title: Pars 5, Cap. 9

source_text:
<!-- page 262 -->

### Capitulum IX. *De exercitio gratiae respectu agendorum, praeceptorum et consiliorum.*

De *praeceptis* autem legis divinae hoc tenendum est, quod in lege *Moysaica* sunt praecepta *iudicialia, figuralia* et *moralia*, utpote decem praecepta decalogi in duabus tabulis conscripta *digito Dei*[^p262-4]. — Lex autem *evangelica iudicialia* temperat auferendo, *figuralia* evacuat adimplendo, *moralia* consummat adiiciendo. Adiicit autem documenta instruentia, promissa excitantia et consilia perficientia; cuiusmodi sunt consilium paupertatis, consilium obedientiae et consilium castitatis, ad quae implenda invitat Christus Dominus noster eum qui vult esse perfectus[^p262-5].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia primum principium, sicut est summe *bonum* in se ipso, sic est summe *iustum* in opere suo et in universi regimine disponendo. Quoniam ergo summe *iusti* est zelare iustitiam non tantum in se, verum etiam in altero; iustitia autem consistit in conformando se regulis iuris: hinc est, quod divinae iustitiae est regulas iustitiae homini imprimere et exprimere, non tantum *dictando* per modum veritatis erudientis, sed etiam *praecipiendo* et *obligando* per modum voluntatis imperantis[^p262-6]. Et quoniam gratia facit voluntatem nostram divinae voluntati conformem, ipsius est disponere nos ad obtemperandum et subiacendum illis regulis iustitiae secundum dictamen legis divinitus datae.

Rursus, quoniam divinis imperiis dupliciter obtemperare contingit, videlicet ex *timore poenae*, vel ex *amore iustitiae*; et primum est imperfectorum, secundum autem perfectorum; ideo Deus duplicem homini contulit legem: unam timoris, alteram amoris, unam in servitutem generantem et alteram in adoptionem filiorum Dei transferentem[^p262-7]. Ac per hoc, quia timentibus et imperfectis competit, ut *terreantur* per iudicia et *manuducantur* per signa et *dirigantur* nihilominus per praecepta; hinc est, quod lex *Moysaica*, quae est lex timoris, continet *iudicialia* et *figuralia* et *moralia*. — Perfectis autem et amantibus convenit *aperta instructio* documentorum, *larga promissio* praemiorum et *alta perfectio* consiliorum; hinc est, quod lex *evangelica* continet

<!-- page 263 -->
ista tria. Et ideo dicitur lex Moysaica differre ab evangelica, quia illa *figurae*, haec *veritatis*; illa lex *poenae*, haec *gratiae*; illa *litteralis*, ista *spiritualis*; illa *occidens*, ista *vivificans*[^p263-1]; illa *timoris*, ista *amoris*; illa *servitutis*, ista *libertatis*; illa *oneris* et ista *facilitatis*.

Postremo, quoniam regulae spectantes ad iustitiae necessitatem continentur in divinis praeceptis; et iustitiae est « ius suum unicuique reddere[^p263-2] »: necesse est, quod praecepta moralia quaedam sint, quae ordinant nos ad *Deum*; quaedam ad *proximum* secundum duplex caritatis praeceptum; quod Spiritus sanctus voluit insinuare per duarum mysterium tabularum, et ideo *digito Dei scriptae* dicuntur. — Et quia Deus est trinus, Pater scilicet et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, cui competit summa maiestas *adoranda*, veritas *profitenda* et caritas *acceptanda*, secundum vim irascibilem, rationalem et concupiscibilem, per actum operis, oris et cordis: ideo triplex est mandatum primae tabulae, correspondens tribus praemissis, scilicet *adorationis* subiectivae, *iurationis* veridicae et *sabbatizationis* sacratae.

Quia vero proximus est imago Trinitatis, et ei, in quantum praefert imaginem Patris, debetur *pietas*; in quantum praefert imaginem Filii, debetur *veracitas*[^p263-3], in quantum praefert imaginem Spiritus sancti, debetur *benignitas*: hinc est, quod septem sunt mandata, quae ad secundam tabulam spectant. Nam penes *pietatem* sunt *duo*: unum, quod pietatem mandat, scilicet de patre honorando; alterum, quod impietatem vetat, scilicet de non occidendo. Penes *veracitatem*, quae principaliter consistit in verbo, accipitur *unum*, scilicet de falso testimonio non ferendo. Penes *benignitatem*, cui opponitur cupiditas et concupiscentia, quarum utraque potest esse in opere, vel in corde, accipiuntur *quatuor*, scilicet *non moechaberis, non concupisces uxorem, non furtum facies, et non concupisces rem alienam*[^p263-4]. Et habent haec ordinari secundum maiora vel minora nocumenta, per quae infringi potest iustitia. Et sic regulae spectantes ad iustitiae necessitatem debent contineri in docem praeceptis.

Quoniam autem iustitia ad perfectionem pervenit, dum perfecte se elongat a malo et quantum ad *culpam* et quantum ad *causam*; et omne malum oritur ex triplici radice, scilicet concupiscentiae carnis, concupiscentiae oculorum et superbiae vitae[^p263-5]: hinc est, quod tria sunt *consilia* evangelica, perfecte nos elongantia a triplici radice praedicta. Quae ideo sunt consilia, quia, ut perfecte faciant recedere a malo non solum separant ab illicitis, verum etiam a licitis et concessis, quae possunt esse occasio mali; ac per hoc non solum iustitiam continent *sufficientem*, verum etiam *abundantem*[^p263-6], secundum quod competit perfectioni evangelicae legis et exercitationi gratiae perficientis.

---

english:
### Chapter IX. *On the exercise of grace with respect to the things to be done, the precepts and the counsels.*

Concerning the *precepts* of the divine law this is to be held: that in the *Mosaic* law there are *judicial*, *figural* and *moral* precepts — as, for instance, the ten precepts of the decalogue written on two tables by the *finger of God*[^p262-4]. — But the *evangelical* law tempers the *judicial* by taking them away, empties the *figural* by fulfilling them, and consummates the *moral* by adding to them. And it adds instructing teachings, arousing promises and perfecting counsels; of which sort are the counsel of poverty, the counsel of obedience and the counsel of chastity, to the fulfilling of which Christ our Lord invites him who wishes to be perfect[^p262-5].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the first principle, just as it is supremely *good* in itself, so is it supremely *just* in its work and in the ordering of the government of the universe. Since, therefore, it belongs to the supremely *just* to be zealous for justice not only in himself but also in another, and since justice consists in conforming oneself to the rules of right: hence it is that it belongs to the divine justice to imprint and to express the rules of justice upon man, not only by *dictating* after the manner of instructing truth, but also by *enjoining* and *obliging* after the manner of a commanding will[^p262-6]. And since grace makes our will conformed to the divine will, it belongs to grace to dispose us to obey and to submit to those rules of justice according to the dictate of the law divinely given.

Again, since it happens that the divine commands are obeyed in two ways, namely out of *fear of punishment* or out of *love of justice*, and the first belongs to the imperfect, the second to the perfect: therefore God conferred upon man a twofold law — one of fear, the other of love; one begetting unto servitude and the other transferring unto the adoption of the sons of God[^p262-7]. And through this, because it befits those who fear and are imperfect that they be *terrified* by judgments and *led by the hand* by signs and none the less *directed* by precepts, hence it is that the *Mosaic* law, which is the law of fear, contains *judicial* and *figural* and *moral* precepts. — But for the perfect and the loving there befits the *open instruction* of teachings, the *generous promise* of rewards and the *lofty perfection* of counsels; hence it is that the *evangelical* law contains

<!-- page 263 -->
these three. And therefore the Mosaic law is said to differ from the evangelical, because that one is of *figures*, this of *truth*; that law is of *punishment*, this of *grace*; that is *literal*, this *spiritual*; that *kills*, this *gives life*[^p263-1]; that is of *fear*, this of *love*; that of *servitude*, this of *liberty*; that of *burden* and this of *ease*.

Last, since the rules that regard the necessity of justice are contained in the divine precepts, and it belongs to justice « to render to each his own[^p263-2] »: it is necessary that there be certain moral precepts which order us toward *God*, and certain ones toward our *neighbour*, according to the twofold precept of charity — which the Holy Spirit willed to intimate through the mystery of the two tables, and for that reason they are said to be *written by the finger of God*. — And because God is three, namely Father and Son and Holy Spirit, to whom belongs the highest majesty to be *adored*, truth to be *professed* and charity to be *accepted*, according to the irascible, the rational and the concupiscible power, through the act of work, of mouth and of heart: therefore the commandment of the first table is threefold, corresponding to the three things premised, namely of *adoration* that submits, of *swearing* that speaks truth and of *sabbath-keeping* that is hallowed.

But because the neighbour is an image of the Trinity, and to him, in so far as he bears the image of the Father, *piety* is owed; in so far as he bears the image of the Son, *truthfulness* is owed[^p263-3]; in so far as he bears the image of the Holy Spirit, *kindness* is owed: hence it is that there are seven commandments which regard the second table. For under *piety* there are *two*: one which commands piety, namely concerning the honouring of a father; the other which forbids impiety, namely concerning not killing. Under *truthfulness*, which consists principally in the word, *one* is taken, namely concerning not bearing false witness. Under *kindness*, to which are opposed cupidity and concupiscence, of which each can be in deed or in heart, *four* are taken, namely *thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not covet a wife, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not covet another's goods*[^p263-4]. And these have to be ordered according to greater or lesser harms, by which justice can be broken. And so the rules that regard the necessity of justice must be contained in ten precepts.

But since justice comes to perfection when it perfectly withdraws itself from evil both as regards *fault* and as regards *cause*, and every evil arises from a threefold root, namely the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life[^p263-5]: hence it is that there are three evangelical *counsels*, perfectly withdrawing us from the aforesaid threefold root. And they are counsels for this reason, that, in order to make one perfectly withdraw from evil, they separate not only from things unlawful but also from things lawful and permitted which can be an occasion of evil; and through this they contain justice not only *sufficient* but even *abundant*[^p263-6], according as befits the perfection of the evangelical law and the exercise of perfecting grace.

---

la: Exod. 31, 18. — P *conscriptis digito Dei*.

en: Exod. 31, 18. — P has *conscriptis digito Dei*.

la: Matth. 19, 21: Si vis esse perfectus, vade, vende quae habes etc.

en: Matth. 19, 21: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, etc.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. — Aliquanto superius Vat. et 3 *in universo regimine* pro *universi regimine*, refragantibus praeter 1 et 2 multis codd., inter quos L M T, (A *in universi regiminis dispositione*), et pro *summe iusti* cum G I K O et 2 *summae iustitiae*.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 37, a. 1, q. 1. — Somewhat above, the Vatican codex and edition 3 have *in universo regimine* for *universi regimine*, against them, besides editions 1 and 2, many codices, among them L M T (A has *in universi regiminis dispositione*); and for *summe iusti* they have, with G I K O and edition 2, *summae iustitiae*.

la: Respicitur Rom. 8, 15. et Gal. 4, 24. seqq. — Inferius pro *documentorum* E *mandatorum*.

en: Reference is made to Rom. 8, 15 and Gal. 4, 24 and following. — Below, for *documentorum* E has *mandatorum*.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 3, 6: Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. — Ultima differentia insinuatur Matth. 11, 30. et Act. 15, 10. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1-3.

en: The Epistle II Cor. 3, 6: For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. — The last difference is intimated at Matth. 11, 30 and Acts 15, 10. Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 40, qq. 1–3.

la: De hac iustitiae definitione cfr. tom. III. pag. 728, nota 1. — Inferius Vat., 1 et 3 *ordinent* pro *ordinant*, refragante 2 cum pluribus codd., M *sunt ordinantia*.

en: On this definition of justice cf. tom. III, p. 728, note 1. — Below, the Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 have *ordinent* for *ordinant*, against them edition 2 with several codices; M has *sunt ordinantia*.

la: Ed. 2 cum pluribus codd. hic *veritas*, et paulo inferius *veritatem*. Vat., 1 et 3 omittunt *praefert* secundo et tertio loco positum.

en: Edition 2, with several codices, has here *veritas*, and a little below *veritatem*. The Vatican codex and editions 1 and 3 omit *praefert* where it stands in the second and third place.

la: Exod. 20, 12. seqq.; Deut. 5, 18. seqq. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Post *uxorem* E supplet *alterius*, 2 *proximi tui*. Inferius pro *nocumenta* E P T W *damna*. Subinde pro *ad iustitiae necessitatem* non pauci codd. *ad commonitionem*, D *ad iustitiae necessitatem et commonitionem*.

en: Exod. 20, 12 and following; Deut. 5, 18 and following. Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 37, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — After *uxorem* E supplies *alterius*, edition 2 *proximi tui*. Below, for *nocumenta* E P T W have *damna*. Thereupon, for *ad iustitiae necessitatem* not a few codices have *ad commonitionem*, D *ad iustitiae necessitatem et commonitionem*.

la: Epist. I. Ioan. 2, 16. Cfr. supra p. III. c. 8. — De consiliis vide supra Quaest. de perfectione evang. q. 2. seqq.

en: The Epistle I John 2, 16. Cf. above, Pars III, c. 8. — On the counsels see above, the Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2 and following.

la: Similis distinctio occurrit in Glossa supra pag. 186, nota 1. allegata. — Superius pro *sunt consilia* S *dicuntur consilia*.

en: A similar distinction occurs in the Gloss cited above, p. 186, note 1. — Above, for *sunt consilia* S has *dicuntur consilia*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 262–263, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A HEADING ON THE BAND.** `Cap. IX. / De exercitio gratiae respectu agendorum, / praeceptorum et consiliorum.` stands at the very **TOP of p. 262's RIGHT column**, with a **TWO-line** subtitle, exactly where `bon-brev-p5-c8` placed it. Cap. IX fills p. 262's right column entire, to `…hinc est, quod lex *evangelica* continet`; breaks across the leaf on a **TRANSITIVE VERB SEVERED FROM ITS OBJECT** (`continet` / `ista tria.`); fills p. 263's **LEFT column entire**, to `…et quantum ad *causam*; et omne malum oritur`; crosses p. 263's gutter on a **VERB SEVERED FROM THE PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE THAT COMPLETES IT** (`oritur` / `ex triplici radice`); and closes about **55 % down p. 263's RIGHT column** at `…et exercitationi gratiae perficientis.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. X. / De exercitio gratiae respectu petendorum / et orandorum.` heading standing immediately below it in the SAME right column**, with a **TWO-line** subtitle and Cap. X's own text following. No claim here rests on white space, on a grammatically complete tail, or on a running head. ★ **Two breaks, and both are of the same family — a governing word stranded from what it governs — which no capitulum in Pars V has yet done twice in one chunk.** ★ **The index's opening page for Cap. X (263) is CONFIRMED, and with it the last untested index opening in Pars V; the span it implied for Cap. IX (pp. 262–263) is right too. Neither fact licenses inferring anything about where Pars V ends — Cap. X's own end must be closed positively by `bon-brev-p5-c10`.**

**★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE FOURTEENTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF.** p. 263's head reads **`PARS V. C. X.    263`** on a page whose entire LEFT column, and the top 55 % of whose right column, are still Cap. IX. (p. 262's head, read by `p5-c8`, likewise read `C. IX.` over a leaf whose left column was all Cap. VIII.) Read on the band; used for nothing. The boundary was set from the `Cap. X.` heading in the right column. ★ **Note also the head's SHAPE changes with parity and is not a witness either: p. 262 (verso) sets `262   BREVILOQUII PARS V. C. IX.` and p. 263 (recto) sets the short `PARS V. C. X.` with the folio at the right margin.**

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE BREAK, NOT AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY — as in `p5-c6`, `p5-c7` and `p5-c8`, and for the same reason.** The leaf break falls **mid-paragraph**, inside the *Rursus, quoniam divinis imperiis* paragraph, between `continet` and `ista tria.`, and the paragraph's own end is a further six lines on; `<!-- page 263 -->` therefore stands **at the break itself**, so that the printed page each line belongs to stays recoverable.

**Gutters — one re-cut, one MEASURED FRESH on a page never before imaged.** **p. 262 = 1321**, re-cut here at the value `p5-c8` re-derived from the ink profile (not adopted from `p5-c7`'s advance measurement); the right column reads clean edge to edge at that split. — **p. 263 = 1195, measured fresh: the page was extracted at 450 dpi for the first time in this chunk** (`extract-pages.py --volume vol5 --pages 263 --dpi 450`), and `colcrop.py vol5 263` with no constant returns `split_x=1195, low-ink run 56 px`. **56 px is below the 60 px trust floor, so the escalation ran in full.** Six row-windows: body (45–92 %) 1195/56 px · upper (45–65 %) 1193/61 · (50–70 %) 1193/61 · mid (58–78 %) 1197/59 · (62–85 %) 1197/59 · lower (74–92 %) 1197/63 · (80–92 %) 1196/65. **Spread 4 px across six windows on runs 56–65 px** — the tight-spread signature. The per-column ink profile was then printed, per the standing rule, and explains the narrow default: over the body rows the blank band runs **x = 1165–1224** and carries **ONE in-gutter island at x = 1191–1197, peaking at 886 rows on x = 1195 — Quaracchi's printed column rule, and it is essentially CENTRED**, the band's own midpoint being 1194.5. **Adopted 1195.** The upper windows return 1193 and the lower 1197, so the leaf carries a **~4 px rightward skew** — the largest since p. 259's leftward 12 and the first non-trivial skew after three essentially unskewed leaves (pp. 260, 261, 262). ★ **One profiling accident worth recording for the next agent: the row window 47–60 % returns a nonsense `1349 / 375 px`, because the `Cap. X.` heading and its two-line subtitle sit in the RIGHT column at that height and leave wide blank margins on both sides of themselves. This is the display-heading failure of gutter rule 2 in a form the rule does not name — not a full-width heading crossing the gutter, but a CENTRED IN-COLUMN heading that starves the profile of ink. The body-row default window (45–92 %) is wide enough to swamp it; a narrow window aimed at that height is not.**

**Apparatus (10 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 262 nn. 4–7** (inherited, every claim re-derived, closing that register entire) and **p. 263 nn. 1–6** (first-read). Every anchor below was read on the band at 450 dpi under direct high-factor zoom.
- p. 262 n. **4** on `decem praecepta decalogi in duabus tabulis conscripta *digito Dei*`⁴ — **RIGHT** column, six lines below the `Cap. IX.` heading, in the opening thesis, beside the `Thesis 1.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 262 n. **5** on `invitat Christus Dominus noster eum qui vult esse perfectus`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, closing the *consilia* thesis, four lines below the `Thesis 3.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 262 n. **6** on `per modum voluntatis imperantis`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, in the *Ratio* paragraph, seven lines below the `Congruit Deo praecepta dare.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 262 n. **7** on `in adoptionem filiorum Dei transferentem`⁷ — **RIGHT** column, in the *Rursus, quoniam divinis imperiis* paragraph, seven lines below the `Pro thesi 1 et 2.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 263 n. **1** on `illa *occidens*, ista *vivificans*`¹ — **LEFT** column, on the fourth body line of the page, inside the eightfold *illa … ista* contrast; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 263 n. **2** on `« ius suum unicuique reddere`² `»` — **LEFT** column, beside the `Decem praecepta moralia.` gloss, and **the marker stands INSIDE the guillemets, before the closing `»`**; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 263 n. **3** on `debetur *veracitas*`³ — **LEFT** column, in the *Quia vero proximus* paragraph, two lines below the `In 2. tabula septem.` gloss; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 263 n. **4** on `et *non concupisces rem alienam*`⁴ — **LEFT** column, closing the four precepts of *benignitas*; entry in the **LEFT** block, **running over the gutter into the RIGHT block**.
- p. 263 n. **5** on `superbiae vitae`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, on the second body line of the page's right column; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 263 n. **6** on `verum etiam *abundantem*`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, five lines above the `Cap. X.` heading; entry in the **RIGHT** block.

**★★ WHAT THIS CHUNK INHERITED — p. 262 nn. 4–7, EVERY DECLARED CLAIM HELD, AND THE TWO ANCHORS DECLARED UNREAD ARE NOW READ.** `bon-brev-p5-c8` forwarded four notes: **nn. 4 and 5 with ownership, column and position all declared verified**, and **nn. 6 and 7 with ownership and block column verified but their ANCHOR POSITIONS declared an UNREAD REGION and explicitly NOT inferred.** All of it was re-derived from p. 262's bands here rather than adopted.
- **nn. 4 and 5 — every declared claim HELD, and both entry texts held VERBATIM.** n. 4 does sit six lines below the heading on `digito Dei`⁴ beside `Thesis 1.`; n. 5 does close the *consilia* thesis on `qui vult esse perfectus`⁵.
- **nn. 6 and 7 — the two unread anchors are now read, and both are in the RIGHT column**, on `per modum voluntatis imperantis`⁶ and `in adoptionem filiorum Dei transferentem`⁷. ★ **As on p. 261, the refusal to infer was right even though the inference would have come out right again: the whole of Cap. IX's p. 262 portion is in the right column, so on this leaf too there was nowhere else for them to be. Two consecutive leaves where the block agreed with the anchors by geometric accident is not evidence that it predicts them; p. 260 is the counter-example and it has not been superseded.**
- **n. 6's `Aliquanto superius` lemma was exactly what `p5-c8` called it — a neighbourhood, not a reading.** `in universi regimine` stands in the *Ratio* paragraph's SECOND line; the anchor stands **eleven lines lower**, on `per modum voluntatis imperantis`. The lemma is genuinely *aliquanto superius* relative to the anchor, which is what the formula asserts — but it locates the note by more than half a paragraph, and had it been treated as the anchor the note would have been placed eleven lines too high.
- **n. 7's `Rom. 8, 15. et Gal. 4, 24.` self-corroboration held and is unusually strong.** Rom. 8, 15 is `non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum` and Gal. 4, 24 is `haec enim sunt duo testamenta` — between them the anchor's own `unam in servitutem generantem et alteram in adoptionem filiorum Dei transferentem` and the `duplicem legem` it depends on. The anchor does sit on that clause.
- **NO forwarded summary sentence was carried.** `p5-c8`'s prose about p. 262's geometry (anchors 3/4, blocks 3/4, the capitulum line on both) concerns notes this chunk does not own; the only claims used here are the four per-note ones, each re-derived. Its explicit refusal to call that coincidence a Pars V first is likewise left standing and is not converted into a claim here.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS — p. 263 nn. 7–8, TWO NOTES, TO `bon-brev-p5-c10`.** **p. 263's register is EIGHT** (left block nn. 1–4, right block the unnumbered tail of n. 4 followed by nn. 5–8), band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`. Only nn. 1–6 anchor in Cap. IX. For each forwarded note, what was verified is named:
- n. **7** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `est « petitio decentium a Deo`⁷ `»`, in Cap. X's second thesis, **RIGHT** column, about nine lines below the `Cap. X.` heading, beside the `Thesis 2.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `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*.` ★ **Note the marker's position: it stands INSIDE the guillemets, exactly as p. 263 n. 2 does, so the same shape has now occurred twice on this leaf.**
- n. **8** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `ideo *donum perfectum*`⁸, in Cap. X's *Ratio* paragraph, **RIGHT** column; entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Iac. 1, 17. — Inferius non pauci codd. omittunt *miseriam*.`
★ **The digits and sigla in nn. 7–8 were read on the band while establishing the register's total, and are forwarded as read; `bon-brev-p5-c10` must still re-derive every one of them. `Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 24` is *De oratione*, and both of Cap. X's two definitions of prayer (`ascensus intellectus in Deum`, `petitio decentium a Deo`) stand there — which is why the entry opens `Duplex haec orationis definitio`; that corroborates the anchor rather than merely its neighbourhood, but it was also read directly.**

**Runover findings — TWO OWED, ONE NEGATIVE AND ONE POSITIVE.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 262 → p. 263 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, as owed.* p. 262's right footer block ends **complete** at n. 7 (`…Inferius pro *documentorum* E *mandatorum*.`) with clear paper below it, and **p. 263's left footer block opens NUMBERED: `¹ Epist. II. Cor. 3, 6:`**
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 263 — **POSITIVE**, and this chunk's own.* **p. 263 n. 4 breaks mid-word at the foot of the left block on `Sub-`** (`…Inferius pro *nocumenta* E P T W *damna*. Sub-`) **and resumes at the head of the right block, UNNUMBERED, on `inde`** (`inde pro *ad iustitiae necessitatem* non pauci codd. *ad commonitionem*, D *ad iustitiae necessitatem et commonitionem*.`). The right block's first NUMBERED entry is n. 5. Rendered joined in the apparatus above. **Logged once: `p5-c9  p.263 n.4:gutter`.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* 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`). ★ **The p. 263 → p. 264 test is NOT owed here and is NOT logged — Cap. IX closes part-way down p. 263's right column and never touches p. 264. It belongs to `bon-brev-p5-c10`.**

**★ NO PRINTER'S SIGNATURE AND NO QUIRE SIGNATURE ON EITHER PAGE.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` last fell on p. 257 with the quire signature `33`. p. 262 carries neither mark (established by `p5-c8`), and **p. 263 carries neither**: both of its footer blocks were read to their last line, the left ends on n. 4's hyphenated `Sub-` and the right on n. 8's own last line (`…omittunt *miseriam*.`), and the whole strip from there to the foot of the sheet is blank paper with no ink anywhere across the page's full width. **The next signature remains due around p. 265, which is now two leaves off — expect it inside `p5-c10`'s pages or just past them.** **Neither mark is ever an entry; neither was counted, because neither is here.**

**★★ p. 263's FOOTER: THE ANCHOR LINE AND THE BLOCK LINE COINCIDE AND THE CAPITULUM LINE DOES NOT — the reverse of p. 262.** Derived from this chunk's own per-note list above and from nothing else: p. 263's **anchors** divide **4 / 4** (nn. 1–4 LEFT column, nn. 5–8 RIGHT); its **blocks** divide **4 / 4** (nn. 1–4 LEFT, nn. 5–8 RIGHT, with n. 4's tail spilling unnumbered into the right block without changing the ownership count); and its **capitulum line** falls between nn. **6 and 7**, two notes BELOW both, because Cap. X opens part-way down the right column rather than at its head. **Two of three lines coincide; the third dissents by two notes.** ★ **The mechanism is worth naming and it is the exact inverse of p. 262's: there the capitulum boundary happened to BE the column boundary, so all three structures were measured against one physical line; here the capitulum boundary falls INSIDE a column, so the capitulum line has nothing to coincide with.** ⚠ **No claim is made about how often this shape has occurred in Pars V.** Establishing that would mean re-deriving pp. 252–261's anchors, which this chunk did not do. **What is asserted is p. 263 and only p. 263.**

**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-run's register is dominated by the `1`/`4` class — thirteen decisions turn on it — and it runs in BOTH directions inside the ten entries, with genuine `4`s and flagged `1`s standing on the same line.**
- **★★ `Cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1.` (p. 262 n. 6) — TWO flagged `1`s, both of which the raw sets as `4`s (`d. 37. a. 1. q. 1.` reads `a. 4. q. 4.` on a first pass).** At 8× both sorts are **narrow uprights with an angled flag at the upper left and a foot serif**, and both are set against the wide, open-topped, diagonal-crossed `4` of `Gal. 4, 24.` **four lines below in the same block**. ★ **Sense settles it: III *Sent.* d. 37 is the distinction *de praeceptis decalogi* — which is what this whole chapter is about — and its a. 1 q. 1 is the question on the decalogue's precepts. Note the entry cross-checks against p. 263 n. 4, which sends the reader to the same distinction's `a. 2. q. 1. seqq.`; the two together make an `a. 4` impossible.**
- **★★ `Respicitur Rom. 8, 15. et Gal. 4, 24. seqq.` (p. 262 n. 7) — the `3`/`5` class and a GENUINE `4` in one line, and it is the contrast set for the whole register.** The `5` of `15` is battered but reads as a flat top bar over a single lower bowl, not a double-bowled `3`; both sorts of `4, 24.` are the wide open-topped form. ★ **Sense settles the `15` outright: Rom. 8, 15 is `non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum`, which is verbatim the anchor's `unam in servitutem generantem et alteram in adoptionem filiorum Dei transferentem`. Rom. 8, 13 (`si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini`) has nothing to do with it. Gal. 4, 24 is `haec enim sunt duo testamenta`, which is the `duplicem legem` of the same sentence.**
- **★★ `Matth. 11, 30. et Act. 15, 10.` and `d. 40. q. 1-3.` (p. 263 n. 1) — FOUR flagged `1`s, one `3`/`5` and one genuine `4`, all in one two-line entry, and the entry supplies every contrast itself.** The `1`s of `11` and of `10` and the `1` of `15` are all the narrow flagged sort; the `5` of `15` is flat-topped; the `4` of `40` is the wide open-topped sort and stands nine characters from the `1` of `1-3` on the same line. ★ **Sense settles all of them: Matth. 11, 30 is `iugum enim meum suave est et onus meum leve` and Act. 15, 10 is `imponere iugum super cervicem discipulorum, quod neque patres nostri neque nos portare potuimus` — together the *ultima differentia* the entry names, which is the body's own closing `illa *oneris* et ista *facilitatis*`. II Cor. 3, 6 (`littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat`) is transcribed in the entry itself and matches the anchor `illa *occidens*, ista *vivificans*` word for word.**
- **★★ `tom. III. pag. 728, nota 1.` (p. 263 n. 2) and `pag. 186, nota 1.` (p. 263 n. 6) — TWO `nota` numerals, both the flagged narrow sort and both easily taken for `4`.** `nota 4` is the commonest shape in this corpus's footers and `p5-c8` recorded a genuine one on the facing leaf (`pag. 238, nota 4`), so the two were read against that leaf's own `4` as well as against `pag. 728`'s and `186`'s unambiguous digits. Both are `1`. ★ **`pag. 186` is inside the *Quaestiones disputatae de perfectione evangelica* (printed pp. 117–198), which is exactly the work n. 5 sends the reader to four lines above — a cross-check between two entries in the same block.**
- **★★ `Exod. 20, 12. seqq.; Deut. 5, 18. seqq. … d. 37. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.` (p. 263 n. 4) — SIX decisions in one entry.** `20` is unambiguous; the `1`s of `12`, `18` and `q. 1` are the flagged narrow sort; `Deut. 5` is flat-topped; `a. 2` is unmistakable. ★ **Sense settles the pair of scriptural citations decisively: Exod. 20, 12 is `honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam` — the FIRST precept of the second table, and the entry is annotating precisely the seven precepts of the second table — and Deut. 5, 18 is `neque moechaberis`, the first of the four the anchor has just listed.**
- **★★ `Epist. II. Cor. 3, 6` (p. 263 n. 1) and `Epist. I. Ioan. 2, 16.` (p. 263 n. 5) — the two-upright/one-upright pair, in adjacent blocks of one register.** The first is **two** uprights and can only be `II`; the second is **one** upright and can only be `I`, since one upright is never `H` and never `II`. ★ **Sense settles both: II Cor. 3, 6 is `littera enim occidit`, quoted in the entry itself; I John 2, 16 is `omne quod in mundo est, concupiscentia carnis est et concupiscentia oculorum et superbia vitae`, which is verbatim the anchor's threefold root. And the same entry's `Cfr. supra p. III. c. 8.` checks itself: Breviloquium Pars III Cap. VIII is *De origine peccatorum actualium*, where the same triple root is set out.**
- **★★ SIGLA — `P` (p. 262 n. 4); `L M T`, `A`, `G I K O` and the editions `Vat.`, `1`, `2`, `3` (p. 262 n. 6); `E` (p. 262 n. 7); `M` and `Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 263 n. 2); `Ed. 2` and `Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 263 n. 3); `E`, `2`, `E P T W`, `D` (p. 263 n. 4); `S` (p. 263 n. 6).**
  - **★★ `G I K O` — the single upright, settled three ways and it is `I`.** At 14× the sort after `G` carries a **squared slab serif across the top and a matching foot**, with no angled flag descending to the left — the roman capital `I`, not the arabic `1`, whose flag is unmistakable four lines above in `a. 1. q. 1.` within the same entry. **(a)** One upright is never `H`. **(b)** `G I K O` is strictly alphabetical on that reading and on no other. **(c)** The entry sets `praeter 1 et 2`, `Vat. et 3` and `et 2` in the witness slot as numerals, and Quaracchi groups its editions rather than interleaving them among codex letters — an edition `1` standing between `G` and `K` would be unique in this volume. `L M T` in the same entry is likewise strictly alphabetical.
  - **★ `E P T W` (p. 263 n. 4) — `W` is genuine, and it is the first `W` in this pars.** The sort is four strokes, two `V`s joined, unmistakable at 8×; `E P T W` is alphabetical.
  - **★ NO `R`/`K` corruption on these two leaves, in either direction.** The `K` of `G I K O` is a genuine `K` (upright plus arm and leg meeting the stem), and the raw reproduces it correctly — the first leaf-pair in this stretch where the volume's chronic `R`/`K` confusion does not appear at all.
  - **★ `Vat.` beside `1`, `2`, `3` (p. 262 n. 6, p. 263 nn. 2 and 3) — three more attestations of the standing rule** that an abbreviated name in the witness slot is a codex and a numeral is always an edition. p. 263 n. 3 opens `Ed. 2` in full, which is the rule written out.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ A GENUINE PLATE ERROR: THE BODY PRINTS `docem` FOR `decem`, AND THE SAME PAGE'S MARGINAL GLOSS PRINTS `Decem` CORRECTLY.** At the foot of p. 263's left column the plate sets `debent contineri in docem praeceptis`, and the raw reproduces it (`docem praeceptis`). At 7× the second sort is a **fully formed, fully closed round `o`** — no crossbar, no aperture, no broken shoulder — set beside the `e` of the same word four positions later, which has both. **This is a wrong sort in the forme, not a battered one: it falls under the `delectactione` rule (p. 238) and NOT the `eoru a` → `eorum` rule (p. 239), and it is therefore PRESERVED AS PRINTED in the Latin.** ★ **The decisive contrast stands on the same page: the marginal gloss `Decem praecepta moralia.` sets the word correctly eleven lines above, so the fount is not at fault and the compositor is.** The English renders the sense (`ten precepts`), which is not in doubt — the whole paragraph is about the ten. **A polish pass must not "repair" the Latin.**
- **★★ A BATTERED SORT RENDERED WHOLE: the marginal gloss `Thesis 1.` on p. 262 prints as `Thesis !`.** The `1`'s flag and upper stem printed, its lower stem is thin and broken, and the following period failed altogether. Rendered whole as **`Thesis 1.`** — the glosses `Thesis 2.` and `Thesis 3.` stand below it in the same column in the same gloss face, and no other numeral opens such a series. Recorded rather than flagged.
- **★★ THE FOOTNOTE MARKER STANDS INSIDE THE GUILLEMETS, TWICE ON ONE LEAF.** p. 263 n. 2's marker sits between `reddere` and the closing `»` (`« ius suum unicuique reddere² »`), and p. 263 n. 7's — Cap. X's — does the same (`« petitio decentium a Deo⁷ »`). **Transcribed in that position in both the Latin and the English rather than moved outside the quotation**, which is where a modern hand would put it. Contrast p. 262 n. 5, whose quotation is in the apparatus rather than the body and takes no marker at all.
- **★★ THE INK FADES ACROSS p. 263's RIGHT COLUMN, RIGHTWARD AND DOWNWARD, AND NOTHING IS LOST.** The last five lines of Cap. IX (`…iustitiam continent *sufficientem*, verum etiam *abundantem*⁶, secundum quod competit perfectioni evangelicae legis et exercitationi gratiae perficientis.`) print progressively grey toward the right margin, and the raw degrades in step (`sii/licirnlrni`, `cxrrcilalioni gr,<ii;ir`). **This is under-inking, not the p. 261 line-end loss: every line reaches the column's justified right margin, and no line stops short of it.** The measurement rule was applied and returned nothing — which is the answer it is supposed to return when the defect is not that one. **All five lines read whole at 3.2× and are transcribed as read.**
- **★ NO LINE-END LOSS AT EITHER COLUMN FOOT ON EITHER LEAF.** The last lines of p. 262's right column, p. 263's left column and p. 263's right-column Cap. IX portion were each checked against the justified margin, per the method `p5-c8` established on p. 261. All reach it. **The p. 261 defect does not recur here; it is checked for, not assumed absent.**
- **★ THE `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` COLON — TWENTY-SECOND consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–X, Pars V capp. I–IX). Here it opens on `quia primum principium, sicut est summe *bonum* … sic est summe *iustum*` — a **`sicut … sic` correlative**, a seventh shape in nine capitula, and the first time in Pars V the formula is followed by a comparison rather than a causal or a ladder. The marginal gloss `Ratio.` marks it, as it did in Capp. VII and VIII.
- **★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION IS THREE, AND ALL THREE FALL INSIDE PARAGRAPHS — none articulates a paragraph turn.** One in the opening thesis (`*digito Dei*⁴. — Lex autem *evangelica*…`), separating the Mosaic law from the evangelical; one in the *Rursus* paragraph (`*figuralia* et *moralia*. — Perfectis autem et amantibus…`), separating the imperfect from the perfect; one in the *Postremo* paragraph (`*digito Dei scriptae* dicuntur. — Et quia Deus est trinus…`), separating the two tables from the first table's threefold derivation. ★ **Unlike Cap. VIII's, these dashes do NOT mark what the glosses number: `Thesis 1.`, `Thesis 2.` and `Thesis 3.` fall on three successive members of the FIRST paragraph, only one of which carries a dash, and the two later dashes stand where no gloss does.**
- **`Deus`, `Dei`, `Deum`, `Deo`, `Pater`, `Filius`, `Spiritus sanctus`, `Christus`, `Dominus`, `Moysaica`, `Trinitatis`, `Sent.`, `Vat.` are capitalised as printed**, and `lex`, `praecepta`, `consilia`, `gratia`, `iustitia`, `caritas`, `pietas`, `veracitas`, `benignitas`, `decalogi`, `evangelica`, `proximus` are not; the English follows. ★ **`evangelica` is lower-case at all seven of its occurrences, including where it names the law in exact parallel with the capitalised `Moysaica` — the same deliberate asymmetry the plate kept between `Divinitas` and `humanitas` in Cap. VII and between `Deus` and `spiritus noster` in Cap. VIII.** `adiiciendo`, `iurationis`, `iudicialia`, `nihilominus` and `obedientiae` keep the plate's spellings, and `tanquam`-class forms stand as printed.

**★★ ENUMERATION — THE DECALOGUE IS 3 + 7, THE SECOND TABLE IS 2 + 1 + 4, AND THE COUNSELS ARE COUNTED ON A PRINCIPLE THE CHAPTER DOES NOT ALIGN WITH ITS OWN LIST.** Counted off the plate, not off the doctrine.
- **(a) THE DIVISION IS THREE AND SEVEN, and the plate says so twice in its own margin.** The gloss `In 1. tabula tria.` stands beside `ideo triplex est mandatum primae tabulae`, and the gloss `In 2. tabula septem.` beside `septem sunt mandata, quae ad secundam tabulam spectant`. **Both glosses set their numerals as ARABIC digits (`1.`, `2.`) while the body spells its counts out (`triplex`, `septem`, `duo`, `unum`, `quatuor`)** — the same gloss/body split `p5-c7` found in Cap. VII. **3 + 7 is the Augustinian/Catholic division, and here it IS the plate's division — but it was established from the plate's own words, and the check was not redundant: Cap. VI's beatitudes were seven and not eight, and Cap. VII's articles were fourteen with the familiar twelve subordinate.**
- **(b) THE FIRST TABLE'S THREE ARE DERIVED FROM THE TRINITY, NOT LISTED.** The chapter never names the three precepts; it names three acts (`*adorationis* subiectivae, *iurationis* veridicae et *sabbatizationis* sacratae`) answering to three appropriations (`maiestas *adoranda*, veritas *profitenda*, caritas *acceptanda*`) answering to three powers (`vim irascibilem, rationalem et concupiscibilem`) answering to three organs (`per actum operis, oris et cordis`). **Four triads in one sentence, and the precepts themselves are left implicit.**
- **(c) THE SECOND TABLE'S SEVEN ARE SUB-DIVIDED 2 / 1 / 4 ON A TRINITARIAN PRINCIPLE, AND THE COUNT IS ITALICISED WHERE THE SUBDIVISION IS THE POINT.** `Nam penes *pietatem* sunt *duo*` (honouring a father, not killing) · `Penes *veracitatem* … accipitur *unum*` (not bearing false witness) · `Penes *benignitatem* … accipiuntur *quatuor*` — and the four are quoted outright: `*non moechaberis, non concupisces uxorem, non furtum facies, et non concupisces rem alienam*`. **`duo`, `unum` and `quatuor` are ITALIC; `septem`, `triplex` and the `decem` of the summary are ROMAN.** ★ **This is a seventh italic principle in the pars and it is legible: the number is italicised where it is the sub-thesis being proved, roman where it merely counts. Followed per paragraph; nothing regularised.** ★ **Note what the 2/1/4 does doctrinally and that the chapter does not flag it: splitting the coveting into two (`non concupisces uxorem`, `non concupisces rem alienam`) is what makes the second table seven, and it is done here as a consequence of the *benignitas* member needing four, not as a premise.**
- **(d) THE COUNSELS ARE THREE, AND THE CHAPTER LISTS THEM IN AN ORDER IT LATER DECLINES TO MATCH.** The opening thesis gives `consilium paupertatis, consilium obedientiae et consilium castitatis` — **poverty, OBEDIENCE, chastity**, not the poverty/chastity/obedience a reader supplies from habit. The re-derivation then grounds them on `concupiscentiae carnis, concupiscentiae oculorum et superbiae vitae` (I John 2, 16) and says only `tria sunt *consilia* evangelica, perfecte nos elongantia a triplici radice praedicta` — **it never maps counsel to root, member for member, and the two orders as printed do not correspond.** ★ **Rendered as printed and NOT re-ordered. `consilia` is italic in the re-derivation, where the count is the thesis, and roman in the thesis's own list and in `Quae ideo sunt consilia` — the same italic principle as (c).**
- **(e) THE COUNTS DO NOT ALL BELONG TO ONE SERIES.** `praecepta iudicialia, figuralia et moralia` is a threefold division of the Mosaic law; `documenta, promissa, consilia` is a threefold addition of the evangelical law; `decem` is the decalogue; `3 + 7` its tables; `2 + 1 + 4` the second table; `tria` the counsels; `triplex radix` their ground. **Seven distinct triads and one ten, and only the last two are the same three things.** A brief that reports "the Decalogue is 3 + 7 and there are three counsels" has reported two of eight.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 262 R — "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Ratio." · "Congruit Deo praecepta dare." · "Pro thesi 1 et 2." p. 263 L — "Decem praecepta moralia." · "In 1. tabula tria." · "In 2. tabula septem." · "Pro thesi 3." **Ten glosses, and an EIGHTH gloss grammar in eight consecutive capitula.** ★ **The `Thesis N.` / `Pro thesi N.` pair-series returns from Capp. VII and VIII, but broken in a way neither of them broke it: `Pro thesi 1 et 2.` is a SINGLE gloss answering TWO theses at once — and it carries no period after the `1`, which is how the plate marks that the numeral is not terminal — so the answering series has three members where the thesis series has three, but they do not correspond one to one.** ★ **Between them stand TWO topical glosses of a kind the pair-series has no room for: `Congruit Deo praecepta dare.` (a proposition, not a label — the only gloss in this stretch of Pars V that is a full sentence) and the three counting glosses `Decem praecepta moralia.` / `In 1. tabula tria.` / `In 2. tabula septem.`, which number the body's divisions rather than its theses.** ★ **So one capitulum carries a numbered pair-series, a sentential gloss, and a counting series, and the numbered series is interleaved with the other two rather than running to its end first — the exact reverse of Cap. VIII, where the numbered series ran to its end and the topical glosses followed.** **Never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Five readings could have carried one — the plate's `docem` for `decem`, the battered `1` in the `Thesis 1.` gloss, the single upright in `G I K O`, the four uprights in `Matth. 11, 30. et Act. 15, 10.` / `d. 40. q. 1-3.`, and the two `nota 1`s against the far commoner `nota 4` — and each is settled positively: by the closed-`o` glyph against the same word's own `e` and against the same page's correctly-set gloss; by the two glosses standing below it in one series; by the slab-serif top against the flagged `1` four lines above in the same entry, by strict alphabetical order and by the numeral-means-edition rule; and by cited texts that quote their own anchors word for word. 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 next Pars V agent's benefit. ★ **The headline finding reverses `p5-c8`'s: p. 262's RIGHT column is markedly worse than the left column it praised, and p. 263 splits by COLUMN rather than by page — its left column is the cleanest region on either leaf and its right column the worst, because the leaf's ink fades rightward.**
- **p. 262, right column (Cap. IX's portion, which is the column entire) — GOOD.** `Cap. I.\.` and `De exercilio gratiae respectu agemlorum, praeccptorum et consiliorum.` (heading and both subtitle lines shattered, as usual), `tii^--^ '.` (**the `Thesis 1.` gloss destroyed outright and spliced into the body line**), `divinao lioc tenen-`, `Mogsaica`, `decein prae-`, `labulis`, `Thesis -2.`, `aufereiido`, `aulein documenta in-`, `perficien-lia`, `consiliura`, `obcdientiac`, `iiivilat`, `Raiio.`, `cst: ipiia`, `««.9^(h«` (**`iustum` destroyed**), `congrait Deo praece- v^ dare.` (**the `Congruit Deo praecepta dare.` gloss mangled and split across two body lines**), `umversi regimme`, `suinme iusti`, `vcrum`, `formaiido`, `regiilas`, `dictando per moduin`, `motliim voluntatis imperantis ^`, `volnntatem`, `P" '•>!" *` (**the `Pro thesi 1 et 2.` gloss destroyed outright**), `limore poenae`, `amore iuslitiae`, `horaini contulit lcgem`, `nihitominus pcr praecepta; hincest,` (space lost), `araantibiis`, `docuinento-rum`, `alla perfectio`, `consiliorura`, `hinc ost`. **About thirty-five garbles in fifty-four printed lines, TWO words destroyed (`iustum`, and the heading's chapter numeral), and THREE of six glosses destroyed outright.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity MODERATE — and the failure is concentrated in the glosses again, as it was on p. 261: `Thesis 1.`, `Congruit Deo praecepta dare.` and `Pro thesi 1 et 2.` are all unrecoverable from the raw, which is exactly the three that carry this capitulum's novel gloss grammar. A chunk built from the raw would have had a clean-looking body and a marginalia list missing the three items that make it interesting.**
- **p. 263, left column (Cap. IX's portion, which is the column entire) — VERY GOOD, the cleanest region on either leaf.** `isla Iria`, `(iiciliii- k\ Moysaica dilTurro al)` (**`dicitur` and `lex` destroyed**), `\\a.iiC veritutix`, `jmenae`, `liUeraiis`, `spiriiua-iis`, `vivificans^`, `\\\;ilimoriii ,\%\,\\` (**`illa timoris, ista` destroyed**), `serviluUs`, `\st\ tiberUitis`, `ontv/*`, `facililatis`, `quoiiiain rcgulac spuctaiites`, `Dcccm pne-ceptamoia-lia.`, `mstitiae est « lus suum unicuique leduere ^ »`, `qiiod praecepta inoralia quacdain sinl.quaeor-` (space lost), `diiplex caritalis [)i'acce[)lum`, `Sj^iritus`, `voliiit iiisinuare [ler duariim`, `(iigito Dei scriptae`, `l'ater`, `Pilius` (**`Filius` mangled to a real-looking word**), `com[)etit`, `«r/o-randa`, `profUerula`, `acceplunda`, `scciindum vim irascibilein`, `jicr actum operis`, `inandatuin`, `correspoiidens`, `adorutionis siibiectivae`, `iMra/Jo-nis`, `sabhatizationis`, `iinago`, `1'atris`, `pietus`, `veracilas^`, `henignilas: liinc est`, `maiidata`, `pietateni sunt duo`, `pietatcm maiidat`, `i[iiod im[lietatem`, `sciiicel`, `vcracita-lem`, `accii)ilur`, `noii ferendo`, `l'enes`, `ofiere`, `acci[)iuntur quatuor`, `hok »)oecAa-beris` (**`non moechaberis` destroyed**), `rein ulienam*'`, `iiaec`, `[ler quae infringi`, `s[3e-ctiinles /ad`, `contiueri`, `docem praeceptis` (**the plate's own error, faithfully reproduced**), `-Pro ihesi 3.`, `clongat a malp`, `cul-pum`, `quanlum ad causam`. **About sixty garbles in fifty-eight printed lines, FOUR items destroyed, and no wrong reading that reaches the text.** ★ **Density HIGH, severity LOW — every destroyed item is recoverable from grammar or from the immediate parallel, and all four marginal glosses survive readable, which is the first column in four leaves where that is true. Note `Pilius` for `Filius`: an `F`→`P` substitution producing a real Latin word in a real case, of the `ipsi`/`ipsa` family, caught only because `Pater scilicet et Pilius et Spiritus sanctus` cannot be what Bonaventure wrote.**
- **p. 263, right column (Cap. IX's portion, the eleven lines above the `Cap. X.` heading) — POOR, and the worst region in this leaf-run.** `ex tri[)lici radicc`, `coii-cupiscenliac oculorum ct suiierbiac vitac''`, `binc esl`, `co)i.?(7«t evangclica` (**`consilia` destroyed**), `[lerfecte iios elon-gantia`, `suiit`, `iit [)erlecte`, `iilicitis`, `a liciii-` (**`licitis` truncated**), `([iiae possunl es^c occasio mali : m' pi-r` (**`esse` and `ac per` destroyed**), `iustitiam contiiiciit sii/licirnlrni , \ •` (**`sufficientem` and `ve-` destroyed**), `ubundunlein '\`, `scciiiidiiin (jiiod ((miiiriii` (**`secundum quod competit` destroyed**), `[)erfcctioni evangcliiMc lcgis r\ cxrrcilalioni gr,<ii;ir` (**`evangelicae`, `et`, `exercitationi` and `gratiae` all destroyed**), `[)erliciciitis`. **About twenty garbles in eleven printed lines, TEN items destroyed, and no wrong reading that parses.** ★ **Density VERY HIGH, severity VERY HIGH, and it tracks the plate: the printed ink fades rightward and downward across exactly these lines, so the raw is failing where the leaf is faint, not at random. This is a per-column-run grade in the strict sense — the same page's left column is graded VERY GOOD nine lines earlier.**
- **p. 262 footer, right block (nn. 4–7, all this chunk's) — GOOD.** `Exod. 31, 18.`, `P conscriptis digito Dei.`, `Matlh. 19, 21: i vis essc ijcrfcctiis, vade,vendc quac habes eti'.` (**the `S` of `Si` destroyed and a space lost**), `Cfr. 111. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1.`, `Aliquanlo superiiis Vat. et 3 in unioerso regimini pro unicersi regiinine` (**`regimine` set as `regimini` — a real Latin form in a real case, the dangerous class**), `refra-gantibus practer 1 ct 2 multis codd., inter quos L M T`, `(A in unirersi regiminis di^positione)`, `cum t; 1 K 0 ct 2 summae iu-stiliae.` (**siglum `G` destroyed to `t;`, `O` read as zero**), `Hcspicitur Rom. 8, l.'>. et Gal. i, 2t. scqq.` (**`15`, `4` and `24` all destroyed**), `Infcrius pro documeiitorum E maiuliturum.`. **About fourteen garbles in eleven printed lines, FIVE items destroyed, and ONE wrong reading that parses clean.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — and the `in universo regimini` for `in universo regimine` is the leaf's dangerous defect: it is a well-formed Latin word in a well-formed slot, inside a lemma whose whole point is a case difference (`universo regimine` against `universi regimine`), so a reader repairing it by ear could have inverted the very variant the note exists to record. Settled on the band.**
- **p. 263 footer, left block (nn. 1–4, all this chunk's) — FAIR.** `lCpisl. II. Coi'. 3, (i: Lilleru oiiini occiilit, spirilus aulcm viviiicHi.` (**`6` and `enim` destroyed**), `Ulliina dillbrenlrn insinuaUii- Mallh. II, 30.` (**`11` read as roman `II` — the `1`/`I` confusion running in the direction it ran on p. 259 n. 8 and p. 261's `Pro thesi 1.` gloss**), `A,i. lo, 10. ClV. lil. Scnl. a. M. q. 1-3.` (**`Act.`, `15`, `Cfr.`, `III.`, `d.` and `40` ALL destroyed — six items in eleven characters**), `l)c liac iiisiiiiae dennilione tfr. tom. 111. pag. 728, iiota I.` (**`nota 1` read as roman `I`, the same confusion a third time**), `liiiCrius Vat. , I ct 3 ordineni pro ordinanl` (**`ordinent` set as `ordineni`**), `refraganlc 2 '-uni pUirilius codil., M siint ordinantia.`, `i;d. 2 cuni pluribus codd. liic verilns, el paulo inferius ve-ritalem.`, `Val., I ct 3 omittunt praefert secundo et (erlio loco posilum.`, `Exod. 20, 12. seqq.; Deut. S, 18. seqq.` (**`5` read as `S`**), `Cfr. 111. Senl. (\. 37. a. 2. (|. I. seqq.`, `Post vxorem E supplet alteriiis, 2 iiroxiini liii.`, `Inferius pro nocumenla E P T W tlamna. Sub-`. **About twenty-two garbles in twelve printed lines, EIGHT items destroyed, and no wrong reading that reaches the text.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — and note the direction: this footer destroys CITATIONS (six of them inside one eleven-character stretch) while leaving every lemma and every siglum intact, including `E P T W` and `M` and `D`. That is p. 259's failure direction and the exact reverse of p. 260's, which destroyed five lemmata and left all four citations standing. Four leaves in this run, four different failure directions in the footers.** ★ **The `1`/`I` confusion runs three times in this one block and always in the same direction (arabic `1` read as roman `I`), which is worth knowing but is not a rule — it ran the other way inside p. 259's register.**
- **p. 263 footer, right block (n. 4's unnumbered tail plus nn. 5–6, this chunk's; nn. 7–8 read to establish the register's total but not graded) — GOOD.** `inde pro ad iuslitiae newssilalem non jjauci coiUr. ad commo-nitionem, D ad iustitiue necessitntem et commonitionem.`, `Epist. 1. loan. 2 , 16. Cfr. supra p. III. c. 8.` (**`I.` read as arabic `1` — the `1`/`I` confusion running the OTHER way in the very next block**), `Dc con-siliis vide supra Quacst. de perfectione evanjj. q. 2. scqq.`, `Similis distinctio occuirit in Glossa supra pa;,'. I8(), nola I.` (**`186` and `nota 1` both destroyed**), `allegala. — Superius pro sunt coiisitia S dicmilur consilia.`. **About twelve garbles in six printed lines, TWO items destroyed, and no wrong reading that parses.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity MODERATE — and the finding worth carrying is that `Epist. 1. loan.` here and `Epist. II. Cor.` / `nota I` in the left block put the `1`/`I` confusion running in BOTH directions inside ONE printed page's register, one block apart. Neither direction is the safe assumption.**