title: Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 6

source_text:
<!-- page 706 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum Christus magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo per *textum Evangelii,* Ioannis decimo nono[^1]: *Hic est discipulus ille, quem diligebat Iesus;* sed hoc non dicitur per discretionem, quia alios non diligeret Iesus: ergo dicitur per excellentiam, quia ipsum prae ceteris diligebat.

2. Item, hoc videtur per *verbum Ecclesiae,* quod trahitur de verbis Bedae; cantat enim Ecclesia[^2]: «Hic est Ioannes, qui privilegio amoris praecipui ceteris altius a Domino meruit honorari».

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per *testimonium Glossae* super ultimum Ioannis[^3], ubi dicit Glossa Augustini, quod Petrus magis amabat, sed Ioannes magis amabatur.

4. Item, hoc videtur per *signum familiaritatis* divinae. Si enim Christus Ioanni se familiariorem exhibebat et maiora signa dilectionis ostendebat[^4]; cum nihil per fictionem faceret, videtur, quod ipsum Ioannem non solum magis quam Petrum, sed etiam prae ceteris diligebat.

**Sed contra:** 1. Ioannis ultimo[^5]: *Dixit Dominus Petro: Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus his?* sed constat, quod non sic quaereret Dominus, nisi sciret, quod eum Petrus plus amaret — unde et Glossa dicit, «quod tacite hoc innuit Iesus, dum, interrogans de amore, dicit hic quod non alibi» — sed Deus magis diligit eos qui magis se diligunt: ergo etc.

2. Item, Deus dicitur diligere quantum ad *effectum,* et magis diligere quantum ad *excellentiorem effectum:* si ergo caritas est excellentissimus effectus divinae bonitatis; si ergo maiorem caritatem dederat Petro, quia Petrus magis ipsum amabat, sicut aperte innuit Glossa[^6]; ergo videtur, quod magis dilexit Petrum quam Ioannem.

3. Item, Christus specialissime dilexit Ecclesiam et eam commisit Petro gubernandam[^7]: ergo videtur, quod non solum quantum ad *effectum,* sed etiam quantum ad *signum* magis dilexerit Petrum.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quis erat melior, utrum Petrus, an Ioannes? Si enim Petrus magis diligebat; et qui magis diligit melior est: ergo melior erat Petrus quam Ioannes. Rursus, si Christus magis diligebat Ioannem quam Petrum; et qui magis diligitur, ille est melior: ergo melior erat Ioannes quam Petrus; quae duo simul stare non possunt[^8].
<!-- page 707 -->

### Conclusio.

> *Istae dilectiones Christi erga Petrum et Ioannem secundum diversas considerationes se mutuo excedebant.*

**Respondeo:** Ad huius intelligentiam est notandum, quod hic est triplex modus respondendi, quorum unus facit ad explicationem alterius. Primus est secundum *Augustinum,* alter secundum *Bernardum* et tertius secundum *communem modum dicendi.*

Augustinus enim ad istam quaestionem super Ioannem[^9] dicit respondens, quod est dilectio in *signo exteriori* et dilectio in *effectu interiori.* Si loquamur de dilectione in signo exteriori, magis diligebat Christus Ioannem, quia maiorem familiaritatem ei exhibebat, sicut patet, quia super pectus eius recubuit in coena[^10]. Si vero loquamur de dilectione quantum ad effectum interiorem, qui est effectus gratiae; sic magis diligebat Petrum, quia maius munus gratiae sibi dederat. — Et si tu obiicias, quod Deus illi debebat maiora signa dilectionis ostendere, quem magis diligebat secundum veritatem; respondet Augustinus, quod per Ioannem et Petrum significatur duplex vita: per Petrum *activa,* quae transit, per Ioannem *contemplativa,* quae manet. Unde Petro dictum est: *Sequere me*[^11]; de Ioanne vero: *Sic eum volo manere.* Et quoniam activa laboriosior est et fructuosior, contemplativa vero purior et iucundior; ideo ad significandam differentiam huius duplicis vitae familiarius se exhibebat Dominus Ioanni quam Petro. In cuius rei signum commisit Dominus Ioanni Matrem custodiendam, Petro vero pastoralem curam. Et ex hoc dicit Augustinus, quod Petrus erat *melior,* sed Ioannes *felicior.* — Et secundum istum modum dicendi satis patet responsio ad obiecta, quia procedunt secundum diversas vias.

Alius modus respondendi secundum *Bernardum*[^12] est, quod Petrus dilexit *ferventius* et diligebatur *fortius;* Ioannes vero dilexit *dulcius* et diligebatur *familiarius.* Et sic secundum diversas vias de utroque potest concedi, quod magis diligebat, et etiam, quod magis diligebatur, secundum quod rationes ad utramque partem inductae ostendunt.

Tertius est modus dicendi, quod Petrus magis dilexit Deum *in proximo;* Ioannes magis dilexit Deum *in se.* Unde Petrus accepit curam regiminis, sed Ioannes gratiam contemplationis; unde Petrus efficaciorem habuit gratiam ad laborem *actionis,* Ioannes vero efficaciorem ad quietem *contemplationis.*

Omnes autem hi modi dicendi sunt satis congrui, et unus magis explicat alterum. Ideo enim Ioannes dilexit *dulcius* et Petrus *ferventius,* quia Ioan-
<!-- page 708 -->
nes accepit specialiter gratiam ad amandum Deum *in se* per *contemplationis saporem;* Petrus vero praecipue ad diligendum Deum *in proximo* per *actionis laborem.* Et hinc est, quod Petrus diligebatur a Christo *fortius* quantum ad effectum gratiae interioris; Ioannes vero *familiarius* quantum ad signa exterioris conversationis. — Haec autem *signa* familiaritatis Dominus exhibebat Ioanni non solum propter significationem, sed etiam propter qualitatem personae. Diligebat enim Dominus Ioannem, sicut dicit Chrysostomus[^13], magis *familiariter* propter ingenitam mansuetudinem et propter virginalem puritatem et etiam propter iuventutem, quae etiam, ceteris paribus, facit hominem diligi magis tenere.

His visis, patet responsio ad quaestionem et ad obiecta, quoniam isti duo in dilectione Dei secundum diversas considerationes se mutuo excedebant. Hinc est, quod secundum quod aliqui diversimode afficiuntur, praeponunt Ioannem Petro, quidam vero sentiunt e converso. — Sed quis eorum apud Deum finaliter fuerit carior, hoc[^14] melius sciemus in gloria, et melius est exspectare quam hic temere definire. Hoc tantum dixisse sufficiat, quia ille altior est in caelis, qui finaliter maiorem caritatem habuit in terris; et hoc dico quantum ad magnitudinem *praemii substantialis.* Nam quantum ad decorem *aureolae,* quae respondet continentiae virginali, non est inconveniens, Ioannem Petro praeponi[^15].

---

english:
### Question VI. *Whether Christ loved John more than Peter.*

Sixthly and lastly it is asked, whether He loved John more than Peter. And that [He did], seems to be the case:

1. First by the *text of the Gospel,* John, chapter nineteen[^1]: *This is that disciple whom Jesus loved;* but this is not said by way of distinction, as if Jesus did not love the others: therefore it is said by way of excellence, because He loved him above the rest.

2. Likewise, this seems [to be the case] by the *word of the Church,* which is drawn from the words of Bede; for the Church sings[^2]: «This is John, who by the privilege of His special love merited to be honored by the Lord more highly than the rest».

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to be the case] by the *testimony of the Gloss* on the last [chapter] of John[^3], where the Gloss of Augustine says that Peter loved more, but John was loved more.

4. Likewise, this seems [to be the case] by the *sign of* divine *familiarity.* For if Christ showed Himself more familiar to John and displayed greater signs of love[^4]; since He did nothing by pretense, it seems that He loved John not only more than Peter, but also above the rest.

**On the contrary:** 1. John, the last [chapter][^5]: *The Lord said to Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?* but it is settled that the Lord would not ask thus, unless He knew that Peter loved Him more — whence also the Gloss says, «that Jesus tacitly intimates this, when, asking about love, He says here what [He says] nowhere else» — but God loves more those who love Him more: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, God is said to love as to the *effect,* and to love more as to a *more excellent effect:* if therefore charity is the most excellent effect of divine goodness; if therefore He had given a greater charity to Peter, because Peter loved Him more, as the Gloss openly intimates[^6]; therefore it seems that He loved Peter more than John.

3. Likewise, Christ in a most special way loved the Church and entrusted it to Peter to be governed[^7]: therefore it seems that not only as to the *effect,* but also as to the *sign* He loved Peter more.

In connection with this it is asked: which was the better, Peter or John? For if Peter loved more; and he who loves more is the better: therefore Peter was better than John. Again, if Christ loved John more than Peter; and he who is loved more, he is the better: therefore John was better than Peter; which two things cannot stand together[^8].

### Conclusion.

> *These loves of Christ toward Peter and John, according to diverse considerations, mutually exceeded each other.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of this it must be noted that here there is a threefold mode of responding, of which one serves for the explanation of the other. The first is according to *Augustine,* the second according to *Bernard,* and the third according to the *common mode of speaking.*

For Augustine, in responding to this question on John[^9], says that there is a love in the *exterior sign* and a love in the *interior effect.* If we speak of the love in the exterior sign, Christ loved John more, because He showed him greater familiarity, as is clear, since he reclined upon His breast at the supper[^10]. But if we speak of the love as to the interior effect, which is the effect of grace; thus He loved Peter more, because He had given him a greater gift of grace. — And if you object that God ought to show greater signs of love to the one whom He loved more according to truth; Augustine responds that by John and Peter a twofold life is signified: by Peter the *active* [life], which passes away, by John the *contemplative,* which remains. Whence to Peter it was said: *Follow me*[^11]; but of John: *So I will have him to remain.* And since the active [life] is more laborious and more fruitful, but the contemplative purer and more delightful; therefore, to signify the difference of this twofold life, the Lord showed Himself more familiar to John than to Peter. As a sign of this, the Lord entrusted to John His Mother to be guarded, but to Peter the pastoral care. And from this Augustine says that Peter was the *better,* but John the *happier.* — And according to this mode of speaking the response to the objections is sufficiently clear, because they proceed along diverse paths.

Another mode of responding, according to *Bernard*[^12], is that Peter loved more *fervently* and was loved more *strongly;* but John loved more *sweetly* and was loved more *familiarly.* And thus, along diverse paths, of each it can be conceded that he loved more, and also that he was loved more, according as the reasons adduced for each side show.

The third is the mode of speaking, that Peter loved God more *in [his] neighbor;* John loved God more *in Himself.* Whence Peter received the care of government, but John the grace of contemplation; whence Peter had a more efficacious grace for the labor of *action,* but John a more efficacious [grace] for the rest of *contemplation.*

Now all these modes of speaking are sufficiently fitting, and one explains the other more [fully]. For John loved more *sweetly* and Peter more *fervently,* because John re-ceived specially the grace for loving God *in Himself* through the *savor of contemplation;* but Peter chiefly for loving God *in [his] neighbor* through the *labor of action.* And hence it is that Peter was loved by Christ more *strongly* as to the effect of interior grace; but John more *familiarly* as to the signs of exterior conversation. — But these *signs* of familiarity the Lord showed to John not only because of their signification, but also because of the quality of the person. For the Lord loved John, as Chrysostom says[^13], more *familiarly* because of his inborn meekness and because of his virginal purity and also because of his youth, which also, other things being equal, makes a man to be loved more tenderly.

These things seen, the response to the question and to the objections is clear, since these two, in the love of God, according to diverse considerations mutually exceeded each other. Hence it is that, according as some are differently affected, they prefer John to Peter, but certain others judge the reverse. — But which of them was finally dearer in the sight of God, this[^14] we shall better know in glory, and it is better to wait than rashly to define it here. Let it suffice to have said only this, that he is higher in heaven who finally had the greater charity on earth; and this I say as to the magnitude of the *substantial reward.* For as to the beauty of the *aureole,* which corresponds to virginal continence, it is not unfitting that John be preferred to Peter[^15].

---

la: Vers. 26, ubi tamen verba *Hic est discipulus ille* non habentur, sed tantum illa *quem diligebat Iesus.* Verba priora leguntur Ioan. 21, 24. — Superius pro *quam Petrum* plurimi codd. *an Petrum.* In *minori* pro *quia,* quae lectio est in codd., Vat., *quasi,* edd. 1, 2 *quod.*

en: Verse 26, where however the words *This is that disciple* are not had, but only those, *whom Jesus loved.* The former words are read in John 21:24. — Above, for *quam Petrum* very many codices [read] *an Petrum.* In the minor [premise] for *quia,* which is the reading in the codices [and in the] Vatican edition, *quasi,* editions 1, 2 *quod.*

la: In festo S. Ioan. (27. Dec.) resp. lect. 2. Noct. I. — Beda, l. Homil. homil. 8. in die natali S. Ioan. ait: *Diligebat autem eum Iesus non, exceptis ceteris, singulariter solum, sed prae ceteris, quos diligebat, familiarius unum, quem specialis praerogativa castitatis ampliori dilectione fecerat dignum... hunc prae ceteris diligit, qui virgo electus ab ipso, virgo in aevum permansit.* Cfr. eius Exposit. in Evang. Ioan. 21, 23.

en: On the feast of St. John (27 Dec.), responsory, lection 2, Nocturn I. — Bede, in the book of Homilies, homily 8, on the natal day of St. John, says: *Now Jesus loved him not singularly alone, the rest being excepted, but above the rest whom He loved [He loved] more familiarly the one whom the special prerogative of chastity had made worthy of a fuller love... He loves above the rest this one, who, a virgin chosen by Him, remained a virgin forever.* Cf. his Exposition on the Gospel of John 21:23.

la: Vers. 20. seqq. — Glossa sumta est ex August. Exposit. in hunc loc. tr. 124. n. 4-8. — A Vat. absunt verba *amabat, sed Ioannes magis.*

en: Verse 20 ff. — The Gloss is taken from Augustine's Exposition on this passage, tr. 124, n. 4-8. — From the Vatican edition the words *loved, but John more* are absent.

la: Ioan. 13, 23: *Erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus.* Et ibid. 19, 26. seq.: *Mulier, ecce filius tuus. Deinde dicit discipulo: Ecce mater tua* etc. — Pro *se familiariorem exhibebat* cod. A *per familiaritatem se exhibebat.*

en: John 13:23: *There was therefore reclining one of His disciples in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved.* And ibid. 19:26 f.: *Woman, behold thy son. Then He says to the disciple: Behold thy mother* etc. — For *se familiariorem exhibebat* codex A [reads] *per familiaritatem se exhibebat.*

la: Vers. 15. — Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum sic sonat: *Iesus scit quod interrogat, an plus diligat; Petrus quod de se novit dicit, id est quod amat; et quia de aliis quantum diligant, nescit, ideo utrum plus illis diligat, tacet. Ecce docet non temere definire de occultis... Pasce agnos meos. Si me diligis, pasce agnos meos, non ut tuos; gloriam meam in eis quaere, non tuam... Haec autem caritas ex divina datur gratia. Quod tacite innuit Iesus, dum, interrogans de amore, dicit hic quod non alibi: Simon Ioannis, id est obediens Dei gratiae, quia quod ardentius ceteris diligit et obedit, non est nisi Dei gratia.* — In textu Glossae plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 omittunt *quod* ante *non alibi.* Paulo superius pro *non sic quaereret... nisi sciret... plus amaret* cod. Z *non sic quaerebat... nisi quia sciebat... plus amabat.* In fine arg. pro *se diligunt* cod. G *diligunt eum.*

en: Verse 15. — The *Ordinary* Gloss in Strabo runs thus: *Jesus knows what He asks, whether [Peter] loves more; Peter says what he knows of himself, that is, that he loves; and because he does not know how much the others love, therefore he is silent as to whether he loves more than they. Behold, He teaches [us] not to define rashly about hidden things... Feed my lambs. If thou lovest me, feed my lambs, not as thine own; seek my glory in them, not thine own... Now this charity is given from divine grace. Which Jesus tacitly intimates, when, asking about love, He says here what [He says] nowhere else: Simon, son of John, that is, obedient to God's grace, because that he loves and obeys more ardently than the rest is nothing but God's grace.* — In the text of the Gloss very many codices and editions 1, 2 omit *quod* before *non alibi.* A little above, for *non sic quaereret... nisi sciret... plus amaret* codex Z [reads] *non sic quaerebat... nisi quia sciebat... plus amabat.* At the end of the argument, for *se diligunt* codex G [reads] *diligunt eum.*

la: In Ioan. 21, 20. seqq.; vide supra arg. 3. pro parte affirm. De *maiori* cfr. supra q. 2. in corp.

en: On John 21:20 ff.; see above, arg. 3 for the affirmative side. On the *major* [premise] cf. above, q. 2, in the body.

la: Cfr. Matth. 16, 18. seq. et Ioan. 21, 18. seqq.

en: Cf. Matt. 16:18 f. and John 21:18 ff.

la: Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 124. n. 4, ubi hae aliaeque similes quaestiones tractantur.

en: Cf. Augustine, on the Gospel of John, tr. 124, n. 4, where these and other similar questions are treated.

la: Tract. 124. n. 4-8. — Subinde pro *dicit respondens* codd. G K *dicit respondendo,* codd. A N U Z bb *docet respondere,* cod. 1 *videtur respondere,* cod. H *dicitur respondere.* Mox et aliquanto inferius iterum pro *in effectu interiori* edd. perperam substituunt (cfr. arg. 2. pro parte negativa) *in affectu interiori.* Denique post *Ioannem* edd. supplent *quam Petrum.*

en: Tract. 124, n. 4-8. — Thereupon for *dicit respondens* codices G K [read] *dicit respondendo,* codices A N U Z bb *docet respondere,* codex 1 *videtur respondere,* codex H *dicitur respondere.* Soon, and somewhat lower down again, for *in effectu interiori* the editions wrongly substitute (cf. arg. 2 for the negative side) *in affectu interiori.* Finally, after *Ioannem* the editions supply *quam Petrum.*

la: Ioan. 21, 19. et 22, ubi et seq. testimonium. — Paulo inferius pro *purior* cod. K *praeclarior.*

en: John 21:19 and 22, where also the following testimony [is found]. — A little below, for *purior* codex K [reads] *praeclarior.*

la: Serm. 29. de Diversis, n. 5. et Serm. 20. in Cant. n. 5, ubi Petri amor fortis fuisse praedicatur. Cfr. Guerici abbat. Serm. in Assumt. B. M. V. n. 3. (inter opera Bernardi). — Paulo superius pro *diversas vias* cod. k *duas vias.*

en: Sermon 29, On Various [Topics], n. 5, and Sermon 20 on the Canticle, n. 5, where Peter's love is proclaimed to have been strong. Cf. the Sermon of Abbot Guerric on the Assumption of the B. V. M., n. 3 (among the works of Bernard). — A little above, for *diversas vias* codex k [reads] *duas vias.*

la: In Ioan. homil. 33. (alias 32.) n. 3: *Quid ergo illi hunc eximium amorem conciliavit? Videtur mihi ille modestiam et mansuetudinem magnam exhibuisse; quapropter saepe non ita libere et fidenter agere deprehenditur.* — Pro *ingenitam mansuetudinem* cod. W rectius (quia respondet textui Graeco πολλὴν πρᾳότητα) *ingentem mansuetudinem.* — Cfr. Hieron., l. adversus Iovinian. n. 26, ubi pro ratione praedilectionis affertur iuventus et virginitas Ioannis.

en: On John, homily 33 (elsewhere 32), n. 3: *What then won for him this exceptional love? It seems to me that he displayed great modesty and meekness; wherefore he is often found not acting so freely and confidently.* — For *ingenitam mansuetudinem* codex W more correctly (since it corresponds to the Greek text πολλὴν πρᾳότητα) [reads] *ingentem mansuetudinem.* — Cf. Jerome, the book against Jovinian, n. 26, where the youth and virginity of John are adduced as the reason for [Christ's] special love.

la: Multi codd. *et hoc.* Mox pro *Hoc tantum...* quia codd. A X *Hic tamen... quod.*

en: Many codices [read] *et hoc.* Soon, for *Hoc tantum...* therefore codices A X [read] *Hic tamen... quod.*

la: Vide scholion ad 4. quaest.

en: See the scholion to question 4.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Quaracchi PDF column bands (Vol III is two-column; PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II Override — offset pdf = printed + 22, running-head TEXT trusted over OCR'd digits). Pages read: p.706 (PDF 728) L+R bands, p.707 (PDF 729) L+R bands, p.708 (PDF 730) L+R bands. Clean running prose (args, *Sed contra*, *Respondeo* Modi 1–3) cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 49061–49185). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Title decision — Christus, not Deus.** The printed QUAESTIO VI title header and the running head both read *Utrum Christus magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum* (eyes-on p.706 L-band + running head `DIST. XXXII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI. 707`; raw OCR garbles it as *Chrislus … Joannem quarh Petrum*). The TRACTATIO listing (raw 48439) is subjectless (*Sextum et ultimum est, utrum magis Ioannem [quam Petrum]*), and the q5 resume hand-off conjectured *Deus*. Per the Vol III override (trust the printed running-head/title TEXT over OCR'd or conjectured forms), and because the body uses *Christus* throughout (*Christus Ioanni se familiariorem exhibebat;* *magis diligebat Christus Ioannem;* *Istae dilectiones Christi*), the title is set to **Christus**. The body opener itself is subjectless (*Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum*) — rendered verbatim.

**Quaeritur alignment.** TRACTATIO *Sextum et ultimum est, utrum magis Ioannem [quam Petrum]* = printed QUAESTIO VI header *Utrum Christus magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum* = opener *Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum.* 1:1, no q-swap (pre-checked by coordinator; confirmed eyes-on).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.706** (running head garbled `700 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` — actually **printed p.706** by +22 offset + running-head TEXT; q5's reply-4 fills the upper R column, then `QUAESTIO VI` begins): `QUAESTIO VI` header + title; opener + affirmative args 1–4 (args 1 in L-band, args 2–4 spanning the foot of L and the R band).
- **p.707** (running head `DIST. XXXII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI. 707`): tail of arg 4 (*signum familiaritatis divinae…prae ceteris diligebat*); *Sed contra* (Pro parte negativa) 1–3; the connected question (*Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quis erat melior…quae duo simul stare non possunt*); `Conclusio`; `Respondeo` Modus 1 (Augustinus) + Modus 2 (Bernardus) + Modus 3 (communis), running through `…Ideo enim Ioannes dilexit dulcius et Petrus ferventius, quia Ioan-`.
- **p.708** (running head `708 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III`): `-nes accepit specialiter gratiam…facit hominem diligi magis tenere` (L column, Chrysostomus note); then the generalis conclusion (R column top, *His visis, patet responsio…non est inconveniens, Ioannem Petro praeponi*). q6 ends; `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.` (= `bon-sent-III-d32-dubia`) begins immediately after.

**Apparatus map (15 entries, continuous [^1]–[^15], clean 1:1 with body markers).** NOTAE, per-page restart in the source, renumbered continuous (3 + 9 + 3 = 15):
- **p.706 nn.7–9 → [^1]–[^3]** (PICKED-UP footer hand-off from q5; q5 owned p.706 nn.1–6 [= its [^9]–[^14]], so q6's first fresh footers are p.706 nn.7,8,9): [^1]=n.7 Vers.26 / Gospel-text variants (arg.1 *Ioannis decimo nono⁷*); [^2]=n.8 Bede homily 8 / Ecclesia responsory (arg.2 *verbum Ecclesiae⁸*); [^3]=n.9 Augustine tr.124 Gloss (arg.3 *Glossae super ultimum Ioannis⁹*).
- **p.707 nn.1–9 → [^4]–[^12]**: [^4]=n.1 Ioan.13,23 (arg.4 tail *ostendebat*); [^5]=n.2 Glossa ordinaria (*Sed contra* 1, *Ioannis ultimo*); [^6]=n.3 Ioan.21,20 (*Sed contra* 2, *innuit Glossa*); [^7]=n.4 Matth.16,18 / Ioan.21,18 (*Sed contra* 3, *gubernandam*); [^8]=n.5 August. tr.124 *hae aliaeque quaestiones* (connected question *non possunt*); [^9]=n.6 Tract.124 n.4-8 / *dicit respondens* variants (Modus 1 *super Ioannem*); [^10]=n.7 Ioan.21,20 (Modus 1 *recubuit in coena*); [^11]=n.8 Ioan.21,19 et 22 (Modus 1 *Sequere me*); [^12]=n.9 Serm.29 de Diversis (Modus 2 *secundum Bernardum*).
- **p.708 nn.1–3 → [^13]–[^15]**: [^13]=n.1 Chrysostom homily 33 (Modus 3 tail *Chrysostomus*); [^14]=n.2 *Hoc tantum* variant (generalis conclusion *hoc*); [^15]=n.3 *Vide scholion ad 4. quaest.* (scholion-redirect anchor at the very end of the generalis conclusion after *Ioannem Petro praeponi*).

**Scholion disposition: NO own scholion — REDIRECT to q4 §III.** q6 carries no scholion of its own. The q4 article-master scholion **§III** forward-covers this q6 (*Ultima (6.) quaestio praecipue orta est ex quadam Glossa hic arg. 3…«Praesumtuosum tamen videtur hoc diiudicare, quia… spirituum ponderator est Dominus, et non alius»*). The redirect is carried mechanically by p.708 apparatus n.3 = `[^15]` (*Vide scholion ad 4. quaest.*), per the q2/q3/q5→article-master redirect convention. (Note: the marker reads *ad 4. quaest.* — pointing explicitly to the q4 article-master scholion §III, where §III treats *Ultima (6.) quaestio*.) `has_scholion: false`.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked-up:* p.706 NOTAE nn.7–9 (from q5's forwarded hand-off) = [^1]–[^3] here. (q5 owned p.706 nn.1–6, verified eyes-on against q5's [^9]–[^14].)
- *Forwarded to `bon-sent-III-d32-dubia`:* **p.708 NOTAE n.4 onward** (`In quo nempe agitur de Deo eiusque attributis… Inferius pro quod Magister edd. cum multis codd. substituunt quod magis…`) — this anchors to the DUB. I body (*de dilectione Dei… ad primum librum⁴*), NOT to q6. q6 owns only p.708 nn.1–3; the dubia agent starts its p.708 footer pickup at n.4, then per-page restart on p.709+.

**[?] flags:** none. (All 15 source NOTAE map 1:1 to body markers [^1]–[^15]; the p.707 nine-note footer band aligns exactly to the nine p.707 body markers — arg.4 tail, *Sed contra* 1–3, the connected question, and Modus 1's four anchors + Modus 2's Bernard anchor.)


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 32, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 708 -->

# DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de situ huius partis. Cum enim agere de dilectione Dei spectet ad primum librum[^1], videtur, quod tractatus iste male in hoc tertio situetur. Quodsi tu dicas, quod Magister hoc facit, quia eadem est dilectio, qua nos diligimus Deum, et qua Deus diligit nos; tunc obiicitur, quod tota ista pars, quae est de caritate, male hic situetur. Si enim caritas non est habitus virtutis, sed potius donum increatum[^2], quod est Spiritus sanctus; videtur, quod de ipsa non debeat determinari inter alias virtutes.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ordo situationis istius capituli attenditur secundum opinionem Magistri, qua posuit, sicut tangit in littera[^3], quod eadem est dilectio, qua Deus diligit nos, et qua nos diligimus Deum. Et si tu obiicias, quod tunc non debuit determinare de caritate inter alias virtutes; respondetur pro ipso, quod hoc non fecit, quia caritas sit species virtutis, sed quia caritas est radix virtutum. In dono enim amoris, quod est Spiritus sanctus, ceteri virtutum habitus donantur[^4]. — Potest etiam aliter dici, quod hic per accidens introducitur illud capitulum. Quia enim dilectio Dei est exemplar nostrae dilectionis, ideo ad maiorem evidentiam introducitur hic tractatus de ipsa; vel certe, ut assignetur hic differentia dilectionis divinae ad dilectionem nostram, sive praecellentia; quia, cum dilectio nostra sit affectio ordinata, dilectio Dei non est nisi divina substantia vel usia[^5].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod dilectio Dei est divina usia. Si ergo[^6] dilectio Dei est substantia et essentia, ergo videtur, quod *Deum diligere est Deum esse*: cum ergo Deus non sit aliud a se, videtur, quod nec aliud a se diligat. — Item, Deus incipit aliquem diligere: ergo si dilectio eius[^7] est eius essentia, videtur, quod Deus incipiat esse. — Item, nullum aeternum est temporale, et nullum temporale aeternum; sed dilectio Dei, qua diligit viros iustos, est temporalis, Dei substantia[^8] est aeterna: ergo Dei dilectio non est divina substantia.

**Respondeo:** Ad haec et consimilia breviter est dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de dilectione Dei: aut a parte *principalis significati*, aut a parte *connotati*. Si loquamur de ipsa quantum ad *principale significatum*, sic est Dei essentia et est quid aeternum, nec est aliud quam Deus. Si vero loquamur quantum ad *connotatum*, sic connotat quid temporale et habet respectum ad extrinsecum[^9], quod est a Deo diversum et quod non est Dei substantia, sed cuius Dei substantia est causa; et quantum ad hoc currunt illa tria obiecta. Et sic patet responsio ad omnia[^10].

<!-- page 709 -->

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Absit, ut Deus aliquem temporaliter diligat.* Videtur enim falsum. Aliquis enim, qui modo est malus, incipit esse bonus; sed Deus malos odit et bonos diligit: ergo cum iste desinat esse malus in tempore et incipiat esse bonus; videtur, quod Deus istum temporaliter desinat odire et incipiat ipsum diligere. — Item, in Deo idem est *velle* quod *facere*, sicut dicit Augustinus, et in libro primo[^11] fuit habitum: ergo idem est velle alicui bonum et facere ei bonum; sed Deus temporaliter alicui bonum facit: ergo videtur, quod temporaliter ei bonum velit, ergo temporaliter diligit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est dilectio *electionis* et dilectio *approbationis*. Prima est aeterna, sicut et voluntas Dei; secunda vero ratione *connotati* potest esse ex tempore. Et de prima intelligit Augustinus, ipse autem opponit de secunda. — Vel aliter. Hoc quod est *temporaliter* potest referri ad verbum diligendi ratione *actus principalis*, vel ratione *connotati*. Si ratione *actus principalis*, sic est falsum. Hic est enim actus divinae voluntatis, qui est aeternus: et hoc modo intelligit Augustinus, sicut patet per litteram sequentem. Ait enim sic[^12]: « Absit, ut Deus temporaliter aliquem diligat quasi nova dilectione, quae in ipso ante non erat ». Si autem intelligatur quantum ad *connotatum*, sic concedi potest, quod Deus temporaliter aliquem diligit; et in hoc sensu opponit.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod de non electis non est simpliciter concedendum, quod eos dilexerit: quia omnem hominem, quem Deus diligit in tempore, ab aeterno dilexit, cum dilectio Dei sit causa omnis boni; sed multi praesciti sunt, qui habent praesentem iustitiam et gratiam, quam eis Deus ab aeterno praeparavit et dare disposuit: ergo videtur, quod ab aeterno eos dilexerit.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum Deus magis diligat peccatorem praedestinatum quam iustum praescitum. Et quod magis peccatorem praedestinatum, videtur: quoniam sapientis est magis considerare finem et exitum rei quam initium vel progressum; sed Deus istum peccatorem, qui tamen est praedestinatus, scit ipsum futurum amicum suum finaliter, alium vero minime: ergo magis diligit eum. — Praeterea, isti vult dare aeternam beatitudinem et proponit quod est summum Bonum, alii vero non: ergo magis diligit peccatorem praedestinatum quam iustum praescitum. — Sed *contra* hoc est: quia iste peccator magis est Deo dissimilis quam iustus: ergo minus est amabilis. — Item, iste magis diligit Deum: ergo magis a Deo diligitur, cum Deus magis diligat diligentes se[^13].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum est prius[^14], est dilectio *approbationis*, et est dilectio *electionis*. Dilectio approbationis, cum sit temporalis, respicit statum praesentem; dilectio vero praeelectionis, cum sit aeterna, respicit illum statum, in quo homo debet aeternaliter permanere. Et quoniam reprobi, etsi boni sint, non tamen finaliter permanere in bono dicuntur; ideo non vult Magister, quod a Deo aeternaliter diligantur, nisi verbum diligendi[^15] ratione propria distrahatur. Unde Magister bene concedit cum determinatione; sine vero determinatione dicit eam non esse concedendam, quia eius intellectus falsitati appropinquat.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod quaerebatur consequenter, quia quantum ad dilectionem temporalem, quae respicit statum praesentis iustitiae, magis diligit Deus iustum praescitum; quantum vero ad alium modum diligendi magis diligit peccatorem praedestinatum, si tamen est dicere ibi *magis*. — Quodsi quaeras, simpliciter loquendo, quem magis diligit; respondendum est, quod simpliciter magis diligit eum quem praedestinat, quam eum quem reprobat, quia non est quaestio de homine quantum ad qualitatem culpae, sed quantum ad ordinem naturae respectu gratiae et gloriae[^16].

---

english:
<!-- page 708 -->

# DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first there is a doubt about the placement of this part. For since to treat of the love of God belongs to the first book[^1], it seems that this treatise is ill-placed in this third [book]. But if you say that the Master does this because the love by which we love God and that by which God loves us are the same, then it is objected that the whole of this part, which is about charity, is ill-placed here. For if charity is not a habit of virtue, but rather an uncreated gift[^2], which is the Holy Spirit, it seems that it ought not to be determined among the other virtues.

**I respond:** It must be said that the order of placing this chapter is regarded according to the opinion of the Master, by which he held, as he touches on in the text[^3], that the love by which God loves us and that by which we love God are the same. And if you object that then he ought not to have determined about charity among the other virtues, it is answered on his behalf that he did not do this because charity is a species of virtue, but because charity is the root of the virtues. For in the gift of love, which is the Holy Spirit, the other habits of the virtues are given[^4]. — It can also be said otherwise, that this chapter is introduced here incidentally. For since the love of God is the exemplar of our love, this treatise about it is introduced here for greater clarity; or indeed, that the difference of divine love from our love, that is, its preeminence, may be assigned here; because, since our love is an ordered affection, the love of God is nothing other than the divine substance or *usia*[^5].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that the love of God is the divine *usia*. If therefore[^6] the love of God is substance and essence, then it seems that *to love God is to be God*: since therefore God is not other than himself, it seems that he loves nothing other than himself either. — Likewise, God begins to love someone: therefore if his love[^7] is his essence, it seems that God begins to be. — Likewise, nothing eternal is temporal, and nothing temporal eternal; but the love of God by which he loves just men is temporal, [whereas] God's substance[^8] is eternal: therefore God's love is not the divine substance.

**I respond:** To these and similar [objections] it must be said briefly that there are two ways of speaking about the love of God: either from the side of the *principal signified*, or from the side of the *connoted*. If we speak of it as to the *principal signified*, thus it is the essence of God and is something eternal, nor is it other than God. But if we speak of it as to the *connoted*, thus it connotes something temporal and has a respect to something extrinsic[^9], which is diverse from God and which is not the substance of God, but of which God's substance is the cause; and as regards this, those three objections run their course. And thus the response to all of them is clear[^10].

<!-- page 709 -->

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Far be it that God should love anyone temporally.* For it seems false. For someone who is now evil begins to be good; but God hates the evil and loves the good: therefore since this man ceases to be evil in time and begins to be good, it seems that God temporally ceases to hate this man and begins to love him. — Likewise, in God *to will* is the same as *to do*, as Augustine says, and it was held in the first book[^11]: therefore to will good to someone and to do good to him are the same; but God temporally does good to someone: therefore it seems that he temporally wills good to him, therefore he loves [him] temporally.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a love of *election* and a love of *approbation*. The first is eternal, just as the will of God is also; but the second, by reason of the *connoted*, can be from time. And Augustine understands [it] of the first, but he himself raises the objection about the second. — Or otherwise. This [word] *temporally* can be referred to the word of loving by reason of the *principal act*, or by reason of the *connoted*. If by reason of the *principal act*, thus it is false. For this is an act of the divine will, which is eternal: and in this way Augustine understands [it], as is clear from the following text. For he speaks thus[^12]: « Far be it that God should love anyone temporally as if with a new love, which was not in him before ». But if it is understood as to the *connoted*, thus it can be conceded that God loves someone temporally; and in this sense he raises the objection.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that of the non-elect it is not to be simply conceded that he loved them: because every man whom God loves in time, he loved from eternity, since the love of God is the cause of every good; but there are many who are foreknown [but not elect] who have present justice and grace, which God prepared for them from eternity and disposed to give: therefore it seems that he loved them from eternity.

Along with this it is asked whether God loves the predestined sinner more than the foreknown just man. And that [he loves] the predestined sinner more, seems [to be the case]: since it belongs to the wise to consider more the end and outcome of a thing than its beginning or progress; but God knows that this sinner, who is nevertheless predestined, will be his friend finally, but the other not at all: therefore he loves him more. — Furthermore, to this one he wills to give eternal beatitude and sets before him what is the highest Good, but not to the other: therefore he loves the predestined sinner more than the foreknown just man. — But *against* this is: that this sinner is more unlike God than the just man: therefore he is less lovable. — Likewise, this [just man] loves God more: therefore he is loved more by God, since God loves more those who love him[^13].

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched on before[^14], there is a love of *approbation* and a love of *election*. The love of approbation, since it is temporal, regards the present state; but the love of pre-election, since it is eternal, regards that state in which a man ought to remain eternally. And since the reprobate, even if they are good, are nevertheless not said to remain finally in the good, therefore the Master does not wish that they be loved by God eternally, unless the word of loving[^15] be drawn out according to its proper meaning. Hence the Master rightly concedes [it] with a qualification; but without the qualification he says it is not to be conceded, because the understanding of it approaches falsity.

And through this the response is clear to that which was asked consequently, that as to temporal love, which regards the state of present justice, God loves the foreknown just man more; but as to the other mode of loving he loves the predestined sinner more, if indeed one may speak of *more* there. — But if you ask, speaking simply, whom he loves more, it must be answered that simply he loves more the one whom he predestines than the one whom he reprobates, because the question is not about the man as to the quality of fault, but as to the order of nature with respect to grace and glory[^16].

---

la: In quo nempe agitur de Deo eiusque attributis. — Inferius pro *quod Magister* edd. cum multis codd. substituunt *quod magis*, refragantibus codd. A H K bb (aa a secunda manu).

en: In which, namely, there is treatment of God and his attributes. — Below, for *quod Magister* the editions with many codices substitute *quod magis*, the codices A H K bb opposing (aa by a second hand). *(p.708 n.4; picked-up footer hand-off from a1-q6, anchored to the Dub. I body.)*

la: Sic codd. A V (N a secunda manu), alii codd. et edd. *creatum*. Mox pro *debeat* cod. A *deberet*, codd. K N X et edd. 1, 2 *debet*, cod. U *debeatur*, codd. B C D E G H I L T V aa *debetur*.

en: Thus codices A V (N by a second hand); other codices and editions [read] *creatum*. Soon, for *debeat* codex A [reads] *deberet*, codices K N X and editions 1, 2 *debet*, codex U *debeatur*, codices B C D E G H I L T V aa *debetur*. *(p.708 n.5.)*

la: Hic c. 1. — Pro *qua ponit* codd. A G Z *quam posuit*.

en: Here, chapter 1. — For *qua ponit* codices A G Z [read] *quam posuit*. *(p.708 n.6.)*

la: Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 18. q. 1. — Superius voci *virtutum* edd. praefigunt *omnium*.

en: Cf. Book 1, Sent. d. 18, q. 1. — Above, to the word *virtutum* the editions prefix *omnium*. *(p.708 n.7.)*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, here, on the text. *(p.708 n.8.)*

la: Cod. A *enim*. Mox edd. voci *substantia* praeponunt *divina*.

en: Codex A [reads] *enim*. Soon the editions prefix *divina* to the word *substantia*. *(p.708 n.9.)*

la: Cod. A *Dei*.

la: Fere omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2 perperam *Dei dilectio*; cod. T omittit *Dei substantia est aeterna: ergo*.

en: Almost all codices and editions 1, 2 wrongly [read] *Dei dilectio*; codex T omits *Dei substantia est aeterna: ergo* [God's substance is eternal: therefore]. *(p.708 n.11.)*

la: Ita codd. V Z bb, alii codd. et edd. *extrinsecus*.

en: Thus codices V Z bb; other codices and editions [read] *extrinsecus*. *(p.709 n.1.)*

la: Cfr. supra q. 1, et 1. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. — Vide de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 31. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, q. 1, and Book 1, Sent. d. 30, q. 1. — See on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. 1, q. 31, m. 1; Bl. Albert, here, a. 1; St. Thomas, here, on the text. *(p.709 n.2.)*

la: Dist. 45, tam in lit. Magistri, c. 4, quam in Comment. a. 2 q. 1. seq., ubi Augustini testimonia ex l. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 2. n. 4, et IV. de Trin. c. 1. n. 2. afferuntur. Ceterum quae hic Augustino attribuuntur potius respondent verbis in illa Glossa allatis ex Cassiodoro super Ps. 144, 17. (loc. cit. q. 2. fundam. 2.): *Deo hoc est velle quod facere, quia ex eius voluntate res habent esse.*

en: Dist. 45, both in the text of the Master, c. 4, and in the Commentary, a. 2, q. 1 ff., where the testimonies of Augustine from the book *On Genesis against the Manichees* c. 2, n. 4, and *On the Trinity* IV, c. 1, n. 2 are adduced. For the rest, what is here attributed to Augustine corresponds rather to the words adduced in that Gloss from Cassiodorus on Ps. 144, 17 (loc. cit., q. 2, fundam. 2): *In God to will is the same as to do, because things have their being from his will.* *(p.709 n.3.)*

la: Libr. V. de Trin. c. 16. n. 17. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Paulo superius pro *Hic est enim... qui* edd. *Hoc enim est... quod*.

en: Book V, *On the Trinity*, c. 16, n. 17. See here the text of the Master, c. 3. — A little above, for *Hic est enim... qui* the editions [read] *Hoc enim est... quod*. *(p.709 n.4.)*

la: Prov. 8, 17: *Ego diligentes me diligo.*

en: Prov. 8, 17: *I love those who love me.* *(p.709 n.5.)*

la: Dub. praeced. — Non ita multo post pro *debet* cod. V *habet*, et item pro *dicuntur* cod. A *debent*.

en: The preceding doubt. — Not much further on, for *debet* codex V [reads] *habet*, and likewise for *dicuntur* codex A *debent*. *(p.709 n.6.)*

la: In textu huius dubii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: In the text of this doubt. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3. *(p.709 n.7.)*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 32. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. Thom., hic a. 5. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. 1, q. 32, m. 1; Bl. Albert, here, a. 1; St. Thomas, here, a. 5, little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 4, little-question 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 2, q. 3. *(p.709 n.8.)*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from the Vol III PDF column bands (two-column, PDF-priority inversion per the VOL II OVERRIDE), printed pp. 708–709 (PDF 730–731; offset pdf = printed + 22). Running heads `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (p.708) and `DIST. XXXII. DUBIA. 709`. Raw anchors: `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` raw 49186; `Dub. I.` 49189, `Dub. II.` 49196, `Dub. III.` 49241, `Dub. IV.` 49281.
- **Number of Dubia: FOUR (Dub. I–IV).** Verified against both raw OCR and the PDF bands. **Dub. IV carries an embedded incident question** (*Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum Deus magis diligat peccatorem praedestinatum quam iustum praescitum* — marginal `Quaestio incidens`) with its own affirmative/negative arguments and respondeo; it is NOT a fifth Dubium but part of Dub. IV (its respondeo answers both the situal doubt and the incident question, *Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod quaerebatur consequenter*).
- **Page-split map:** Dub. I + Dub. II (incl. its respondeo tail) on **p.708**; Dub. II respondeo spills onto **p.709**, then Dub. III + Dub. IV (with incident question + respondeo) on **p.709**, ending `gloriae` on the R-col. **p.710 begins DISTINCTIO XXXIII** (Littera Magistri, Cap. I–III) — the dubia do NOT extend onto p.710.
- **Apparatus: 16 entries, continuous [^1]–[^16].** Per-page footer restart: **p.708 nn.4–11 → [^1]–[^8]** (n.4 = `[^1]` is the **PICKED-UP footer hand-off from a1-q6**, anchored to the Dub. I body `primum librum⁴`; q6 owned p.708 nn.1–3); **p.709 nn.1–8 → [^9]–[^16]**. Marker pairing 16/16 clean (Latin ↔ English).
- **Footer hand-offs:** picked-up p.708 n.4 from d32-a1-q6 (see above). **None forwarded to d33-littera** — p.710's footers (nn.1–6: *Sap. 8,7* variant, *XII de Trin*, *Ioan. 1,16*, etc.) all anchor to the DIST. XXXIII Littera/Commentarius body and belong to d33-littera, not here.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings clean against the PDF bands.
- **No scholion** (dubia type). **This chunk CLOSES DISTINCTIO XXXII** — all of d.32 (divisio, a1-q1..q6, dubia) is now Tier 2.

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. 33

title_alt: Distinctio XXXIII — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction XXXIII — text of the Master of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 710 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXIII.

### Cap. I. *De quatuor virtutibus principalibus.*

Post praedicta de quatuor virtutibus, quae principales vel cardinales vocantur, disserendum est; quae sunt iustitia, fortitudo, prudentia, temperantia. De quibus Augustinus[^1] ait: «Iustitia est in subveniendo miseris, prudentia in praecavendis insidiis, fortitudo in perferendis molestiis, temperantia in coercendis delectationibus pravis». De his dicitur in libro Sapientiae: *Sobrietatem et prudentiam docet, iustitiam et virtutem.* Sobrietatem vocat temperantiam, et virtutem vocat fortitudinem. Hae virtutes cardinales dicuntur, ut ait Hieronymus[^2], «quibus in hac mortalitate bene vivitur, et post ad aeternam vitam pervenitur».

### Cap. II. *Utrum et in Christo fuerint et in Angelis sint.*

Quae in Christo plenissime fuerunt et sunt, *de cuius plenitudine nos accepimus*[^3]; in quo habuerunt usus eosdem, quos in patria habent, et quosdam etiam viae.

### Cap. III. *De usibus earum.*

Verumtamen, an[^4] «hae virtutes, cum et ipsae in animo esse incipiant, qui, cum sine illis prius esset, tamen animus erat, desinant esse, cum ad aeterna perduxerint, nonnulla quaestio est. Quibusdam visum est, esse desituras, et de tribus quidem, prudentia scilicet, fortitudine, temperantia, cum hoc dicitur, non nihil dici videtur; iustitia enim immortalis est et magis tunc perficietur in nobis, quam esse cessabit, cum beate vivemus contemplatione naturae divinae, quae creavit omnes ceterasque instituit naturas, qua nihil melius et amabilius est; cui regenti esse subditum iustitiae est. Et ideo immortalis est omnino iustitia[^5] nec in illa beatitudine esse desinet, sed talis ac tanta erit, ut perfectior et maior esse non possit. Fortassis et aliae tres virtutes: prudentia sine ullo iam periculo erroris, fortitudo sine molestia tolerandorum malorum, temperantia sine repugnatione libidinum, erunt in illa felicitate, ut prudentiae ibi sit nullum bonum Deo praeponere vel aequare; fortitudinis, ei firmissime cohaerere; temperantiae, nullo defectu noxio delectari. Quod vero nunc agit iustitia in subveniendo miseris, quod prudentia in praecavendis insidiis, quod fortitudo in perferendis molestiis, quod temperantia in coercendis delectationibus pravis; non erit ibi omnino, ubi nihil mali erit. Ista igitur virtutum opera huic mortali vitae necessaria, sicut fides, ad quam referenda sunt, in praeteritis habebuntur». — Ecce aperte hic dicit Augustinus, quod praedictae virtutes in futuro erunt, sed alios usus tunc habebunt quam modo. Cui Beda[^6] consentit, super Exodum ita dicens: «Columnae, ante quas appensum est velum, potestates caeli sunt quatuor eximiis virtutibus praeclarae, id est fortitudine, prudentia, temperantia, iustitia, quae aliter in caelis servantur ab Angelis et animabus sanctis quam hic a fidelibus». Et consequenter assignat Beda usus illarum virtutum secundum praesentem et futurum statum, imitans Augustinum in praemissis assignationibus.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXIII.

### Chapter I. *On the four principal virtues.*

After what has been said before, we must treat of the four virtues which are called principal or cardinal; which are justice, fortitude, prudence, temperance. Of these Augustine[^1] says: «Justice consists in succoring the wretched, prudence in guarding against snares, fortitude in bearing hardships, temperance in restraining depraved delights». Of these it is said in the book of Wisdom: *She teaches sobriety and prudence, justice and virtue.* By sobriety he means temperance, and by virtue he means fortitude. These are called cardinal virtues, as Jerome[^2] says, «by which one lives well in this mortality, and afterward attains to eternal life».

### Chapter II. *Whether they were in Christ and are in the Angels.*

These were and are most fully in Christ, *of whose fullness we have all received*[^3]; in whom they had the same uses which they have in the fatherland, and also certain uses of the way.

### Chapter III. *On their uses.*

Nevertheless, whether[^4] «these virtues, since they too begin to be in the soul — which, although it was before without them, yet was a soul — cease to be when they have brought [it] to the things eternal, is no small question. To some it has seemed that they will cease; and concerning three of them indeed, namely prudence, fortitude, temperance, when this is said, it seems not nothing is said; for justice is immortal and will then rather be perfected in us than cease to be, when we live blessedly in the contemplation of the divine nature, which created all things and established all the other natures, than which nothing is better and more lovable; and to be subject to it as it rules is [the act] of justice. And therefore justice is altogether immortal[^5] and will not cease to be in that beatitude, but will be such and so great that it cannot be more perfect or greater. Perhaps the other three virtues also — prudence without any longer peril of error, fortitude without the trouble of evils to be endured, temperance without the resistance of lusts — will be in that felicity, so that it will belong to prudence there to set no good before God or equal to him; to fortitude, to cleave to him most firmly; to temperance, to delight in no harmful defect. But what justice now does in succoring the wretched, what prudence does in guarding against snares, what fortitude does in bearing hardships, what temperance does in restraining depraved delights; will not be there at all, where there will be nothing evil. These works of the virtues, therefore, necessary to this mortal life, like faith, to which they are to be referred, will be held among things past». — Behold, here Augustine plainly says that the aforesaid virtues will be in the future, but will then have other uses than now. With him Bede[^6] agrees, speaking thus on Exodus: «The columns, before which the veil was hung, are the powers of heaven, illustrious for four excellent virtues, that is, fortitude, prudence, temperance, justice, which are kept otherwise in the heavens by the Angels and the holy souls than here by the faithful». And consequently Bede assigns the uses of those virtues according to the present and the future state, imitating Augustine in the foregoing assignments.

---

la: Libr. XIV. de Trin. c. 9. n. 12. — Paulo inferius locus Scripturae est Sap. 8, 7, in quo textu codd. et edd. 1, 3, 7 pro *et virtutem* perperam habent *et veritatem,* quod etiam repetunt inferius.

en: Book XIV, *On the Trinity,* c. 9, n. 12. — A little below, the scriptural passage is Wisdom 8:7, in which text the codices and editions 1, 3, 7 wrongly read *et veritatem* (and truth) for *et virtutem* (and virtue), which they also repeat below.

la: Potius August., XII. de Trin. c. 14. n. 21; cfr. XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 24. n. 3.

en: Rather Augustine, *On the Trinity,* book XII, c. 14, n. 21; cf. *On the City of God,* book XXII, c. 24, n. 3.

la: Quae sequuntur sumta sunt ex August., XIV. de Trin. c. 9. n. 12, nonnullis a Magistro omissis.

en: What follows is taken from Augustine, *On the Trinity,* book XIV, c. 9, n. 12, with some things omitted by the Master.

la: Respicitur Sap. 1, 15.

en: Reference is made to Wisdom 1:15.

la: Libr. II. de Tabernac. c. 8, et in Glossa apud Lyranum ad Exod. 26, 32. — Pro *consentit* edd., exceptis 1, 8, *assentit,* et omittunt *ita* ante *dicens;* in ipso testimonio pro *appensum,* quod habent codd., ed. 1 et originale, in aliis edd. *expansum.*

en: Book II, *On the Tabernacle,* c. 8, and in the Gloss in Lyra on Exodus 26:32. — For *consentit* (agrees) the editions, except 1, 8, read *assentit,* and they omit *ita* (thus) before *dicens* (speaking); in the testimony itself, for *appensum* (hung), which the codices, edition 1, and the original have, in the other editions [it reads] *expansum* (spread out). ---

translators_notes:
**Chapter subjects.** DISTINCTIO XXXIII is Lombard's treatment *de virtutibus cardinalibus* — the four cardinal virtues. The littera has **three chapters.** **Cap. I** (*De quatuor virtutibus principalibus*) names the four (justice, fortitude, prudence, temperance) and gives Augustine's definitions of each, the Wisdom-text correlation (sobriety = temperance, virtue = fortitude), and Jerome's [recte Augustine's] "cardinal" naming. **Cap. II** (*Utrum et in Christo fuerint et in Angelis sint*) — most fully in Christ, of whose fullness we have received, with both the uses of the fatherland and certain uses of the way. **Cap. III** (*De usibus earum*) is the long Augustine excursus (*de Trin.* XIV) on whether the virtues cease in beatitude: justice is immortal and perfected, the other three perhaps remain but with transformed uses (no error, no evils to endure, no lusts to resist); the present mortal-life uses (succoring the wretched, etc.) will not be there where nothing is evil; Bede on Exodus is adduced in agreement.

**Provenance (PDF-priority inversion).** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p710-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (read L column top→bottom, then R column; body bands then footer bands). The raw IA djvu OCR for this band (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw 49306–49341) is a **two-column merge**: the L column (Cap. I–III captions + openers) and the R column (the long Cap. III Augustine excursus) were interleaved line-for-line by the OCR. The correct reading order is Cap. I → Cap. II → Cap. III, where Cap. III's body runs from the L-column opener (`Verumtamen, an⁴ … Quibusdam visum est,`) directly into the R-column continuation (`esse desituras … in praemissis assignationibus.`); they were reflowed by reading the PDF, not pasted in raw-line order. The OCR was the base only for clean running prose and exact `[^N]` marker spacing; the footer NOTAE block (not captured in the raw OCR slice) was read eyes-on from the PDF. Offset `pdf = printed + 22`. Running head confirmed `710 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (raw 49304); the d.33 header is OCR-garbled `DISTMCTIO XXXIII.` (raw 49306).

**Page-split map.** Single printed page, **p.710 (PDF 732)**. The d.33 header `DISTINCTIO XXXIII` prints centered at the top of the R column; **Cap. I** caption + body and **Cap. II** caption + body fill the L column; **Cap. III** caption + opener begin at the foot of the L column (`Verumtamen, an … Quibusdam visum est,`) and the chapter's long Augustine excursus fills the entire R column, finishing at `… in praemissis assignationibus.` The littera **ends** there, mid-p.710; the **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII** (subtitle *De virtutibus cardinalibus*) begins below it, full-width, at **raw line 49342** (followed by `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` at raw ~49347).

**Apparatus (6 entries, NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, single page).** p.710 footer carries the littera's NOTAE block as two physical sub-columns: the **left footer** holds nn.1–4 (n.1 *de Trin. XIV* on `Augustinus¹`; n.2 *de Trin. XII* on `Hieronymus²`; n.3 *Ioan. 1, 16* on `accepimus³`; n.4 the *de Trin. XIV* source-note on Cap. III's opener `an⁴`), and the **right footer** holds nn.5–6 (n.5 *Sap. 1, 15* on `iustitia⁵`; n.6 *de Tabernac. II* on `Beda⁶`) → renumbered `[^1]`–`[^6]`. Marker pairing is clean: 6 body markers ¹–⁶ ↔ 6 footer notes ↔ `[^1]`–`[^6]` in both Latin and English.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* **NONE.** DISTINCTIO XXXIII opens fresh at the top of p.710; d32-dubia closed earlier and forwarded nothing across the d.32/d.33 boundary. All p.710 NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM footers belong to this littera.
- *Forwarded to `d33-divisio`:* **NONE.** All six NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM notes (nn.1–6) are fully captured here. The separate **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** block that begins lower in the p.710 right footer (n.1 *Supra d. 23. in divis. textus.* …) cites the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS body and is the **divisio chunk's own footer** — it is NOT a forward of a NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM note; nothing is parked here for d33-divisio.

**Boundary verification.** The littera body stops cleanly at Cap. III's `… in praemissis assignationibus.` (p.710 R column foot), confirmed eyes-on against `vol3-p710-R-1.png`. The **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII.** header is at **raw line 49342** (subtitle *De virtutibus cardinalibus,* `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` at raw ~49347); that block and everything after it belong to `d33-divisio`.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All 6 footer entries and all body readings (incl. the two-column reflow of Cap. III) confirmed against the 450 dpi PDF bands.


title: Dist. 33, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XXXIII — divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XXXIII — division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 710 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII.

#### *De virtutibus cardinalibus.*

*Post praedicta de quatuor virtutibus etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Pars ista, in qua Magister determinat de habitibus gratuitis, prout ab invicem distinguuntur, divisa fuit[^1] in tres partes. In quarum prima determinat de habitibus virtutum theologicarum; in secunda de habitibus virtutum cardinalium; in tertia de habitibus donorum. Prima parte terminata, hic incipit secunda pars, quae continet distinctionem praesentem. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes quatuor secundum quatuor, quae determinat de ipsis virtutibus cardinalibus. In quarum prima determinat de ipsis quantum ad numerum et distinctionem. In secunda vero quantum ad nominis rationem, ibi: *Hae virtutes cardinales dicuntur* etc. In tertia vero movet quaestionem de

<!-- page 711 -->

ipsarum virtutum evacuatione, ibi: *Verumtamen, an hae virtutes* etc. In quarta vero subiungit quaestionis determinationem, ibi: *Quibusdam visum est, desituras* etc. Et illa ultima pars subdividi posset in partes quatuor. In quarum prima respondet ad quaestionem propositam quantum ad iustitiae habitum. In secunda vero quantum ad habitus aliarum trium[^2], ostendens, secundum quos actus in patria remanebunt, ibi: *Fortasse et aliae virtutes.* In tertia vero praedeterminata epilogat, ibi: *Ecce aperte Augustinus.* In quarta vero auctoritatem confirmat, ibi: *Cui Beda consentit, super Exodum* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis totalis et distinctionis brevis incidit hic quaestio de virtutibus cardinalibus in generali; et circa hoc breviter possunt sex quaeri.

Primo quaeritur de ipsis virtutibus cardinalibus quantum ad earum necessitatem sive utilitatem.

Secundo, quantum ad diversitatem.

Tertio, quantum ad subiectum.

Quarto, quantum ad numerum.

Quinto quaeritur de ipsis quantum ad originem.

Sexto et ultimo, quantum ad durationem finalem.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

#### *De virtutibus cardinalibus in generali.*

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXIII.

#### *On the cardinal virtues.*

*After what has been said before concerning the four virtues, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This part, in which the Master determines concerning the gratuitous habits, inasmuch as they are distinguished from one another, was divided[^1] into three parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the habits of the theological virtues; in the second concerning the habits of the cardinal virtues; in the third concerning the habits of the gifts. The first part being finished, here begins the second part, which contains the present distinction. Now this part is divided into four parts according to the four [matters] which he determines concerning the cardinal virtues themselves. In the first of these he determines concerning them as regards their number and distinction. But in the second [he treats of them] as regards the ground of their name, there: *These are called cardinal virtues,* etc. And in the third he raises a question concerning

the evacuation of those virtues, there: *But whether these virtues,* etc. And in the fourth he subjoins the determination of the question, there: *To some it has seemed that they will cease,* etc. And that last part could be subdivided into four parts. In the first of these he answers the question proposed as regards the habit of justice. But in the second [he answers] as regards the habits of the other three[^2], showing according to which acts they will remain in the fatherland, there: *Perhaps the other virtues also.* And in the third he epilogizes upon the things predetermined, there: *Behold, openly Augustine.* And in the fourth he confirms it by authority, there: *To which Bede consents, upon Exodus,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this whole part and of the brief distinction, a question arises here concerning the cardinal virtues in general; and concerning this six matters can briefly be asked.

First it is asked concerning the cardinal virtues themselves as regards their necessity or usefulness.

Secondly, as regards their diversity.

Thirdly, as regards their subject.

Fourthly, as regards their number.

Fifthly it is asked concerning them as regards their origin.

Sixthly and last, as regards their final duration.

### THE SOLE ARTICLE.

#### *On the cardinal virtues in general.*

---

la: Supra d. 23. in divis. textus.

en: Above, d. 23, in the division of the text.

la: Pro *aliarum trium* edd. cum paucis codd. *virtutum aliarum.* Inferius pro *auctoritatem confirmat* Vat. *auctoritate confirmat,* cod. *Z idem auctoritate confirmat.*

en: For *aliarum trium* (of the other three) the editions, with a few codices, read *virtutum aliarum* (of the other virtues). Lower down, for *auctoritatem confirmat* (he confirms it by authority) the Vatican edition reads *auctoritate confirmat,* the codex *Z idem auctoritate confirmat.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Promoted in place from the auto-chunked skeleton (`auto-chunked 2026-06-02`, line_start 49347 / line_end 49388). Raw source IA djvu OCR lines **49342–49394** of `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` (COMMENTARIUS head at raw 49342; ARTICULUS UNICUS opener at raw ~49389–49392; bounded before `QUAESTIO 1.` at raw ~49395 and its body `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum opportunum sit…` at raw ~49399). Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p710-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p711-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR as the base for clean running prose and marker spacing. The two-column DIVISIO TEXTUS cascade-shatters in the OCR (Vol II/III override, offset **pdf = printed + 22**; trust running-head TEXT over OCR'd digits — running head reads `DIST. XXXIII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 711`), so the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout the reflow. `type: divisio`, **`has_scholion: false`** — a divisio carries no scholion; its apparatus is the editorial *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*.

**Distinction XXXIII** = **De virtutibus cardinalibus, ARTICULUS UNICUS** (*De virtutibus cardinalibus in generali*). The single article carries **no *Primo/Secundo… quaeritur* list of its own** — the six-question listing is the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM above. Per the locked Vol II/III chunking convention (a short ARTICULUS opener with no separate question-list folds into the divisio, not into a1-q1), only the `ARTICULUS UNICUS.` header + subtitle are folded here; `QUAESTIO 1.` + its title (*Utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere*) and body (*Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum opportunum sit…*) open the next chunk, d33-a1-q1.

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.710–711** (PDF 732–733). The DIVISIO TEXTUS runs across the **p.710→711 column break** — the `DIST. XXXIII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 711` running head sits mid-divisio:
- **p.710** (PDF 732): below the d33-littera, the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII` head + subtitle (*De virtutibus cardinalibus*) + incipit (*Post praedicta de quatuor virtutibus etc.*) span the full page width, then `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` opens. DIVISIO reflows L-column top→bottom (*Pars ista… hic incipit secunda pars,*) then R-column (*quae continet distinctionem praesentem… In tertia vero movet quaestionem de*). Footer at foot of p.710.
- **p.711** (PDF 733): DIVISIO continues — L-column (*ipsarum virtutum evacuatione… In secunda*) then R-column (*vero quantum ad habitus aliarum trium¹… super Exodum etc.*). Then `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.` (L-column *Ad intelligentiam… Primo quaeritur…*; R-column *Secundo… Tertio… Quarto… Quinto… Sexto et ultimo… finalem*), then `ARTICULUS UNICUS.` + subtitle (*De virtutibus cardinalibus in generali*). `QUAESTIO 1.` + body opens immediately below (lower p.711) = d33-a1-q1.

**★ FULL d.33 SIX-QUESTION TRACTATIO MAP (verbatim, eyes-on p.711 L+R bands).** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM reads `…et circa hoc breviter possunt **sex** quaeri.` and lists SIX movements (L-column = *Ad intelligentiam… Primo*; R-column = *Secundo… Sexto et ultimo*):
1. *Primo quaeritur de ipsis virtutibus cardinalibus quantum ad earum necessitatem sive utilitatem.* (First it is asked concerning the cardinal virtues themselves as regards their necessity or usefulness.) [= a1-q1]
2. *Secundo, quantum ad diversitatem.* (Secondly, as regards their diversity.) [= a1-q2]
3. *Tertio, quantum ad subiectum.* (Thirdly, as regards their subject.) [= a1-q3]
4. *Quarto, quantum ad numerum.* (Fourthly, as regards their number.) [= a1-q4]
5. *Quinto quaeritur de ipsis quantum ad originem.* (Fifthly it is asked concerning them as regards their origin.) [= a1-q5]
6. *Sexto et ultimo, quantum ad durationem finalem.* (Sixthly and last, as regards their final duration.) [= a1-q6]

**★ CORRECTION to the earlier hand-off / resume note.** The prior dispatch claimed d.33 has FIVE questions and that **d33-a1-q6 is "likely vestigial." THIS IS WRONG.** The TRACTATIO explicitly reads `…breviter possunt **sex** quaeri.` and enumerates a real sixth movement — *Sexto et ultimo, quantum ad durationem finalem* (the **duratio finalis** question, whether the cardinal virtues remain in the fatherland). **d33-a1-q6 is a REAL sixth question, NOT vestigial.** The d.33 chunk slate = **littera (DONE) · divisio (this chunk, DONE) · a1-q1 · q2 · q3 · q4 · q5 · q6 · dubia**. Six questions in a single article.

**Apparatus (2 entries owned), NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart.**
- **p.710 footer n.1** = *Supra d. 23. in divis. textus.* — marker `divisa fuit¹` in the DIVISIO TEXTUS (*…prout ab invicem distinguuntur, divisa fuit¹ in tres partes*). MINE. (p.710's L-column foot carries TWO footer blocks: first the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–6 — which belong to the d33-littera, **not mine** — then the **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`** header opening n.1.)
- **p.711 footer n.1** = *Pro aliarum trium edd. cum paucis codd. virtutum aliarum. Inferius pro auctoritatem confirmat Vat. auctoritate confirmat, cod. Z idem auctoritate confirmat.* — marker `aliarum trium¹` in the DIVISIO TEXTUS continuation (*In secunda vero quantum ad habitus aliarum trium¹*). MINE. [textual variant]

**Footer hand-off picked-up.** NONE forwarded from d33-littera — the littera owns all six p.710 *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* footers. The lower *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block on p.710 (n.1 *Supra d. 23. in divis. textus.*) starts fresh here and is this divisio's own footer family; its n.1 is claimed here.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED to d33-a1-q1 = p.711 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–6** (markers all fall in the QUAESTIO I *Fundamenta* body, read eyes-on from the p.711 L-2 + R-2 footer bands; **do NOT re-claim p.711 n.1 — it is the divisio's**):
- **n.2** = *Vers. 7. — August., I. Retract. c. 7. n. 3: His enim nominibus Latinus interpres quatuor illas virtutes, quae maxime in ore philosophorum esse adsolent, nominavit, sobrietatem appellans temperantiam, prudentiae imponens nomen sapientiam, fortitudinem vero virtutis vocabulo enuntians, solam iustitiam suo nomine interpretatus est. Mox pro in commendationem edd. et plures codd. in commendatione.*
- **n.3** = *Matth. 19, 17: Si autem vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. — De mandatis secundae tabulae vide infra d. 37. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro perlingere cod. Z pervenire.*
- **n.4** = *Cfr. Matth. 5, 22, et August., Serm. 82. (alias 16. de Verbis Domini) c. 3. n. 5.*
- **n.5** = *Vers. 8.*
- **n.6** = *Cap. 4. Seq. locus est XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. n. 2. de quo cfr. supra pag. 338, nota 3. — Quod caritas ordinet amorem, ostensum est supra d. 29. q. 1; cfr. etiam supra pag. 590, nota 1. in fine.*

**Seam status.** CLEAN at both ends.
- **Open seam (d33-littera → this chunk):** the littera closes on the upper p.710 block (L-column tail *…desinant esse, cum ad aeterna perduxerint, nonnulla quaestio est. Quibusdam visum est,*; R-column tail *…imitans Augustinum in praemissis assignationibus.*); the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII` head opens fresh full-width below — seam clean, no leakage.
- **Close seam (this chunk → d33-a1-q1):** the `ARTICULUS UNICUS` subtitle (*De virtutibus cardinalibus in generali.*) is the last line of this chunk; `QUAESTIO 1. / Utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere. / Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur…* (raw ~49395) is the next chunk — a fresh question head, not a continuation of the TRACTATIO list — seam clean.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The COMMENTARIUS head, subtitle, incipit, all DIVISIO TEXTUS paragraphs (across the p.710→711 break), the full six-question TRACTATIO, the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener, and both owned *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footers (p.710 n.1, p.711 n.1) were read eyes-on from the 450 dpi bands. No ambiguity survives.

**HAND-OFF TO d33-a1-q1 (forwarded):** the next chunk is **bon-sent-III-d33-a1-q1** — `ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De virtutibus cardinalibus in generali. / QUAESTIO 1. / Utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere`. `type: quaestio`, `articulus: 1`, `quaestio: 1`. **Raw anchors:** QUAESTIO 1 header at raw ~49395; body opens *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere. Et quod sic, videtur.* on the lower p.711 (PDF 733). **Footer split (p.711):** **p.711 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–6 belong to a1-q1** (markers in the *Fundamenta* args — e.g. arg. 3 *…per impletionem mandatorum Dei³…*; *secundum quod dicit Augustinus in libro de Spiritu et anima⁴*; *in decimo quarto de Civitate Dei⁶*). **Do NOT re-claim p.711 n.1 (that is the divisio's, *aliarum trium*).** Then a fresh p.712 footer sequence. **quaeritur alignment:** TRACTATIO Primo (*quantum ad earum necessitatem sive utilitatem*) = QUAESTIO 1 (*utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere*) — alignment passes, no q-swap. **CORRECTION carried forward: d.33 has SIX questions (TRACTATIO says *sex quaeri*); d33-a1-q6 (duratio finalis) is REAL, NOT vestigial.**


title: Dist. 33, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 711 -->

### ARTICULUS UNICUS. *De virtutibus cardinalibus in generali.*
### QUAESTIO I. *Utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Sapientiae octavo[^1] dicitur in commendationem sapientiae, quod *sobrietatem et prudentiam et iustitiam et virtutem docet, quibus utilius in vita nihil est hominibus;* sed per illa quatuor intelliguntur quatuor virtutes cardinales: ergo sunt nobis maxime utiles et opportunae.

2. Item, privationes harum virtutum sive vitia eis opposita perducunt ad mortem, sicut gula, luxuria et avaritia; sed sicut privationes sunt perniciosae, sic positiones sunt utiles et opportunae: ergo videtur, quod magna sit necessitas habendi virtutes cardinales.

3. Item, nullus potest pertingere ad regnum caelorum nisi per impletionem mandatorum Dei[^2]; sed quaedam sunt mandata, ad quorum impletionem virtutes cardinales habilitant, utpote sunt mandata secundae tabulae: ergo videtur, quod ad obtinendam salutem valde sunt nobis necessariae.

4. Item, sicut perdit quis vitam per peccatum in Deum, ita etiam potest perdere per peccatum in proximum[^3]: ergo sicut necessarium est habere virtutes ordinantes ad Deum, ita necessarium est habere virtutes ordinantes ad proximum et ad se ipsum: sed virtutes ordinantes ad Deum sunt theologicae, ordinantes ad se et ad proximum sunt cardinales: ergo virtutes cardinales sunt necessariae.

**Sed contra:** 1. Ad Romanos decimo tertio[^4]: *Qui diligit proximum Legem implevit;* sed qui Legem implet habet omne illud quod sibi necessarium est ad salutem: ergo qui habet caritatem non indiget alia virtute ad proximum ordinante: habitis ergo virtutibus theologicis, videtur, quod superfluant cardinales.

2. Item, virtutes sunt necessariae principaliter ad ordinandum animae affectiones, secundum quod dicit Augustinus in libro de Spiritu et anima[^5]; sed omnium affectionum principium est amor, secundum quod dicitur in decimo quarto de Civitate Dei: cum ergo caritas sufficienter ordinet amorem, videtur,

<!-- page 712 -->

quod qui habet rectitudinem caritatis non indiget rectitudine alterius virtutis.

3. Item, virtutes sunt ad reformandum potentias animae; sed potentiae animae reformantur per gratiam et tres virtutes theologicas, in quibus attenditur imago reformationis per gratiam[^6]: ergo videtur, quod illis habitis, nulla sit necessitas vel utilitas cardinalis virtutis.

4. Item, virtutes sunt ad dirigendum in actionibus et passionibus[^7]; sed per fidem sufficienter dirigitur intellectus, et per caritatem dirigitur affectus: ergo virtutibus theologicis habitis, videtur, quod cardinales superfluant.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Praeter habitus virtutum theologicarum ponendi sunt habitus virtutum cardinalium.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod generalis necessitas virtutis est ad rectificandum potentias animae contra obliquitatem et ad vigorandum contra difficultatem. Virtus enim facit potentiam rectam et vigorosam. Et quoniam contingit, hominem ordinari ad Deum, contingit nihilominus, hominem ordinari ad proximum et se ipsum; et in his eisdem potest obliquari et impediri sive retardari: hinc est, quod non solum indiget habitibus ipsum vigorantibus et rectificantibus, prout directe tendit in Deum, cuiusmodi sunt habitus virtutum theologicarum, sed etiam indiget habitibus ipsum regulantibus et rectificantibus, prout ordinatur ad se ipsum et ad proximum. Et tales sunt habitus virtutum cardinalium. Unde sicut praeter praecepta primae tabulae, quae directe ordinant in Deum, opportunum fuit ponere praecepta secundae tabulae, quae ordinant ad proximum; sic etiam in habitibus est intelligendum. Et propterea praeter habitus virtutum theologicarum necessarium est ad salutem ponere habitus virtutum cardinalium; sicut rationes ad primam partem inductae ostendunt, quae concedendae sunt, quoniam verum concludunt[^8].

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod *qui diligit proximum Legem implevit;* dicendum, quod hoc non dicitur propter hoc, quod implere Legem sit ipsius dilectionis tantum ratione sui, sed hoc est, quia habet alios habitus annexos, qui, ad ipsius dilectionis et caritatis imperium quodam modo moti, dirigunt et habilitant ad observanda opera mandatorum, sicut mandatum de non fornicando observat quis per castitatem *elicitive,* sed per caritatem *imperative.* Hoc autem attribuit Apostolus dilectioni et caritati, quoniam ipsa est mater, forma et finis omnium virtutum, sicut superius[^9] fuit tactum et in sequentibus suo loco melius explanabitur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis affectio ortum habet ab amore; dicendum, quod etsi omnis affectio ortum habeat ab amore tanquam ex affectione principali ipsius animae, amor tamen non est *tota* causa aliarum affectionum; ideo nec regula ipsius amoris in se sufficit ad rectificationem animae, nisi sint virtutes in ea alios affectus regulantes et dirigentes. Et propterea illa ratio potest dissolvi, quia procedit ab insufficienti[^10].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod virtutes sunt ad reformandum potentias; dicendum, quod verum est; sed *facies* potentiarum animae duplex est secundum duplicem portionem[^11] et duplicem eius conversionem, videlicet ad inferius et ad superius, ad bonum creatum et ad bonum increatum, et ad finem et ad id quod est ad finem. Ideo, cum dicit, quod anima sufficienter formatur et reformatur per virtutes theologicas; dicendum, quod verum est per comparationem ad superius; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod cardinales virtutes superfluant, quia ipsam animam informant et reformant per comparationem ad creatum[^12] et ad id quod est ad finem ordinatum. Et *si tu obiicias,* quod virtutes theologicae non tantum in finem, sed etiam in his quae sunt ad finem, ordinant, sicut patet in caritate; dicendum, quod illud non est principaliter, sed *ex consequenti[^13].*

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod virtutes sunt ad dirigendum actus potentiarum; dicendum, quod vires animae quosdam actus habent ordinatos ad vitam *contemplativam,* quosdam ad vitam *activam;* et utrosque actus necessarium est ordinare, quia uterque modus vivendi necessarius est ad hoc, quod possit quis beatitudinem promereri[^14]. Cum ergo dicit, quod fides et caritas dirigunt actus potentiarum animae; dicendum, quod etsi hoc possit concedi in actibus, qui spectant ad vitam *contemplativam,* non tamen verum est in agendis sive in actibus, qui spectant ad vitam *activam;* et ideo non sequitur, quod virtutes cardinales superfluant.

<!-- page 713 -->

english:
### Article, Single. *On the cardinal virtues in general.*
### Question I. *Whether it is fitting to posit cardinal virtues besides the theological ones.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether it is fitting to posit cardinal virtues besides the theological ones. And that it is so, seems [to be the case].

1. In Wisdom 8[^1] it is said, in commendation of wisdom, that *she teaches sobriety and prudence and justice and virtue, than which nothing is more useful to men in life;* but by those four are understood the four cardinal virtues: therefore they are most useful and fitting for us.

2. Likewise, the privations of these virtues, or the vices opposed to them, lead to death, as gluttony, lust, and avarice; but just as the privations are pernicious, so the positings [of them] are useful and fitting: therefore it seems that there is great necessity of having the cardinal virtues.

3. Likewise, no one can reach the kingdom of heaven except by the fulfillment of the commandments of God[^2]; but there are certain commandments to whose fulfillment the cardinal virtues dispose, namely the commandments of the second table: therefore it seems that they are greatly necessary for us to obtain salvation.

4. Likewise, just as one loses life through a sin against God, so also one can lose it through a sin against the neighbor[^3]: therefore just as it is necessary to have virtues ordering [us] to God, so it is necessary to have virtues ordering [us] to the neighbor and to oneself: but the virtues ordering to God are the theological ones, those ordering to oneself and to the neighbor are the cardinal ones: therefore the cardinal virtues are necessary.

**On the contrary:** 1. Romans 13[^4]: *He who loves the neighbor has fulfilled the Law;* but he who fulfills the Law has all that is necessary for him unto salvation: therefore he who has charity does not need another virtue ordering [him] to the neighbor: therefore, the theological virtues being had, it seems that the cardinal ones are superfluous.

2. Likewise, the virtues are principally necessary for ordering the affections of the soul, as Augustine says in the book *On the Spirit and the Soul*[^5]; but the principle of all the affections is love, as is said in book fourteen *On the City of God*: since therefore charity sufficiently orders love, it seems

that he who has the rectitude of charity does not need the rectitude of any other virtue.

3. Likewise, the virtues are for reforming the powers of the soul; but the powers of the soul are reformed through grace and the three theological virtues, in which is attended the image of reformation through grace[^6]: therefore it seems that, these being had, there is no necessity or utility of a cardinal virtue.

4. Likewise, the virtues are for directing in actions and passions[^7]; but through faith the intellect is sufficiently directed, and through charity the affect is directed: therefore, the theological virtues being had, it seems that the cardinal ones are superfluous.

### CONCLUSION.

> Besides the habits of the theological virtues, the habits of the cardinal virtues are to be posited.

**I respond:** It must be said that the general necessity of virtue is for rectifying the powers of the soul against crookedness and for invigorating [them] against difficulty. For virtue makes a power upright and vigorous. And since it happens that man is ordered to God, it happens nonetheless that man is ordered to the neighbor and to himself; and in these same [orderings] he can be made crooked and impeded or held back: hence it is that he needs not only habits invigorating and rectifying him, insofar as he tends directly to God — of which kind are the habits of the theological virtues — but he also needs habits regulating and rectifying him, insofar as he is ordered to himself and to the neighbor. And such are the habits of the cardinal virtues. Hence, just as besides the precepts of the first table, which order [us] directly to God, it was fitting to posit the precepts of the second table, which order [us] to the neighbor; so also it must be understood in the habits. And therefore, besides the habits of the theological virtues, it is necessary unto salvation to posit the habits of the cardinal virtues; as the reasons adduced for the first part show, which are to be granted, since they conclude truly[^8].

1. To that which is objected first to the contrary, that *he who loves the neighbor has fulfilled the Law;* it must be said that this is not said for this reason, that to fulfill the Law belongs to love alone by reason of itself, but it is because [love] has other habits annexed [to it], which, moved in a certain way at the command of love and charity itself, direct and dispose to the observing of the works of the commandments — as one observes the commandment of not committing fornication *elicitively* through chastity, but *imperatively* through charity. And the Apostle attributes this to love and charity because it is the mother, form, and end of all the virtues, as was touched on above[^9] and will be better explained below in its place.

2. To that which is objected, that every affection has its origin from love; it must be said that, although every affection has its origin from love as from the principal affection of the soul itself, love nonetheless is not the *whole* cause of the other affections; therefore neither does the rule of love itself in itself suffice for the rectification of the soul, unless there be in it virtues regulating and directing the other affects. And therefore that reasoning can be dissolved, because it proceeds from an insufficient [ground][^10].

3. To that which is objected, that the virtues are for reforming the powers; it must be said that it is true; but the *face* of the powers of the soul is twofold according to the twofold portion[^11] and its twofold conversion, namely toward the lower and toward the higher, toward the created good and toward the uncreated good, and toward the end and toward that which is unto the end. Therefore, when he says that the soul is sufficiently formed and reformed through the theological virtues; it must be said that this is true by comparison to the higher; but from this it does not follow that the cardinal virtues are superfluous, because they inform and reform the soul itself by comparison to the created[^12] and to that which is ordered unto the end. And *if you object* that the theological virtues order not only to the end, but also in those things which are unto the end, as is clear in charity; it must be said that this is not principally, but *consequentially.[^13]*

4. To that which is objected, that the virtues are for directing the acts of the powers; it must be said that the powers of the soul have certain acts ordered to the *contemplative* life, certain ones to the *active* life; and it is necessary to order both acts, because each mode of living is necessary for this, that one may be able to merit beatitude[^14]. Since therefore he says that faith and charity direct the acts of the powers of the soul; it must be said that, although this can be granted in the acts which pertain to the *contemplative* life, it is nonetheless not true in things to be done or in the acts which pertain to the *active* life; and therefore it does not follow that the cardinal virtues are superfluous.

la: Vers. 7. — August., I. Retract. c. 7. n. 3: *His enim nominibus Latinus interpres quatuor illas virtutes, quae maxime in usu philosophorum esse adsolent, nominavit, sobrietatem appellans temperantiam, prudentiae imponens nomen sapientiam, fortitudinem vero virtutis vocabulo enuntians, solam iustitiam suo nomine interpretatus est.* Mox pro *in commendationem* edd. et plures codd. *in commendatione.*

en: Verse 7. — Augustine, *Retractations* I, c. 7, n. 3: «For by these names the Latin translator named those four virtues, which are most commonly in use among the philosophers, calling sobriety *temperance,* imposing on prudence the name *wisdom,* declaring fortitude indeed by the word of virtue, and rendering justice alone by its own name.» Presently, for *in commendationem* the editions and many codices [read] *in commendatione.*

la: Matth. 19, 17: *Si autem vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata.* — De mandatis secundae tabulae vide infra d. 37. a. 2. q. I. — Pro *pertingere* cod. Z *pervenire.*

en: Matthew 19:17: *But if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.* — On the commandments of the second table see below d. 37, a. 2, q. I. — For *pertingere* codex Z [reads] *pervenire.*

la: Cfr. Matth. 5, 22, et August., Serm. 82. (alias 16. de Verbis Domini) c. 3. n. 5.

en: Cf. Matthew 5:22, and Augustine, Sermon 82 (alias 16, *On the Words of the Lord*), c. 3, n. 5.

la: Vers. 8.

en: Verse 8.

la: Cap. 4. Seq. locus est XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. n. 2, de quo cfr. supra pag. 338, nota 3. — Quod caritas ordinet amorem, ostensum est supra d. 29. q. 1; cfr. etiam supra pag. 590, nota 1. in fine.

en: Chapter 4. The following passage is from book XIV *On the City of God,* c. 7, n. 2, on which cf. above p. 338, note 3. — That charity orders love was shown above d. 29, q. 1; cf. also above p. 590, note 1, at the end.

en: Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 16, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Vide supra pag. 472, nota 2. — In multis codd. nec non in Supplemento Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 76. a. I. hoc arg. sic terminatur: *habitis, ut videtur, cardinales* [cod. K supplet *virtutes*] *superfluunt.*

en: See above p. 472, note 2. — In many codices, as also in the *Supplement* to the *Summa* of Alexander of Hales, collation 76, a. I, this argument is so terminated: *the [theological virtues] being had, the cardinals seem* [cod. K supplies *virtues*] *to be superfluous.*

la: Vide Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. I, ubi tum ex Ss. Patribus tum ex philosophis probatur harum virtutum necessitas.

en: See the *Supplement* to the *Summa* of Alexander of Hales, collation I, where the necessity of these virtues is proved both from the holy Fathers and from the philosophers.

la: Lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 9; Comment. ibid. dub. 6; d. 27. a. I. q. I. ad I. et q. 3. ad I. nec non a. 2. q. I; d. 28. q. I. in corp.; d. 36. q. 6.

en: Text of the Master, d. XXIII, c. 9; Commentary on the same, dub. 6; d. 27, a. I, q. I, ad I, and q. 3, ad I, as also a. 2, q. I; d. 28, q. I, in the body; d. 36, q. 6.

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 3. ad 2. — *Superius* voci *tanquam* codd. F G R L R V W aa praefigunt *et.* Deinde pro *rectificationem* codd. A K bb substituunt *rectitudinem,* et pro *alios affectus* codd. A H T U bb *alias affectiones.*

en: See above d. 26, a. 2, q. 3, ad 2. — Above, to the word *tanquam* codices F G R L R V W aa prefix *et.* Then for *rectificationem* codices A K bb substitute *rectitudinem,* and for *alios affectus* codices A H T U bb [read] *alias affectiones.*

la: Scil. superiorem et inferiorem. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. et pag. 641, nota I. — Plurimi codd. et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. nec non edd. 1, 2 perperam *proportionem.*

en: Namely the higher and the lower. Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, and p. 641, note I. — Very many codices and the *Supplement* to the *Summa* of Alexander of Hales, as also editions 1, 2, wrongly [read] *proportionem.*

la: Ita codd. A H K T U Z bb, in aliis et in edd. omittitur *et ad id.*

en: Thus codices A H K T U Z bb; in the others and in the editions *et ad id* is omitted.

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. a. I. q. 2. ad I.

en: Cf. above d. 27, a. I, q. 2, ad I.

la: Vide supra pag. 610, nota 2. — Pro *modus vivendi* cod. A *modus uniendi.* Paulo inferius pro *etsi hoc possit* idem cod. A *etsi hoc posset.*

en: See above p. 610, note 2. — For *modus vivendi* codex A [reads] *modus uniendi.* A little below, for *etsi hoc possit* the same codex A [reads] *etsi hoc posset.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** De definitionibus virtutum cardinalium vide hic dub. 1-4. Quoad definitiones Magistri B. Albert. (hic a. 3.) cum nostro auctore (hic dub. I.) bene observat, «quod Magister non nititur definire istas virtutes nisi secundum *conformitatem ad Christum,* in quo in maximo statu fuerunt». Hoc in primis elucet ex definitione iustitiae (loc. cit.). Plura optima de virtutibus cardinalibus docentur in Hexaem. serm. 6. et etiam 5. 7. Hanc (I.) quaestionem plurimi antiqui doctores explicite non tractant, sed eam supponendo principia hic allata tangunt in aliis de virtutibus cardinalibus quaestionibus. Cfr. S. Thom., S. I. II. q. 61. a. 3, q. 62. a. 2. Tamen de hac et seq. q. specialim tractant Dionys. Carth., hic q. I; Biel, hic q. unica.

**II.** Quod virtutes cardinales *acquisitae* inter se *specie* differant, omnino constat. Quod autem eaedem, etiam quatenus sunt a Deo supernaturaliter infusae, realiter distinguantur et a virtutibus acquisitis et ab invicem, tenent etiam ii qui cum schola S. Thomae contra Scotum ponunt virtutes morales *per se infusas,* de qua controversia et de sententia S. Bonaventurae vide infra q. 5. in scholio. — Quoad fundamenta observamus, quod similia adhibita sunt supra d. 27. a. I. q. I. Tota quaestio magis explicatur d. 36. q. I. 3. 6. et supra d. 27. a. I. q. I; cfr. etiam de distinctione habituum et reductione eorum ad unitatem quandam II. Sent. d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. I. ad 8.

De hac (2.) quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I; S. I. II. q. 61. a. 4; Q. disp. de Virt. in communi a. 12; item de Virtutibus cardinal. a. I. — B. Albert., hic a. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 7. — Durand., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On the definitions of the cardinal virtues see here dub. 1-4. As to the definitions of the Master, B. Albert (here a. 3) well observes, with our author (here dub. I), «that the Master does not endeavor to define these virtues except according to *conformity to Christ,* in whom they were in their highest state». This shines forth especially from the definition of justice (loc. cit.). Many excellent things on the cardinal virtues are taught in the *Hexaemeron* sermon 6 and also 5, 7. This (I.) question very many ancient doctors do not treat explicitly, but, presupposing it, they touch the principles here adduced in other questions on the cardinal virtues. Cf. S. Thom., S. I-II q. 61 a. 3, q. 62 a. 2. Yet of this and the following question Dionysius Carthusianus treats specially, here q. I; Biel, here q. unica.

**II.** That the *acquired* cardinal virtues differ among themselves in *species* is entirely settled. But that these same [virtues], even insofar as they are supernaturally infused by God, are really distinguished both from the acquired virtues and from one another, is held also by those who, with the school of S. Thomas against Scotus, posit moral virtues *infused per se,* on which controversy and on the opinion of S. Bonaventure see below q. 5 in the scholion. — As to the *fundamenta,* we observe that similar [arguments] were employed above d. 27 a. I q. I. The whole question is more fully explained d. 36 q. I, 3, 6, and above d. 27 a. I q. I; cf. also on the distinction of habits and their reduction to a certain unity *Sentences* II, d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. I, ad 8.

On this (2.) question: S. Thom., here q. I a. I; S. I-II q. 61 a. 4; Q. disp. *de Virt. in communi* n. 12; likewise *de Virtutibus cardinal.* n. I. — B. Albert, here a. I. — Petr. a Tar., here q. I a. I. — Richard. a Med., here a. I q. 7. — Durand., here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi vol3 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{711,712,713}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), printed pp.711–713 (PDF 733–735, offset pdf = printed + 22). IA djvu OCR (raw 49395–49522) used as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing; the Respondeo, the four Ad-replies, and all NOTAE footers were taken from the column bands per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion. Running heads confirm the span: p.712 = `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (top), p.713 = `DIST. XXXIII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II.` (the head is the *next* question's, sitting above the q1 SCHOLION + the start of QUAESTIO II's body). The opener *Circa primum… utrum opportunum sit praeter virtutes theologicas cardinales ponere* aligns 1:1 with the title and with TRACTATIO *Primo… quantum ad earum necessitatem sive utilitatem* — **alignment PASS.**

**Page-split map.**
- p.711 (lower): ARTICULUS UNICUS + QUAESTIO I openers; Fundamenta args 1–4 (L col) and Sed contra 1–2 (R col, arg 2 running onto p.712). Footers: n.1 belongs to d33-divisio (*aliarum trium* variant — NOT re-claimed); nn.2–6 → `[^1]`–`[^5]` (picked-up hand-off).
- p.712: tail of Sed contra 2 + Sed contra 3–4 (L top); CONCLUSIO; Respondeo (L); Ad-replies 1–4 (reply 1 begins L, replies 2–4 in R). Footers nn.1–9 → `[^6]`–`[^14]`.
- p.713: article-master SCHOLION §I (q1) + §II (q2), spanning both columns; then QUAESTIO II's title and body begin (next chunk). The p.713 footers are QUAESTIO II's — NOT claimed here.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. This is the **article-master scholion** for ARTICULUS UNICUS: §I treats this question (q1, "Hanc (I.) quaestionem…"), §II treats q2 ("De hac (2.) quaestione…"). It forwards explicitly to a later question ("vide infra q. 5. in scholio"). Mirrors the d.32 article-master-scholion pattern: **d33-a1-q2 carries NO own scholion and should REDIRECT here** (`Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.`, §II). The scholion is printed at the top of p.713 *under* the QUAESTIO II running head but belongs to q1; placed LAST in each language block per the parser requirement.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up* (from d33-divisio, commit 457417e): p.711 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–6 → `[^1]`–`[^5]`. (Did NOT re-claim p.711 n.1, the divisio's *aliarum trium* variant.)
- *Forwarded to d33-a1-q2:* QUAESTIO II opens at the foot of p.713 (raw 49523) with its own fresh NOTAE sequence (p.713 n.1 onward). q1 owns nothing on p.713 except the scholion. q2 also redirects to THIS scholion §II.

**[?] flags.** None.