hominibus.* — Post *praesentari* supplet cod. aa *illud*.

en: Augustine, *On the Care to Be Had for the Dead*, c. 13, n. 16: *There, then, are the spirits of the departed, where they do not see whatever is done or happens to men in this life.* — After *praesentari* codex aa supplies *illud*.

la: Vers. 20: *Idcirco colligam te ad patres tuos... ut non videant oculi tui omnia mala* etc. Cfr. August., loc. cit. in praeced. nota. — In *conclusione* respiciuntur verba Isidori supra pag. 985, nota 2. et pag. 1041, nota 5. — Pro *nos cognoscant* cod. U *cognoscant ea quae circa nos sunt*.

en: Verse 20: *Therefore will I gather thee to thy fathers... that thy eyes may not see all the evils* etc. Cf. Augustine, in the place cited in the preceding note. — In the *conclusion* reference is made to the words of Isidore above, p. 985, note 2, and p. 1041, note 5. — For *nos cognoscant* codex U has *cognoscant ea quae circa nos sunt*.

la: Edd. *revelationem*, idem recurrit inferius post *Tertius*.

en: The editions read *revelationem*; the same recurs below after *Tertius*.

la: Cod. R addit: *et hi qui ad eos moriendo pergunt, sicut Lazarus Abrahae* (ex August., loc. cit. in seq. nota).

en: Codex R adds: *and those who by dying go to them, as Lazarus to Abraham* (from Augustine, in the place cited in the following note).

la: Cap. 15. n. 18. Post *nosse* textus originalis prosequitur: *et quos necessarium est ea nosse, non solum praeterita vel praesentia, verum etiam futura Spiritu* etc. (tres cognoscendi modos ibi affert: per relationem *Angelorum, mortuorum* et *revelationem Dei*).

en: Chapter 15, n. 18. After *nosse* the original text continues: *and those for whom it is necessary to know these things, not only past or present ones, but even future ones, by the Spirit* etc. (he there adduces three modes of knowing: through the report *of Angels*, *of the dead*, and *the revelation of God*).

la: Libr. IV. c. 33: « Fit autem in electis quiddam mirabilius, quia non solum eos agnoscunt, quos in hoc mundo noverant, sed velut visos ac cognitos recognoscunt bonos, quos nunquam viderunt ». Paucis interiectis, sequuntur verba, de quibus solut. ad 1.

en: Book IV, c. 33: « But there comes about in the elect something still more marvellous, because they not only recognize those whom they had known in this world, but they also recognize as good, as though seen and known, those whom they never saw ». A little further on there follow the words treated in the solution to [argument] 1.

la: Vide supra d. 45. dub. 9. (et d. 49. p. 1. q. 1. ad 3.), ad quod respiciunt verba in cod. bb a secunda manu addita *vel hoc dicitur per aequivalentiam*. Cfr. etiam d. 48. a. 1. q. 4. in fine.

en: See above, d. 45, dub. 9 (and d. 49, p. 1, q. 1, ad 3), to which refer the words added in codex bb by a second hand, *vel hoc dicitur per aequivalentiam* ["or this is said by equivalence"]. Cf. also d. 48, a. 1, q. 4, at the end.

la: Aristot., 1. Poster. c. 14. (c. 18.): *Singularium enim est sensus.* Cfr. ibid. c. 24. (c. 31.).

en: Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics* I, c. 14 (c. 18): *For sense is of singulars.* Cf. ibid., c. 24 (c. 31).

la: Codd. L Y supplent *ipsi*.

en: Codices L and Y supply *ipsi*.

la: Quaest. seq.

en: The following question.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L111642–111797, reflowed column-by-column and verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p104{7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (measured gutters 1047:1683, 1048:2051). No bands were regenerated. The bands are authoritative for the whole footer apparatus and for all citation digits, which the OCR mangles heavily in this range (`98.5`, `I Oi I`, `'6` for *pag. 985 … pag. 1041, nota 5*; `d. 45` and `d. 49` were also digit-noisy).

**Printed-page span corrected: [1047, 1048, 1049] → [1047, 1048].** The skeleton's `printed_pages` was one page too wide. The last raw line in range (L111794) is p.1049's *running head* (`DIST. L. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST.  1049`), not body text: this quaestio's last words (`… nec malis gaudium aliquod ex hoc esset`) sit at the foot of p.1048's right column, and `QUAESTIO III` (L111798) opens p.1049. `pdf_pages` narrowed to [1067, 1068] accordingly.

**Title verified.** The `QUAESTIO II.` header prints centred full-width across the gutter (`QUAESTIO` on the L band, `STIO II.` on the R) — the lost-question signature. The title line beneath it, read across both bands, is *Utrum anima separata cognoscat ea quae circa nos geruntur*, which agrees with the frontmatter. No change.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p.1047 — register of 6 notes** (1, 2 in the left footer above the rule; 3, 4 also left; an unnumbered continuation of 4 opening the right footer; then 5, 6 right). **Notes 1 and 2 are NOT mine** — note 1 anchors at *genus generalissimum* in the left body column and note 2 at *in cognoscendo* in the right body column, both inside `p2-a1-q1`'s closing paragraphs. **Notes 3–6 are mine**, anchoring at *Gregorius*, *in Dialogo*, *exterioris luminis*, *facilius et certius*. Derived independently off the bands, not from any hand-off.
- **p.1048 — register of 11 notes, all 11 mine** (1–5 in the left footer, 6–11 in the right). Every anchor falls in this chunk's body.
- Chunk total: **15 apparatus entries**.

**Cross-gutter / cross-page runover check (head and tail of every register).**
- p.1047 head: the left footer opens cleanly at a numbered `1` — **no unnumbered fragment inherited from p.1046**.
- p.1047 interior: **note 4 breaks across the gutter mid-sentence** (left footer ends `…curis saecularibus obligatum lucrisque`; the right footer opens with an unnumbered continuation `terrenis inhiantem fuisse noverimus…` before note 5). Rendered as one joined entry.
- p.1047 tail: note 6 (`Cod. H citius.`) is complete — **nothing runs over onto p.1048**.
- p.1048 head: the left footer opens at a numbered `1` — **no inherited fragment**; consistent with p.1047 closing complete.
- p.1048 interior: **note 5 breaks across the gutter mid-parenthesis** (left footer ends `…(tres cognoscendi`; right footer opens unnumbered with `modos ibi affert: per relationem Angelorum, mortuorum et revelationem Dei).`). Rendered as one joined entry.
- p.1048 tail: note 11 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) is complete — **nothing runs over onto p.1049**.
- Binding order on both pages is straight reading order for the numbered notes; the only irregularity is the two unnumbered continuations opening the right footers. No note was relabelled by position.

**Raw-vs-band divergences resolved at band time** (band authoritative, no `[?]` placed): `Cod. II` → `Cod. R` (p1048 n.4); `pag. 98.5 … pag. I Oi I, nota '6` → `pag. 985 … pag. 1041, nota 5` (p1048 n.2); `Arisiot., I. Poslcr.` → `Aristot., 1. Poster.`; `d. 45. dub. 9.` and `d. 49. p. 1. q. 1. ad 3.` confirmed. The raw also cascade-shattered the Respondeo and both solution blocks; those were re-set wholly from the bands.

**Seam with `p2-a1-q1` (derived independently).** p.1047 is shared. `p2-a1-q1` holds the top of the left column (`…potentiae rationalis est comparare individuum…`), the head of the right column (`…et sic patet totum.`), and the whole `SCHOLION` (which runs across both columns, ending `…Durand., hic q. 3.`) plus notes 1–2 of the register. This chunk opens immediately below that scholion at the `QUAESTIO II` header. Article I's scholion lives in q1, so this quaestio correctly has none. Forward hand-off to `p2-a1-q3`: **p.1049 is entirely q3's** — this chunk claims nothing on it, and p.1048's register closes complete, so q3 inherits no fragment at the head of p.1049's footer.

**Page-break placement.** The physical p.1047/1048 break falls mid-sentence inside argument 4 (`…quam ei con- | iuncta, si poterat coniuncta…`). Per the corpus convention the `<!-- page 1048 -->` comment is placed at the next paragraph boundary, immediately before the `Contra` block; the sentence itself is rendered whole.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial, not Bonaventure's text): `Argg. pro parte affirmativa.`, `Pro parte negativa.`, `Distinctio cum duplice subdistinctione.`, `Conclusio 1.–4.`, `Ad argg. pro parte affirmat.`, `Ad argg. pro parte negat.`, `Notandum` (×3).

**Ambiguity flags:** none. **Nothing unmapped:** no ordinal opener, dubium, scholion or section without a chunk file was found in this range. Band clipping: none observed on p.1047 despite its narrow run (1683 px); both columns read complete with a small sliver of the facing column visible at the band edge.

**Anchor parity:** 15 Latin anchors, 15 English anchors, 15 apparatus definitions.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 50, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 1049 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Beati et damnati mutuo se cognoscant.*

> **On the footnote numbering.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The markers below are therefore page-qualified: notes 1–11 of page 1049, then notes 1–3 of page 1050. Notes 4–10 of page 1050 anchor in Articulus II, quaestio I, and are rendered there.

Tertio quaeritur de cognitione animae separatae per comparationem ad statum Beatorum; et quaeritur, utrum mutuo se cognoscant, scilicet damnati Beatos, et e converso. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per illud Lucae decimo sexto[^p1049-1], quod dives positus in tormentis vidit Abraham, et Abraham e converso vidit ipsum.

2. Item, Gregorius[^p1049-2]: « Infideles in imo positi fideles super se in requie attendunt ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia opposita, sibi invicem comparata et simul visa, magis elucescunt[^p1049-3] et etiam decorant universum: ergo si mali habebunt poenam eatenus intensam, qua potest cogitari, et similiter boni gloriam, et utraque intenditur respectu alterius; ergo utrique debent mutuo se videre.

4. Item, constat, quod boni gaudebunt et laudabunt Dei iustitiam, mali similiter dolebunt de gloria amissa: ergo si non contingit gaudere et dolere nisi de cognito[^p1049-4], utrique cognoscent, scilicet boni severitatem iustitiae, et mali dignitatem gloriae. Sed boni hoc non vident in se, nec mali in se: ergo constat, quod vident invicem.

**Contra:** 1. Inter eos est improportionalis distantia: ergo si ad visionem requiritur praesentia, videtur, quod non possint mutuo se videre[^p1049-5].

2. Item, gloria est qualitas spiritualis, sicut gratia[^p1049-6]; sed qualitas gratiae non videtur exterius a non habente: ergo nec gloriae.

3. Item, consideratio poenae incutit terrorem, et consideratio gloriae generat gaudium; sed in malis nullum erit gaudium, in bonis nullus terror: ergo etc. — *Si dicas,* quod « recipitur secundum modum recipientis, non recepti », et ideo in malis generat confusionem et in bonis gaudium; ergo si haec duo debent esse post iudicium, ergo post se cognoscent; quod est contra Gregorium, ut habetur in littera[^p1049-7].

4. Item, in bonis est compassio de bonitate naturae: ergo si non tollitur bonitas naturae, ergo maxime vigebit in eis compassio: ergo videtur, quodsi videant tormenta malorum, quod maxime doleant. Et hoc videtur Gregorius dicere, et habetur in littera[^p1049-8], quod « volunt transire per affectum misericordiae ».

### Conclusio

> *Electi damnatorum poenas et nunc et post iudicium vident in Deo ad gloriae cumulum; damnati vero electorum gloriam nunc aliquatenus considerant, non vero post iudicium.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod consideratio sive cognitio gloriae Beatorum est *reprobis* poena, et consideratio sive cognitio poenae reproborum est *electis* gaudium; quia illi considerant *gloriam* sub ratione *amissionis*, isti *poenam* sub ratione *divinae ultionis*; unde[^p1049-9]: *Laetabitur iustus, cum viderit vindictam.* Quoniam igitur gloria electorum semper manet et post iudicium erit copiosor; ideo electi et nunc et tunc vident poenam reproborum, secundum quod dicitur ultimo Isaiae; vident, inquam, in Deo, sive in speculo aeterno, cum faciat ad eorum gloriam cumulandam. Reproborum poena similiter post iudicium intendetur, et adeo intendetur, ut Beatorum gloriam non liceat eis considerare nec ab eis auxilium petere, ut dives petiit[^p1049-10]; quia tormentorum suorum magnitudinem non poterunt sustinere, ita quod liceat aliis vacare, immo absorbebuntur totaliter a poenis. — Concedendae ergo sunt rationes, quod mutuo se cognoscunt.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod est inter eos improportionalis distantia; dicendum, quod non agnoscunt *mali* bonos per intuitum praesentiae, sed per considerationem intelligentiae, *boni* vero malos in speculo et in Deo[^p1049-11].

<!-- page 1050 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gloria, dicendum, quod non vident ipsam gloriae *essentiam*, sed considerant *requiem*; quia cognoscunt, quod gaudent[^p1050-1], sed ipsi laborant et dolent; et cognoscunt, sicut infirmus cognoscit sanitatem alterius, quam non habet.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod generat dolorem etc.; patet responsio; quia consideratio *bonorum* non est in poena, quia *afflictiva*, sed fertur ulterius, quia *iusta et optime et digne inflicta*; et talis consideratio amanti[^p1050-2] generat gaudium. Similiter nec consideratio *malorum* sistit in bono gloriae, quia *bonum*, sed quia *perditum*; et haec consideratio generat dolorem. — Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod post iudicium videre debent etc.; dicendum, quod tunc maiori poena erunt absorpti, ut iam non liceat eis cogitare gloriae dignitatem; semper tamen in mente habebunt eius amissionem et carentiam, ut tristentur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod compati est de bonitate naturae; dicendum, quod hoc non est verum generaliter, nisi intelligatur de natura passibili[^p1050-3].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the blessed and the damned know one another.*

Thirdly there is asked, concerning the knowledge of the separated soul by comparison with the state of the blessed; and it is asked whether they know one another, namely the damned the blessed, and conversely. And that they do, it seems:

1. By that text of Luke, chapter sixteen[^p1049-1], that the rich man set in torments saw Abraham, and Abraham conversely saw him.

2. Likewise, Gregory[^p1049-2]: « The unbelieving, set in the depth, look upon the faithful above them in rest ».

3. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because opposites, compared with one another and seen together, shine out the more[^p1049-3] and also adorn the universe: therefore if the wicked will have a punishment intense to the degree that can be conceived, and likewise the good their glory, and each is intensified in respect of the other; therefore both ought to see one another mutually.

4. Likewise, it is agreed that the good will rejoice and will praise God's justice, and the wicked likewise will grieve over the glory they have lost: therefore, if it does not happen that one rejoices and grieves except over what is known[^p1049-4], both will know, namely the good the severity of justice, and the wicked the dignity of glory. But the good do not see this in themselves, nor the wicked in themselves: therefore it is agreed that they see one another.

**On the contrary:** 1. Between them there is a disproportionate distance: therefore, if presence is required for vision, it seems that they cannot see one another mutually[^p1049-5].

2. Likewise, glory is a spiritual quality, just as grace is[^p1049-6]; but the quality of grace is not seen from without by one who does not have it: therefore neither is that of glory.

3. Likewise, the consideration of punishment strikes terror, and the consideration of glory begets joy; but in the wicked there will be no joy, in the good no terror: therefore etc. — *If you say* that « a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver, not of the received », and that therefore in the wicked it begets confusion and in the good joy; therefore if these two must be after the judgement, therefore afterwards they will know one another; which is against Gregory, as is had in the text[^p1049-7].

4. Likewise, in the good there is compassion arising from the goodness of nature: therefore if the goodness of nature is not taken away, therefore compassion will be most vigorous in them: therefore it seems that, if they should see the torments of the wicked, they would grieve exceedingly. And this Gregory seems to say, and it is had in the text[^p1049-8], that « they wish to pass over through the affection of mercy ».

### Conclusion

> *The elect see the punishments of the damned both now and after the judgement in God, unto the increase of their glory; but the damned now to some extent consider the glory of the elect, yet not after the judgement.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the consideration or knowledge of the glory of the blessed is a punishment *to the reprobate*, and the consideration or knowledge of the punishment of the reprobate is a joy *to the elect*; because the former consider *glory* under the aspect of *loss*, the latter *punishment* under the aspect of *divine vengeance*; whence[^p1049-9]: *The just man shall rejoice when he shall see the vengeance.* Since therefore the glory of the elect always remains and after the judgement will be more abundant; therefore the elect both now and then see the punishment of the reprobate, according to what is said in the last chapter of Isaiah; they see it, I say, in God, or in the eternal mirror, since it makes for the heaping up of their glory. The punishment of the reprobate likewise will be intensified after the judgement, and will be so intensified that it will not be permitted them to consider the glory of the blessed nor to seek help from them, as the rich man sought[^p1049-10]; because they will not be able to endure the magnitude of their own torments, so as to be free for other things; rather they will be wholly absorbed by their punishments. — The arguments are therefore to be conceded, that they know one another mutually.

1. To that which is objected on the contrary, that there is between them a disproportionate distance; it must be said that *the wicked* do not recognize the good by the intuition of presence, but by the consideration of the understanding, whereas *the good* recognize the wicked in the mirror and in God[^p1049-11].

2. To that which is objected concerning glory, it must be said that they do not see the very *essence* of glory, but consider *the rest*; because they know that the others rejoice[^p1050-1], while they themselves labour and grieve; and they know it as a sick man knows the health of another, which he does not have.

3. To that which is objected, that it begets grief etc.; the answer is plain; because the consideration *of good things* does not rest in the punishment, as *afflictive*, but is carried further, as *just and most excellently and worthily inflicted*; and such a consideration begets joy in one who loves[^p1050-2]. Likewise neither does the consideration *of evil things* rest in the good of glory as *good*, but as *lost*; and this consideration begets grief. — To that which is objected, that after the judgement they must see etc.; it must be said that then they will be absorbed by a greater punishment, so that it will no longer be permitted them to think upon the dignity of glory; yet they will always have in mind its loss and privation, so that they may be saddened.

4. To that which is objected, that to suffer with another belongs to the goodness of nature; it must be said that this is not true universally, unless it be understood of a nature capable of suffering[^p1050-3].

---

la: Vers. 23. seqq.

en: Verses 23 ff.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 40. n. 2: Quia, dum per damnationis suae supplicia infideles in imo sunt, fideles quosque ante diem extremi iudicii super se in requie attendunt.

en: Book II of the *Homilies on the Gospels*, homily 40, n. 2: Because, while through the punishments of their damnation the unbelieving are in the depth, they look upon all the faithful above them in rest before the day of the last judgement.

la: Vide tom. I. pag. 495, nota 1. verba Aristot. — Quod *oppositis* (antithetis) decoretur universum, docet August., tom. I. Sent. pag. 786, nota 7.

en: See vol. I, p. 495, note 1, for the words of Aristotle. — That the universe is adorned *by opposites* (antitheses) Augustine teaches; vol. I of the *Sentences*, p. 786, note 7.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 20. (c. 2.): Ubi enim sensus est, et dolor et voluptas consequitur. Cfr. ibid. text. 27. (c. 3.). — De ipso arg. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. — In fine arg. vocibus *vident invicem* codd. R S interserunt *se*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 20 (c. 2): For where there is sense, there follow both pain and pleasure. Cf. ibid., text 27 (c. 3). — On the argument itself see here the text of the Master, c. 7. — At the end of the argument codices R S insert *se* between the words *vident invicem*.

la: Aristot., de Sensu et sens. c. 8. (c. 7.): Est enim, unde quidem non videatur, infinita distantia... est itaque aliquid ultimum distantiae, unde non videtur, et primum, unde videtur etc.

en: Aristotle, *On Sense and Sensibles* c. 8 (c. 7): For there is a distance, infinite indeed, from which a thing is not seen… there is therefore some last point of distance from which it is not seen, and a first from which it is seen, etc.

la: Retinuimus cum Vat. *sicut gratia*, quod in codd. et ed. I desideratur.

en: We have retained, with the Vatican edition, *sicut gratia*, which is wanting in the codices and in ed. I.

la: Hic c. 5. — Prima propositio arg. est secundum auctorem libri de Causis; vide supra pag. 986, nota 5.

en: Here c. 5. — The first proposition of the argument is according to the author of the *Book of Causes*; see above, p. 986, note 5.

la: Hic c. 6. — Mox codd. I K *maximae misericordiae*.

en: Here c. 6. — Just below, codices I K read *maximae misericordiae*.

la: Psalm. 57, 11. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7, ubi etiam allegantur verba Isai. 66, 24, ad quae Bonav. recurrit. — Quod gloria electorum *maior* sit post iudicium, docet Magister supra d. XLIX. c. 4.

en: Psalm 57, 11. See here the text of the Master, c. 7, where the words of Isaiah 66, 24 are also cited, to which Bonaventure has recourse. — That the glory of the elect is *greater* after the judgement, the Master teaches above, d. XLIX, c. 4.

la: Luc. 16, 24: Et ipse clamans dixit: Pater Abraham, miserere mei etc. — Inferius post *liceat* cod. G supplet *eis*.

en: Luke 16, 24: And crying out he said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, etc. — Below, after *liceat*, codex G supplies *eis*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 7.

la: Sequimur codd. G T U, edd. *quia illi quiescunt et*, alii codd. *quia* [codd. I K *qua*] *cognoscunt et gaudent*.

en: We follow codices G T U; the editions read *quia illi quiescunt et*, other codices *quia* [codices I K *qua*] *cognoscunt et gaudent*.

la: In cod. bb secunda manus supplevit *iustitiam*. Inferius post *sistit*, pro quo codd. R U V X *consistit*, Vat. addit *id est permanet*.

en: In codex bb a second hand has supplied *iustitiam*. Below, after *sistit* — for which codices R U V X read *consistit* — the Vatican edition adds *id est permanet*.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. Cfr. etiam II. Sent. d. 11. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. (opinio 1. eiusque improbatio), ubi iuxta aliquos de Angelis dicitur, quod « quamvis sint... impassibiles, non sunt tamen *incompassibiles* ». Cod. bb hic substituit *compassibili* pro *passibili*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 6. Cf. also II *Sent.* d. 11, a. 2, q. 3, in the body (the first opinion and its refutation), where, according to some, it is said of the angels that « although they are… impassible, they are nevertheless not *incompassible* ». Codex bb here substitutes *compassibili* for *passibili*. — See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L111798–111913, with every damaged region (Respondeo, Solutio, both footer registers, all citation digits) resolved against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p10{49,50}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (measured gutters 1049:1666, 1050:2011). No bands regenerated; none clipped, including the narrow-run p.1050.

**Page span — confirmed [1049, 1050], no correction.** `QUAESTIO III.` prints centred at the very top of p.1049, immediately under the running head `DIST. L. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III.  1049`; nothing of this quaestio stands on p.1048. **p.1049 is therefore NOT shared with `p2-a1-q2`** — that chunk closes on p.1048 and its footer register is p.1048's. Verified off the band, not off a hand-off.

**Title.** The line after the QUAESTIO header reads *Utrum Beati et damnati mutuo se cognoscant.* — the skeleton's `title_la` is correct as given. (The raw's header renders as `QUAESTIO 111.`; the band shows `QUAESTIO III.`)

**Apparatus split map — 14 entries claimed of 21 printed.**
- **p.1049 — 11 notes, all mine.** Left footer: notes 1–5, with note 5 breaking mid-word at *aliquid ul-*. Right footer: opens with the **unnumbered continuation** *timum distantiae, unde non videtur, et primum, unde videtur etc.*, which is the completion of note 5 carried across the gutter — rendered joined to note 5, not as a separate entry — then notes 6–11.
- **p.1050 — 10 notes printed; I claim 1–3.** Left footer: notes 1–5. Right footer: notes 6–10. **Notes 4–10 all anchor in `ARTICULUS II`, quaestio I** (*Ecclesiastici septimo* ⁴, *deformitatibus* ⁵, *locis Scripturae* ⁶, *Isaiae decimo quarto* ⁷, ⁸, ⁹, *generari* ¹⁰) and are forwarded to that chunk.
- **⚠ The raw drops p.1050's ENTIRE ten-note register.** Between *…de natura passibili* (L111909) and `ARTICULUS II.` (L111914) the OCR contains nothing. All ten notes were read off `vol4-p1050-L-2.png` and `vol4-p1050-R-2.png`.

**Binding order (bind by content, not position).** p.1050 note 3 **prints in the LEFT footer but anchors in the RIGHT body column** (*de natura passibili* ³, the last words of my chunk). Not relabelled.

**Head/tail runover check.**
- p.1049 head: left footer opens at a numbered note 1 — no inherited fragment from p.1048. p.1049 tail: right footer ends at note 11 (*Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.*), a complete sentence — nothing runs onto p.1050.
- p.1050 head: left footer opens at a numbered note 1 — **no fragment inherited from p.1049**, consistent with p.1049 note 11 closing cleanly. p.1050 tail: right footer ends at note 10 (*Cfr. Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 57. seqq. (c. 10.)*), complete.

**Closing boundary L111913/111914 verified off the band.** My chunk closes *…nisi intelligatur de natura passibili* (p.1050 note 3) — a complete sentence, the fourth and last reply. On `vol4-p1050-R-0.png` `ARTICULUS II.` with its title *De verme, qui est in damnatis.* follows directly, with nothing trapped between. No swallowed question.

**Citation digits resolved off the bands** (the raw mangles them): p.1049 n.3 *tom. I. pag. 495, nota 1* (raw: `tom. L pag. 493`) and *pag. 786, nota 7*; n.7 *pag. 986, nota 5*; n.9 *Psalm. 57, 11*, *Isai. 66, 24*, *d. XLIX. c. 4*; n.10 *Luc. 16, 24*; p.1050 n.3 *II. Sent. d. 11. a. 2. q. 3*. Note numbering 6–11 on p.1049, garbled to `'^ ' ' 5 ^" "` in the raw, is legible on the band.

**No scholion.** Article I's scholion is in `p2-a1-q1`; p.1050 note 3 confirms it (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*). `has_scholion: false` is correct.

**Page break placement.** The printed p.1049/1050 break falls mid-sentence inside reply 2 (…*sed considerant requiem;* | *quia cognoscunt…*). The `<!-- page 1050 -->` comment is placed at the nearest paragraph boundary, immediately before reply 2.

**Marginal glosses** (page furniture, not rendered): p.1049 *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*; p.1050 *Notandum.*

**Ambiguity flags:** none. Every band read was legible.

**Anchor count:** 14 Latin `[^` anchors, 14 English `[^` anchors, 14 apparatus definitions.

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. 50, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum damnati habeant vermem materialem
Whether the damned have a material worm

source_text:
<!-- page 1050 -->

### Articulus II. *De verme, qui est in damnatis.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de verme, qui erit in damnatis. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum damnati habeant vermem materialem sive corporalem.

Secundo, utrum sit in eis vermis spiritualis.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum vermis ille sit invariabilis.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum damnati habeant vermem materialem.*

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod vermis ille sit materialis.

1. Ecclesiastici septimo[^p1050-4]: *Vindicta carnis impii ignis et vermis*; et Iudith ultimo: *Dabit ignem et vermes in carnes eorum*: ergo si in carne non est nisi vermis materialis, patet etc.

2. Item, damnati resurgent cum poenalitatibus et deformitatibus[^p1050-5]: ergo habebunt corpora putrefactibilia, sicut nunc habent; sed ex corpore putrefactibili generantur vermes: ergo etc.

3. Item, poena vermis semper annectitur poenae ignis, velut in pluribus locis Scripturae[^p1050-6] patet; sed ignis non tantum est spiritualis, sed etiam materialis: ergo videtur similiter, quod vermis. Igne enim punitur corpus et anima, ergo similiter et verme: ergo videtur, quod sit materialis.

**Contra:** 1. Isaiae decimo quarto[^p1050-7] dicitur de diabolo: *Operimentum tuum erunt vermes*; sed constat, quod diabolus non habet vermem materialem: ergo etc.

2. Item, nullus vermis materialis est immortalis, cum habeat formam corruptibilem; sed *vermis* ille *non moritur*, sicut dicitur ultimo[^p1050-8] Isaiae: ergo etc.

3. Item, vermis materialis et in sua corrosione[^p1050-9] et in sua origine aliquid minuit de substantia corporis: ergo si corpus illud non est minuibile, non est circa illud talis vermis.

4. Item, ibi erit multo intensior ignis, quam sit hic; sed vermes in isto igne non possunt vivere: ergo nec in illo poterunt. — *Si tu dicas*, quod hoc est per miraculum; ergo tunc, cum non patiantur ab igne, videntur habere corpora gloriosa et incorruptibilia. — *Si dicas*, quod renascuntur; quaero: quomodo? cum non sit ibi solis latio, et maxime putrefactibilia per virtutem supracaelestem habeant generari[^p1050-10].

<!-- page 1051 -->

### Conclusio

> *Vermis ille non est materialis, sed spiritualis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus vigesimo de Civitate Dei[^p1051-1] ponit circa hoc duas opiniones. Quidam enim voluerunt intelligere, vermem illum esse *materialem* propter verbum Scripturae; alii vero, rationem sequentes, voluerunt dicere, quod vermis ille sit spiritualis. Et horum opinionem dicit sibi magis placere; et ex quo sibi magis placet, et nobis similiter debet placere[^p1051-2]. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quod vermis ille non sit materialis.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium per similitudinem ignis, dicendum, quod sicut ignis materialis affligendo corpus affligit et punit animam ei unitam; sic vehemens dolor et remorsus sive tristitia animae redundat in corpus, quia *spiritus tristis desiccat ossa*[^p1051-3]. Quoniam igitur erit in damnatis magnus conscientiae remorsus et dolor, ita etiam, ut redundet haec moestitia in carnem; ideo vere dixit Scriptura, quod daret Deus *vermem in carnem eorum*, et expressit multum ad terrorem carnalium, qui magis horrent poenam carnis quam animae. — Vel posset dici, quod caro ibi dicitur *opus carnale*, hoc est *opus peccati*, ex quo generatur vermis spiritualis[^p1051-4].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habebunt deformitatem; dicendum, quod verum est, sed non putrefactionem.

*Ad 3.* Ultimum solutum est de igne, quia ignis ab exteriori procedit ad intima, vermis ab intimis ad exteriora; et ideo ignis est materialis, sed vermis spiritualis.

> **Nota de apparatu.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The numbered notes below are therefore labelled by page: notes 4–10 of page 1050 and notes 1–4 of page 1051. Notes 1–3 of page 1050 anchor in the preceding chunk (p2-a1-q3); notes 5–7 of page 1051 anchor in the following chunk (p2-a2-q2).

english:
### Article II. *On the worm which is in the damned.*

Next, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the worm which will be in the damned. And about this three things are asked.

First it is asked whether the damned have a material or corporeal worm.

Second, whether there is in them a spiritual worm.

Third it is asked whether that worm is invariable.

### Question I. *Whether the damned have a material worm.*

As regards the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that that worm is material.

1. Ecclesiasticus, chapter seven[^p1050-4]: *The vengeance on the flesh of the impious is fire and worm*; and Judith, the last chapter: *He shall give fire and worms into their flesh*: therefore, if in the flesh there is nothing but a material worm, it is clear, etc.

2. Likewise, the damned will rise again with penalties and deformities[^p1050-5]: therefore they will have putrefiable bodies, as they now have; but from a putrefiable body worms are generated: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the punishment of the worm is always joined to the punishment of fire, as is clear in many places of Scripture[^p1050-6]; but the fire is not only spiritual, but also material: therefore it seems likewise concerning the worm. For by fire both body and soul are punished, therefore likewise also by the worm: therefore it seems that it is material.

**On the contrary:** 1. In Isaiah, chapter fourteen[^p1050-7], it is said of the devil: *Thy covering shall be worms*; but it is established that the devil does not have a material worm: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no material worm is immortal, since it has a corruptible form; but that *worm does not die*, as is said in the last chapter[^p1050-8] of Isaiah: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a material worm, both in its gnawing[^p1050-9] and in its origin, diminishes something of the substance of the body: therefore, if that body is not diminishable, there is not about it such a worm.

4. Likewise, there the fire will be much more intense than it is here; but worms cannot live in this fire: therefore neither will they be able to live in that one. — *If you say* that this is by miracle; then, since they do not suffer from the fire, they seem to have glorious and incorruptible bodies. — *If you say* that they are born again, I ask: how? since there is there no motion of the sun, and things chiefly putrefiable have to be generated by a supracelestial power[^p1050-10].

### Conclusion

> *That worm is not material, but spiritual.*

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine, in the twentieth book of the City of God[^p1051-1], sets down two opinions about this. For some wished to understand that that worm is *material*, on account of the word of Scripture; others, however, following reason, wished to say that that worm is spiritual. And he says that the opinion of these latter pleases him more; and since it pleases him more, it ought likewise to please us[^p1051-2]. — Hence the reasons are to be conceded, that that worm is not material.

**To the arguments for the affirmative part:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected to the contrary by the likeness of fire, it must be said that, just as material fire, by afflicting the body, afflicts and punishes the soul united to it, so vehement pain and remorse or sadness of the soul overflows into the body, because *a sorrowful spirit dries up the bones*[^p1051-3]. Since, therefore, there will be in the damned a great remorse of conscience and pain, so much so that this sadness overflows into the flesh, therefore Scripture truly said that God would give *a worm into their flesh*, and expressed it forcefully for the terror of carnal men, who dread the punishment of the flesh more than that of the soul. — Or it could be said that "flesh" is there called *the carnal work*, that is, *the work of sin*, from which the spiritual worm is generated[^p1051-4].

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that they will have deformity, it must be said that this is true, but not putrefaction.

*To 3.* The last has been solved concerning the fire, because fire proceeds from without to what is innermost, the worm from what is innermost to what is without; and therefore the fire is material, but the worm spiritual.

la: Vers. 19. — Iudith 16, 21: Dabit enim ignem etc.

en: Verse 19. — Judith 16:21: "For he shall give fire" etc.

la: De quo supra d. 44. p. I. a. 3. q. 2.

en: On which see above, d. 44, p. I, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Praeter locos in 1. arg. allegatos vide Isai. 66, 24; Marc. 9, 43. 45. 47. — *Minor* ostensa est supra d. 44. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Besides the passages alleged in the 1st argument, see Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 45, 47. — The *minor* premise was shown above, d. 44, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vers. 11.

en: Verse 11.

la: Vers. 24: Vermis eorum non moritur. Cfr. Marc. 9, 43. 45. 47.

en: Verse 24: "Their worm shall not die." Compare Mark 9:43, 45, 47.

la: Ita codd. B C F bb (E 1 a secunda manu), cod. R *actione*, cod. aa *generatione*, alii codd. et ed. 1 *cognitione*, Vat. *remorsione*. Inferius pro *minuibile* plures codd. vel *mutabile* vel *immutabile*, ed. 1 *commutabile*.

en: So codices B C F bb (E 1 by a second hand); codex R reads *actione*, codex aa *generatione*, other codices and edition 1 *cognitione*, the Vatican edition *remorsione*. Below, in place of *minuibile*, several codices read either *mutabile* or *immutabile*, edition 1 *commutabile*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 57. seqq. (c. 10.).

en: Compare Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 57 ff. (c. 10).

la: Cap. 22. Cfr. ibid. XXI. c. 9. n. 2. Duobus istis locis dicit, quod *credibilius* sit, vermen ad animum pertinere, in quantum scil. animus rodatur quodam modo verme moeroris. In ultimo loco adiungit: *Facilius* est, ut ad corpus dicam utrumque [ignem et vermem] pertinere, *quam neutrum*... eligat quisque quod placet, aut ignem tribuere corpori, animo vermem; hoc proprie, illud tropice; aut utrumque proprie corpori. Iam enim satis superius disputavi, posse animalia etiam in ignibus vivere [cfr. supra pag. 929, nota 5. et 9. ac pag. 930, nota 4.] etc.

en: Chapter 22. Compare the same work XXI, c. 9, n. 2. In these two places he says that it is *more credible* that the worm pertains to the mind, inasmuch, namely, as the mind is gnawed in a certain way by the worm of grief. In the last place he adds: "It is *easier* for me to say that both [fire and worm] pertain to the body *than that neither* does... let each choose what he pleases, either to assign the fire to the body and the worm to the mind — the one properly, the other tropically — or both properly to the body. For I have already disputed sufficiently above that animals can live even in fires [compare above p. 929, note 5 and 9, and p. 930, note 4]," etc.

la: Retinuimus cum Vat. *placere*, quod deest in codd. et ed. 1.

en: We have retained, with the Vatican edition, *placere*, which is lacking in the codices and in edition 1.

la: Prov. 17, 22. Vulgata et Vat. *exsiccat ossa*.

en: Proverbs 17:22. The Vulgate and the Vatican edition read *exsiccat ossa*.

la: Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum (ex Rabano) in Iudith 16, 21: Caro et sanguis vermes creat; quia delectatio carnalis, cui sal continentiae non resistit, poenam aeternam generat luxuriosis; unde [Isai. 66, 24.]: *Vermis eorum non morietur* etc.

en: The *Ordinary* Gloss in Strabo (from Rabanus) on Judith 16:21: "Flesh and blood create worms; because carnal delight, which the salt of continence does not resist, generates eternal punishment for the lustful; whence [Isaiah 66:24]: *Their worm shall not die*," etc. ---

latin_scholion:
Tres huius articuli quaestiones alii auctores brevius una sola quaestione absolvere solent. Attentione dignus est modus ingeniosus, quo in 2. quaest. *vermis spiritualis* explicatur.

De toto hoc articulo: Scot., hic q. 6. n. 14. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 97. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
The three questions of this article other authors are accustomed to settle more briefly in one single question. Worthy of attention is the ingenious manner in which, in the 2nd question, *the spiritual worm* is explained.

On this whole article: Scotus, here q. 6, n. 14. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3, quaestiuncula 2; Supplement q. 97, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1, quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5, q. 2. — Denys the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L111914–112038, with every damaged region (the ARTICULUS opener, the Respondeo, both footer registers, and the whole scholion) resolved against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p10{50,51}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutters 1050:2011, 1051:1698). No bands were regenerated; none looked clipped despite both pages being narrow-run.

**Page span.** `printed_pages: [1050, 1051]` is **correct as given** — verified against the bands. The page break falls exactly at the CONCLUSIO: p.1050's right body column ends at *…habeant generari*, and p.1051's left body column opens with the CONCLUSIO heading.

**Apparatus split map.**
- **p.1050 — 10 notes** (left footer 1–5, right footer 6–10). Notes **1–3 belong to the preceding chunk** `p2-a1-q3`: note 1 anchors at *quod gaudent*, note 2 at *talis consideratio amanti*, note 3 at *nisi intelligatur de natura passibili* — the last of these sits at the foot of p.1050's **right** body column, immediately above the full-width `ARTICULUS II.` header. Notes **4–10 are this chunk's** (4, 5, 6, 7 anchor in the left body column; 8, 9, 10 in the right).
- **p.1051 — 7 notes** (left footer 1–2, right footer 3–7). Notes **1–4 are this chunk's**; notes **5, 6, 7 hand forward to** `p2-a2-q2` (anchoring at *et exsultant*, *in malo*, and *peccandi voluntas*).
- Total rendered here: **11 entries.**

**Binding order.** p.1050 binds in straight reading order and splits at the body-column boundary. **p.1051 does not**: its register splits at the *footer*-column boundary (1–2 left, 3–7 right), so notes 5 and 6, which anchor in the **left** body column of Quaestio II lower on the page, print in the **right** footer. Bound by content, not by position.

**Head/tail runover check.** p.1050 — head clean (register opens with a numbered note 1, no unnumbered fragment carried from p.1049); tail clean (note 10 closes *…(c. 10.).*). p.1051 — head clean (opens with numbered note 1); tail clean (note 7 closes *…cfr. ibid. pag. 767, nota 4.*). No cross-page continuations in either direction.

**Article II's question count.** The opener promises **three** (*Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur*), and all three ordinal openers exist on the page and downstream: *Primo quaeritur, utrum damnati habeant vermem materialem sive corporalem* (this chunk), *Secundo, utrum sit in eis vermis spiritualis* (raw L112044, under the OCR-garbled header `QUAESTiO II.` at L112039), and *Tertio quaeritur, utrum vermis ille sit invariabilis* (opening downstream as *Tertio et ultimo quaeritur*). Nothing unmapped.

**Title.** Verified off the band against the line **after** the QUAESTIO I header: *Utrum damnati habeant vermem materialem.* — agrees with the skeleton's `title_la`. No change.

**Scholion.** Printed **full-width in two columns in the middle of p.1051**, between the end of the Respondeo and the `QUAESTIO II.` header — it is not a footer. The raw interleaves its two columns line-by-line, splicing the doctor-citation list into the middle of the commentary sentence. It has been reconstructed by reading each half separately off the bands, and every mangled citation digit resolved there: *hic q. 6. n. 14* (raw `n. 1 1`), *Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1* (raw `hic q. i. a. 1.`), *Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2* (raw `a. o. q. 2.`), *Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5* (raw `q. 0.`). Also corrected: `SCHOLIOK` → SCHOLION, `explicntur` → *explicatur*, `Pe toto lioc arliculo` → *De toto hoc articulo*, `Scol.` → Scot., `Potr.` → Petr., `Cartli.` → Carth. The scholion is placed **last** in both the `## Latin` and `## English` blocks.

**Raw-vs-band divergences resolved at band time.** The raw drops p.1051's entire footer register from this chunk's line range — it prints downstream at raw ~L112072–112101, *after* the Quaestio II body — so a reader working the range alone would find nothing; all seven notes were read off `vol4-p1051-{L,R}-2.png`. Other silent corrections from the bands: *desiccat ossa* (raw `desiccatossa^`), *moestitia* (raw `nioestitia`), *horrent* (raw `horrenl`), *ostenditur* (raw `oslendilur`), *constat* (raw `stat` — the OCR lost `con-` at the column break), *Vers. 11* for p.1050 note 7 (raw `Vers. \\.`), *ed. 1* throughout (raw `ed. I`/`ed. 1`).

**Marginalia.** The editors' side-glosses on these pages (*Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Opiniones 2.*, *Conclusio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Aliter.*) are printed in the margin, not in the text, and are omitted per the corpus convention.

**ambiguity flags.** None. Every band read was legible.


title: Dist. 50, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 1051 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum et qua ratione in damnatis sit vermis spiritualis.*

> **Nota de apparatu.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: notes 5–7 of page 1051, notes 1–8 of page 1052, and notes 1–2 of page 1053. Notes 1–4 of page 1051 anchor in the preceding question and are rendered there; notes 3–11 of page 1053 anchor in the following question and are rendered there.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in damnatis sit vermis spiritualis; et quaeritur: pro quanto dicitur in eis esse vermis?

1. Si quia est in eis dolor mordens; sed in poenitentibus est maximus dolor de peccatis: ergo et maximus vermis.

2. Item, aliqui ita sunt perversi, quod *laetantur, cum malefecerint, et exsultant*[^p1051-5], adeo ut nullum remorsum, aut dolorem sentiant: ergo si damnati sunt magis perversi quam viatores, videtur, quod nullum omnino habeant remorsum.

3. Item, aliqui sunt ita excaecati et obstinati in malo[^p1051-6], quod nullum omnino sentiunt remorsum, sicut haeretici, qui moriuntur pro haeresi sua tuenda; sed damnati sunt magis obstinati et excaecati: ergo etc.

4. Item, si habent dolorem, aut de *poena*, aut de *culpa*. Si de *poena*, tunc ergo non differt vermis a poena ignis, quia ignis non punit, nisi quia dolent. Si de *culpa*, aut voluntate *deliberativa*, aut *naturali* sive *synderesi*. Sed *non deliberativa*, quia secundum illam non poenitent, immo perseverat in eis peccandi voluntas[^p1051-7]. Non secundum *synderesim*, quia synderesis in aliquibus viatoribus est *praecipitata*: ergo videtur in eis penitus *exstincta*. Et hoc videtur per rationem: quia, sicut fomes se habet ad malum, sic synderesis ad bonum; sed fomes omnino exstinctus est in Beatis: ergo synderesis in damnatis.

Item, quaero: cum vermis nascatur ex putrefactione et rodat, qua metaphora dicitur vermis conscientiae, cum illa non putrescat?

<!-- page 1052 -->

**Sed contra:** 1. Quod in damnatis sit vermis spiritualis sive dolor, videtur: quia super illud Ecclesiastici[^p1052-1]: *Vindicta carnis impii* etc.: « *Vermis est sera scelerum poenitentia* »; et Augustinus de Fide ad Petrum dicit, quod habebunt hoc supplicium.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia synderesis naturaliter remurmurat contra malum; sed « vitium non demit extrema naturae vestigia[^p1052-2] »: ergo etc.

3. Item, quaecumque faciunt ad poenam damnatorum, debent esse in eis; sed remurmuratio synderesis auget eorum poenam: ergo saltem actus ille non debet tolli.

4. Item, omnis creatura secundum quod natura deservit Creatori: ergo si voluntas rationalis secundum quod natura est recta, ergo ei deservit; sed *creatura Creatori deserviens armatur in tormentum contra iniustos*[^p1052-3]: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *In damnatis viget vermis spiritualis, concurrente quadruplici ratione.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ipsa translatio vermis ad dolorem spiritualem manifestat, in quibus et quomodo sit vermis, si attendatur *ratio transferendi*. In verme enim materiali consideratur *origo* et *morsio*[^p1052-4]: *oritur*, inquam, ex putrefactione et *mordet* illud, in quo oritur. Sic in spirituali dolore non quilibet dolor est *vermis*, sed qui nascitur ex *putrefactione peccati*, et tunc peccatum dicitur *putridum*; quando anima in eo requiescit finaliter[^p1052-5]. — *Rursus*, oportet, quod sit in dolore *morsio*. Haec autem est ex concursu duorum moventium sibi invicem *obviantium* et *resistentium*. Ista duo moventia sunt in homine voluntas *naturalis* et *deliberativa*, quarum utraque movet. Ista *concurrunt* per conscientiam dictantem, aliquod factum esse indebitum; et tunc *obviant*, quando *naturalis* detestatur indebitum, et *deliberativae* placet; tunc autem *resistunt*, quando utraque in suo actu viget, ita[^p1052-6] quod illa efficaciter detestatur, et ista immutabiliter adhaeret.

Secundum hoc igitur patet, *in quibus* est vermis et *quando*. Nam deficiente *concursu*, qui est per peccati conscientiam, non est vermis, sicut in haereticis, et in his qui credunt, peccando bene fecisse. — Deficiente *obviatione*, non est vermis, ut puta in his qui dolent de culpa secundum voluntatem non tantum naturalem, sed etiam deliberativam, ut sunt poenitentes. — Deficiente *resistentia*, non est vermis, ut puta quando voluntas tanta delectatione fertur in peccatum, quod absorbet motum voluntatis naturalis, ut non sentiat. — Et sic patet, quare vermis deficit: aut propter defectum *putrefactionis* in *iustis*, aut *concursus* in *caecis*[^p1052-7], aut *obviationis* in *poenitentibus vere*, aut *resistentiae*, ut in his qui *peccant ex magna libidine*. — Et ex his patet, quod in damnatis vigebit vermis: quia ibi erit peccati *putrefactio* ex hoc, quod peccatum finaliter remansit in anima eorum; ibi erit *concursus* propter peccatorum apertissimam visionem; ibi erit *obviatio* propter voluntatis deliberativae obstinationem et synderesis remurmurationem; ibi erit *resistentia*, quia delectatio peccati erit ablata per poenae acerbitatem, et ex hoc ipsius synderesis actio fortificata, et ex hoc vermis mirabiliter rodens et puniens.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod synderesis est exstincta in damnatis; dicendum, quod synderesis triplex est actus: unus, qui est *instigare ad bonum*, et iste quidem ablatus est a damnatis, quia non est amplius locus bene faciendi; secundus, qui est *retrahere a malo faciendo*, et iste exstinctus est in daemonibus propter improbam malitiam voluntatis eorum; tertius, qui est *remurmuratio* contra malum factum, et iste manet in eis iusto Dei iudicio; tamen secundum istum actum in damnatis non remurmurat malo, quia *culpa*, vel quia *inhonestum*, sed quia ex hoc *punitur*[^p1052-8]; unde iste aliquo modo est exstinctus; et quia daemones nondum sentiunt acerbitatem poenarum intense, ut damnati: ideo non habent ita remorsum.

<!-- page 1053 -->

Sane tamen posset dici, quod synderesis remurmurat malo facto, quia indebitum; ipsa enim non confert culpam ad poenam, et *praeterea* respicit honestum, non commodum; et *iterum*, ipsa voluntas deliberativa detestatur malum culpae propter poenam; nollet enim impius peccasse[^p1053-1] vel fecisse, unde tot mala habet necesse pati, vel saltem mallet nunquam habuisse delectationem, quam esse in tanta miseria et dolore. Unde solvendum est, quod quantum ad istum actum, quia poenalis, synderesis est et Dei instrumentum ad flagellandum iniquos, et non exstinguetur; et remorsus modo non sic in daemonibus intensus est propter *defectum resistentiae*, quoniam modo delectantur in culpis[^p1053-2].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether, and for what reason, there is a spiritual worm in the damned.*

Secondly it is asked whether there is a spiritual worm in the damned; and it is asked: in what respect is a worm said to be in them?

1. Is it because there is in them a gnawing pain? But in the penitent there is the greatest pain over their sins: therefore also the greatest worm.

2. Likewise, some are so perverse that they *rejoice when they have done evil, and exult*[^p1051-5], to such a degree that they feel no remorse or pain at all: therefore, if the damned are more perverse than wayfarers, it seems that they have no remorse whatever.

3. Likewise, some are so blinded and obstinate in evil[^p1051-6] that they feel no remorse at all, like heretics who die in defence of their heresy; but the damned are more obstinate and blinded: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if they have pain, it is either over *punishment* or over *fault*. If over *punishment*, then the worm does not differ from the punishment of fire, since fire does not punish except in that they suffer pain. If over *fault*, it is either by the *deliberative* will or by the *natural* will, that is, by *synderesis*. But not by the *deliberative*, since according to it they do not repent; rather, the will to sin persists in them[^p1051-7]. Not according to *synderesis*, since synderesis in some wayfarers is *cast down headlong*: therefore it seems to be utterly *extinguished* in them. And this is seen by reason: because, as the tinder of sin stands to evil, so synderesis stands to good; but the tinder is altogether extinguished in the Blessed: therefore synderesis is extinguished in the damned.

Likewise I ask: since a worm is born of putrefaction and gnaws, by what metaphor is it called the worm of conscience, since conscience does not putrefy?

**Sed contra:** 1. That there is in the damned a spiritual worm, that is, pain, is seen: because upon that text of Ecclesiasticus[^p1052-1]: *The vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly* etc., the Gloss says: « *The worm is the too-late repentance for crimes* »; and Augustine in *On Faith, to Peter* says that they will have this torment.

2. Likewise, it is seen *by reason*: because synderesis naturally murmurs against evil; but « vice does not take away the last vestiges of nature[^p1052-2] »: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, whatever things make for the punishment of the damned ought to be in them; but the murmuring of synderesis increases their punishment: therefore at least that act ought not to be taken away.

4. Likewise, every creature, insofar as it is nature, serves the Creator: therefore if the rational will, insofar as it is nature, is upright, then it serves him; but *the creature serving the Creator is armed for torment against the unjust*[^p1052-3]: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *In the damned a spiritual worm is in full vigour, four grounds concurring.*

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the very transferring of "worm" to spiritual pain makes clear in whom and in what manner there is a worm, if one attends to the *ground of the transfer*. For in a material worm two things are considered, its *origin* and its *biting*[^p1052-4]: it *arises*, I say, from putrefaction, and it *bites* that in which it arises. So in spiritual pain not just any pain is a *worm*, but that which is born from the *putrefaction of sin*, and then the sin is called *putrid*; namely, when the soul finally rests in it[^p1052-5]. — *Again*, there must be a *biting* in the pain. But this comes from the concurrence of two movers *meeting* and *resisting* one another. These two movers in man are the *natural* and the *deliberative* will, each of which moves. These *concur* through conscience dictating that some deed is undue; and then they *meet*, when the *natural* will detests what is undue and it pleases the *deliberative*; and then they *resist*, when each is in vigour in its own act, so[^p1052-6] that the one effectively detests and the other unchangeably clings.

According to this, therefore, it is clear *in whom* the worm is and *when*. For when *concurrence*, which is through the consciousness of sin, is lacking, there is no worm, as in heretics and in those who believe that in sinning they have done well. — When *meeting* is lacking, there is no worm, as for instance in those who grieve over fault according to a will not only natural but also deliberative, as the penitent do. — When *resistance* is lacking, there is no worm, as for instance when the will is borne into sin with such delight that it absorbs the motion of the natural will, so that it does not feel. — And thus it is clear why the worm fails: either through the defect of *putrefaction* in the *just*, or of *concurrence* in the *blind*[^p1052-7], or of *meeting* in the *truly penitent*, or of *resistance*, as in those who *sin out of great lust*. — And from these things it is clear that in the damned the worm will be in vigour: because there will be the *putrefaction* of sin from this, that sin finally remained in their soul; there will be *concurrence* on account of the most open vision of their sins; there will be *meeting* on account of the obstinacy of the deliberative will and the murmuring of synderesis; there will be *resistance*, because the delight of sin will have been taken away through the bitterness of punishment, and from this the action of synderesis itself is strengthened, and from this the worm gnaws and punishes marvellously.

*To 4.* But to that which is objected, that synderesis is extinguished in the damned, it must be said that synderesis has a threefold act: one, which is *to instigate toward the good*, and this indeed has been taken away from the damned, since there is no longer any place for doing well; the second, which is *to draw back from doing evil*, and this is extinguished in the demons on account of the wicked malice of their will; the third, which is *the murmuring* against the evil deed, and this remains in them by the just judgement of God; yet according to that act it does not, in the damned, murmur against evil because it is *fault*, or because it is *dishonourable*, but because from it one is *punished*[^p1052-8]; hence this act too is in some manner extinguished; and because the demons do not yet feel the bitterness of the punishments intensely, as the damned do, therefore they do not have remorse in this way.

Yet it could quite reasonably be said that synderesis murmurs against the evil deed because it is undue; for synderesis itself does not refer fault to punishment, and *besides* it looks to the honourable, not to the advantageous; and *again*, the deliberative will itself detests the evil of fault on account of the punishment; for the ungodly man would not have wished to sin[^p1053-1] or to have done that whence he must needs suffer so many evils, or at least he would prefer never to have had the delight than to be in such misery and pain. Hence it must be resolved that, as regards that act, since it is penal, synderesis is also God's instrument for scourging the wicked, and it will not be extinguished; and remorse is at present not so intense in the demons on account of the *defect of resistance*, since at present they take delight in their faults[^p1053-2].

---

la: Prov. 2, 14. Vulgata addit *in rebus pessimis*.

en: Prov. 2:14. The Vulgate adds *in rebus pessimis* ("in the worst things").

la: Codd. *in malum*.

en: The codices read *in malum*.

la: Cfr. supra p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — De seq. propos. vide II. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 3. Ibid. q. 1. in fine corp. dicitur, quod *synderesis* « habet inclinare ad *bonum honestum* ». — De definitione *fomitis* i. e. morbidi affectus, qui commovet ad desiderium illicitum, cfr. ibid. pag. 767, nota 4.

en: Cf. above, pars II, art. 1, q. 1. — On the following proposition see II *Sent.*, d. 39, a. 2, q. 3. In the same place, q. 1, at the end of the body, it is said that *synderesis* "has the office of inclining toward the *honourable good*." — On the definition of *fomes*, that is, the diseased affection which stirs one to illicit desire, cf. ibid., p. 767, note 4.

la: Cap. 7, 19. — Allegata huius loci expositio sumta est ex *Glossa* (Vat. hoc addit) *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, quae est secundum Rabanum (in hunc loc.), qui substituit *poenitudo* pro *poenitentia*. — Verba Fulgentii in libro de Fide ad Petrum (inter opera August.), c. 3. n. 38, recitat Magister in lit., hic c. 1.

en: Chapter 7:19. — The exposition of this passage here alleged is taken from the *ordinary Gloss* (the Vatican edition adds this) in Strabo and Lyranus, which follows Rabanus (on this passage), who substitutes *poenitudo* for *poenitentia*. — The words of Fulgentius in the book *On Faith, to Peter* (among the works of Augustine), c. 3, n. 38, are recited by the Master in the text, here c. 1.

la: August., XIX. de Civ. Dei, c. 12. n. 2: Nullum quippe vitium ita contra naturam est, ut naturae deleat etiam extrema vestigia.

en: Augustine, *City of God* XIX, c. 12, n. 2: "For no vice is so contrary to nature that it destroys even the last vestiges of nature."

la: Sap. 16, 24: Creatura enim Factori deserviens exardescit in etc. — De *voluntate*, secundum quod est natura, cfr. II. Sent. d. 24. p. 1. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Wisdom 16:24: "For the creature, serving its Maker, blazes up into" etc. — On the *will*, insofar as it is nature, cf. II *Sent.*, d. 24, p. 1, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Codd. et ed. 1 *inordinatio*, quod subnexis non congruit.

en: The codices and the first edition read *inordinatio*, which does not agree with what follows.

la: Gregor., in 3. Psalm. poenitential. (Ps. 37, 6.) n. 5: *Cicatrices* namque *putrescere* est sanata iam peccatorum vulnera rursum in tentationem serpere atque de eorum iteratione delectationem sentire. Cfr. Hieron., VI. Comment. in Isai. 14, 20, ubi docet: *Cadaver* autem diaboli *putridum*, ob magnitudinem peccatorum dubitare non poterit qui legerit, peccatum esse foetidissimum, ipso peccatore dicente [Ps. 37, 6.]: *Computruerunt et corruptae sunt cicatrices* etc. Cfr. supra pag. 1051, nota 4. — Pro *anima* cod. N *homo*.

en: Gregory, on the 3rd penitential Psalm (Ps. 37:6), n. 5: "For *the scars to putrefy* is that the already healed wounds of sins creep back into temptation and that one feels delight in their repetition." Cf. Jerome, *Commentary on Isaiah* VI, on 14:20, where he teaches: "That the *carcase* of the devil is *putrid* on account of the magnitude of sins, no one who reads will be able to doubt, since sin is most foul-smelling, the sinner himself saying [Ps. 37:6]: *My scars have rotted and are corrupted*" etc. Cf. above, p. 1051, note 4. — For *anima* codex N reads *homo*.

la: Ex codd. FG (E a secunda manu) supplevimus *ita*, quod alii codd. et ed. 1 omittunt, pro quo Vat. *et*.

en: From codices F and G (E by a second hand) we have supplied *ita*, which the other codices and the first edition omit, and in place of which the Vatican edition has *et*.

la: Secunda manus in cod. bb substituit *haereticis*.

en: A second hand in codex bb substitutes *haereticis*.

la: Cfr. supra p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. — Quod daemones *nondum* tam intensive sentiant acerbitatem poenarum, ostensum est II. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, pars 1, a. 1, q. 1. — That the demons do *not yet* feel the bitterness of the punishments so intensely was shown in II *Sent.*, d. 6, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *se peccasse*.

en: Codex K (and I by a second hand) reads *se peccasse*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 2. — Vocibus *et remorsus* Vat. cum nonnullis codd. interserit *quod*, codd. I K legunt *ille remorsus*, cod. X *est etiam remorsus*, cod. bb *etiam remorsus*. Subinde verbo *est* cod. L (P a secunda manu) praefigit *hoc*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See II *Sent.*, d. 39, a. 2, q. 2. — Between the words *et remorsus* the Vatican edition, with several codices, inserts *quod*; codices I and K read *ille remorsus*, codex X *est etiam remorsus*, codex bb *etiam remorsus*. Then before the verb *est* codex L (P by a second hand) prefixes *hoc*. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L112039–112237, with every damaged region (the whole Respondeo, both footer registers of each page, and all citation digits) re-read off the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p105{1,2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` at the measured gutters 1051:1698, 1052:2020, 1053:1696. No bands were regenerated. Read left column top→bottom, then right; body bands then footer bands.

**Page span.** `printed_pages: [1051, 1052, 1053]` is **correct as given** — verified against the bands. The chunk opens with the full-width centred `QUAESTIO II.` header on p.1051 (below Article II's scholion, which belongs to `p2-a2-q1`) and closes at the foot of p.1053's right column with *"quoniam modo delectantur in culpis"*; `QUAESTIO III.` follows immediately on the same page and belongs to `p2-a2-q3`.

**Title.** The line after the QUAESTIO header on p.1051 reads *Utrum et qua ratione in damnatis sit vermis spiritualis.* — the skeleton's `title_la` is correct; no change.

**OCR header garble.** The QUAESTIO header prints centred full-width across the gutter and fragments across the two bands (`QUAESTIO` on L, `STIO II.` on R); the raw renders it `QUAESTiO II.` at L112039. Confirmed off the bands, not off a grep.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p.1051 — 7 notes in the register (1–7).** Left footer holds notes 1–2; right footer holds notes 3–7. Notes 1–4 anchor in the *preceding* chunk (`p2-a2-q1`): 1 and 2 in its left-column Respondeo (*de Civitate Dei*; *placere*), 3 and 4 in its right-column replies (*desiccat ossa*; *vermis spiritualis*). **Notes 5 and 6 anchor in THIS chunk's left column but print in the RIGHT footer** — bound by content, not by position. Note 7 anchors in this chunk's right column. **This chunk claims notes 5, 6, 7 of p.1051.**
- **p.1052 — 8 notes (1–8), all anchoring in this chunk.** Left footer holds notes 1–5, with note 5 breaking off mid-entry after *"Gregor., in 3. Psalm. poenitential. (Ps. 37, 6.) n. 5:"*; its continuation opens the **right** footer as an unnumbered fragment (*"Cicatrices namque putrescere est sanata iam peccatorum vulnera…"*) and is rendered joined to its parent note here. Right footer then carries notes 6, 7, 8. Note 6 anchors in the **left** body column (*ita*) despite printing in the right footer.
- **p.1053 — 11 notes (1–11).** Left footer holds notes 1–9, with note 9 breaking off mid-sentence at *"…multo fortius ipse"*; its unnumbered continuation opens the right footer (*"remittet, si ab eo petatur venia…"*), followed by notes 10 and 11. **This chunk claims only notes 1 and 2** (*peccasse*, *in culpis*), both anchoring in the p.1053 material above the `QUAESTIO III.` header. **Notes 3–11 of p.1053, and the whole note-9 runover, belong to `p2-a2-q3`** and are forwarded to it.

**Head/tail runover check, per page.**
- p.1051 — head: no unnumbered fragment above note 1; the left register opens with a numbered note 1. Tail: note 7 closes complete (*"…cfr. ibid. pag. 767, nota 4."*). Clean both ends.
- p.1052 — head: no unnumbered fragment (opens at numbered note 1). Tail: note 8 closes complete (*"…II. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 2."*). **Internal runover found**: note 5 breaks at the left/right footer boundary and completes as an unnumbered fragment at the head of the right footer — rendered joined.
- p.1053 — head: no unnumbered fragment. Tail: note 11 closes complete (*"…Anima autem iusti sedes sapientiae."*). **Internal runover found**: note 9 breaks at the footer-column boundary and completes unnumbered at the head of the right footer — belongs to `p2-a2-q3`, forwarded.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `p2-a2-q1`: p.1051 notes 1–4 are its share; the right footer carries 3 and 4 even though the left footer carries 1 and 2. Its share of p.1051 also includes Article II's scholion, whose line *"Attentione dignus est modus ingeniosus, quo in 2. quaest. vermis spiritualis explicatur"* refers to this question.
- To `p2-a2-q3`: p.1053 notes 3–11 plus the unnumbered continuation of note 9 opening the right footer. Its body opens *"Tertio et ultimo quaeritur, utrum vermis ille sit invariabilis"* (raw L112241) under a full-width centred `QUAESTIO III.` header on p.1053.

**Seam continuity.** Opening sentence (*"Secundo quaeritur, utrum in damnatis sit vermis spiritualis…"*) opens a fresh question below a full-width header and is not a grammatical continuation of `p2-a2-q1`, which closes cleanly at *"…et ideo ignis est materialis, sed vermis spiritualis."* followed by the scholion. Closing sentence (*"…quoniam modo delectantur in culpis."*) parses complete. The `<!-- page 1053 -->` break is placed at the paragraph boundary before *"Sane tamen posset dici…"*; the physical page turn falls mid-paragraph, between *"et iterum, ipsa voluntas"* (p.1052 right) and *"deliberativa detestatur malum culpae"* (p.1053 left).

**No scholion.** Article II's scholion prints on p.1051 above this question's header and belongs to `p2-a2-q1`. `has_scholion: false` is correct and is normal for this article.

**Citation digits.** All resolved off the bands, not the raw. Corrections against the raw's garbles: p.1051 n.7 `p. II. a. 1. q. 1.` (raw `p. II. a. I. q. I.`) and `II. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 3.`; p.1052 n.1 `Cap. 7, 19.` (raw `Cap. 7, 19` with the 19 mangled to `49`); p.1052 n.2 `XIX. de Civ. Dei` (raw `XiX.`); p.1052 n.5 `Isai. 14, 20` and `pag. 1051, nota 4` (raw `png. 1051`); p.1052 n.8 `p. 1. a. 1. q. 1.` (raw `p. I. a. 4. q. I.`) and `d. 6. a. 2. q. 2.`; p.1053 n.2 `d. 39. a. 2. q. 2.`. The raw also mangles p.1052's running-head page number to `10b2` and p.1053's to `1033`.

**Anchor counts.** Latin 13 · English 13 · apparatus definitions 13 — matched.

**ambiguity flags.** None. Every band read in this range was legible.

**Nothing unmapped.** No ordinal opener, dubium, scholion or section without a chunk file was found in this range.


title: Dist. 50, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt:
Utrum vermis ille sit invariabilis
Whether that worm is unchangeable

source_text:
<!-- page 1053 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum vermis ille sit invariabilis.*

Tertio et ultimo quaeritur, utrum vermis ille sit invariabilis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia culpa est invariabilis; et poena respicit culpam: ergo cum hic vermis sit poena, patet etc.

2. Item, ignis continue affligit et aequaliter: ergo similiter videtur, quod et vermis.

3. Item, omne variabile terminabile; sed vermis ille est interminabilis[^p1053-3]: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Vermis est ex recordatione peccati; sed non simul peccata recolent, cum non sint deiformes: ergo successive. Sed maiori poena[^p1053-4] maior debetur remorsus, et ubi hoc, ibi variabilitas: ergo etc.

2. Item, si vermis est, corrodit; sed quando aliquid diutius roditur, magis debilitatur et magis gravatur: ergo poena malorum semper crescit.

3. Item, si semper rodit; cum non sit infinitum bonum, quod adimit, ergo aliquando adimeret totum; sed hoc est impossibile: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *Vermis ille non variatur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod iusto Dei iudicio, sicut dictum est supra[^p1053-5], fiet, ut mali simul omnia peccata memorentur, ut de omnibus continue torqueantur; et ideo vermis est pro omnibus et non intensior nunc quam ante.

**Ad argumenta ad oppositum:**

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de ademptione[^p1053-6], dicendum, quod sicut *egressus continuus* alicuius ab aliquo est dupliciter: vel per *innovationem* secundum partem et partem, ut rivus a fonte, et motus a motore; aut *eiusdem continuatione*, ut ramus a radice, et radius a sole: sic *ademptio continua* vel per *novi ablationem*, sicut ignis comburit ligna; vel per *eius continuationem*, sicut ignis infernalis corpus, et dolor animum; et sic vermis continue rodit. Et illud melius supra[^p1053-7] patet de poena ignis; et per hunc modum intelligendum est de poena vermis[^p1053-8].

> **On the footnote numbering.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. This quaestio sits entirely within printed page 1053, whose register runs 1–11; the markers anchored in this quaestio are notes 3 through 8 of page 1053, and the labels below are qualified accordingly. Notes 1 and 2 of page 1053 anchor in the preceding quaestio (p2-a2-q2), and note 9 — together with its unnumbered continuation at the head of the right-hand footer — and notes 10 and 11 anchor in the following DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether that worm is unchangeable.*

Third and last it is asked whether that worm is unchangeable. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. Because guilt is unchangeable; and punishment regards guilt: therefore, since this worm is a punishment, it is evident, etc.

2. Likewise, fire afflicts continuously and equally: therefore it likewise seems that the worm does also.

3. Likewise, everything changeable is terminable; but that worm is unterminable[^p1053-3]: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. The worm arises from the recollection of sin; but they will not recall their sins all at once, since they are not deiform: therefore successively. But to a greater punishment[^p1053-4] a greater remorse is owed, and where this is, there is changeableness: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, if it is a worm, it gnaws; but when something is gnawed at for a longer time, it is more weakened and more burdened: therefore the punishment of the wicked always increases.

3. Likewise, if it always gnaws: since the good which it takes away is not infinite, therefore at some time it would take away the whole; but this is impossible: therefore, etc.

### Conclusion

> *That worm does not vary.*

**I respond:** It must be said that by the just judgement of God, as was said above[^p1053-5], it will come about that the wicked remember all their sins at once, so that they may be continuously tormented over all of them; and therefore the worm is for them all, and is not more intense now than before.

**To the arguments on the contrary:**

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the taking away[^p1053-6], it must be said that, just as the *continuous going forth* of something from something else is twofold — either by *renewal* part by part, as a stream from a spring, and motion from a mover; or by *the continuation of the same thing*, as a branch from a root, and a ray from the sun — so *continuous taking away* is either by *the removal of something new*, as fire burns up wood; or by *the continuation of the same thing*, as infernal fire [consumes] the body, and grief the mind; and in this way the worm continuously gnaws. And that is better made plain above[^p1053-7] concerning the punishment of fire; and in this manner it is to be understood concerning the punishment of the worm[^p1053-8].

---

la: Isai. 66, 24: *Vermis eorum non morietur.* Cfr. Marc. 9, 43. 45. 47.

en: Isaiah 66:24: *Their worm shall not die.* Cf. Mark 9:43, 45, 47.

la: Ita codd. A B C G L V (post *maiori* supple: peccato); cod. E pro *poena* bene substituit *culpae*; alii et edd. non apte *poenae*.

en: Thus codices A B C G L V (after *maiori* supply: *peccato*); codex E rightly substitutes *culpae* for *poena*; the others and the editions have, not aptly, *poenae*.

en: Distinction 43, article 3, question 3.

la: Codd. et ed. 1 *intensione*, vel *intentione*. Inferius ante *comburit* Vat. addit *consumit et*.

en: The codices and edition 1 read *intensione*, or *intentione*. Below, before *comburit*, the Vatican edition adds *consumit et*.

en: Distinction 44, part II, article 3, question 1, to the second; and question 2, to the seventh.

en: See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L112238–112271, with every line and every citation digit verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1053-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (measured gutter 1696). No bands were regenerated. The right-hand column of the body and the whole footer register were read off the bands, per the Vol II/IV override.

**Page span — CONFIRMED, no correction.** The quaestio lies wholly within printed page 1053. The running head reads `DIST. L. P. II. DUBIUM.  1053` — it is **stale page furniture**: it names the DUBIUM although the page opens with the tail of Quaestio II and then Quaestio III. `printed_pages: [1053]` stands as the skeleton had it.

**Title — CONFIRMED.** The `QUAESTIO III.` header prints centred full-width across the gutter (the lost-question signature: `QUAESTIO` on the L band, `STIO III.` on the R). The line immediately below it reads *Utrum vermis ille sit invariabilis.* — exactly matching `title_la`.

**Both seams derived independently off the bands.**
- *Opening.* On the L band, Quaestio II closes with `…quoniam modo delectantur in culpis²` (right column), and the centred `QUAESTIO III.` header follows on blank-ruled white space. Nothing of this quaestio is trapped inside q2; its opener *Tertio et ultimo quaeritur* stands at the head of its own body. (`p2-a2-q2` is still a skeleton and contains no copy of this opener.)
- *Close.* The body closes `…et per hunc modum intelligendum est de poena vermis⁸.` — a complete sentence with a full stop. `DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` then begins as its own centred full-width header on the L/R bands, followed by *In parte ista circa litteram quaeritur⁹…*. Nothing is trapped between. This is the last quaestio of Book IV.

**Page 1053 apparatus — FULL REGISTER = 11 NOTES**, counted directly off the bands (the raw does carry this register, but it is heavily digit-mangled and the note-9 gutter break is invisible in it):
- **Left footer (band L-2):** numbered notes **1–9**. Note 9 (`In cod. B additur: De hoc quod dicitur in primo capitulo…`) breaks off across the gutter at `…multo fortius ipse` and resumes as an **unnumbered continuation opening the right footer**: `remittet, si ab eo petatur venia. — Item, Bernardus, in libro de Gradibus humilitatis…` through `…Idem cod. in fine addit plura nullius momenti.`
- **Right footer (band R-2):** the unnumbered continuation of note 9, then numbered notes **10** and **11**.

**Page → apparatus split map (bound by content, never by position):**
- notes **1–2** → `p2-a2-q2` (anchors `peccasse¹`, `in culpis²`, both in q2's tail at the top of p.1053)
- notes **3–8** → **this chunk** (`interminabilis³`, `maiori poena⁴`, `supra⁵`, `de ademptione⁶`, `supra⁷`, `de poena vermis⁸`) — 6 entries
- note **9** (with its unnumbered right-footer continuation) and notes **10–11** → `p2-dubium` (anchors `quaeritur⁹`, `omnem sensum¹⁰`, `sedes sapientiae¹¹`)

Note 6 anchors at *ademptione* though its content opens on the variant *intensione / intentione*: the codices read *intensione* where the text prints *ademptione*, so the binding is by content and is correct as printed.

**Head/tail runover check for p.1053.** *Head:* the left footer opens with a numbered `¹ Cod. K (I a secunda manu) se peccasse.` — **no unnumbered fragment belonging to p.1052**. *Tail:* the right footer closes with note 11 complete (`…Anima autem iusti sedes sapientiae.`) — **nothing breaks off onto p.1054**. The only intra-page runover is note 9's gutter break, recorded above and forwarded to `p2-dubium`.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `p2-a2-q2`: notes 1–2 of p.1053 are yours.
- To `p2-dubium`: notes 9, 10, 11 of p.1053 are yours, and **note 9 prints in two physical halves** — render the unnumbered right-footer continuation joined to its parent or half the note is lost.

**Scholion.** None here, and none is expected: note 8 explicitly redirects, *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* — Article II's scholion lives in `p2-a2-q1`.

**Anchor parity.** 6 Latin anchors, 6 English anchors, 6 apparatus definitions.

**ambiguity flags.** None. Every band read was legible; all citation digits (Isai. 66, 24; Marc. 9, 43. 45. 47; Dist. 43. a. 3. q. 3; Dist. 44. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. ad 2. et q. 2. ad 7) were resolved off the bands against the mangled raw.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial, not Bonaventure's text): `Fundamenta.`, `Ad oppositum.`, `Conclusio.`, `De 3. arg. ad oppos.`, `Duplex distinctio.`