title: Dist. 14, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XIV — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XIV — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 295 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XIV.
### *De plenitudine scientiae, quam habuit anima Christi, specialiter.*

*Hic quaeri opus est, cum anima Christi etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de plenitudine gratiae et scientiae communiter, in hac vero parte agit de plenitudine scientiae specialiter. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In quarum prima ostendit, in Christo fuisse omnem scientiam secundum humanam naturam. In secunda vero inquirit, utrum anima Christi habuit omnipotentiam, sicut omnium scientiam[^p295-1], ibi: *Si vero quaeritur, quare Deus non ei dederit potentiam* etc.

Pars prima habet tres. In quarum prima proponit quaestionem de omniscientia animae Christi. In secunda vero ponit determinationem secundum aliorum aestimationem, ibi: *Quibusdam placet, quod nec parem cum Deo.* In tertia vero determinat secundum suam opinionem, ostendens, animam Christi habuisse omniscientiam[^p295-2], ibi: *Quibus respondentes dicimus* etc.

Similiter secunda pars principalis habet tres particulas. In quarum prima determinat Magister, quare anima Christi non habet omnipotentiam, sicut omniscientiam. In secunda vero opponit contra suam determinationem, ibi: *Sed si anima illa non habet* etc. In tertia vero dissolvit et solutionem suam multis quaestionibus adaptat[^p295-3], ibi: *Ad quod dicimus, illud esse accipiendum* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa tria. Primo enim quaeritur de scientia, quam anima Christi habuit de Verbo. Secundo vero de scientia, quam anima Christi habuit in Verbo. Tertio de scientia, quam anima Christi habuit a Verbo.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primum est, utrum anima Christi aliam cognitionem habeat de Verbo, quam sit ipsum Verbum. Secundum est, utrum anima Christi in cognoscendo comprehendat Verbum[^p295-4]. Tertium est, utrum anima Christi defigat aspectum in ipsum lumen aeternum.

---

english:
## Commentary on Distinction XIV.
### *On the fullness of the knowledge which the soul of Christ had, specially considered.*

*Here there is need to inquire, since the soul of Christ, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the fullness of grace and knowledge in general; here, however, in this part he treats of the fullness of knowledge specially. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he shows that in Christ there was all knowledge according to the human nature. In the second he inquires whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence, just as it had the knowledge of all things[^p295-1], there: *But if it be asked why God did not give to it the power, etc.*

The first part has three [subdivisions]. In the first of these he sets forth the question concerning the omniscience of the soul of Christ. In the second he sets down the determination according to the estimation of others, there: *It pleases some that it is not even equal with God.* In the third he determines according to his own opinion, showing that the soul of Christ had omniscience[^p295-2], there: *Answering whom, we say, etc.*

Likewise the second principal part has three particular [members]. In the first of these the Master determines why the soul of Christ does not have omnipotence, just as it has omniscience. In the second he objects against his own determination, there: *But if that soul does not have, etc.* In the third he resolves [the objection] and adapts his solution to many questions[^p295-3], there: *To which we say that that is to be understood, etc.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there falls here a question concerning three matters. For, first, it is asked concerning the knowledge which the soul of Christ had *of* the Word. Second, concerning the knowledge which the soul of Christ had *in* the Word. Third, concerning the knowledge which the soul of Christ had *from* the Word.

Concerning the first, three things are inquired into. The first is, whether the soul of Christ has a knowledge of the Word other than the Word itself is. The second is, whether the soul of Christ, in knowing, comprehends the Word[^p295-4]. The third is, whether the soul of Christ fixes its gaze upon that eternal light itself.

---

la: Codd. C M U V *sicut omniscientiam*, cod. T *omnem scientiam.* Paulo inferius pro *Pars prima* complures codd. *Pars ista.*

en: Codices C M U V [read] *just as omniscience*; codex T, *all knowledge.* A little below, for *The first part* several codices [read] *That part.*

la: Codd. aa bb hic *omnem scientiam*, et cod. aa etiam paulo inferius *omnium scientiam.*

en: Codices aa bb here [read] *all knowledge*, and codex aa, a little below also, *the knowledge of all things.*

la: Edd. *dissolvit oppositionem et determinationem suam multis rationibus adaptat.*

en: The editions [read] *he resolves the objection and adapts his determination to many reasons.*

la: Edd. adiiciunt *sibi unitum*, quod additamentum habetur etiam infra in ipsa (2.) quaestione.

en: The editions add *united to itself*, which addition is also found below in the second question itself.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed **p.295** (PDF 317; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 20744–20772. `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.` (subtitle *De plenitudine scientiae, quam habuit anima Christi, specialiter.*) at raw 20744; lemma *Hic quaeri opus est, cum anima Christi etc.* at raw 20747; `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` at raw 20748; `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.` at raw 20763; the chunk ends just before `ARTICULUS I.` at raw 20774. Distinction XIV has **no pars division** (the scaffold is littera + divisio + a1-q1/q2/q3 + a2-q1/q2/q3 + a3-q1/q2/q3 + dubia; ART. II header at raw 21525). Running head confirmed eyes-on (low-dpi render of the running head text + page number): top of p.295 reads `DIST. XIV. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` with page number `295` (R-col top) — never the OCR'd digits.

**Page-split map.** The divisio sits **entirely on printed p.295** (a single two-column page). The COMMENTARIUS heading + subtitle + lemma + DIVISIO TEXTUS open at the head of p.295 immediately after the d.14 littera closed on p.294; the DIVISIO TEXTUS body runs L-col then R-col, the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM follows (intro + question-listing also L-col then R-col), and the page then continues with `ARTICULUS I.` and `QUAESTIO I.` (which belong to d14-a1-q1). The page-bottom NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM block restarts at footer 1 (fresh p.295 sequence).

**ART. I subtitle layout note.** On p.295, after the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM question-listing and before `QUAESTIO I.`, Quaracchi prints a bare article header `ARTICULUS I.` (OCR garble `ARTIGULUS I.` at raw 20774) with the subtitle `De scientia, quam anima Christi habuit de Verbo.` (raw 20776) — i.e. ART. I has its own centred header + subtitle line, but **no `Consequenter…`/`quaeruntur` opener of its own** (the three inquiries are already listed in the TRACTATIO's `Circa primum quaeruntur tria…`). Per the locked Vol II/III convention, this short ART. I header + subtitle **folds into d14-a1-q1**, not into this divisio chunk; the divisio body therefore ends at the close of the TRACTATIO question-listing (raw 20772), just before `ARTICULUS I.` Verified TRACTATIO structure: ART. I treats *de scientia de/in/a Verbo* and (per the `Circa primum quaeruntur tria` list) holds three quaestiones — (1) utrum anima Christi aliam cognitionem habeat de Verbo, quam sit ipsum Verbum [q1, raw 20778]; (2) utrum anima Christi in cognoscendo comprehendat Verbum [q2, raw 20992]; (3) utrum anima Christi defigat aspectum in ipsum lumen aeternum [q3, raw 21254]. ART. II opener at raw 21525.

**Apparatus (4 entries, fresh p.295 sequence).** NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.1–4 → `[^p295-1]`–`[^p295-4]`, all annotating the DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO body: n.1 on *sicut omnium scientiam¹* (L-col); n.2 on *omniscientiam²* (R-col); n.3 on *adaptat³* (R-col); n.4 on *comprehendat Verbum⁴* (TRACTATIO R-col). Marker pairing 4/4 clean in both bodies.

**Hand-offs.** *Picked up* from d14-littera: **NONE** — the littera consumed all 9 of its p.294 footers and forwarded none; the divisio's NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM begin fresh on p.295. *Forwarded to d14-a1-q1:* (a) the ART. I header + subtitle (`De scientia, quam anima Christi habuit de Verbo.`, raw 20774/20776) folds into a1-q1; (b) **p.295 footer 5 onward belongs to a1-q1**, NOT to the divisio — footer 5 (*Vers. 5: Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis etc.*) anchors on q1's body lemma *primo Ecclesiastici⁵*, and footer 6 (*De iis quae ad cognitionem requiruntur, deque ipsa cognitione et eius speciebus… vide I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. et d. 17. p. I. q. 4. — In minori cod. U post* animae Christi *perperam addit…*) plus the partial *…minori pro cognoscitur codd. B C D E F G I L U Z…* footer are all q1's first body-footers. The divisio claims **only footers 1–4**.

**`[?]` flags.** None — the divisio body and all four NOTAE were fully legible at 450 dpi and confirmed column-by-column against the p.295 L/R bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 14, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 295 -->

### Articulus I. *De scientia, quam anima Christi habuit de Verbo.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum anima Christi cognoscat Verbum alia cognitione, quam illa quae est ipsum Verbum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum anima Christi cognoscat Verbum cognitione alia, quam illa quae est ipsum Verbum[^p295-t]. Et quod cognoscatur Verbum ab illa anima sine alia sapientia media, videtur:

1. Quia Verbum increatum non tantum est *sapientia*, sed etiam *fons sapientiae*, sicut dicitur primo[^p295-5] Ecclesiastici; sed sapientia unita animae non cognoscitur mediante alia, quia sic esset abire in infinitum: cum ergo Verbum, quod est sapientia, sit animae Christi unitum; videtur, quod se ipso cognoscatur et non per aliquem habitum medium.

2. Item, ad cognitionem naturae nihil plus requiritur nisi *cognoscens* et *cognoscibile* et *unio* unius ad alterum[^p295-6]; sed Verbum increatum unitur ipsi

<!-- page 296 -->
animae Christi omnino immediate: ergo videtur, quod sicut se ipso unitur, ita se ipso absque medio ab anima Christi cognoscatur.

3. Item, aeque intimum vel magis est Verbum unitum ipsi animae, sicut anima sibi, vel sicut aliquis habitus, qui sit in anima; sed anima Christi cognoscit se ipsam per sui essentiam, cognoscit etiam habitus, qui sunt in ipsa se ipsis, non per medium[^p296-1]: ergo pari ratione et Verbum sibi unitum.

4. Item, natura humana in Christo unita est Verbo in unitatem personae et hypostasis: ergo cum talis unio faciat communicationem proprietatum[^p296-2], eodem modo cognoscit Christus homo ipsum Verbum increatum, quo Verbum cognoscit se ipsum; sed Verbum cognoscit se ipsum non per aliquem habitum medium: ergo et Christus homo. Sed nihil scit Christus nisi quantum ad animam secundum humanam naturam: ergo anima Christi cognoscit ipsum Verbum per sapientiam, quae est Verbum.

**Sed contra:** 1. Sapientia sive cognitio est perfectio intellectus et illud quo intellectus cognoscit formaliter[^p296-3]; sed Verbum increatum non potest uniri animae, sicut perfectio perfectibili: ergo necesse est, quod praeter sapientiam, quae est ipsum Verbum, anima Christi habeat habitum creatum sive ad cognoscendum Verbum, sive aliud.

2. Item, Deus est intimus omni animae et praesentissimus, non tamen ab omnibus videtur, sed solum a Beatis; hoc autem non est propter diversitatem a parte *cogniti*: ergo propter diversitatem a parte *cognoscentium*[^p296-4]. Ergo si hoc est per aliquid eis datum, videtur ergo, quod ad hoc, quod anima cognoscat Deum, necesse sit, aliquod lumen creatum ei infundi, quod sit in una, et non in alia: ergo videtur, quod anima Christi Verbum sibi unitum cognoscat per alicuius creati luminis adminiculum.

3. Item, quamvis Verbum increatum sit unitum oculo Christi et omnibus partibus corporis, non tamen cognoscitur ab oculo, et hoc, quia non est in eo dispositio ad cognoscendum rem spiritualem[^p296-5]: ergo pari ratione, quantumcumque Verbum increatum uniatur animae Christi, nisi anima sit disposita

<!-- page 297 -->
ad videndum Deum per lumen, quod ipsam faciat deiformem, nunquam ipsum intuebitur: ergo videtur, quod Verbum increatum cognoscat per habitum medium.

4. Item, quanto Deus clarius videtur, tanto necesse est oculum esse magis dispositum; sed anima Christi clarissime super omnes creaturas videt Verbum sibi unitum: ergo necesse est, intellectum eius esse maxime dispositum ad hoc. Sed non potest ad hoc disponi nisi per aliquem habitum medium[^p296-6]: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.**
> Cognitio, qua mediante Christi anima cognoscit Verbum sibi unitum, non est ipsum Verbum, sed effectus Verbi et quid creatum.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod cum quaeritur, utrum *cognitio*, qua anima Christi cognoscit Verbum sibi unitum, sit ipsum Verbum, an aliquid creatum; si intelligatur de cognitione *actu*, absque dubio certum est, quod est alia, quia haec *coepit esse* et *est actus* animae et ab anima; Verbum autem est aeternum et non est ab anima, sed a Deo. — Si autem *cognitio* dicatur, *quo mediante* cognoscimus[^p296-7], sic fuit diversitas opinantium.

Quidam enim voluerunt dicere, quod non solum in Christo, verum etiam in omnibus aliis Beatis *sapientia*, qua cognoscunt Deum, est sapientia aeterna; et isti etiam ponunt, quod *dilectio* illa, qua Deum diligunt Sancti et Beati, sit ipse Spiritus sanctus. Pro inconvenienti enim habent, quod illa *sapientia*, vel *dilectio* sit accidens et non substantia, cum sit nobilior anima. Item pro inconvenienti habent, quod illa sapientia et dilectio faciat animam cognoscere et amare, et ipsa non cognoscat et amet, cum nobilior sit res cognoscens non cognoscente. Pro inconvenienti etiam habent, quod *beatitudo* nostra, quae est bonum supremum, consistat in accidentibus. — Sed ad haec omnia supra responsum est libro primo, distinctione decima septima[^p297-1], et secundo, distinctione vigesima sexta. Haec etiam positio improbata est; unde et communis opinio tenet contrarium. Ponimus enim *sapientiam creatam*, quae est habitus, et *dilectionem creatam*, et *gratiam creatam* et etiam ceteras virtutes. Valde enim absurdum esset dicere, quod *fides* esset Deus et *spes*, et sic de aliis virtutibus, nisi hoc *causaliter* diceretur[^p297-2]. Et ideo haec positio inter positiones extraneas numeranda est, pro eo quod nimium recedit a via communi.

Et ideo alii voluerunt dicere, quod quamvis alii homines cognoscant Verbum increatum mediante habitu cognitionis creatae, et Christus etiam[^p297-3] quantum ad scientiam *comprehensionis*, in qua communicat cum aliis hominibus; tamen quantum ad scientiam *unionis*, cum habeat ipsum Verbum sibi intime unitum, cognoscit absque omni alio habitu medio. Cum enim habeat sapientiam increatam sibi unitam, non per medium, sed per se ipsam, cognoscere potest se ipsa[^p297-4]; et hoc est solius illius animae proprium, quae a Verbo est assumta. Sola enim hunc modum cognitionis habet, sicut in ea sola reperitur excellentia talis unionis. — Sed licet illud videatur magis probabile quam praedictum; tamen hoc a veritate deviat, si quis intueatur. Verbum enim non unitur animae Christi in illa beata unione, sicut cognoscibile cognoscenti, vel sicut habitus potentiae, vel perfectio perfectibili; sed est unio in unitate personae, quae potest esse absque cognitione; sicut patet in carne Christi, quae unita est Verbo, et tamen ipsum non cognoscit.

Alium igitur *modum unionis* necesse est esse ad hoc, quod anima cognoscat Verbum sibi unitum in unitatem personae; hic autem est per assimilationem cognoscentis ad cognitum, et ita per aliquam *influentiam*[^p297-5], quae ipsam animam cognoscentem faciat Deo similem ac deiformem, et ita per aliquem habitum ipsam animam informantem, qui quidem habitus non potest esse nisi aliquid creatum. Nam quid increatum non potest esse ut forma ipsius ani-

<!-- page 298 -->
mae. — Et propterea dicere oportet tertio modo, quod anima Christi, sicut et animae aliorum Sanctorum, Verbum increatum cognoscit per *sapientiam creatam*, quae disponit ipsarum animarum potentias cognitivas et conformes reddit, ut illud lumen aeternum cognoscant.

Nec aliter potest intelligi. Quomodo[^p297-6] enim potest anima lumen aeternum cognoscere et claritatem summam intueri, quin ipsa efficiatur clara et luminosa? Anima autem Christi, quia a Verbo est assumta, maiorem habet deiformitatem, ac per hoc perfectiorem et eminentiorem cognitionem, quam aliqua anima beata per gloriam. — Unde non est intelligendum, quod scientia *unionis* distinguatur a scientia *comprehensionis*, quasi non sit per aliquem habitum medium, sed quia excellentior et amplior deiformitas et claritas collata est animae Christi ex hoc, quod Verbo unita est, quam ex hoc, quod simpliciter est beata[^p297-7]. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes probantes, quod anima Christi cognoscat Verbum cognitione aliqua formaliter, quae, inquam, non est ipsum Verbum, sed effectus Verbi, quam, inquam, Verbum facit in anima Christi beatissima.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod ipsum Verbum est sapientia, et sapientia cognoscitur se ipsa; dicendum, quod ipsum Verbum est sapientia[^p297-8], qua cetera cognoscuntur, tam ipsum Verbum quam ea quae sunt ab ipso. Sed attendendum est, quod ille ablativus potest construi *formaliter*, vel *causaliter*. Si *formaliter*; sic sapientia aeterna est sibi ipsi ratio cognoscendi. Si *causaliter*; sic omnia cognoscuntur ipsa, quia facit cetera cognosci; *formaliter* autem non potest intelligi, quia non potest esse forma cognoscentis creati, nisi dicatur *forma exemplaris*. Et quoniam omnis actus cognoscendi perfectus est a sapientia non tantum *effective*, sed sicut a *forma perficiente* ipsam substantiam cognoscentem; hinc est, quod ad cognoscendum fontem sapientiae requiritur sapientia, quae de illo fonte derivatur. Nec est procedere in infinitum, quia ibi est *status*, scilicet in sapientia vel scientia, quae est forma et habitus animae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ibi est cognoscens et cognoscibile et unio; dicendum, quod non quaecumque unio cognoscentis ad cognoscibile sufficit ad cognitionem, immo requiritur, quod uniantur per *modum cognoscentis*. Sicut enim in opponendo monstratum est, Deus est in omnibus essentialiter et intimus omnibus, et tamen a paucis cognoscitur[^p298-1]; et ideo, quamvis Verbum increatum sit animae unitum, non tamen cognoscitur per hoc, quod unitur in unitatem personae, sed per hoc, quod intellectus animae sibi unitae efficitur ei conformis per influentiam luminis. Necesse enim est, intellectum aliquo modo formari et informari ab ipso intelligibili, ad hoc quod ipsum cognoscat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de anima et scientia, quod se ipsis cognoscuntur, et illa quae essentialiter sunt in anima; dicendum, quod anima non dicitur cognosci se ipsa, quia ipsa sit scientia, qua cognoscit se; sed *scientia*[^p298-2] se ipsa cognoscitur, quoniam ipsa est unita potentiae cognoscenti, in quantum est cognoscens. De sapientia autem increata secus est, tum quia ipsa est supra animam cognoscentem — et ideo oportet elevari per gratiam — tum etiam, quia talis unio non sufficit, nisi alius modus unionis concurrat.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de communicatione idiomatum, dicendum, quod verum est, quod ille homo cognoscit Verbum sapientia increata; sed quamvis idiomata communicentur illi homini[^p298-3], non tamen communicantur animae Christi. Nos autem non quaerimus nunc de cognitione, quae detur illi homini per idiomatum communicationem, sed quae competit secundum naturam animae a Verbo assumtae.

english:
### Article I. *On the knowledge which the soul of Christ had of the Word.*
### Question I. *Whether the soul of Christ knows the Word by a knowledge other than that which is the Word itself.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked whether the soul of Christ knows the Word by a knowledge other than that which is the Word itself[^p295-t]. And that the Word is known by that soul without any other intervening wisdom seems to be the case:

1. Because the uncreated Word is not only *wisdom*, but also the *fount of wisdom*, as is said in the first chapter[^p295-5] of Ecclesiasticus; but wisdom united to the soul is not known by the mediation of another, for thus it would be to go off into infinity: since therefore the Word, which is wisdom, is united to the soul of Christ, it seems that it is known by itself and not through any intervening habit.

2. Likewise, for the knowledge of a nature nothing more is required except a *knower* and a *knowable* and a *union* of the one with the other[^p295-6]; but the uncreated Word is united to the

<!-- page 296 -->
soul of Christ wholly immediately: therefore it seems that, just as it is united by itself, so by itself, without any medium, it is known by the soul of Christ.

3. Likewise, the Word united to the soul itself is as intimate, or more so, as the soul is to itself, or as some habit which is in the soul; but the soul of Christ knows itself through its own essence, it knows also the habits which are in it by themselves, not through a medium[^p296-1]: therefore by parity of reasoning also the Word united to it.

4. Likewise, the human nature in Christ is united to the Word in the unity of person and hypostasis: therefore, since such a union brings about a communication of properties[^p296-2], in the same way Christ the man knows the uncreated Word itself by that by which the Word knows itself; but the Word knows itself not through any intervening habit: therefore also Christ the man. But Christ knows nothing except as to the soul according to the human nature: therefore the soul of Christ knows the Word itself through the wisdom which is the Word.

**On the contrary:** 1. Wisdom or knowledge is the perfection of the intellect and that by which the intellect knows formally[^p296-3]; but the uncreated Word cannot be united to the soul as a perfection to the perfectible: therefore it is necessary that, besides the wisdom which is the Word itself, the soul of Christ have a created habit either for knowing the Word, or something else.

2. Likewise, God is most intimate and most present to every soul, yet he is not seen by all, but only by the Blessed; but this is not on account of a diversity on the part of the *known*: therefore on account of a diversity on the part of the *knowers*[^p296-4]. Therefore, if this is by something given to them, it seems then that, for the soul to know God, it is necessary that some created light be infused into it, which is in one and not in another: therefore it seems that the soul of Christ knows the Word united to it through the support of some created light.

3. Likewise, although the uncreated Word is united to the eye of Christ and to all the parts of the body, it is nevertheless not known by the eye, and this because there is not in it a disposition for knowing a spiritual thing[^p296-5]: therefore by parity of reasoning, however much the uncreated Word be united to the soul of Christ, unless the soul be disposed

<!-- page 297 -->
to see God through a light that makes it deiform, it will never behold it: therefore it seems that it knows the uncreated Word through an intervening habit.

4. Likewise, the more clearly God is seen, the more necessary it is that the eye be more disposed; but the soul of Christ most clearly, above all creatures, sees the Word united to it: therefore it is necessary that its intellect be most disposed for this. But it cannot be disposed for this except through some intervening habit[^p296-6]: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.**
> The knowledge by the mediation of which the soul of Christ knows the Word united to it is not the Word itself, but an effect of the Word and something created.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, when it is asked whether the *knowledge* by which the soul of Christ knows the Word united to it is the Word itself, or something created; if it is understood of knowledge *in act*, it is without doubt certain that it is other, because this *began to be* and *is an act* of the soul and from the soul; but the Word is eternal and is not from the soul, but from God. — But if *knowledge* be taken as *that by the mediation of which* we know[^p296-7], then there has been a diversity of opinions.

For some have wished to say that not only in Christ, but also in all the other Blessed, the *wisdom* by which they know God is the eternal wisdom; and these also hold that the *love* by which the Saints and Blessed love God is the Holy Spirit himself. For they regard it as unfitting that that *wisdom*, or *love*, should be an accident and not a substance, since it is more noble than the soul. Likewise they regard it as unfitting that that wisdom and love should make the soul to know and to love, while it itself does not know and love, since a knowing thing is more noble than a non-knowing one. They regard it also as unfitting that our *beatitude*, which is the supreme good, should consist in accidents. — But to all these things a reply was given above, in the first book, distinction seventeen[^p297-1], and in the second, distinction twenty-six. This position too has been disproved; whence the common opinion holds the contrary. For we posit *created wisdom*, which is a habit, and *created love*, and *created grace* and also the other virtues. For it would be utterly absurd to say that *faith* were God, and *hope*, and so of the other virtues, unless this were said *causally*[^p297-2]. And therefore this position is to be numbered among the extraneous positions, for the reason that it departs too far from the common way.

And therefore others have wished to say that, although other men know the uncreated Word by the mediation of a habit of created knowledge, and Christ also[^p297-3] as to the knowledge of *comprehension*, in which he shares with other men; nevertheless as to the knowledge of *union*, since he has the Word itself intimately united to him, he knows without any other intervening habit. For since he has the uncreated wisdom united to him, not through a medium but through itself, he can know by it[^p297-4]; and this is proper to that soul alone which was assumed by the Word. For it alone has this mode of knowledge, just as in it alone is found the excellence of such a union. — But although that seems more probable than the foregoing, nevertheless it deviates from the truth, if one looks closely. For the Word is not united to the soul of Christ in that blessed union as a knowable to a knower, or as a habit to a potency, or as a perfection to the perfectible; but it is a union in unity of person, which can be without knowledge; as is plain in the flesh of Christ, which is united to the Word and yet does not know it.

Therefore another *mode of union* must needs be present in order that the soul may know the Word united to it in unity of person; but this is by an assimilation of the knower to the known, and thus by a certain *influence*[^p297-5], which makes the knowing soul itself like to God and deiform, and thus by a certain habit informing the soul itself, which habit indeed cannot be anything but something created. For something uncreated cannot be as the form of the soul

<!-- page 298 -->
itself. — And therefore it must be said in a third way, that the soul of Christ, like the souls of the other Saints also, knows the uncreated Word through *created wisdom*, which disposes the cognitive potencies of those souls and renders them conformed, so that they may know that eternal light.

Nor can it be understood otherwise. For how[^p297-6] can the soul know the eternal light and behold the highest brightness, without itself being made bright and luminous? But the soul of Christ, because it was assumed by the Word, has a greater deiformity, and through this a more perfect and more eminent knowledge, than any soul blessed through glory. — Whence it is not to be understood that the knowledge of *union* is distinguished from the knowledge of *comprehension* as though it were not through some intervening habit, but because a more excellent and ampler deiformity and brightness has been conferred on the soul of Christ from this, that it is united to the Word, than from this, that it is simply blessed[^p297-7]. — The reasons proving that the soul of Christ knows the Word by some knowledge formally are therefore to be granted — which, I say, is not the Word itself, but an effect of the Word, which, I say, the Word produces in the most blessed soul of Christ.

1. To that, then, which is first objected on the contrary, that the Word itself is wisdom, and wisdom is known by itself; it must be said that the Word itself is the wisdom[^p297-8] by which the rest are known, both the Word itself and the things that are from it. But it must be attended to that that ablative can be construed *formally* or *causally*. If *formally*; thus the eternal wisdom is to itself the ground of knowing. If *causally*; thus all things are known by it, because it makes the rest to be known; but it cannot be understood *formally*, because it cannot be the form of a created knower, unless it be called an *exemplar form*. And since every perfect act of knowing is from wisdom not only *effectively*, but as from a *form perfecting* the very knowing substance; hence it is that for knowing the fount of wisdom there is required a wisdom which is derived from that fount. Nor is it to proceed to infinity, because there is there a *terminus*, namely in the wisdom or knowledge which is the form and habit of the soul.

2. To that which is objected, that there is there a knower and a knowable and a union; it must be said that not every union of knower to knowable suffices for knowledge, but rather it is required that they be united after the *mode of a knower*. For just as was shown in the objecting, God is in all things essentially and is intimate to all, and yet is known by few[^p298-1]; and therefore, although the uncreated Word is united to the soul, it is nevertheless not known by this, that it is united in unity of person, but by this, that the intellect of the soul united to it is made conformed to it through the influence of light. For it is necessary that the intellect be in some way formed and informed by the intelligible itself, in order that it may know it.

3. To that which is objected concerning the soul and knowledge, that they are known by themselves, and those things which are essentially in the soul; it must be said that the soul is not said to be known by itself because it is the knowledge by which it knows itself; but *knowledge*[^p298-2] is known by itself, since it is united to the knowing potency, inasmuch as it is a knower. But concerning uncreated wisdom it is otherwise, both because it is above the knowing soul — and therefore it is necessary to be elevated through grace — and also because such a union does not suffice, unless another mode of union concur.

4. To that which is objected concerning the communication of properties, it must be said that it is true that that man knows the Word by uncreated wisdom; but although the properties are communicated to that man[^p298-3], they are nevertheless not communicated to the soul of Christ. But we are not now inquiring about the knowledge which is given to that man through the communication of properties, but about that which belongs to him according to the nature of the soul assumed by the Word.

la: In minori pro *cognoscitur* codd. B C D E F G I L U Z aa bb perperam *cognoscit*, d In conclus. pro *cognoscatur* edd. cum cod. cc pariter falso *cognoscat*.

en: In the minor [premise / title] for *cognoscitur* (is known) the codices B C D E F G I L U Z aa bb wrongly [read] *cognoscit* (knows); the (d) lettering in the conclusion for *cognoscatur* (may be known) the editions, with codex cc, likewise falsely [read] *cognoscat* (may know).

la: Vers. 5: *Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis* etc. —

en: Verse 5: «The fount of wisdom is the Word of God in the heights» etc. — [Ecclus. 1, 5].

la: De iis quae ad cognitionem requiruntur, deque ipsa cognitione et eius speciebus (quae in procedentibus argg. tanguntur) vide I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. et d. 17. p. I. q. 4. — In minori cod. U post *animae Christi* perperam addit *cognitione alia, quam illa quae est Verbum ipsum et quod cognoscatur*.

en: On the things which are required for knowledge, and on knowledge itself and its species (which are touched upon in the preceding arguments), see I Sent., d. 3, p. I, q. 1, and d. 17, p. I, q. 4. — In the minor, codex U after *animae Christi* wrongly adds *cognitione alia, quam illa quae est Verbum ipsum et quod cognoscatur*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 39. a. I. q. 2. in corp. circa finem.

en: Cfr. II Sent., d. 39, a. I, q. 2, in the body, near the end.

la: Edd. *idiomatum*.

en: The editions [read] *idiomatum* (of idioms).

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 24. (c. 2.).

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 24 (c. 2).

la: Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 4: *Omne enim quod cognoscitur, non secundum sui vim, sed secundum cognoscentium potius comprehenditur facultatem.* — Pro *cognoscentium* edd. cum cod. cc *cognoscentis*. Subinde pro *per aliquid* cod. U *propter aliquid*.

en: Boethius, *On Consolation* V, prose 4: «For everything that is known is grasped not according to its own power, but rather according to the faculty of those knowing.» — For *cognoscentium* (of those knowing) the editions with codex cc [read] *cognoscentis* (of one knowing). Then for *per aliquid* (by something) codex U [reads] *propter aliquid* (on account of something).

la: Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 4: *Superior comprehendendi vis amplectitur inferiorem, inferior vero ad superiorem nullo modo consurgit. Neque enim sensus aliquid extra materiam valet, vel universales species imaginatio contuetur* etc. — S. Bonav. in Quaest. adhuc inedita de Sapientia animae Christi hoc idem arg. sic proponit: *Verbum Dei, quod est sapientia, est unitum oculo, et tamen oculus non est sapiens; ergo ad hoc, quod anima sit sapiens, non sufficit ei unio in hypostasi; ergo necesse est, quod uniatur sicut cognoscens cognoscibili. Omnis autem talis unio est per assimilationem; sed omnis assimilatio est secundum aliquam qualitatem: ergo necesse est, quod ipsi animae detur qualitas spiritualis creata, per quam sit ad cognoscendum idonea; hanc autem vocamus sapientiam creatam: ergo etc.*

en: Boethius, *On Consolation* V, prose 4: «The higher power of comprehending embraces the lower, but the lower in no way rises to the higher. For neither does sense avail for anything outside matter, nor does imagination behold the universal species» etc. — St. Bonaventure, in the still-unpublished Question *On the Wisdom of the Soul of Christ*, proposes this same argument thus: «The Word of God, which is wisdom, is united to the eye, and yet the eye is not wise; therefore for the soul to be wise, the union in the hypostasis does not suffice for it; therefore it is necessary that it be united as a knower to a knowable. But every such union is by assimilation; but every assimilation is according to some quality: therefore it is necessary that to the soul itself there be given a created spiritual quality, by which it is fit for knowing; and this we call created wisdom: therefore etc.»

la: De quo S. Bonav. in laudata Quaest. inedita sic loquitur: *Deus, cum sit lux et sapientia, diversimode cognoscitur a diversis, et ab anima Christi excellentius quam ab aliis; aut ergo hoc est ratione ipsius Dei cogniti, aut ratione potentiae cognoscentis, aut ratione alicuius gratiae disponentis. Non ratione ipsius Dei, cum ipse in se nullam habeat varietatem; nec ratione potentiae cognoscentis solum, quia tunc qui meliora haberent naturalia sapientiores et meliores essent, quod est falsum: ergo hoc erit ratione alicuius habitus intermedii disponentis; sed talis habitus non est nisi sapientia creata: ergo etc.*

en: On which St. Bonaventure, in the praised unpublished Question, speaks thus: «God, since he is light and wisdom, is known in diverse ways by diverse [knowers], and by the soul of Christ more excellently than by others; therefore either this is by reason of God himself as known, or by reason of the potency of the knower, or by reason of some disposing grace. Not by reason of God himself, since he has in himself no variety; nor by reason of the potency of the knower alone, because then those who had better natural endowments would be wiser and better, which is false: therefore this will be by reason of some disposing intermediate habit; but such a habit is nothing but created wisdom: therefore etc.»

la: Sive habitus, mediante quo cognitio elicitur a potentia. — Mox pro *opinantium* cod. Z *opinionum*.

en: Or a habit, by the mediation of which knowledge is elicited from the potency. — Soon for *opinantium* (of those opining) codex Z [reads] *opinionum* (of opinions).

la: Part. I. q. I. et II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2. — Arg. ex beatitudine petitum invenitur etiam in opusculo de Sapientia animae Christi, quod scripsit Hugo a S. Vict., cuius argumentationem S. Bonav. in memorata Quaest. anecdota tuetur dicens, quod ille «non intelligit, quin per aliquod accidens ad beatitudinem disponamur, sed quod quidquid est accidens, habet potius rationem viae ductivae ad alterum quam quietativi».

en: Part I, q. I, and II Sent., d. 26, q. 2. — The argument taken from beatitude is found also in the opusculum *On the Wisdom of the Soul of Christ*, which Hugh of St. Victor wrote, whose argumentation St. Bonaventure in the mentioned unedited Question upholds, saying that he «does not understand that we are disposed to beatitude through some accident, but that whatever is an accident has rather the character of a way leading to another than of a quietative».

la: Cfr. infra dub. 2. — Paulo inferius pro *nimium* codd. A aa *nimis*.

en: Cfr. below, dub. 2. — A little further down for *nimium* (too much) codices A aa [read] *nimis* (too much).

la: Pro *etiam* cod. M *similiter*, plures alii codd. *est*; edd. omittunt *etiam* nec non paulo post *in qua*. Deinde post *communicat* cod. V subiicit *esse*.

en: For *etiam* (also) codex M [reads] *similiter* (likewise), several other codices *est* (is); the editions omit *etiam* and also a little after *in qua*. Then after *communicat* codex V adds *esse*.

la: Ita codd. I L Z aa bb et edd., alii codd. *se ipsam*; fortasse lectio vera est *se ipsam se ipsa* (ablativus). — Hugo in commemorato opusculo de Sapientia animae Christi, circa finem, ait: *Sed in rebus dubiis, si manifesta auctoritate non valeo, ab aliis quidem sic accipi volo, ut quaerentem me adiuvent, invenientem non refutent. Quicumque autem in eo persistunt, ut hoc asserere contendant, quod alia fuerit illa sapientia, qua anima Christi sapiens exstitit, alia quae animae Christi unita fuit; ego nemini praeiudicium facere volo; videant ipsi, quo sensu hoc asserant, ne forte carnalis sit, magis sua quam vera pronuntians. Hoc unum ego indubitanter affirmo, quod aut alia sapientia praeter divinam in anima Christi non fuit, aut si alia fuit, qualis* [S. Bonav. infra a. 2. q. 3. in corp. *aequalis*] *illi non fuit* etc. — Post pauca pro *videatur*, quod habent edd. cum pluribus codd., codd. F G I L T W (aa a prima manu) *videbatur*, omittentes *licet*. Mox post *tamen* cod. V interserit *et*.

en: Thus codices I L Z aa bb and the editions; other codices *se ipsam* (itself); perhaps the true reading is *se ipsam se ipsa* (ablative). — Hugh in the commemorated opusculum *On the Wisdom of the Soul of Christ*, near the end, says: «But in doubtful matters, if I do not prevail by manifest authority, I wish to be received by others in such a way that they help me as one seeking, and do not refute me as one finding. But whoever persist in this, that they contend to assert that the wisdom by which the soul of Christ was wise was one thing, and that which was united to the soul of Christ another; I wish to do prejudice to no one; let them see in what sense they assert this, lest perhaps it be carnal, pronouncing their own rather than the true. This one thing I affirm undoubtingly, that either there was in the soul of Christ no wisdom besides the divine, or if there was another, it was not such [St. Bonaventure below, a. 2, q. 3, in the body: *equal*] to it» etc. — After a little, for *videatur* (may seem), which the editions have with several codices, codices F G I L T W (aa by a first hand) [read] *videbatur* (was seeming), omitting *licet*. Soon after *tamen* codex V inserts *et*.

la: Quae influentia vulgo vocatur lumen gloriae. — Paulo superius pro *in unitatem personae* edd. cum paucis codd. *in unitate personae*.

en: Which influence is commonly called the light of glory. — A little above, for *in unitatem personae* (into unity of person) the editions with a few codices [read] *in unitate personae* (in unity of person).

la: Pro *Quomodo* codd. V Y *Non*. Paulo superius pro *animae aliorum* cod. K *anima aliorum*. Aliquanto inferius pro *aliqua anima beata* cod. K *alia anima beata*, codd. S aa *aliqua alia beata*, cod. Y *aliqua anima creata*.

en: For *Quomodo* (how) codices V Y [read] *Non* (not). A little above, for *animae aliorum* (of the souls of others) codex K [reads] *anima aliorum* (the soul of others). Somewhat below, for *aliqua anima beata* (any blessed soul) codex K [reads] *alia anima beata* (another blessed soul), codices S aa *aliqua alia beata* (any other blessed [soul]), codex Y *aliqua anima creata* (any created soul).

la: Cod. K voci *beata* praefigit *substantia*, et paulo inferius edd. vocibus *effectus Verbi* praemittunt *gratia*, omisso subinde *inquam*, pro quo cod. Q exhibet *ipsum*.

en: Codex K prefixes *substantia* to the word *beata*, and a little below the editions prefix *gratia* to the words *effectus Verbi*, thereupon omitting *inquam*, in place of which codex Q exhibits *ipsum*.

la: Codd. K M O addunt *et sapientia*. Paulo inferius pro *sibi ipsi* codd. I L aa *sibi ipsa*, et subinde *creata* pro *creati*.

en: Codices K M O add *et sapientia* (and wisdom). A little below, for *sibi ipsi* (to itself) codices I L aa [read] *sibi ipsa* (by itself), and thereupon *creata* for *creati*.

la: Scil. visione beatifica (cfr. hic fundam. 2.), vel saltem ut intime praesens. — In fine solut. edd. omittunt *intelligibili*, pro quo cod. M (N a secunda manu) *intellecto*, in pluribus aliis codd. perperam *intellectu*, in cod. S *intellectu increato*.

en: Namely, by the beatific vision (cfr. here, fundamentum 2), or at least as intimately present. — At the end of the solution the editions omit *intelligibili* (intelligible), in place of which codex M (N by a second hand) [reads] *intellecto* (the understood), in several other codices wrongly *intellectu* (by the intellect), in codex S *intellectu increato* (by the uncreated intellect).

la: In edd. desideratur *scientia*.

en: In the editions *scientia* (knowledge) is wanting.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. — Paulo superius post *illi homini* codd. M O addunt *per idiomatum communicationem*. Paulo inferius pro *detur* cod. H substituit *debetur*.

en: Cfr. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6. — A little above, after *illi homini* (to that man) codices M O add *per idiomatum communicationem* (through the communication of properties). A little below, for *detur* (is given) codex H substitutes *debetur* (is owed).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Agitur in hac distinctione non de divina Verbi cognitione, sed de cognitione et scientia animae Christi, cui theologi communiter triplicem tribuunt scientiam, scilicet *beatam*, *infusam* et *acquisitam*. Scientia beata est ipsa visio beatifica, qua Deus immediate et clare cognoscitur; *infusa* est scientia inferioris ordinis, tamen «de sursum descendens» (Iac. 3, 15.) et sine propria industria per supernaturalem Dei influxum communicata; *acquisita* vero a rebus propria actione comparatur. De *infusa* et *acquisita* breviter agitur in 3. articulo. Cum autem una scientia *beata* duplex habeat obiectum, scilicet *primarium*, quod est ipse Deus, et *secundarium*, scilicet alias res in divino exemplari cognitas; auctor in 1. art. q. 2. 3. inquirit de *primario* scientiae beatae obiecto, et in 2. art. de *secundario*.

**II.** In hac 1. quaestione agitur de ipsa visione beatifica ex parte *animae cognoscentis*, utrum scilicet importet scientiam sive habitum creatum. Supponitur autem, in Christo homine ab instanti suae conceptionis fuisse visionem beatificam (cfr. supra d. 13. a. I. q. 3.). In hac quaestione considerari potest vel *potentia* cognoscendi (intellectus), vel *actus*, vel *habitus*. Fide constat contra Apollinaristas, Monothelitas aliosque, quod in Christo fuerit tum *potentia* intellectus humana et creata; tum *actus* intelligendi humanus, cum Synodus oecumenica VI. profiteatur in Christo «duas naturales operationes indivise, inconvertibiliter, inseparabiliter, inconfuse» etc. (cfr. Concil. Lateran., an. 649 sub Martino I, can. 9-16, nec non hic initium responsionis et infra d. 17. a. I. q. 1. 2.). Restat igitur quaestio de *habitu creato*, «quo mediante cognoscimus».

Opinio prima hic relata tribuitur Ioanni a Ripa et communiter censetur erronea, sicut et secunda. Conveniunt igitur nunc theologi in hoc, quod in Christo fuit scientia creata non tantum quoad *potentiam* et *actum*, sed etiam quoad *habitum* sive *lumen gloriae*, quo per modum formae infuso intellectus assimilatur obiecto increato et intellectus possibilis ad cognoscendum perficitur. Scotus quoad *factum* consentit doctrinae communi, sed Deo possibile esse vult, immediate, absque aliqua forma creata, in intellectu visionem efficere, pro qua assertione provocat etiam ad verba Magistri hic in lit. Insuper notamus, quod variae sunt opiniones theologorum circa munera et effectus luminis gloriae. — Distinctionem inter scientiam *unionis* et *comprehensionis* habet etiam Alex. Hal. (S. p. III. q. 13. m. 2. 3.), cuius verba, quae differentiam specificam inter utramque scientiam statuere videntur, a S. Bonav. (in fine corp.) sane explicantur. — Hanc et sequentem quaestionem diffusius probatim invenies in quibusdam auctoris nostri quaestionibus disputatis, a nobis, Deo favente, in volumine V. huius editionis primum publicandis.

**III.** Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. I. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 1-3; S. III. q. 9. a. I. 2; de Verit. q. 20. a. I. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 3. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. I. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In this distinction the discussion is not of the divine knowledge of the Word, but of the knowledge and science of the soul of Christ, to which theologians commonly attribute a threefold science, namely *beatific*, *infused*, and *acquired*. Beatific science is the very beatific vision, by which God is known immediately and clearly; *infused* science is of a lower order, yet «descending from above» (James 3, 15) and communicated without proper effort through a supernatural influx of God; *acquired* science is procured from things by one's own action. Of the *infused* and *acquired* there is a brief treatment in the 3rd article. But since the one *beatific* science has a twofold object, namely a *primary*, which is God himself, and a *secondary*, namely other things known in the divine exemplar; the author in the 1st article, qq. 2, 3 inquires about the *primary* object of beatific science, and in the 2nd article about the *secondary*.

**II.** In this 1st question the discussion is of the beatific vision itself on the part of the *knowing soul*, namely whether it implies a created science or habit. It is supposed, moreover, that in Christ as man, from the instant of his conception, there was the beatific vision (cfr. above, d. 13, a. I, q. 3). In this question there can be considered either the *potency* of knowing (the intellect), or the *act*, or the *habit*. It is established by faith, against the Apollinarists, Monothelites, and others, that in Christ there was both the *potency* of intellect, human and created; and the *act* of understanding, human, since the Sixth Ecumenical Synod professes in Christ «two natural operations indivisibly, unconvertibly, inseparably, unconfusedly» etc. (cfr. the Lateran Council, in the year 649 under Martin I, canons 9-16, as also here the beginning of the response and below, d. 17, a. I, q. 1, 2). There remains therefore the question of the *created habit*, «by the mediation of which we know».

The first opinion here reported is attributed to John of Ripa and is commonly held to be erroneous, as is the second. Theologians therefore now agree in this, that in Christ there was a created science not only as to *potency* and *act*, but also as to *habit* or *light of glory*, by which, infused after the manner of a form, the intellect is assimilated to the uncreated object and the possible intellect is perfected for knowing. Scotus, as to the *fact*, consents to the common doctrine, but holds that it is possible for God to effect the vision in the intellect immediately, without any created form, for which assertion he appeals also to the words of the Master here in the text. We note moreover that the opinions of theologians concerning the offices and effects of the light of glory are various. — The distinction between the science of *union* and of *comprehension* is found also in Alexander of Hales (S. p. III, q. 13, m. 2, 3), whose words, which seem to establish a specific difference between the two sciences, are soundly explained by St. Bonaventure (at the end of the body). — This and the following question you will find treated more diffusely in certain disputed questions of our author, to be first published by us, God favoring, in the fifth volume of this edition.

**III.** Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 1. — Scotus, in both Writings here, q. I. — St. Thomas, here, q. I, a. I, quaestiunculae 1-3; Summa III, q. 9, a. I, 2; de Veritate, q. 20, a. I, 2. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. unica, a. 3, quaestiuncula I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. I, q. 2. — Durandus, here, q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. I. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here, q. unica.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `vol3-p295..298-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` (PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/III override; the IA djvu OCR cascade-fragments the Respondeo, Solutio, and footers), reading Left column top→bottom then Right column, body bands then footer bands. English is a fresh literal paragraph-for-paragraph translation. Raw OCR span 20774–20991.

**Printed page span.** pp. 295–298 (PDF 317–320; offset `pdf = printed + 22`). Running heads confirmed eyes-on via low-dpi render: p.295 `DIST. XIV. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` (R-top), p.296 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` / `296` (L-top), p.297 `DIST. XIV. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` / `297`, p.298 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` / `298` — never trusting OCR'd digits.

**Page-split map.**
- p.295 (foot): ARTICULUS I header + subtitle + QUAESTIO I title + body opening (videtur args 1, 2).
- p.296: args 2(cont.)–4; Sed contra 1–3.
- p.297: Sed contra 3(cont.)–4; CONCLUSIO; Respondeo (Opinio 1, Opinio 2, beginning of Opinio 3).
- p.298: Respondeo close (Opinio 3) + Solutio oppositorum 1–4; SCHOLION I–III. QUAESTIO II begins on the foot of p.298 (R-col) — out of scope.

**Alignment.** PASS. Opener reads `QUAESTIO I.` / `Utrum anima Christi cognoscat Verbum alia cognitione, quam illa quae est ipsum Verbum.` / `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum anima Christi cognoscat Verbum cognitione alia, quam illa quae est ipsum Verbum.` — confirmed q1 (*de Verbo*), NOT q2 (*comprehendat*, raw 20992) nor q3 (*defigat aspectum*, raw 21254).

**Hand-offs picked up.** (1) From d14-divisio: the bare centred `ARTICULUS I.` header (OCR `ARTIGULUS I.`, raw 20774) + subtitle `De scientia, quam anima Christi habuit de Verbo.` (raw 20776) fold into this q1 per the locked convention (rendered as the article opener; the divisio body ended at the TRACTATIO close, raw 20772). (2) p.295 footers 5+ are this q1's first body-footers — the divisio claimed only p.295 nn.1–4. Picked up: the p.295 title-variant note (`In minori pro cognoscitur codd. …`, rendered `[^p295-t]`, anchored on the QUAESTIO title), footer 5 (*Fons sapientiae*, on `primo Ecclesiastici`), footer 6 (*De iis quae ad cognitionem requiruntur … vide I. Sent. d. 3 … et d. 17 …*, on `unio unius ad alterum`).

**Hand-off forwarded → d14-a1-q2 (raw 20992, printed p.298 foot / PDF 320).** QUAESTIO II (*Utrum anima Christi in cognoscendo comprehendat ipsum Verbum sibi unitum*, `Secundo quaeritur…`) opens on the bottom of the R-column of printed p.298. Its first body-footer is the fresh **p.298 footer 4** (footer 4 = *Vers. 9. — In initio quaest. post* anima Christi *edd. cum cod. cc subiiciunt* in cognoscendo). **[CORRECTED 2026-06-04:** p.298 footer 3 (*Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. — Paulo superius post* illi homini *codd. M O addunt* per idiomatum communicationem…) does NOT belong to q2 — its anchor *illi homini*/*detur* falls in q1's *Ad 4* reply, so it is q1's `[^p298-3]` (backfilled above). q2's first body-footer is footer 4 only.] **q1 now holds p.298 footers 1–3; q2 holds footer 4.** No q1 footer migrates forward. q2 continues onto p.299+.

**Scholion coverage.** `has_scholion: true`. A free-standing SCHOLION (I, II, III) prints at the foot of p.298 after the Solutio. It is q1-specific: Scholion II opens «In hac 1. quaestione agitur de ipsa visione beatifica…». It does NOT forward-cover q2/q3 via a `pro quaest. seq.` formula (the only cross-reference, «Hanc et sequentem quaestionem diffusius … in volumine V.», points to the disputed-questions volume, not to a shared scholion). q2 and q3 will carry their own scholia if printed.

**Apparatus count = 21** (per-page restart): p.295 → 3 (`[^p295-t]`, `[^p295-5]`, `[^p295-6]`); p.296 → 7 (`[^p296-1]`–`[^p296-7]`); p.297 → 8 (`[^p297-1]`–`[^p297-8]`); p.298 → 3 (`[^p298-1]`, `[^p298-2]`, `[^p298-3]`). **[`[^p298-3]` backfilled 2026-06-04** — the p.298 footer 3 (`Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6.` + *illi homini*/*detur* variants) anchors q1's *Ad 4* reply (`idiomata communicentur illi homini`) and was orphaned in the original promotion (q1 captured only footers 1–2, q2 correctly declined it as q1-territory). Reconciled here during d14-a1-q3 promotion: p.298 has exactly 4 footers — 1,2,3 → q1; 4 → q2.] Markers paired at matching positions in both bodies. The SCHOLION carries no numbered apparatus.

**`[?]` flags.** None — fully legible at 450 dpi, read column-by-column.

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