site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 5, Cap. 10

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 263 -->

### Capitulum X. *De exercitio gratiae respectu petendorum et orandorum.*

De *petitionibus* autem orationis dominicae hoc tenendum est, quod licet Deus sit liberalissimus et promptior ad dandum quam nos ad accipiendum; vult tamen orari a nobis, ut occasionem habeat largiendi dona gratiae Spiritus sancti. — Vult autem orari non solum oratione *mentali*, quae est, « ascensus intellectus in Deum », verum etiam *vocali*, quae est « petitio decentium a Deo[^p263-7] », non solum per *nos ipsos*, verum etiam per *Sanctos* tanquam per coadiutores nobis divinitus datos, ut quod minus digni sumus impetrare per nos impetrare valeamus per Sanctos. — Et quia, *quid oremus, secundum quod oportet, nescimus*, ne vagaremur incerti, formam nobis tradidit in oratione, quam composuit; in qua sub septenario petitionum numero universitas comprehenditur petendorum.

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia primum principium, sicut est summe verum et bonum in se ipso, sic *misericors* et *iustum* in opere suo. Et quoniam *misericordissimum* est, ideo libentissime condescendit humanae miseriae per infusionem gratiae suae. Quia vero simul cum hoc *iustum* est, ideo *donum perfectum*[^p263-8] non dat nisi desideranti, non dat gratiam nisi regratianti, non impendit misericordiam nisi miseriam cognoscenti, ut salva sit libertas arbitrii, et non vilescat nobilitas doni, et integer perseveret cultus honoris divini. Quoniam ergo orantis est divinum affectare subsidium, proprium allegare defectum et gratias agere propter beneficium

<!-- page 264 -->
gratis datum; hinc est, quod oratio disponit ad susceptionem divinorum charismatum, et Deus orari vult ad hoc, ut munera largiatur.

Rursus, quia ad hoc, ut desiderium efficaciter sursum tendat ad impetrandum dona divina, necesse est, quod *affectio* nostra sit fervida, et *cogitatio* in unum collecta, et *exspectatio* nostra sit certa et firma; et quia cor nostrum frequenter est tepidum, frequenter dispersum, frequenter etiam pavidum propter peccati remorsum nec audens per se ipsum comparere ante divinum conspectum: hinc est, quod Dominus voluit, nos non tantum orare *mentaliter*, verum etiam *vocaliter* ad nostri affectus excitationem per verba et ad recollectionem cogitationum per sensum verborum[^p264-1]. — Voluit etiam, nos orare per Sanctos, et Sanctos pro nobis, ad dandam fiduciam pavidis, ut qui non audent, vel non possunt impetrare per se per idoneos impetratores obtineant; ac per hoc in orantibus *humilitas* conservetur, in Sanctis intercedentibus *dignitas* declaretur, in omnibus Christi membris *caritas* et *unitas* ostendatur, qua quae inferiora sunt ad superiora fiducialiter recurrant, et superiora inferioribus liberaliter condescendant.

Postremo, quia Deus iustus et misericors exaudire non debet nisi in his quae spectant ad suum honorem et ad nostram salutem; huiusmodi autem sunt, quae spectant ad praemium patriae et ad viaticum viae, et prima sunt tria, sequentia quatuor: hinc est, quod petitiones orationis dominicae, quae docent, quid petere utiliter debeamus, sunt septem[^p264-2]. — Quae enim spectant ad divinum honorem et praemium patriae sunt tria, scilicet *intelligentia* veritatis, *reverentia* maiestatis et *concordia* voluntatis, seu per alia verba, vel est *visio* summi veri, quod non videtur nisi a mundis et sanctis, et hoc petitur, cum dicitur: *Sanctificetur nomen tuum*, id est; tui nominis notitia perfectis, sanctis et mundis donetur; vel est *tentio* summi ardui, quae reges facit, et per quam regnum habetur, et hoc petitur, cum dicitur: *Adveniat regnum tuum*; vel est *fruitio* summi boni, quae non datur nisi his qui voluntates suas habent divinae voluntati conformes, et hoc petitur, cum dicitur[^p264-3]: *Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra*. — Quae autem spectant ad transitum viae aut respiciunt *collationem* boni conferentis, aut *amotionem* mali nocentis. *Collatio* autem boni conferentis petitur in pane quotidiano sive supersubstantiali, in quo petitur quidquid necessarium est ad conservationem vitae praesentis sive secundum spiritum, sive secundum corpus. *Amotio* autem mali nocentis petitur in tribus petitionibus ultimis: quia omne malum aut tenet rationem *praeteriti*, aut *futuri*, aut *praesentis*; vel aliter, aut tenet rationem mali *culpae*, aut *pugnae*, aut *poenae*. Primum petitur amoveri in *dimissione debitorum*; secundum, in *victoria tentationum*; tertium et ultimum, in *liberatione* ab oppressione malorum. — Et sic septem in universo sunt petitiones, in quibus universaliter[^p264-4] petitur quidquid petendum est; et hoc quidem satis recte, ut septenarius petitionum respondeat septenario divinorum charismatum et donorum gratiae septiformis.

Propter quod notandum, quod septiformem septenarium proponit nobis sacra Scriptura considerandum, scilicet *vitiorum capitalium, Sacramentorum, virtutum, donorum, beatitudinum, petitionum* et *dotum gloriosarum*, trium spiritualium et quatuor corporalium, ut apparebit inferius[^p264-5]: septenarium *vitiorum* tanquam primum, a quo debemus recedere; septenarium *Sacramentorum* secundum, per quem debemus incedere; septenarium *dotum* ultimum, quem debemus appetere; septenarium *petitionum* penultimum, quo debemus petere; septenarium autem *virtutum, donorum* et *beatitudinum* triplicem intermedium, per quem debemus transire; ut sic, *septies in die*[^p264-6] laudantes nomen Domini et orantes, impetremus gratiam septiformem virtutum, donorum et beatitudinum, qua vincamus septiformem pugnam vitiorum capitalium et perveniamus ad septiformem coronam dotum gloriosarum, adiuvante nihilominus septiformi medicina Sacramentorum divinitus ad reparationem humani generis statutorum.

---

english:
### Chapter X. *On the exercise of grace with respect to the things to be asked for and prayed for.*

Concerning the *petitions* of the Lord's Prayer this is to be held: that although God is most bountiful and readier to give than we are to receive, he nevertheless wills to be prayed to by us, that he may have occasion for lavishing the gifts of the grace of the Holy Spirit. — And he wills to be prayed to not only by *mental* prayer, which is « the ascent of the understanding into God », but also by *vocal* prayer, which is « the asking of fitting things from God[^p263-7] » — and not only through *ourselves*, but also through the *Saints*, as through helpers divinely given us, so that what we are less worthy to obtain through ourselves we may be able to obtain through the Saints. — And because *we know not what we should pray for as we ought*, lest we should wander in uncertainty he handed down to us a form in the prayer which he composed, in which, under the sevenfold number of petitions, the whole of what is to be asked for is comprehended.

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the first principle, just as it is supremely true and good in itself, so is it *merciful* and *just* in its work. And because it is *most merciful*, therefore it most willingly condescends to human misery by the infusion of its grace. But because together with this it is *just*, therefore it gives the *perfect gift*[^p263-8] only to him who desires it, gives grace only to him who gives thanks for it, expends mercy only upon him who acknowledges his misery — so that the freedom of choice may be kept safe, and the nobility of the gift may not be cheapened, and the worship of the divine honour may remain entire. Since therefore it belongs to one who prays to seek after the divine help, to plead his own defect and to give thanks for a benefit

<!-- page 264 -->
freely given: hence it is that prayer disposes one to the receiving of the divine charisms, and God wills to be prayed to for this, that he may bestow his gifts.

Again, since for this — that desire may reach effectually upward to the obtaining of the divine gifts — it is necessary that our *affection* be fervent, and our *thought* gathered into one, and our *expectation* certain and firm; and since our heart is frequently lukewarm, frequently scattered, frequently also fearful because of the remorse of sin and not daring to appear of itself before the divine gaze: hence it is that the Lord willed that we should pray not only *mentally* but also *vocally*, for the arousing of our affection through words and for the recollecting of our thoughts through the sense of the words[^p264-1]. — He willed also that we should pray through the Saints, and the Saints for us, to give confidence to the fearful, so that those who do not dare, or cannot obtain through themselves, may obtain through fit intercessors; and through this, that in those who pray *humility* may be preserved, in the Saints who intercede *dignity* may be declared, and in all the members of Christ *charity* and *unity* may be shown — by which the things that are lower may run back to the higher with confidence, and the higher may condescend generously to the lower.

Last, since God, being just and merciful, ought not to hear except in those things which regard his own honour and our salvation; and such are the things which regard the reward of the fatherland and the provision of the way, and the first are three, the following four: hence it is that the petitions of the Lord's Prayer, which teach what we ought usefully to ask, are seven[^p264-2]. — For the things which regard the divine honour and the reward of the fatherland are three, namely the *understanding* of truth, the *reverence* of majesty and the *concord* of will; or, in other words, it is either the *vision* of the highest truth, which is not seen except by the clean and the holy — and this is asked when it is said: *Hallowed be thy name*, that is; may the knowledge of thy name be given to the perfect, the holy and the clean; or it is the *holding* of the highest arduous good, which makes kings and through which a kingdom is had — and this is asked when it is said: *Thy kingdom come*; or it is the *enjoyment* of the highest good, which is not given except to those who have their wills conformed to the divine will — and this is asked when it is said[^p264-3]: *Thy will be done, as in heaven and on earth*. — But the things which regard the passage of the way either look to the *conferring* of a good that profits or to the *removing* of an evil that harms. Now the *conferring* of a good that profits is asked for in the daily or supersubstantial bread, in which is asked whatever is necessary for the preservation of the present life, whether according to the spirit or according to the body. And the *removing* of an evil that harms is asked for in the three last petitions: because every evil either holds the character of the *past*, or of the *future*, or of the *present*; or otherwise, it either holds the character of the evil of *fault*, or of *battle*, or of *punishment*. The first is asked to be removed in the *forgiveness of debts*; the second, in the *victory over temptations*; the third and last, in the *deliverance* from the oppression of evils. — And so there are seven petitions in all, in which is asked universally[^p264-4] whatever is to be asked; and this indeed quite rightly, so that the sevenfold number of petitions may answer to the sevenfold number of the divine charisms and of the gifts of the sevenfold grace.

On which account it is to be noted that sacred Scripture sets before us a sevenfold seven to be considered, namely of the *capital vices, of the Sacraments, of the virtues, of the gifts, of the beatitudes, of the petitions* and *of the dowries of glory* — three spiritual and four bodily, as will appear below[^p264-5]: the seven of the *vices* as the first, from which we must withdraw; the seven of the *Sacraments* second, through which we must advance; the seven of the *dowries* last, which we must desire; the seven of the *petitions* next to last, by which we must ask; and the seven of the *virtues, of the gifts* and *of the beatitudes* the threefold middle, through which we must pass — so that thus, praising the name of the Lord and praying *seven times in the day*[^p264-6], we may obtain the sevenfold grace of the virtues, of the gifts and of the beatitudes, by which we may conquer the sevenfold battle of the capital vices and may arrive at the sevenfold crown of the dowries of glory, aided none the less by the sevenfold medicine of the Sacraments divinely appointed for the repair of the human race.

---

la: Duplex haec orationis definitio datur a Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 24. — Seq. locus est Rom. 8, 26, ubi pro *secundum quod* Vulgata *sicut*. — Inferius substituimus cum 2 et pluribus codd. *tradidit* pro *tribuit*, ubi Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *Dominus et Deus noster Christus*.

en: This twofold definition of prayer is given by Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* III, c. 24. — The following passage is Rom. 8, 26, where for *secundum quod* the Vulgate has *sicut*. — Below we have substituted, with edition 2 and several codices, *tradidit* for *tribuit*, where the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 add *Dominus et Deus noster Christus*.

la: Iac. 1, 17. — Inferius non pauci codd. omittunt *miseriam*.

en: Jas. 1, 17. — Below, not a few codices omit *miseriam*.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. circa finem; ibid. d. 45. a. 3. q. 1. seqq. agitur de suffragiis Sanctorum. — Mox B omittit *per*, et pro *ut qui* edd., excepta 2, *ut quod*.

en: Cf. IV *Sent.*, d. 15, p. II, a. 2, q. 3, toward the end; ibid., d. 45, a. 3, q. 1 and following, where the suffrages of the Saints are treated. — Shortly after, B omits *per*, and for *ut qui* the editions, except 2, have *ut quod*.

la: Matth. 6, 9. seqq. et Luc. 11, 2. seqq. — Inferius voci *mundis* (cfr. Matth. 5, 8.) O addit *perfectis*, ac pro *et hoc*, quod ter occurrit, Vat., 1 et 3 *et haec*.

en: Matth. 6, 9 and following, and Luke 11, 2 and following. — Below, to the word *mundis* (cf. Matth. 5, 8) O adds *perfectis*; and for *et hoc*, which occurs three times, the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 have *et haec*.

la: D F G M U et 2 *subditur*.

en: D F G M U and edition 2 have *subditur*.

la: F N *utiliter*.

en: F N have *utiliter*.

la: Partis VII. c. 7. — De *septenario* peccatorum cfr. supra p. III. c. 9, virtutum, donorum et beatitudinum vide c. 4. seqq. huius partis, Sacramentorum c. 3. partis seq. — Edd. cum paucis codd. immediate post repetunt *proponit ergo*.

en: Pars VII, c. 7. — On the *seven* sins cf. above, Pars III, c. 9; on the virtues, the gifts and the beatitudes see c. 4 and following of this part; on the Sacraments, c. 3 of the following part. — The editions, with a few codices, immediately afterwards repeat *proponit ergo*.

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 263–264, AND THE END IS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM THE `PARS SEXTA` DISPLAY HEADING, NOT FROM WHITE SPACE.** `Cap. X. / De exercitio gratiae respectu petendorum / et orandorum.` stands about **55 % down p. 263's RIGHT column**, with a **TWO-line** subtitle, exactly where `bon-brev-p5-c9` placed it. Cap. X fills the rest of p. 263's right column, to `…et gratias agere propter beneficium`; breaks across the leaf on a **NOUN SEVERED FROM THE ADVERBIAL PHRASE THAT QUALIFIES IT** (`beneficium` / `gratis datum`); fills p. 264's **LEFT column entire**, to `…quae non datur nisi his qui volunta-`; crosses p. 264's gutter **MID-WORD AND HYPHENATED** (`volunta-` / `tes suas habent divinae voluntati conformes`); and closes about **66 % down p. 264's RIGHT column** at `…ad reparationem humani generis statutorum.`
★★ **THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE NEXT HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** Both of p. 264's columns stop at the same height, roughly two-thirds down the leaf, and the whole strip between the body and the footer register is blank paper. **That blank was not treated as evidence.** The end is fixed from the **full-width `PARS SEXTA. / De medicina sacramentali.` display heading**, read on p. 265's band, followed by `Cap. I. / De Sacramentorum origine.` and the body `Postquam actum est de Trinitate Dei, de creatura mundi, de corruptela peccati, de incarnatione Verbi et gratia Spiritus sancti; iam nunc sexto agendum est de medicina sacramentali…`. **The index's p. 265 for the Pars VI opening is CONFIRMED**, and with it Pars V's span of pp. 252–264.
★★ **AND THE STANDING PRECEDENT FOR PART OPENINGS IS BROKEN.** At both prior boundaries in this work the new pars opened **part-way down** a leaf — `PARS QUARTA` part-way down p. 241, `PARS QUINTA` part-way down p. 252, in each case below the preceding pars's short tail. **`PARS SEXTA` does not: it stands at the HEAD of p. 265**, and Pars V is left to end two-thirds down p. 264 with a third of a leaf blank. **Two precedents, and the third case went the other way** — which is exactly why the rule forbids closing on white space and requires the next heading.

**★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE FIFTEENTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF, AND ON p. 265 IT IS FINALLY BEHIND.** p. 264's head reads **`264   BREVILOQUII PARS V. C. X.`** over a leaf that is Cap. X entire — the first leaf in this run where the head is simply right, because there is only one capitulum on it. **p. 265's head reads `PARS VI.` with no chapter at all**, which is the shape Quaracchi uses on a part-opening leaf. Read on the bands; used for nothing. The boundary was set from the `PARS SEXTA` heading.

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE BREAK, NOT AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY — as in `p5-c6` through `p5-c9`, and for the same reason.** The leaf break falls **mid-paragraph**, inside the *Ratio autem* paragraph, between `beneficium` and `gratis datum`, and the paragraph's own end is three lines further on; `<!-- page 264 -->` therefore stands **at the break itself**, so that the printed page each line belongs to stays recoverable.

**Gutters — one adopted, one MEASURED FRESH on a page never before imaged.** **p. 263 = 1195**, the value `bon-brev-p5-c9` derived from that leaf's ink profile; the right column reads clean edge to edge at that split and the Cap. X heading centres on it. — **p. 264 = 1365, measured fresh: the page was extracted at 450 dpi for the first time in this chunk** (`extract-pages.py --volume vol5 --pages 264 --dpi 450`), and `colcrop.py vol5 264` with no constant returns `split_x=1367, low-ink run 53 px`. **53 px is below the 60 px trust floor, so the escalation ran in full — and it also exposed why the tool's default window is unsafe on this leaf.**
- **Row-window sweep.** The tool's own body window (45–92 %) gives **1367 / 53 px**. Widening and re-aiming: 45–65 % → **1276 / 237 px** · 50–70 % → **1342 / 370** · 55–75 % → **1311 / 432** · 58–78 % → **1317 / 444** · 62–85 % → **1310 / 457** · 74–92 % → **1298 / 434**. **Six blow-outs of 237–457 px — the same species of nonsense as p. 263's 375 px, p. 248's 251 px and p. 252's ~330 px, and here the cause is not a heading but the SHORT BODY COLUMNS: the body ends at ~66 % of the page height, so every window aimed below that is profiling blank paper and returns the midpoint of the margin, not of the gutter.** Re-windowed onto the leaf's true body rows the picture snaps back: 6–65 % → **1365 / 58 px** · 20–40 % → **1367 / 62** · 28–45 % → **1360 / 75** · 35–52 % → **1366 / 63**. **Four sound windows, spread 7 px, runs 58–75 px.**
- **Per-column ink profile, printed per the standing rule even though the sound windows agreed.** Over rows 6–65 % the blank band runs **x = 1337–1394** and carries **ONE in-gutter island at x = 1361–1372, peaking at 763 rows on x = 1367 — Quaracchi's printed column rule, and it is essentially CENTRED**, the band's own midpoint being 1365.5. **Adopted 1365**, the band midpoint, in preference to the default's 1367; the difference is 2 px and immaterial to the crop, but the profile is what shows the default was measuring the rule's peak rather than the band. **Skew: the upper windows give 1367 and 1360 and the lower 1365–1366 — no consistent direction, so this leaf carries essentially NO skew**, unlike p. 263's rightward 4.
- ★ **The lesson worth carrying into Pars VI: a leaf whose body columns END EARLY defeats the 45–92 % default just as thoroughly as a display heading does, and it does it by producing an enormous run rather than a tiny one.** Gutter rule 2 names in-column and full-width headings; **this is a third form — the short column — and it is guaranteed to recur at every part and work opening's PRECEDING leaf.**

**Apparatus (8 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 263 nn. 7–8** (inherited, every claim re-derived, closing that register entire) and **p. 264 nn. 1–6** (first-read; the whole register). Every anchor below was read on the band at 450 dpi under direct high-factor zoom.
- p. 263 n. **7** on `est « petitio decentium a Deo`⁷ `»` — **RIGHT** column, in Cap. X's second thesis, nine lines below the `Cap. X.` heading, beside the `Thesis 2.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block. **The marker stands INSIDE the guillemets.**
- p. 263 n. **8** on `ideo *donum perfectum*`⁸ — **RIGHT** column, in the *Ratio* paragraph, five lines below the `Pro thesi 1.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 264 n. **1** on `per sensum verborum`¹ — **LEFT** column, closing the *vocaliter* member of the *Rursus* paragraph, on the line the `Intercessio Sanctorum.` gloss stands beside; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 264 n. **2** on `quid petere utiliter debeamus, sunt septem`² — **LEFT** column, closing the *Postremo* thesis, immediately above the `Primae 3 petitiones.` gloss; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 264 n. **3** on `et hoc petitur, cum dicitur`³`: *Fiat voluntas tua*` — **RIGHT** column, on the page's SECOND body line; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 264 n. **4** on `in quibus universaliter`⁴ — **RIGHT** column, closing the *Et sic septem in universo* summary; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 264 n. **5** on `ut apparebit inferius`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, in the *Propter quod notandum* corollary, beside the `Septiformia septenaria.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 264 n. **6** on `ut sic, *septies in die*`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, in the same corollary, eleven lines above the chapter's last line; entry in the **RIGHT** block.

**★★ p. 264's FOOTER: THE BLOCK LINE FALLS ONE NOTE BELOW THE COLUMN LINE, AND THE CAPITULUM LINE IS NOT ON THE LEAF AT ALL.** Derived from this chunk's own per-note list above and from nothing else: p. 264's **anchors** divide **2 / 4** (nn. 1–2 LEFT column, nn. 3–6 RIGHT); its **blocks** divide **3 / 3** (nn. 1–3 LEFT block, nn. 4–6 RIGHT); and there is **no capitulum line on the page**, because Cap. X is the only capitulum on it. **The dissenting note is n. 3, whose anchor stands on the SECOND body line of the RIGHT column while its entry prints in the LEFT block** — a one-note overrun of the left block past the column division, the same geometry family as pp. 220, 221, 226, 233 and 239. ⚠ **No claim is made here about how often that shape has occurred in Pars V; establishing it would mean re-deriving pp. 252–262's anchors, which this chunk did not do. What is asserted is p. 264 and only p. 264.**

**★★ WHAT THIS CHUNK INHERITED — p. 263 nn. 7–8, OWNERSHIP AND COLUMN AND POSITION ALL HELD, AND ONE FORWARDED DETAIL DID NOT.** `bon-brev-p5-c9` forwarded both notes in the strongest form — ownership, column and position all declared verified — together with a transcription of Cap. X's opening. All of it was re-derived from p. 263's bands here rather than adopted.
- **Both anchors HELD exactly as declared**, n. 7 inside the guillemets on `petitio decentium a Deo` beside `Thesis 2.`, n. 8 on `donum perfectum` in the *Ratio* paragraph; **both entry texts held VERBATIM, every digit and siglum**, including `Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 24`, `Rom. 8, 26`, `cum 2 et pluribus codd.`, `Vat., 1 et 3` and `Iac. 1, 17`.
- **★★ ONE FORWARDED DETAIL FAILED, AND IT IS AN ITALIC.** `p5-c9`'s transcription of Cap. X's *Ratio* paragraph set **`sicut est summe *verum* et bonum in se ipso`** with *verum* italic. **The plate sets `ve-` / `rum et bonum` ROMAN**, and italicises only `misericors` and `iustum` in the answering member — verified at 18× on the two lines, where `misericors et iustum` stand in the unmistakable italic face nine words after an upright `verum et bonum`. **Corrected here; the italic is not carried.** ★ **This is the forwarded-DETAIL failure the frozen rule predicts: ownership held (18 in 18 now), and a detail did not (4 failures in 18). It is also the least conspicuous class of detail there is — an italic changes no letter and would have parsed clean for ever.**
- **NO forwarded summary sentence was carried.** `p5-c9`'s prose about p. 263's 4/4 geometry concerns notes this chunk does not own, and its explicit refusal to call that shape a Pars V first is left standing rather than converted into a claim.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS — NOTHING FROM ITS OWN PAGES, BUT A SCOPED PENDING FOR p. 265.** p. 264's register is **SIX** and **all six anchor in Cap. X**, so no note leaves this chunk. **p. 265 is not this chunk's page and its register was NOT owned or fed to `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; it was read only to close the p. 264 → p. 265 runover test and to fix the pars boundary. What was seen there, stated with its verification level, for `bon-brev-p6-c1`:
- **p. 265's register is SIX, block split 2 / 4 — VERIFIED BY READING BOTH BLOCKS, but NO anchor on p. 265 was read and NONE is claimed.** Left block: n. **1** `Isidor., VI. Etymolog. c. 19. n. 40. Vide tom. III. pag. 895, nota 5. — Seq. sententia est Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2, qui etiam, ibid. c. 3, docet, Sacramenta esse instituta « propter humiliationem, propter eruditionem, propter exercitationem ». — De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. per totam. — Mox post *ex similitudine* Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *naturali*.` · n. **2** `A B C H *quia Verbum divinum*. Pro *dispensat* I K L O U *disponit*.` Right block: n. **3** `Cfr. supra p. III. c. 3.` · n. **4** `Vat., 1 et 3 *sanaretur et curaretur*.` · n. **5** `Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 4. — Pro *accedentibus* E *accipientibus*.` · n. **6** `Ut docet Magister Sententiarum, IV. Sent. d. 1. c. 5. (cfr. Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 5.). — Fide D E I K M N et 2 substituimus *potentiam* pro *gratiam*.` **These six are a PENDING for `bon-brev-p6-c1`, which must re-derive every one of them — anchors, columns, digits and sigla alike.** ★ **Two of them carry live siglum decisions this chunk deliberately did not settle: n. 2's `A B C H` (two uprights, so `H` is possible where one upright never is) and its `I K L O U`, and n. 6's `D E I K M N`.**

**Runover findings — THREE OWED, ALL THREE NEGATIVE, ALL THREE CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 263 → p. 264 — **NEGATIVE**, as owed.* p. 263's right footer block ends **complete** at n. 8 (`…Inferius non pauci codd. omittunt *miseriam*.`) with clear paper below it, and **p. 264's left block opens NUMBERED: `¹ Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 3.`**
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 264 — **NEGATIVE**, and this chunk's own.* p. 264's left block ends **complete** at n. 3 (`³ D F G M U et 2 *subditur*.`), a whole entry on one short line, and **the right block opens NUMBERED at n. 4 (`⁴ F N *utiliter*.`)**.
- *Page-crossing, p. 264 → p. 265 — **NEGATIVE**, as owed, and it is the last runover test in Pars V.* p. 264's right block ends **complete** at n. 6 (`⁶ Psalm. 118, 164.`) with the whole strip below blank, and **p. 265's left block opens NUMBERED: `¹ Isidor., VI. Etymolog. c. 19. n. 40.`**
- **Logged once: `p5-c10  -`.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* `p.263 n.4:gutter` and the p. 262 → p. 263 test (both `p5-c9`); the p. 261 → p. 262 test and p. 262's own gutter test (both `p5-c8`); the p. 260 → p. 261 test and p. 261's own gutter test (both `p5-c7`); `p.259 n.5:gutter` and `p.260 n.3:gutter` and the p. 258 → p. 259 and p. 259 → p. 260 tests (all four `p5-c6`); p. 257's own gutter test, p. 257 → p. 258 and p. 258's own gutter test (all three `p5-c5`); p. 256's own gutter test and p. 256 → p. 257 (both `p5-c4`); `p.255 n.8:gutter` and the p. 254 → p. 255 and p. 255 → p. 256 tests (all three `p5-c3`); `p.253 n.9:page` and `p.254 n.3:gutter` (both `p5-c2`); the p. 252 → p. 253 test and p. 253's own gutter test (both `p5-c1`). **p. 265's own gutter test is NOT this chunk's and is NOT logged — p. 265 carries no Pars V text; it belongs to `bon-brev-p6-c1`.**

**★★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE AND THE QUIRE SIGNATURE BOTH APPEAR, AND BOTH ON p. 265 — NEITHER ON p. 264.** p. 264 carries neither: both of its footer blocks were read to their last line (the left ends on n. 3's one-line `D F G M U et 2 *subditur*.`, the right on n. 6's `Psalm. 118, 164.`), and the whole strip from there to the foot of the sheet holds **397 ink pixels across a 423-row full-width band — scanner speckle, not type.** **p. 265 carries BOTH**: `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` stands below the left footer block and the quire signature `34` below the right. **The ~8-leaf cadence predicted from p. 257 (signature, quire `33`) is exactly right — p. 265 is eight leaves on and the quire number has advanced by one.** **Neither mark is ever an entry; neither was counted, and p. 264's register is six and p. 265's is six on the numerals, not on the block lines.**

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **This leaf's register is dominated by the `1`/`4` class, and the decisive case has a genuine `4` and a flagged `1` in the SAME citation, one line apart.**
- **★★ `Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. circa finem; ibid. d. 45. a. 3. q. 1. seqq.` (p. 264 n. 1) — TWO distinctions whose numerals differ by a single sort, set fourteen characters apart across a line break, and they are NOT the same distinction.** At 20× the first is a **narrow upright with an angled flag at the upper left and a foot serif** — the `1` sort — while the second is the **wide, open-topped, diagonally crossed `4`**; the two stand on consecutive lines of one entry and the contrast is direct. **`d. 15` and `d. 45`.** ★ **Three independent confirmations. (a) Sense: IV *Sent.* d. 15 pars II is where Bonaventure treats prayer as a part of satisfaction — which is this anchor's subject, `orare mentaliter … vocaliter … per sensum verborum` — and d. 45 is the distinction on suffrages, which the entry itself names (`agitur de suffragiis Sanctorum`). (b) Grammar: the entry writes `ibid. d. 45`, and Quaracchi's `ibid.` repeats the WORK; had the distinction been the same it would not have been re-set. (c) The raw, unusually, agrees — it reads `d. 1-5.` and `il. i.5.`, i.e. it too saw two different numerals.** `q. 3.` and `a. 2.`, `a. 3.` are unambiguous; the closing `q. 1.` is the flagged narrow sort, read against the genuine `4` of `d. 45` three words earlier on its own line.
- **★★ `Matth. 6, 9. seqq. et Luc. 11, 2. seqq.` and `(cfr. Matth. 5, 8.)` (p. 264 n. 2) — THREE flagged `1`s and one `3`/`5`, all inside one two-line entry.** The `11` of `Luc. 11` is two narrow flagged uprights; `Matth. 5, 8.` is the flat-topped `5` over a single bowl, not a double-bowled `3`. ★ **Sense settles every one: Matth. 6, 9 (`sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster`) and Luke 11, 2 (`cum oratis dicite: Pater`) are the two Gospel texts of the Lord's Prayer, which is this entry's whole subject; and Matth. 5, 8 is `beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt` — the beatitude the anchor's `non videtur nisi a mundis et sanctis` is quoting.**
- **★★ `Partis VII. c. 7.`, `p. III. c. 9`, `c. 4. seqq.`, `c. 3. partis seq.` (p. 264 n. 5) — FOUR chapter numerals in one entry, and every one is checkable against this work's own structure.** The `4` of `c. 4.` is the wide open sort; `7`, `9` and `3` are unambiguous. ★ **All four self-corroborate: Breviloquium Pars VII c. 7 is the chapter *de dotibus*, which is what `dotum gloriosarum … ut apparebit inferius` points forward to; Pars III c. 9 is *De origine et distinctione capitalium peccatorum*, which is the `septenario peccatorum` the entry names; `c. 4. seqq. huius partis` lands on Pars V capp. IV, V and VI — virtues, gifts, beatitudes, in that order, which is the order the entry lists them in; and `c. 3. partis seq.` is Pars VI's chapter on the number of the Sacraments.**
- **★★ `Psalm. 118, 164.` (p. 264 n. 6) — a flagged `1` opening the psalm number and a battered `4` closing the verse, in five digits.** ★ **Sense settles it outright and needs no glyph: Ps. 118, 164 is `septies in die laudem dixi tibi`, and the anchor is the italicised `septies in die`. There is no other verse in the Psalter the anchor could be.**
- **★★ SIGLA — `D F G M U` (p. 264 n. 3); `F N` (p. 264 n. 4); `B` and the editions (p. 264 n. 1); `O` and `Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 264 n. 2); `Edd.` and `codd.` unlettered (p. 264 n. 5).**
  - **★ `D F G M U` — five sorts, strictly alphabetical, and the last is a genuine `U`.** At 16× the fifth sort is a **rounded bowl on two stems**, not the pointed `V`; and `D F G M U` is alphabetical on that reading. **This is the same `U` the volume's raw rendered as `U` correctly here while corrupting it to `H` on p. 210 n. 5** — the raw's siglum errors are not systematic in one direction.
  - **★ `F N` — TWO sorts, and the second is a two-upright `N`, not `H` and not `I`.** The diagonal joining the uprights is unbroken at 20×. **One upright is never `H`; two uprights are `H` or `N` or `II`, and the diagonal decides.** `F N` is alphabetical.
  - **★ `O` (p. 264 n. 2) — a genuine capital `O`, not a zero.** The witness slot's rule holds: `O` here stands among letters and `Vat., 1 et 3` in the same clause sets the numerals as editions, exactly as the standing rule says. `B` in n. 1 and `Edd. … excepta 2` in the same entry are the same pattern.
  - **★ NO `R`/`K` corruption on this leaf, in either direction** — there is no `K` on it at all, in body or footer. **p. 265's register has two (`I K L O U`, `D E I K M N`) and they are `bon-brev-p6-c1`'s to settle.**

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ ODD POINTING PRESERVED: `id est;` WITH A SEMICOLON.** p. 264's left column sets `cum dicitur: *Sanctificetur nomen tuum*, id est; tui nominis notitia perfectis, sanctis et mundis donetur`. **A semicolon after `id est` is wrong by any modern pointing and a colon is what the sense wants** — and the plate sets a semicolon, unmistakably, at 12×: two marks, the upper round and the lower comma-tailed. **The raw reproduces it.** Preserved as printed in the Latin and rendered with a semicolon in the English so the anomaly is visible; **a polish pass must not "repair" it.** ★ **Note the contrast on the same line: the two parallel members below it (`cum dicitur: *Adveniat regnum tuum*`, `cum dicitur³: *Fiat voluntas tua*`) both take a plain colon, so this is one member out of three, not a house habit.**
- **★★ A BATTERED SORT RENDERED WHOLE: the marginal gloss `Pro thesi 1.` on p. 263 prints with a broken `1`.** The flag and upper stem printed; the lower stem is thin and the period is faint. Rendered whole as **`Pro thesi 1.`** — `Pro thesi 2.` and `Pro thesi 3.` stand below it on p. 264 in the same gloss face, and the series admits no other numeral. **This is the SECOND leaf running on which a `Thesis`/`Pro thesi` gloss numeral printed battered** (`p5-c9` recorded `Thesis 1.` printing as `Thesis !` on p. 262); recorded rather than flagged, as there.
- **★ NO LINE-END LOSS AT ANY COLUMN FOOT ON EITHER LEAF — CHECKED, NOT ASSUMED.** Every body line of p. 263's right column (Cap. X's portion) and of both of p. 264's columns was measured against its justified right margin. p. 263 R's margin sits at x ≈ 2172–2180 and its last line before the break (`…propter beneficium`) reaches 2179. p. 264 L's margin sits at x ≈ 1318–1329 and its last line (`…nisi his qui volunta-`) reaches 1320. p. 264 R's margin sits at x ≈ 2346–2355 and every line reaches it except three, all of which are paragraph ends (`…ut munera largiatur.`, `…ptiformis.`, and the chapter's own last line `generis statutorum.`). **The p. 261 plate-level defect does not recur here.**
- **★ THE INK IS EVEN ACROSS BOTH LEAVES.** p. 263's rightward-and-downward fade, which `p5-c9` recorded over Cap. IX's last five lines, **stops at the `Cap. X.` heading**: Cap. X's portion of the same column prints at full strength. p. 264 prints evenly throughout. No under-inking anywhere in this chunk's text.
- **★ THE `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` COLON — TWENTY-THIRD consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–X, Pars V capp. I–X). **Pars V is the first pars in which it stands in EVERY capitulum without exception, I through X**, which is a statement about Pars V's ten chapters and about nothing else. Here it opens on `quia primum principium, sicut est summe verum et bonum in se ipso, sic *misericors* et *iustum* in opere suo` — a **`sicut … sic` correlative**, the same shape as Cap. IX's and the only shape to repeat on consecutive chapters in this pars. The marginal gloss `Ratio.` marks it, as it did in Capp. VII, VIII and IX.
- **★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION IS FIVE, AND ALL FIVE FALL INSIDE PARAGRAPHS.** Two in the opening thesis (`…Spiritus sancti. — Vult autem orari…`, separating prayer's being willed from its two modes; `…valeamus per Sanctos. — Et quia, *quid oremus*…`, separating the modes from the form given); one in the *Rursus* paragraph (`…per sensum verborum¹. — Voluit etiam, nos orare per Sanctos…`, separating vocal prayer from the Saints' intercession); two in the *Postremo* paragraph (`…sunt septem². — Quae enim spectant…`, separating the count from its derivation; `…sicut in caelo et in terra. — Quae autem spectant ad transitum viae…`, separating the first three petitions from the last four). ★ **Here, unlike Cap. IX, the dashes DO track the glosses: `Thesis 2.`, `Thesis 3.`, `Intercessio Sanctorum.` and `Sequentes 4.` each stand on or beside a dashed turn.** **Never infer the relation from a neighbour — Cap. IX's dashes did the opposite.**
- **`Deus`, `Dei`, `Deum`, `Deo`, `Dominus`, `Domini`, `Sanctos`, `Sanctis`, `Sanctorum`, `Spiritus sancti`, `Christi`, `Scriptura`, `Sacramentorum`, `Sent.`, `Vat.` are capitalised as printed**, and `oratio`, `orationis dominicae`, `petitiones`, `petenda`, `gratia`, `charismata`, `dona`, `virtutes`, `beatitudines`, `dotes`, `vitia capitalia` are not; the English follows. ★ **Note `Sacramentorum` capitalised at all four of its occurrences while `sacramentali` is not — the same deliberate asymmetry between a substantive and its adjective that the plate kept in `Moysaica`/`evangelica` in Cap. IX.** `tanquam`, `quotidiano`, `adiuvante`, `nihilominus`, `exspectatio` and `tentio` keep the plate's spellings.

**★★ ENUMERATION — THE PETITIONS ARE SEVEN, AND THE SEVEN ARE DIVIDED 3 + 4, THEN THE FOUR ARE DIVIDED 1 + 3. Counted off the plate, not off the doctrine.**
- **(a) SEVEN, AND THE PLATE SAYS SO THREE TIMES IN THREE DIFFERENT REGISTERS.** The thesis on p. 263 says `sub septenario petitionum numero universitas comprehenditur petendorum`; the derivation on p. 264 says `sunt septem²`; the summary says `Et sic septem in universo sunt petitiones`. **`septem` is ROMAN at both of its occurrences and `septenario` roman too — the count is never the sub-thesis here, only the running total**, which is the same italic principle Cap. IX used and the reverse of what a reader might expect on a chapter whose whole architecture is the number seven. **Seven was the expected count and it is the printed one — but it was established from these three sentences, not assumed: Cap. VI's beatitudes were seven and not eight, and Cap. VII's articles were fourteen with the familiar twelve subordinate.**
- **(b) THE PRINCIPLE OF DIVISION IS 3 + 4, AND IT IS STATED BEFORE THE PETITIONS ARE NAMED.** `et prima sunt tria, sequentia quatuor` — three for `praemium patriae`, four for `viaticum viae`. The margin numbers the halves in ARABIC (`Primae 3 petitiones.`, `Sequentes 4.`) while the body spells them out (`tria`, `quatuor`) — **the same gloss/body split `p5-c7` and `p5-c9` found**, and here it runs across a column break, the `3` gloss in the left column and the `4` gloss in the right.
- **(c) THE FIRST THREE ARE DERIVED TWICE OVER, AND THE SECOND DERIVATION IS THE ONE THAT MAPS.** They are first given abstractly — `*intelligentia* veritatis, *reverentia* maiestatis et *concordia* voluntatis` — and then, `seu per alia verba`, as `*visio* summi veri` / `*tentio* summi ardui` / `*fruitio* summi boni`, and **only this second triad is matched member for member to the petitions**: *Sanctificetur nomen tuum* / *Adveniat regnum tuum* / *Fiat voluntas tua*. ★ **The first triad is never mapped to anything.** This is the same figure Cap. IX used for the first table's three — a chain of parallel triads with the mapping left implicit — but here the chapter does supply the mapping, on the second try.
- **(d) THE LAST FOUR ARE DIVIDED 1 + 3, NOT 2 + 2, AND THE PRINCIPLE IS *collatio* AGAINST *amotio*.** `Collatio boni conferentis` takes **one** petition (the bread, `quotidiano sive supersubstantiali`); `amotio mali nocentis` takes **three** (`in tribus petitionibus ultimis`). ★ **And the three are themselves derived twice, on two incompatible principles offered side by side: `aut tenet rationem *praeteriti*, aut *futuri*, aut *praesentis*; vel aliter, aut tenet rationem mali *culpae*, aut *pugnae*, aut *poenae*.` The margin marks the second with the single gloss `Aliter.` The chapter maps only the SECOND to the petitions** — debts / temptations / deliverance from evils — **and leaves past-future-present hanging, exactly as it left the first triad of (c) hanging.** **Rendered as printed and not reconciled.**
- **(e) THE COROLLARY'S SEVEN SEVENS ARE A SEPARATE SERIES AND ARE COUNTED ON A THIRD PRINCIPLE.** `vitiorum capitalium, Sacramentorum, virtutum, donorum, beatitudinum, petitionum et dotum gloriosarum` — **seven septenaries, ordered not by dignity but by the reader's itinerary**: first (vices, to withdraw from), second (Sacraments, to advance through), *triplex intermedium* (virtues, gifts, beatitudes, to pass through), penultimate (petitions, to ask by), last (dowries, to desire). ★ **So the list's printed order and the order of the argument DIFFER, and the chapter says so**: the list runs vices–Sacraments–virtues–gifts–beatitudes–petitions–dowries, while the itinerary runs first–second–middle-three–penultimate–last. **The italics follow the list, not the itinerary: all seven are italic where they are enumerated, and in the itinerary only the naming word of each member is italic.** ★ **`trium spiritualium et quatuor corporalium` is a further 3 + 4 inside the same sentence, and it does NOT correspond to the petitions' 3 + 4 — it divides the seven septenaries, not the seven petitions.** **A brief that reports "the petitions are seven, divided three and four" has reported one of five countings on this leaf.**

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 263 R — "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Ratio." · "Pro thesi 1." p. 264 L — "Pro thesi 2." · "Intercessio Sanctorum." · "Triplex ratio." · "Pro thesi 3." · "Primae 3 petitiones." p. 264 R — "Sequentes 4." · "Aliter." · "Corollarium." · "Septiformia septenaria." **Fourteen glosses, and a NINTH gloss grammar in nine consecutive capitula.** ★ **The `Thesis N.` / `Pro thesi N.` pair-series returns from Capp. VII, VIII and IX, and here for the first time in Pars V it runs COMPLETE and IN ORDER — three theses, three answers, one to one, `Pro thesi 1.` immediately below `Ratio.` and `Pro thesi 2.` and `Pro thesi 3.` following in sequence.** Cap. IX broke the correspondence by fusing two (`Pro thesi 1 et 2.`); Cap. X does not break it at all. ★ **What is new is a THIRD layer the pair-series has never carried: four glosses that annotate the ARGUMENT'S SHAPE rather than its theses — `Triplex ratio.` (counting a reason, not a thesis), `Aliter.` (marking an alternative derivation, and it is the shortest gloss in Pars V), `Corollarium.` (naming the paragraph's genre) and `Septiformia septenaria.` (naming its content) — plus two that COUNT (`Primae 3 petitiones.`, `Sequentes 4.`) and one that names a topic (`Intercessio Sanctorum.`).** ★ **So the closing capitulum of Pars V carries a complete numbered pair-series AND a genre gloss AND a counting pair AND a topical gloss, four grammars in one chapter — where Cap. IX carried three and Cap. VIII two.** **Never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's — nine capitula, nine forms.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Five readings could have carried one — the two distinction numerals in p. 264 n. 1 (`d. 15` against `d. 45`), the `q. 1.` closing the same entry, the semicolon in `id est;`, the battered `1` in the `Pro thesi 1.` gloss, and the `U` closing `D F G M U` — and each is settled positively: by a direct flag-versus-open-apex contrast on consecutive lines of one entry, reinforced by the subject matter of both distinctions and by Quaracchi's own `ibid.`; by the same contrast on its own line; by a 12× reading of two distinct marks against the two plain colons in the parallel members below it; by the two intact members of its own gloss series; and by the rounded bowl and by strict alphabetical order. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag.

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.** The bodies were re-set line-by-line from the bands; the raw was consulted only as a cross-check and is graded here for the Pars VI agent's benefit. ★ **The headline finding is that this leaf-pair is the CLEANEST in the whole of Pars V — and that the one place the raw does markedly better than usual is the place it has failed hardest for four leaves running: the marginal glosses, twelve of whose fourteen survive readable.**
- **p. 263, right column (Cap. X's portion, the 27 lines below the `Cap. X.` heading) — GOOD.** `Cai'. .\.` (**the heading's numeral destroyed, as always**), `De erercUio ijratiue rexpeclu pelendiiruiii / et orandoruiii.` (**both subtitle lines shattered**), `De petilionilms`, `doininicae lioc`, `licel Dcus`, `liberalissinius`, `[)romptior`, `([uam`, `acci[)iendum`, `habcat`, `Thcsis i.` and `Thcsis 2.` (**both gloss numerals damaged**), `oralione TOe/)/a^«` (**`mentali` destroyed**), `intelleclus`, `eliain vocali`, `«petitio decentium a Deo''»`, `noii solum`, `verumetiam per Sunctus` (**space lost and `Sanctos` mangled**), `niinus`, `sunius im[)etrare`, `(luid orenius`, `vagarcmur`, `Ibrmam'`, `qiiam compo.suit'`, `petitionuin nuinero`, `iietcndoruin`, `haee naiio.`, `principiuin`, `quoiiiam`, `liljentissime`, `siinul`, `perfeclurn^`, `impen-dit`, `perseverct cultus honoris divini,` (**period set as comma**), `aflectare`, `propriunl`, `bcneficium`. **About thirty-four garbles in twenty-seven printed lines, TWO words destroyed, and ONE wrong point that reaches the text.** ★ **Density HIGH, severity LOW — every destroyed item is recoverable from grammar. But note `divini,` for `divini.`: a comma where the plate sets a period, at a sentence boundary, of exactly the family as p. 260's `plurima,`. It would not have moved a chunk boundary here, because the boundary is a leaf away — but it is the same defect that could.**
- **p. 264, left column — VERY GOOD, and the cleanest body column in Pars V.** `gratis datuui`, `qnod oratio disponit ad sn-sceptioneiu`, `vnlt`, `eflicaci-ter`, `Pro ihcii 2.` (**gloss mangled**), `impetrandnni dona diviiia`, `cogi-,latio`, `exspectaUo`, `nostrnm`, `tepi-dnm`, `frcquenter`, `andcns`, `divinnin conspectnm`, `vohiit`, `nimta-liter`, `vocalitcr ail`, `iniercessio / Mnciornm.` (**the `Intercessio Sanctorum.` gloss mangled but both words recoverable**), `pgj. gjj^gtQg` (**`per Sanctos` destroyed**), `ef Sanctos pro nohis,ad dandam fidn-ciam` (**space lost**), `qni`, `idonens`, `ohtineant`, `Tripies ra-""■` (**the `Triplex ratio.` gloss half destroyed**), `pcr hoc in oranlihus`, `intercedentihus`, `declarelur`, `snperiora`, `coiide-scendant`, `qnia`, `exaii-dire`, `pro ihesi 3.`, `dehe(t`, `liis`, `pracmium patriao`, `qnod petitiones`, `deheamus, sunt septein ^`, `Primae 3 / peiiuones.`, `Q"'''*' eiijiii spcctant` (**`Quae enim` destroyed**), `ijjjuij^ patiiac suut tria` (**`praemium` destroyed**), `intelUgcntia`, `revcrentia`, `voluiitatis`, `sen per alia vcrha`, `snmmi veri, qnod`, `videlur nisi a ninndis`, `iioc peti-tnr`, `Sunctificetur nomentuum` (**space lost**), `tcntio summi ardni`, `honi , quac`. **About forty-eight garbles in fifty-eight printed lines, THREE words destroyed, and no wrong reading that reaches the text.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity VERY LOW — and the finding worth carrying is the reverse of the last four leaves: all five of this column's marginal glosses survive at least partly readable, where p. 261 lost five of six and p. 262 lost three of six outright. The raw's failure mode is not stable across leaves and cannot be predicted from the previous one.**
- **p. 264, right column — GOOD.** `tes snas habent`, `lioc`, `dicitur^: Fial volunlas tiia, siciU in / caelo et in lerra.` (**`sicut` mangled to a different word**), `transi-tnm viae ant`, `colkuioncm boni confereii-tis`, `pctitur in pane qnotidiano`, `iii qno petitur qnidquid necessariuiii`, `S[)iritnm`, `sccundum corpns`, `Aniotio autein`, `trilms petitionihus ultimis;` (**colon set as semicolon**), `maluiii`, `fu-tnri`, `aul pracsentis`, `ant tenet rationem`, `ciilpae, ant pngnae`, `dehitorum`, `victori.a teatationum` (**`victoria` broken by a spurious point and `tentationum` mangled**), `terlium et nltimum`, `liheratione ah`, `malornm`, `septom`, `nniverso simt pctiliones`, `universaliter ^`, `pclitur qnidquid pctendum`, `qnidcm`, `septenarins petitionun> resiwndeat` (**`respondeat` destroyed**), `diviiiorum cliarismatum-`, `nohis sacra Scriptura considc-randum`, `virtulum`, `hcatitudinwn`, `dotum (jloriosaruni`, `trinm`, `cor[">oralium`, `inferius^`, `vitiormn tanquam primnm`, `dehemns incedere`, `septenarinm pctitionum`, `heatitudinnm`, `septies in die '^`, `im[)ctremus`, `virtntum`, `septiformem. pngnam`, `septilbrmem coronam dolnm`, `adinvante nihilominns scptiformi`, `Sacramentornm divinitns ad re[»rationem liumani` (**`reparationem` destroyed**), `gencris slatntornm`. **About forty-six garbles in fifty-two printed lines, TWO words destroyed, ONE wrong point, and ONE substitution that parses.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity MODERATE — and the dangerous item is `siciU` for `sicut` inside the Vulgate lemma `Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra`: it is one letter from a real word in a real slot, in a text every reader knows by heart, so a reader repairing it by ear would repair it correctly and would never learn that the raw had failed there. Note also the colon set as a semicolon in `in tribus petitionibus ultimis:` — the SECOND pointing error in this chunk's raw, and in the opposite direction from p. 263's.**
- **p. 264 footer, left block (nn. 1–3, all this chunk's) — FAIR.** `Cfr. IV. Sen(. d. 1-5. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. rirca Imcm; ibld.` (**`Sent.`, `circa finem` and `ibid.` all mangled; but `d. 1-5` preserves the `1`**), `il. i.5. a. 3. q. I.seqti. agilur de siilTragiis Sancloi-um.` (**`d.`, `45` and `seqq.` mangled, `q. 1` read as roman `I`, space lost**), `I! omittit per` (**siglum `B` destroyed**), `wt (jni edd. , excepta 2, nt (iiiod.`, `Maltti. 6, 9. .seqq. ot Liic. 11,2. seqq.` (**space lost**), `mnndis (cfr. .Matth. 5, 8.) 0 aMh perfectis` (**`addit` destroyed and siglum `O` read as zero**), `tor Dccnrrit, Vat. , 1 ct 3 et luiec.` (**`ter occurrit` and `et haec` mangled**), `3 I) F G M U ct 2 .nibditiii:` (**`D` mangled, `subditur` destroyed**). **About sixteen garbles in six printed lines, SEVEN items destroyed, and no wrong reading that parses clean.** ★ **Density HIGH, severity HIGH — but note the one thing it got RIGHT and that matters most: it distinguishes the two distinction numerals (`d. 1-5` and `il. i.5`), which is the single decision this register turns on. The `1`/`I` confusion runs once, in the arabic-read-as-roman direction, which is the direction it ran three times on p. 263.**
- **p. 264 footer, right block (nn. 4–6, all this chunk's) — GOOD.** `• F N ntilitei:` (**`utiliter` mangled, the marker lost**), `» Partis VII. c. 7. — De septenwio pcccatorum cfr. supi-a` (**`septenario` mangled**), `p. III. c. 9, virtulum, donorum et bcatitudinum vide c. 4. seqq.`, `huius partis, Sacramentoruni c. 3. partis seq. — Edd. cum`, and the closing lines carrying `paucis codd. immediate post repetunt proponit ergo.` and `Psalm. 118, 164.`. **About eight garbles in six printed lines, ONE item destroyed, and no wrong reading that parses.** ★ **Density LOW, severity LOW — the best-preserved footer block in Pars V, and the only one in this stretch where every numeral (`VII`, `7`, `III`, `9`, `4`, `3`, `118`, `164`) survives legibly. It is worth saying why that is not luck: this block is six short lines of citation with almost no italic lemmata, and the raw's failures in Pars V have concentrated in italic and in gloss faces.**

**★★ PARS V CLOSURE — see `next-session-resume.md` for the pars-level check.** This chunk closes Pars V at printed p. 264. **No page between 252 and 264 is unowned and no note anywhere in the pars is left PENDING**; the only forwarded pending at the boundary is p. 265's register, which is Pars VI's page and Pars VI's register. **Pushing and deploying are Wilson's, and are not done here.**

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: Pars 6, Cap. 1

title_alt:
De Sacramentorum origine
On the origin of the Sacraments

source_text:
<!-- page 265 -->

### PARS SEXTA. *De medicina sacramentali.*

### Capitulum I. *De Sacramentorum origine.*

Postquam actum est de Trinitate Dei, de creatura mundi, de corruptela peccati, de incarnatione Verbi et gratia Spiritus sancti; iam nunc sexto agendum est de medicina sacramentali. Circa quam consideranda sunt septem. Agendum est enim de Sacramentorum *origine, variatione, distinctione, institutione, dispensatione, iteratione* et uniuscuiusque *integritate*.

De *origine* igitur Sacramentorum hoc tenendum est, quod Sacramenta sunt signa sensibilia, divinitus instituta tanquam medicamenta, in quibus « sub tegumento rerum sensibilium divina virtus secretius operatur[^p265-1] »; ita quod ipsa « ex *similitudine* repraesentant, ex *institutione* significant, ex *sanctificatione* conferunt aliquam spiritualem gratiam », per quam anima curatur ab infirmitatibus vitiorum, et ad hoc principaliter ordinantur tanquam ad finem ultimum; valent tamen ad *humiliationem, eruditionem* et *exercitationem* sicut ad finem, qui est sub fine.

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia principium reparativum, quod est Christus crucifixus, Verbum scilicet incarnatum, quod sapientissime dispensat omnia, quia divinum[^p265-2], et clementissime curat, quia divinitus incarnatum; sic debet reparare et sanare genus humanum aegrotum, secundum quod competit ipsi *aegrotanti, aegritudini* et *occasioni aegrotandi* et ipsius *aegritudinis curationi*. Ipse autem *medicus* est Verbum incarnatum, Deus scilicet invisibilis in natura visibili. Homo *aegrotans* est non tantum spiritus nec tantum caro, sed spiritus in carne mortali. *Morbus* autem est originalis culpa, quae per ignorantiam inficit mentem et per concupiscentiam inficit carnem. *Origo* autem huius culpae, licet principaliter fuerit ex consensu rationis, occasionem tamen sumsit a sensibus carnis[^p265-3]. — Ad hoc ergo, quod medicina correspondens esset omnibus supradictis, oportuit, quod non tantum esset spiritualis, verum etiam aliquid haberet de sensibilibus signis, ut, sicut haec sensibilia fuerunt animae occasio labendi, ita essent ei occasio resurgendi. Quoniam ergo signa sensibilia, quantum est de se, non habent efficacem ordinationem ad gratiam, licet habeant longinquam *repraesentationem* de sui natura; hinc est, quod oportuit, quod ab auctore gratiae *instituerentur ad significandum* et *benedicerentur ad sanctificandum*; ut sic essent ex naturali similitudine *repraesentantia*, ex adiuncta institutione *significantia*, ex superaddita benedictione *sanctificantia* et ad gratiam praeparantia, per quam sanetur et curetur[^p265-4] anima nostra.

Rursus, quoniam gratia curativa non datur elatis, incredulis et fastidiosis; ideo oportuit, haec signa sensibilia divinitus dari, quae non solum *sanctificarent* et gratiam conferrent ac per hoc sanarent, verum etiam *significatione erudirent* et *susceptione humiliarent* et *diversificatione exercitarent*; ut sic, per *exercitationem* exclusa accidia a concupiscibili, per *eruditionem* exclusa ignorantia a rationali, per *humiliationem* exclusa superbia ab irascibili, tota anima curabilis fieret a gratia Spiritus sancti, quae reformat nos secundum has tres potentias ad imaginem Trinitatis et Christi.

Postremo, quoniam per huiusmodi signa sensibilia, divinitus instituta gratia Spiritus sancti suscipitur et in eis ab accedentibus invenitur; hinc est, quod huiusmodi Sacramenta dicuntur *gratiae vasa*[^p265-5] et *causa*, non quia gratia in eis substantialiter contineatur nec causaliter efficiatur, cum in sola anima habeat collocari et a solo Deo habeat infundi; sed quia in illis et per illa gratiam curationis a summo medico Christo ex divino decreto oporteat hauriri, « licet Deus non alligaverit suam potentiam Sacramentis[^p265-6] ».

Ex praemissis igitur apparet non solum, quis sit Sacramentorum *ortus*, verum etiam, quis *usus*, et quis *fructus*. Nam *ortus* eorum est Christus Dominus; *usus* autem est actus exercitativus, eruditivus et humiliativus; *fructus* vero est hominum cura

<!-- page 266 -->
et salus. — Patet etiam, quae sit *causa efficiens*, quia divina institutio; quae *materialis*, quia signi sensibilis repraesentatio; quae *formalis*, quia gratuita sanctificatio; quae *finalis*, quia hominum medicinalis curatio. Et quia « denominatio fit a forma et a fine[^p266-1] »; hinc est, quod dicuntur *Sacramenta*, quasi medicamenta sanctificantia. Per haec enim anima a foeditate vitiorum reducitur ad sanctificationem perfectam. — Et ideo, licet sint corporalia et sensibilia, sunt tamen veneranda tanquam sancta, quia sacra significant mysteria, ad sacra praeparant charismata, a sacratissimo Deo data, sacra institutione et benedictione divinitus consecrata, ad cultum sacratissimum Dei in sacra Ecclesia constituta, ita ut merito dici debeant *Sacramenta*.

---

english:
### PART SIX. *On the sacramental medicine.*

### Chapter I. *On the origin of the Sacraments.*

After the Trinity of God has been treated, and the creature of the world, and the corruption of sin, and the Incarnation of the Word and the grace of the Holy Spirit; now in the sixth place the sacramental medicine must be treated. Concerning which seven things are to be considered. For there must be treated the Sacraments' *origin, variation, distinction, institution, dispensation, iteration*, and the *integrity* of each one.

Concerning the *origin* of the Sacraments, therefore, this must be held: that the Sacraments are sensible signs, divinely instituted as medicines, in which « under the covering of sensible things the divine power works the more secretly[^p265-1] »; so that they « by *likeness* represent, by *institution* signify, by *sanctification* confer some spiritual grace », through which the soul is cured of the infirmities of the vices — and to this they are principally ordained as to their ultimate end; yet they avail also for *humiliation, instruction* and *exercise* as for an end that stands beneath the end.

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the reparative principle, which is Christ crucified, the Word namely incarnate, which most wisely dispenses all things, because it is divine[^p265-2], and most clemently cures, because it was divinely incarnate; so it must repair and heal the sick human race according to what befits the *sick man* himself, the *sickness*, the *occasion of falling sick*, and the *curing of the sickness* itself. Now the *physician* himself is the Word incarnate, God namely invisible in a visible nature. The *sick man* is not spirit alone nor flesh alone, but spirit in mortal flesh. The *disease* is original guilt, which through ignorance infects the mind and through concupiscence infects the flesh. And the *origin* of this guilt, although it was principally from the consent of reason, nevertheless took its occasion from the senses of the flesh[^p265-3]. — To this end, therefore, that the medicine should correspond to all the foresaid, it was fitting that it should not only be spiritual, but should also have something of sensible signs, so that, just as these sensible things were to the soul an occasion of falling, so they might be to it an occasion of rising again. Since therefore sensible signs, so far as in them lies, have no efficacious ordination to grace, although from their own nature they have a remote *representation* of it; hence it is that it was fitting that by the author of grace they should be *instituted for signifying* and *blessed for sanctifying*; so that thus they should be, by natural likeness, *representative*, by adjoined institution *significative*, by superadded blessing *sanctifying* and preparative to grace, through which our soul may be healed and cured[^p265-4].

Again, since curative grace is not given to the proud, the unbelieving and the fastidious; therefore it was fitting that these sensible signs be divinely given, which should not only *sanctify* and confer grace and thereby heal, but should also by their *signification instruct* and by their *reception humble* and by their *diversification exercise*; so that thus, sloth being excluded from the concupiscible power by *exercise*, ignorance from the rational by *instruction*, pride from the irascible by *humiliation*, the whole soul might be made curable by the grace of the Holy Spirit, which reforms us according to these three powers unto the image of the Trinity and of Christ.

Lastly, since through sensible signs of this kind, divinely instituted, the grace of the Holy Spirit is received and is found in them by those who approach; hence it is that Sacraments of this kind are called the *vessels*[^p265-5] and the *cause* of grace — not because grace is substantially contained in them nor causally effected by them, since it has to be placed in the soul alone and to be infused by God alone; but because in them and through them the grace of curing must, by divine decree, be drawn from Christ the highest physician, « although God has not bound his power to the Sacraments[^p265-6] ».

From the premises, therefore, it appears not only what the *rise* of the Sacraments is, but also what their *use* is, and what their *fruit*. For their *rise* is Christ the Lord; their *use* is an act that exercises, instructs and humbles; their *fruit* is truly men's cure

<!-- page 266 -->
and salvation. — It appears also what their *efficient cause* is, namely the divine institution; what their *material*, namely the representation of a sensible sign; what their *formal*, namely gratuitous sanctification; what their *final*, namely the medicinal curing of men. And because « denomination is made from the form and from the end[^p266-1] »; hence it is that they are called *Sacramenta*, as it were sanctifying medicines. For through these the soul is led back from the foulness of the vices to perfect sanctification. — And therefore, although they are bodily and sensible, they are nevertheless to be venerated as holy: because they signify sacred mysteries, prepare for sacred charisms, are given by the most sacred God, are divinely consecrated by sacred institution and blessing, and are established for the most sacred worship of God in holy Church — so that they deservedly ought to be called *Sacraments*.

---

la: Isidor., VI. Etymolog. c. 19. n. 40. Vide tom. III. pag. 895, nota 5. — Seq. sententia est Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2, qui etiam, ibid. c. 3, docet, Sacramenta esse instituta « propter humiliationem, propter eruditionem, propter exercitationem ». — De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. per totam. — Mox post *ex similitudine* Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *naturali*.

en: Isidore, Etymologies VI, c. 19, n. 40. See tom. III, p. 895, note 5. — The following sentence is from Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments I, p. IX, c. 2, who also, ibid. c. 3, teaches that the Sacraments were instituted « for humiliation, for instruction, for exercise ». — On this chapter cf. IV Sent. d. 1, p. I, throughout. — Shortly after, following *ex similitudine*, the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 add *naturali*.

la: A B C H *quia Verbum divinum*. Pro *dispensat* I K L O U *disponit*.

en: A B C H read *quia Verbum divinum*. For *dispensat* I K L O U have *disponit*.

la: Cfr. supra p. III. c. 3.

en: Cf. above, Part III, c. 3.

la: Vat., 1 et 3 *sanaretur et curaretur*.

en: The Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 read *sanaretur et curaretur*.

la: Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 4. — Pro *accedentibus* E *accipientibus*.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments I, p. IX, c. 4. — For *accedentibus* E has *accipientibus*.

la: Ut docet Magister Sententiarum, IV. Sent. d. 1. c. 5. (cfr. Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 5.). — Fide D E I K M N et 2 substituimus *potentiam* pro *gratiam*.

en: As the Master of the Sentences teaches, IV Sent. d. 1, c. 5 (cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments I, p. IX, c. 5). — On the authority of D E I K M N and 2 we have substituted *potentiam* for *gratiam*.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 49. (c. 4.): A fine appellare omnia iustum est. — Superius pro *cura* D G H *curatio*, et post *efficiens* Vat., 1 et 3 supplent *Sacramentorum*, quae etiam inferius vocibus *tamen veneranda* interserunt *medicinalia, et ob hoc*.

en: According to Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 49 (c. 4): "It is right to name all things from their end." — Above, for *cura* D G H have *curatio*, and after *efficiens* the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 supply *Sacramentorum*; the same witnesses also, further below, insert *medicinalia, et ob hoc* between the words *tamen veneranda*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 265–266, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** The **full-width `PARS SEXTA. / De medicina sacramentali.` display heading stands at the HEAD of p. 265** — the first part opening in this work that falls at a leaf edge rather than part-way down a column. Below it, centred in the LEFT column, stand `Cap. I.` and the **ONE-line** subtitle `De Sacramentorum origine.`, then the body from `Postquam actum est de Trinitate Dei…`. Cap. I fills p. 265's left column to `…oportuit, quod non tan-`; crosses p. 265's gutter **MID-WORD AND HYPHENATED** (`non tan-` / `tum esset spiritualis`); fills p. 265's right column entire, to `…fructus vero est hominum cura`; breaks across the leaf **BETWEEN THE TWO MEMBERS OF A COORDINATED NOUN PAIR** (`hominum cura` / `et salus`), each half reading as a complete phrase on its own; and closes about **48 % down p. 266's LEFT column** at `…ita ut merito dici debeant Sacramenta.`
★★ **THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE NEXT HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** `Cap. II.` with the subtitle `De Sacramentorum variatione.` stands centred in p. 266's left column immediately below Cap. I's last line, so the boundary is read off type, not off white space. The volume index's p. 266 for Cap. II is **CONFIRMED**.

**Pars VI's capitulum count — VERIFIED BY THE COORDINATOR, NOT RE-DERIVED HERE.** Read off the volume's own index (raw `doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt` L93970–93999): `Pars VI. / De medicina sacramentali.`, capp. I–XIII opening at pp. 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 279, closed positively on the `Pars VII. / De statu finalis iudicii.` block at p. 281. **THIRTEEN capitula.** The index block splits mid-pars with a repeated `Cap. VIII.` header; the count survives it. This chunk states the figure as received and makes no claim to have derived it.

**★ THE SHORT-OPENER RULE APPLIES: THE PARS HEADING FOLDS IN.** `PARS SEXTA. / De medicina sacramentali.` is a display heading with no prologue text of its own — Bonaventure's `Postquam actum est…` divisio sentence is Cap. I's own opening. Per the frozen convention it is rendered here as a `###` heading inside this chunk, and **there is no separate pars-divisio chunk for Pars VI**, exactly as for Partes II–V.

**Gutters — one re-derived, one SETTLED FRESH against a failed default.**
- **p. 265 = 1150.** `colcrop.py vol5 265` with no constant returns **1121 on a 4 px run** — a loud failure, and the full-width display heading is only half the reason (the printed column rule is inked hard on this leaf). Re-windowed below the heading the tool is stable: 20–40 % → 1158 · 28–48 % → 1156 · 35–55 % → 1154 · 45–65 % → 1150 · 52–72 % → 1148 · 60–76 % → 1146, six windows on runs 58–61 px drifting 1158→1146 (a ~12 px leftward skew down the leaf). **The per-column ink profile settles it independently and was printed here rather than taken on trust:** over rows 30–80 % the blank band runs **x = 1125–1177** with a heavy ink island at **x = 1142–1159 peaking 541 rows on x = 1151** — Quaracchi's printed column rule, sitting essentially on the band midpoint **1151**. **1150 adopted**, agreeing with the value `bon-brev-p5-c10` measured; the bands read clean edge to edge at that split.
- **★★ p. 266 = 1422, SETTLED FRESH — AND THE TOOL'S DEFAULT WAS REJECTED.** `colcrop.py vol5 266` with no constant returns **1425 on a 53 px run**. **53 px is inside the suspect band** (the tool warns only under 15 px; run width, not the value, is the confidence signal), and 1425 is a **275 px swing from p. 265** — two independent reasons to escalate, so the three-step method ran in full. **Step 2, thirteen row windows:** 15–35 % → 1414/61 · 20–40 % → 1416/61 · 25–45 % → 1417/61 · 30–50 % → 1417/60 · 35–55 % → 1419/61 · 40–60 % → 1421/61 · 45–65 % → 1421/60 · 50–70 % → 1424/61 · 55–75 % → 1425/58 · 60–80 % → 1427/58, plus three wide windows at 1421–1425 on runs 46–53. The ten sound windows span **1414–1427 on runs 58–61 px**, a monotonic ~13 px **rightward** skew down the leaf — the mirror image of p. 265's. **Step 3, the per-column ink profile, decides it:** over rows 20–80 % the zero-ink band runs **x = 1398–1446**, with the printed column rule inked at **x = 1414–1430 peaking 517 rows on x = 1415**. Band midpoint **1422**, adopted; bands regenerated at 1422 and the left column reads clean edge to edge with the rule standing at its right margin. **The default's 53 px run is the diagnostic signature named in the frozen rule — a heavily inked rule truncating the zero run, not a narrow gutter.** No separate measuring script was written; the profile is the one `colcrop.py` already computes.

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All seven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands**; the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument, and **p. 265's total of 6 is entered into its `KNOWN_TOTALS` by this chunk** (`bon-brev-p5-c10` deliberately did not, p. 265 not being its page).

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL, AND ITS SCOPE STATEMENT HELD.** `bon-brev-p5-c10` forwarded p. 265's register as a scoped PENDING with its verification level stated exactly: **the two BLOCK positions and the six verbatim texts were read; NO anchor was read and none was claimed.** Both halves of that statement check out. Verification level of every note as established **here**, per the frozen per-note convention:
- **n. 1** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified. Anchors on `operatur ¹ »` in the **LEFT** column, closing the Hugh-of-St-Victor definition. Footer entry in the **left** block.
- **n. 2** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified. Anchors on `quia divinum ²` in the **LEFT** column, inside the *Ratio autem* chain. Footer entry in the **left** block.
- **n. 3** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified. Anchors on `a sensibus carnis ³` in the **LEFT** column — **but its footer entry opens the RIGHT block.** ★ **This is the leaf's one structural surprise and the hand-off could not have told me:** the block split is **2 / 4** while the anchor split is **3 / 3**. Block structure and column structure are again two different things.
- **n. 4** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified. Anchors on `sanetur et curetur ⁴` in the **RIGHT** column. Footer entry in the **right** block.
- **n. 5** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified. Anchors on `gratiae vasa ⁵` in the **RIGHT** column. Footer entry in the **right** block; its variant `Pro accedentibus E accipientibus` is confirmed by `ab accedentibus` standing four lines above the anchor.
- **n. 6** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified. Anchors on `Sacramentis ⁶ »` closing the quoted sentence, in the **RIGHT** column. Footer entry in the **right** block; the editors' substitution is visible in the body, which prints `potentiam`.
- **p. 266 n. 1** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `a forma et a fine ¹` in p. 266's **LEFT** column, inside Cap. I's tail, well above the `Cap. II.` heading. Footer entry opens p. 266's left block.

**★★ THE TWO LIVE SIGLUM DECISIONS, BOTH SETTLED — BY STROKE COUNT, RUN ORDER AND GRAMMATICAL SLOT, NEVER BY HUNTING A CROSSBAR.**
1. **n. 2's `A B C H` — settled as `H`.** The glyph prints as **two bare uprights with no crossbar** (the raw flattens it to `nc II`). One upright is never `H`; **two uprights can only be a crossbar-less `H`**, because the siglum set has no two-letter member and `II` is not a siglum. Run order corroborates: `A B C …` is a strict alphabetical ascent and `H` continues it. **`A B C H` confirmed** — and the same flattened sort recurs one leaf on in p. 266 n. 1's `D G H`, which is the independent check.
2. **n. 2's `I K L O U` — settled as printed.** The first glyph is a **single** upright, therefore `I` and not `H` by the one-upright rule. The second is `K`, not the volume's chronic raw `R`: **`I R L O U` would break the alphabetical ascent between `I` and `L`, while `I K L O U` is strictly ascending.** The grammatical slot (a codex-siglum run governing `disponit`) admits nothing else.
3. **n. 6's `D E I K M N` — settled as printed.** `D E` then a **single** upright (`I`, not `H`), then `K` — again the raw's `R` is excluded by the ascent, `D E I R M N` being impossible. The final glyph carries a diagonal and is `N`; it could not be a flattened `H` in any case, since `H` after `M` would break the ascent. **All six ascend strictly.**
4. **p. 266 n. 1's `D G H`** — same class, decided the same way: two uprights after `G`, ascending, therefore `H`.

**Digits settled off the band, with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule that a digit is evidence only once something independent agrees with it):
- n. 1 `c. 19. n. 40` and `tom. III. pag. 895, nota 5` — the `nota` glyph is the `3`/`5` class; read as **5** on the band's flat-topped sort, and `bon-brev-p5-c10` read it as 5 independently at the same magnification.
- n. 1 `p. IX. c. 2` / `ibid. c. 3` · n. 5 `p. IX. c. 4` · n. 6 `p. IX. c. 5` — **the three notes cite Hugh's *De sacramentis* I, p. IX in a strict ascending run c. 2 → c. 3 → c. 4 → c. 5.** Each digit is corroborated by its neighbours rather than by its own glyph, which is what settles the `1`/`4` risk on n. 5's `c. 4`.
- n. 6 `IV. Sent. d. 1. c. 5.` — Lombard's Book IV d. 1 c. 5, matching n. 1's `IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. per totam` on the same page.
- p. 266 n. 1 `II. de Anima, text. 49. (c. 4.)` — both the `49` and the `4` are the `1`/`4` class; settled by sense, since *A fine appellare omnia iustum est* is **De anima** II, 4 (415b), which is text. 49 in the Latin numbering the editors use.

**No `[?]` flags.** Every reading on both leaves was decided on band evidence with independent corroboration.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 265 left column — "Definitio." — "Finis principalis." — "Fines sub fine." — "Ratio." — "Quadruplex congruentia."; p. 265 right column — "De fine principali." — "De finibus sub fine." — "Quo sensu sint gratiae vasa et causa." — "De ortu, usu et fructu."; p. 266 left column — "De causa quadruplici." — "Corollarium."

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE BREAK, NOT AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY** — as in `p5-c6` through `p5-c10`, and for the same reason. The leaf break falls mid-paragraph, between `hominum cura` and `et salus`, and that paragraph runs on to the chapter's end; `<!-- page 266 -->` therefore stands at the break itself in both languages, so that the printed page each line belongs to stays recoverable.

**★ THE RUNNING HEAD, read and used for nothing.** p. 265's head reads `PARS VI. C. I.` with **`265`** at the outer edge — a part-opening leaf, and for once simply correct. p. 266's reads `266   BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. II.` over a leaf whose left column is more than half Cap. I — the head naming the chapter that *finishes* the leaf rather than the one that opens it, the asymmetry already attested at pp. 237 and 248. **The boundary was set from the `Cap. II.` heading on the band, never from the head.**

**★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE AND THE QUIRE SIGNATURE both stand on p. 265** — `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` below the left footer block, quire `34` below the right, exactly as `bon-brev-p5-c10` predicted from the eight-leaf cadence off p. 257's quire `33`. **Neither mark is an entry and neither was counted**; p. 265's register is six on the numerals.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 265 body — good**, both columns, with the usual scatter (`actuni`, `corrnptela`, `scxto`, `qu(xl`, `aegrotam` for *aegrotans*, `xxi sic` for *ut sic*, `grali.am`); marginalia splice in as separate line-blocks and were trimmed. **p. 265 footer — unusable for numerals as always, and additionally corrupt in the sigla**: `.\ nc II` for `A B C H`, `I K I, 0 U` for `I K L O U`, `D i: I K M -N` for `D E I K M N`, `nola ■!)` for `nota 5`, `c. i.` for `c. 4.`, `c. u.` / `c. o.` for `c. 5.` — **six of the seven digits and every siglum on the leaf would have been wrong from the raw.** **p. 266 footer — the same grade**; n. 1's `D G H` reads `D G II`.

**Runover tests — BOTH OWED TESTS RUN, BOTH NEGATIVE.**
- *p. 265's own gutter — **NEGATIVE**.* The left footer block closes **complete** at n. 2's `disponit.` (with the printer's signature below it), and **p. 265's right block opens NUMBERED at `³ Cfr. supra p. III. c. 3.`** No entry crosses the gutter, although the *anchors* do (n. 3's anchor is in the left column while its entry opens the right block — a block/anchor mismatch, not a runover).
- *Page-crossing, p. 265 → p. 266 — **NEGATIVE**.* p. 265's right block closes **complete** at n. 6's `…substituimus potentiam pro gratiam.`, with the quire signature `34` below it, and **p. 266's left block opens NUMBERED at `¹ Secundum Aristot., II. de Anima…`**
- *Noted but NOT this chunk's and NOT logged:* p. 266 carries a **positive gutter runover in its own left block** — n. 3 (`Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6, nonnullis tamen mutatis…`) breaks off at a comma on `…quae lectio potius videtur esse vitium editionis,` and continues unnumbered at the head of the right block. **n. 3 anchors in Cap. II, so both the note and its runover belong to `bon-brev-p6-c2`, which must re-derive and log it.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* the **p. 264 → p. 265** page-crossing test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); `p.263 n.4:gutter` and the p. 262 → p. 263 test (both `p5-c9`). `p5-c10` closed the p. 264 → p. 265 test NEGATIVE from both sides and it is not re-opened here.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c2`.** p. 265 is **fully consumed** — six notes, six anchors, all Cap. I's, nothing left. p. 266's register is **NOT yet fully read and its total is deliberately NOT fed to `KNOWN_TOTALS`**: this chunk read only n. 1, which is Cap. I's. **What was seen on p. 266's bands beyond n. 1, stated with its verification level and claiming nothing more:** the left block continues with **n. 2** (`August., IX. contra Faustum, c. 13…`, running to `…Inferius pro *omnium praedictorum* I K L U V *omnium praeteritorum*.`) and **n. 3** (`Hug. a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6…`), n. 3 breaking off mid-entry at the block foot and continuing into the right block. **BLOCK POSITION and VERBATIM TEXT of nn. 2–3 were read; NO anchor for either was read and none is claimed; the right block was not read at all and p. 266's total is UNKNOWN.** `bon-brev-p6-c2` owns p. 266 from n. 2 onward, must read the right block, must fix p. 266's total, must log the p. 266 gutter runover, and must re-derive every anchor, column, digit and siglum here forwarded.

**Register locked for Pars VI** (the sacramental treatise): *materia / forma / minister / character / res et sacramentum* follow the Vol IV d.1–d.21 settlement and were **consulted, not re-decided**. Established here from Cap. I: *signum sensibile* → "sensible sign"; *institutio* → "institution"; *sanctificatio* → "sanctification"; *causa efficiens / materialis / formalis / finalis* → "efficient / material / formal / final cause"; *gratiae vasa et causa* → "the vessels and the cause of grace"; *medicina sacramentalis* → "the sacramental medicine"; *aegrotans / aegritudo / morbus / curatio* → "sick man / sickness / disease / curing"; *ortus, usus, fructus* → "rise, use, fruit". Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence throughout.