title: Pars 5, Cap. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 254 -->

### Capitulum III. *De gratia, in quantum est remedium peccati.*

De gratia vero, in quantum est *remedium contra peccatum*, haec tenenda sunt, quod liberum arbitrium, licet sit « sub Deo potentissimum »[^p254-5], potest tamen per se in peccatum corruere, sed nullatenus potest resurgere sine adiutorio divinae gratiae, quae dicitur *gratum faciens*. — Illa autem gratia, licet sit sufficiens remedium contra peccatum, non tamen infunditur adulto, nisi adsit liberi arbitrii consensus. Ex quo colligitur, quod ad iustificationem impii quatuor concurrunt, scilicet *infusio gratiae, expulsio culpae, contritio* et *motus liberi arbitrii*. — Expellitur ergo culpa a Dei dono, non a libero arbitrio, non tamen sine libero arbitrio. Nam gratiae *gratis datae* est liberum arbitrium revocare a malo et excitare ad bonum; et *liberi arbitrii* est consentire, vel dissentire; et *consentientis* est gratiam suscipere; et *suscipientis* cooperari eidem, ut tandem *perveniat* ad salutem[^p254-6].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum primum principium, hoc ipso quod primum et potentissimum, sit causativum omnium, quae fiunt in universo praeterquam peccatorum, quae sunt « transgressiones legis divinae et caelestium inobedientiae mandatorum[^p255-1] », nihil habet sibi rebelle, iniuriosum et offensivum nisi peccatum, quod, contemnendo Dei praeceptum et avertendo nos a bono incommutabili, *offendit* Deum, *deformat* liberum arbitrium, *perimit* donum gratuitum et *obligat* ad supplicium aeternum. Cum igitur deformatio imaginis et peremptio gratiae sit quasi annihilatio in *esse* moris et vitae gratuitae; cum offensa Dei sit tantum[^p255-2] ponderanda, quantus est ipse; cum reatus poenae aeternae rationem teneat infiniti: impossibile est, quod homo resurgat a culpa, nisi *recreetur* in vita gratuita, nisi *remittatur* offensa, et poena *relaxetur* aeterna. Solus igitur, qui fuit principium *creativum*, est et principium *recreativum*, Verbum scilicet Patris aeternum, quod est *Christus Iesus, mediator Dei et hominum*[^p255-3], quod quia omnia de nihilo creat, ideo creat se ipso solo sine aliquo intermedio.

<!-- page 255 -->

Quia vero recreat, *deformatum* per vitium culpae reformando per habitum gratiae et iustitiae, *obligatum* ad poenam absolvendo per satisfactionem condignam; hinc est, quod nos reparat, sustinendo pro nobis poenam in natura assumta et infundendo gratiam reformativam, quae, quoniam continuat nos suae origini[^p255-4], facit nos membra Christi; ac per hoc animam peccatricem, quae fuerat inimica Dei, prostibulum diaboli et serva peccati, facit sponsam Christi, templum Spiritus sancti et filiam Patris aeterni; quod totum fit per gratuitam et condescensivam infusionem doni gratuiti.

Rursus, quoniam Deus sic reformat, quod leges naturae inditas non infirmat[^p255-5]; ideo sic hanc gratiam tribuit libero arbitrio, ut tamen ipsum non cogat, sed eius consensus liber maneat; et ideo ad hoc, quod *culpa expellatur*, non solum necesse est, quod *gratia introducatur*, verum etiam, quod liberum arbitrium in adultis — in adultis dico, quia in parvulis sufficit fides Ecclesiae et meritum Christi, et excusat impotentia sui[^p255-6] — necesse est, inquam, quod conformet se *expulsioni culpae* per detestationem omnium peccatorum, quam vocamus *contritionem*; est etiam necesse, quod conformet se *introductioni gratiae*, per complacentiam et acceptationem doni divini, quam vocamus *motum liberi arbitrii*. Et sic necesse est, ista quatuor concurrere ad iustificationem impii.

Postremo, quia praedispositio ad formam completivam debet esse ei conformis; ad hoc, quod liberum arbitrium se disponat ad gratiam gratum facientem, indiget adminiculo gratiae *gratis datae*; et quia gratiae est liberum arbitrium non cogere, sed praevenire, et simul utriusque est in actum prodire: hinc est, quod in nostra iustificatione concurrit actus *liberi arbitrii* et *gratiae*, consone quidem et ordinate, ita quod gratiae gratis datae est *excitare* liberum arbitrium; liberi arbitrii autem est huiusmodi excitationi *consentire*, vel *dissentire*; et[^p255-7] *consentientis* est ad gratiam gratum facientem se praeparare, quia hoc est facere quod in se est; et sic disposito gratia *gratum faciens* habet infundi, cui liberum arbitrium potest *cooperari*, si vult, et tunc meretur; vel *contrariari* per peccatum, et tunc demeretur. Si ergo cooperetur ei usque in finem, meretur *pervenire* ad aeternam salutem.

Verum est igitur quod dicit Augustinus[^p255-8], quod « qui creavit te sine te non iustificabit te sine te ». — Verum est etiam, quod *non est volentis neque currentis, sed Dei miserentis*. — Verum est etiam, quod nullus potest superbire de meritis, quia nihil in nobis Deus praeter sua dona coronat. Reservavit enim sibi Deus munera gratiae liberaliter largienda, ut discat homo non esse ingratus nec in se, quasi non acceperit, sed in Domino gloriari[^p255-9]. — Verum est etiam, quod licet liberum arbitrium per se legem implere non possit nec gratiam in se efficere, inexcusabile tamen est, si non facit quod potest, quia gratia *gratis data* semper est praesto ad commonitionem, cuius adminiculo facere potest quod in se est; quo facto, habeat gratiam *gratum facientem*; qua obtenta, divinam impleat legem et faciat Dei voluntatem; qua facta, tandem ad beatitudinem perveniat sempiternam propter opera meritoria, quae totaliter sunt *a gratia*, totaliter etiam *a libero arbitrio*, licet principalius a gratia: quia, ut dicit Augustinus[^p255-10], « gratia ad liberum arbitrium comparatur, sicut sessor ad equum », qui quidem sessor liberum arbitrium *dirigit, deducit* et *perducit* ad portum aeternae felicitatis, exercendo nos in operibus perfectae virtutis secundum donum ipsius gratiae septiformis.

<!-- page 256 -->

---

english:
### Chapter III. *On grace, in so far as it is the remedy of sin.*

Concerning grace, however, in so far as it is a *remedy against sin*, these things are to be held: that free choice, although it is « the most powerful thing under God »[^p254-5], can nevertheless of itself fall into sin, but can by no means rise again without the help of divine grace, which is called *grace making gracious*. — But that grace, although it is a sufficient remedy against sin, is nevertheless not infused into an adult unless the consent of free choice be present. From which it is gathered that four things concur toward the justification of the ungodly, namely the *infusion of grace, the expulsion of fault, contrition* and *the movement of free choice*. — Fault, therefore, is expelled by God's gift, not by free choice, yet not without free choice. For it belongs to *gratuitously given* grace to call free choice back from evil and to rouse it toward good; and it belongs to *free choice* to consent or to dissent; and it belongs to *the one consenting* to receive grace; and it belongs to *the one receiving* to cooperate with it, that at last he may *arrive* at salvation[^p254-6].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the first principle, by this very thing that it is first and most powerful, is the cause of all things that come to be in the universe except sins, which are « transgressions of the divine law and disobedience to the heavenly commandments[^p255-1] », it has nothing rebellious, injurious and offensive to itself except sin, which, by contemning God's precept and by turning us away from the unchangeable good, *offends* God, *deforms* free choice, *destroys* the gratuitous gift and *binds over* to eternal punishment. Since therefore the deformation of the image and the destruction of grace is as it were an annihilation in the *being* of moral and gratuitous life; since the offense against God is to be weighed as great[^p255-2] as he himself is; since the liability to eternal punishment holds the account of the infinite: it is impossible that man should rise again from fault unless he be *re-created* in gratuitous life, unless the offense be *remitted*, and the eternal punishment *relaxed*. He alone, therefore, who was the *creative* principle, is also the *re-creative* principle, namely the eternal Word of the Father, who is *Christ Jesus, the mediator of God and men*[^p255-3] — who, because he creates all things out of nothing, therefore creates by himself alone without any intermediary.

Now because he re-creates by reforming what was *deformed* through the vice of fault through the habit of grace and justice, and by absolving what was *bound over* to punishment through condign satisfaction; hence it is that he repairs us by sustaining punishment for us in the assumed nature and by infusing reformative grace, which, since it continues us to our own origin[^p255-4], makes us members of Christ; and through this it makes the sinful soul, which had been the enemy of God, the brothel of the devil and the slave of sin, the bride of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit and the daughter of the eternal Father; all of which comes about through the gratuitous and condescending infusion of the gratuitous gift.

Again, since God so reforms that he does not weaken the laws implanted in nature[^p255-5]; therefore he so bestows this grace upon free choice that he nevertheless does not compel it, but its consent remains free; and therefore, in order that *fault may be expelled*, it is not only necessary that *grace be introduced*, but also that free choice in adults — in adults, I say, because in little ones the faith of the Church and the merit of Christ suffice, and their own incapacity excuses them[^p255-6] — it is necessary, I say, that it conform itself to *the expulsion of fault* through the detestation of all sins, which we call *contrition*; it is also necessary that it conform itself to *the introduction of grace*, through the complacency and acceptance of the divine gift, which we call *the movement of free choice*. And thus it is necessary that these four concur toward the justification of the ungodly.

Lastly, because the predisposition toward the completive form must be conformed to it; in order that free choice may dispose itself toward grace making gracious, it stands in need of the support of *gratuitously given* grace; and because it belongs to grace not to compel free choice but to go before it, and it belongs to both at once to come forth into act: hence it is that in our justification the act *of free choice* and *of grace* concur, consonantly indeed and in order, in such wise that it belongs to gratuitously given grace to *rouse* free choice; and it belongs to free choice to *consent* to a rousing of this kind, or to *dissent*; and[^p255-7] it belongs to *the one consenting* to prepare himself for grace making gracious, because this is to do what is in him; and to one so disposed grace *making gracious* has to be infused, with which free choice can *cooperate*, if it will, and then it merits; or it can *set itself against* it through sin, and then it demerits. If therefore it cooperate with it even to the end, it merits *to arrive* at eternal salvation.

It is true, therefore, what Augustine says[^p255-8], that « he who created thee without thee will not justify thee without thee ». — It is also true that *it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy*. — It is also true that no one can be proud of his merits, because God crowns nothing in us but his own gifts. For God has reserved to himself the gifts of grace, to be bestowed liberally, that man may learn not to be ungrateful, nor to glory in himself, as if he had not received, but in the Lord[^p255-9]. — It is also true that, although free choice cannot of itself fulfill the law nor bring grace about in itself, it is nevertheless inexcusable if it does not do what it can, because *gratuitously given* grace is always at hand for admonition, by whose support it can do what is in it; and this being done, let it have grace *making gracious*; and this being obtained, let it fulfill the divine law and do God's will; and this being done, let it at last arrive at everlasting beatitude on account of meritorious works, which are wholly *from grace*, and wholly also *from free choice*, though principally from grace: because, as Augustine says[^p255-10], « grace is compared to free choice as a rider to his horse » — which rider indeed *directs, leads* and *brings through* free choice to the harbor of eternal happiness, by exercising us in the works of perfect virtue according to the gift of that sevenfold grace.

---

la: De hac dictione Bernardo a Scholasticis tributa cfr. tom. II. pag. 115, nota 6. — Quid valeat liberum arbitrium absque gratia gratum faciente et gratis data, ostenditur II. Sent. d. 28. per totam. — Inferius pro *Illa autem* 2 cum pluribus codd. *Ipsa autem*. Subinde verbo *concurrunt* M praemittit *sunt necessaria et*.

en: On this saying, attributed by the Scholastics to Bernard, cf. tom. II, p. 115, note 6. — What free choice is worth apart from grace making gracious and grace gratuitously given is shown in II *Sent.*, d. 28, throughout. — Below, for *Illa autem* edition 2, with several codices, has *Ipsa autem*. Thereupon, before the word *concurrunt* M places *sunt necessaria et*.

la: De his quatuor requisitis vide IV. Sent. d. 17. p. I. per totam.

en: On these four requisites see IV *Sent.*, d. 17, part I, throughout.

en: According to Ambrose, cited above on p. 237, note 4.

la: Plures codd. *tanta*, G legit *tanta ponderans*, E *tanti ponderis, quantus est ipse, qui offenditur, cum* etc.

en: Several codices have *tanta*; G reads *tanta ponderans*; E has *tanti ponderis, quantus est ipse, qui offenditur, cum* etc.

la: Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5. — Cfr. supra pag. 241, nota 4. — Post *recreativum* edd. addunt *et reparativum* contra plurimos codd., inter quos sunt A B M P. Pro *aeternum* F G M *aeterni*.

en: Epistle I Timothy 2, 5. — Cf. above, p. 241, note 4. — After *recreativum* the editions add *et reparativum* against very many codices, among which are A B M P. For *aeternum* F G M have *aeterni*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 26. q. 4. in corp.

en: See II *Sent.*, d. 26, q. 4, in the body of the article.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 218, nota 5. — De seq. propositione vide supra p. I. c. 8. et II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 5, ubi ostenditur, quod, licet Deus *immutet* voluntatem, non tamen ipsam *cogat*. — K P *infringat*.

en: Cf. above, p. 218, note 5. — On the following proposition see above, part I, c. 8, and II *Sent.*, d. 25, part II, q. 5, where it is shown that, although God *changes* the will, he nevertheless does not *compel* it. — K P have *infringat*.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 4. p. I. dub. 2.

en: Cf. IV *Sent.*, d. 4, part I, dub. 2.

la: A D K et 2 addunt *ita in iustificatione*.

en: A D K and edition 2 add *ita in iustificatione*.

la: Serm. 169. (alias 15. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 11. n. 13. Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 327, nota 2. — Seq. locus est Rom. 9, 16. — Subinde respicitur verbum August., quod « cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua »; cfr. tom. II. pag. 698, nota 3. — Inferius vocibus *quia nihil* D F interserunt *homo quidquid habet meriti praeventrix gratia donat et*.

en: *Sermon* 169 (otherwise 15, *On the Words of the Apostle*), c. 11, n. 13. Cf. tom. IV, p. 327, note 2. — The following passage is Romans 9, 16. — Thereupon there is regard to the saying of Augustine, that « when God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing other than his own gifts »; cf. tom. II, p. 698, note 3. — Below, between the words *quia nihil* D F insert *homo quidquid habet meriti praeventrix gratia donat et*.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 1, 31. et 4, 7. — Inferius *quod potest* omittitur ab E H I K M S et 2, pro quo A *quantum in se est*, B D F et 1 *quod in se est*, et pro *commonitionem* 1 *communicationem*.

en: Cf. I Corinthians 1, 31, and 4, 7. — Below, *quod potest* is omitted by E H I K M S and edition 2, in place of which A has *quantum in se est*, B D F and edition 1 *quod in se est*; and for *commonitionem* edition 1 has *communicationem*.

la: Libr. III. Hypognost. (inter opera August.) c. 11; cfr. etiam Serm. 30. (alias 12. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 8. n. 10. Verba vide tom. II. pag. 600, nota 6, quae ibid. d. 26. q. 6. explicantur. — Superius voci *voluntatem* ex G I K M O Q praefiximus *Dei*.

en: *Hypognosticon*, book III (among the works of Augustine), c. 11; cf. also *Sermon* 30 (otherwise 12, *On the Words of the Apostle*), c. 8, n. 10. For the words see tom. II, p. 600, note 6, which are explained in the same place, d. 26, q. 6. — Above, before the word *voluntatem* we have prefixed *Dei* from G I K M O Q. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 254–256, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A HEADING ON THE BAND.** `Cap. III. / De gratia, in quantum est remedium peccati.` stands **about two-thirds down p. 254's RIGHT column**, immediately below Cap. II's last line (`…etiam *condigni* mereri facit gratia septiformis.`), exactly where `bon-brev-p5-c2` placed it. Cap. III fills the rest of p. 254's right column to `…praeterquam peccatorum, quae`; breaks across the leaf on a **STRANDED RELATIVE PRONOUN GOVERNING NOTHING** (`quae` / `sunt « transgressiones legis divinae`) — the same shape on which Cap. I broke across the p. 252/253 leaf, and the second time in Pars V that a leaf break has stranded a bare relative. It then fills p. 255's left column entire to `…quam vocamus`; crosses p. 255's gutter **at a WORD BOUNDARY STRANDING A VERB FROM ITS OBJECT** (`quam vocamus` / `motum liberi arbitrii`), the verb's accusative standing on the far side; fills p. 255's right column entire to `…ad portum aeternae`; breaks across the second leaf on a **STRANDED ADJECTIVE** (`aeternae` / `felicitatis`); and closes after **exactly TWO body lines at the head of p. 256's LEFT column** at `…secundum donum ipsius gratiae septiformis.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. IV. / De ramificatione gratiae in habitus virtutum.` heading standing immediately below it IN THE SAME LEFT COLUMN**, with Cap. IV's own text following. **The index's hypothesis that Cap. IV opens on p. 256 is CONFIRMED on the band; the index's implication that Cap. III would therefore run two full pages is NOT — it takes only two lines of p. 256.** No claim here rests on white space, on a grammatically complete tail, or on a running head. ★ **This is the FIRST capitulum in Pars V to touch three printed pages and to cross TWO leaves**, and the two crossings take different shapes (relative pronoun, adjective) as does the one gutter crossing (verb stranded from its object) — three breaks in one capitulum, three different shapes, and all three tails read as fragments rather than as complete phrases.

**★★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE EIGHTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF, AND p. 256 IS ONLY *ACCIDENTALLY* RIGHT.** p. 255's head reads **`PARS V. C. III.`** and p. 255 *is* Cap. III entire — but that corroborates nothing, exactly as p. 251 did not, because no boundary falls on the page. p. 256's head reads **`BREVILOQUII PARS V. C. IV.`** on a page whose first two lines are still Cap. III — the eighth consecutive leaf on which the head names the unit that has not yet begun. The "behind" direction still has no attestation anywhere. Both heads were read on the bands; the raw prints p. 256's as `BREVILOQUIE PARS V. C. IV.` and shatters p. 255's into `PARS V. c. m.`

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE NEAREST PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY BELOW THE BREAK — TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH CONSECUTIVE OCCURRENCES, AND THE THIRTEENTH IS OF A NEW KIND.** (i) The p. 254/255 leaf break falls inside the *Ratio autem* paragraph, which begins in p. 254's right column and closes part-way down p. 255's left column at `…sine aliquo intermedio.` — so `<!-- page 255 -->` sits at that paragraph's end and **p. 255's nn. 1, 2 AND 3 all anchor ABOVE the marker**, matching the three-note stranding `p5-c2` recorded one leaf back. (ii) The p. 255/256 leaf break falls inside the closing `Verum est igitur` paragraph, and that paragraph is **the last in the capitulum** — so the rule puts `<!-- page 256 -->` at the very END of the Latin body, with nothing after it, and **both of p. 256's Cap. III lines stand above their own page marker.** ★ **This is the first time in Pars V that the marker rule has produced a TERMINAL marker**; the shape is not new to the corpus (`bon-brev-p4-c1` and `bon-brev-p4-c3` both end their Latin bodies with one). The marker was not moved to chase the break, and the page-qualified labels absorb the stranding.

**Gutters.** **p. 254 = 1357**, carried from `bon-brev-p5-c2` unchanged; its measurement is that chunk's and is not re-logged here. **p. 255 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH.** `colcrop.py vol5 255` returned **`split_x=1206, low-ink run 52 px`** — **unflagged, but 52 px sits below the 58–64 px band that marks a sound measurement on this volume, so the run was treated as suspect on its width alone**, exactly as the rule requires. Re-profiled over **eighteen** row windows: 45–92 % **1206/52** · 50–85 % **1206/55** · 50–92 % **1205/54** · 55–80 % **1207/57** · 60–90 % **1204/56** · 60–92 % **1204/56** · 65–92 % **1203/58** · 45–80 % **1208/55** · 35–75 % **1210/52** · 30–70 % **1211/54** · 40–65 % **1210/56** · 20–60 % **1214/56** · 25–55 % **1214/59** · 15–85 % **1212/43** · 20–80 % **1211/49** · 15–45 % **1218/56** · 10–45 % **1219/54** · 12–40 % **1219/56**. **The windows do not fork; they DRIFT MONOTONICALLY, from 1219 at the page's top to 1203 at its foot** — the p. 254 diagnostic, and therefore skew again, **but skewing the OTHER WAY.** ★ **The per-column ink profile was printed anyway, per the standing rule, and it confirms both facts.** Over the body rows (45–92 %) the blank gutter runs **x = 1181–1232** (left-column ink falls from 56 at x = 1177 to 2 at x = 1181; right-column ink resumes at 14 on x = 1233) with an **ink island standing INSIDE it at x = 1199–1215**, peaking at **287 rows at x = 1204** against 2 on either side of its shoulders — **the SEVENTH leaf out of eight to carry the in-gutter obstruction** (pp. 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255). Band midpoint 1206.5, island peak 1204: **the island sits 2–3 px LEFT of centre**, the pp. 248/249/254 off-centre shape rather than p. 250/251/253's centred one. ★ **And the skew runs LEFTWARD DOWN THE PAGE, the mirror of p. 254's.** Over the upper rows (15–45 %) the blank band runs **x = 1191–1246** (island at x = 1214–1224, peak 438 rows at x = 1217, midpoint 1218.5) — so both column edges migrate **~11–14 px to the LEFT** from the top of the page to its foot, where on p. 254 they migrated ~10 px to the right. **Two consecutive leaves, both skewed, in opposite directions.** **Adopted 1206** — the default, the body-window consensus (seven body windows spread 1203–1208) and the midpoint of the body-row blank band, all three agreeing.
**p. 256 was likewise extracted and auto-measured FRESH.** `colcrop.py vol5 256` returned **`split_x=1355, low-ink run 54 px`** — again unflagged and again under the sound band, so again re-profiled over the same eighteen windows: **eight body windows (45–92 % through 45–80 %) returned 1355/54 UNANIMOUSLY, to the pixel**, while the upper windows fell away to 1346–1352. The profile shows the body-row blank band at **x ≈ 1322–1382** with an in-gutter island at **x = 1348–1358 peaking at 787 rows at x = 1351** — the **eighth leaf** to carry the obstruction — and the upper-row band at **x ≈ 1317–1375** with its island at x = 1343–1352. **So p. 256 is skewed too, rightward like p. 254 and unlike p. 255, by ~6 px — three consecutive leaves skewed, in three different amounts and two different directions.** ★ **The band midpoint (1352) and the unanimous body windows (1355) disagree by 3 px, the p. 252 situation in miniature; per that precedent the body-window value was adopted, since the windows AGREE here rather than failing.** Adopted **1355**. Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361 · 1186 · 1367 · 1201 · 1345 · 1209 · 1391 · 1182 · 1390 · 1160 · 1403 · 1250 · 1357 · **1206** · **1355**. ★ **p. 255 is ODD and measures 1206; p. 256 is EVEN and measures 1355; and the two sit 149 px apart while p. 254 (even, 1357) and p. 256 (even, 1355) sit 2 px apart and p. 253 (odd, 1250) and p. 255 (odd, 1206) sit 44 px apart. Neighbour parity predicts nothing and neighbour value predicts nothing. Measure every page.**

**Apparatus (12 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 254 nn. 5–6** (inherited) and **p. 255 nn. 1–10** (first-read here, closing p. 255's register entire). Every anchor below was re-read on the band at 450 dpi under direct high-factor zoom.
- p. 254 n. **5** on `« sub Deo potentissimum »`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, third line of the opening thesis, beside the `Thesis 1.` gloss.
- p. 254 n. **6** on `ut tandem *perveniat* ad salutem`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, closing the *Thesis 3* paragraph.
- p. 255 n. **1** on `caelestium inobedientiae mandatorum`¹ — **LEFT** column, second line of the page, inside the quoted Ambrosian definition.
- p. 255 n. **2** on `offensa Dei sit tantum`² — **LEFT** column, in the second *cum* member of the *Ratio*.
- p. 255 n. **3** on `*mediator Dei et hominum*`³ — **LEFT** column, closing the paragraph on Christ as *principium recreativum*.
- p. 255 n. **4** on `continuat nos suae origini`⁴ — **LEFT** column, in the *Modus reparationis* paragraph.
- p. 255 n. **5** on `leges naturae inditas non infirmat`⁵ — **LEFT** column, on the second line of the *Pro thesi 2* paragraph.
- p. 255 n. **6** on `excusat impotentia sui`⁶ — **LEFT** column, closing the parenthetical em-dash clause on little ones.
- p. 255 n. **7** on `vel *dissentire*; et`⁷ — **RIGHT** column, inside the *De 5 gradibus* series.
- p. 255 n. **8** on `quod dicit Augustinus`⁸ — **RIGHT** column, opening the *Corollaria* paragraph.
- p. 255 n. **9** on `sed in Domino gloriari`⁹ — **RIGHT** column, on the third *Verum est etiam* member.
- p. 255 n. **10** on `ut dicit Augustinus`¹⁰ — **RIGHT** column, on the antepenultimate line of the page.

**★★ THE INHERITED HAND-OFF, RE-DERIVED — THE FIRST FULLY-VERIFIED HAND-OFF IN PARS V HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR.** `bon-brev-p5-c2` forwarded p. 254 nn. 5–6 with **OWNERSHIP, the COLUMN of the footer block, and the ANCHOR POSITION all verified for both**, and declared no inference anywhere. Re-derived here off the band with nothing adopted: **both belong to Cap. III; both blocks stand in the right register; both anchors stand exactly where the hand-off placed them** — n. 5 on `« sub Deo potentissimum »` beside the `Thesis 1.` gloss, n. 6 on `ut tandem *perveniat* ad salutem` closing the *Thesis 3* paragraph. **Both texts held verbatim in every digit and every siglum**, including the two that most often fail on this quire: n. 5's `pag. 115, nota 6.` (two flagged `1`s and a flat-barred `5` in six characters) and n. 6's `d. 17. p. I.`, **which supplies the tightest `1`/`I` contrast in the register — a flagged arabic `1` and a slab-serifed roman `I` five characters apart on one line.** ★ Sense confirms n. 6 independently: **IV *Sent.* d. 17 p. I is *de poenitentia* and states the requisites of the sinner's justification, which is precisely the anchor's fourfold `infusio gratiae, expulsio culpae, contritio et motus liberi arbitrii`.** **Running score: forwarded OWNERSHIP has now held ELEVEN times in ELEVEN, and a hand-off that verified POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP for every forwarded note has held on every one of them.**

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS — NOTHING.** **p. 255's register is TEN and every one of the ten anchors in Cap. III**, so p. 255 closes here entire. **p. 256's register belongs wholly to Cap. IV and to `bon-brev-p5-c4`.** ★ **The finding that establishes this is NEGATIVE and could only come from the band: Cap. III's two closing lines at the head of p. 256's left column (`felicitatis, exercendo nos in operibus perfectae vir-` / `tutis secundum donum ipsius gratiae septiformis.`) were read at maximum zoom and carry NO anchor numeral at all** — the same kind of negative that settled p. 253's nn. 5–6 one leaf back. p. 256 n. 1 anchors on `habitus *beatitudinum*`¹ in Cap. IV's opening *divisio*, below the `Cap. IV.` heading. **`check-vol5-apparatus.py` should therefore show p. 254 and p. 255 both closed and NO forwarded PENDING out of this chunk.**

**Runover findings — TWO NEGATIVES AND ONE POSITIVE, ALL THREE OWED AND ALL THREE CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 254 → p. 255 — **NEGATIVE**, and CLOSED HERE FROM THE p. 255 SIDE, as owed.* `bon-brev-p5-c2` established that p. 254's right block ends **complete** at n. 6 (`…vide IV. Sent. d. 17. p. I. per totam.`) with clear white paper below, and left the p. 255 side open because p. 255 had not been imaged. **p. 255's left footer block was read from its first character at high zoom and opens NUMBERED: `¹ Secundum Ambros. supra pag. 237, nota 4. allegatum.`** Both sides agree; logged as a negative.
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 255 — **POSITIVE**, inside n. 8, and closed here from both sides.* p. 255's left block carries nn. 1–8 and breaks off after n. 8's `Serm. 169. (alias 15. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 11. n. 13.` — **at a full stop, on a half-entry that reads as a complete citation on its own**, which is precisely the shape the standing rule says carries no information. p. 255's right block opens **UNNUMBERED and unindented** with `Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 327, nota 2. — Seq. locus est Rom. 9, 16. …`, and closes complete at n. 10. ★ **Three independent checks agree.** (a) The opener carries no numeral, read from its first character. (b) `Seq. locus est` is the explicit formula, and the passage it names — **Rom. 9, 16, *non est volentis neque currentis, sed Dei miserentis*** — is verbatim the body's very next italic quotation, two lines below n. 8's anchor. (c) The grammar completes: n. 8 had given the Augustinian sermon reference and the continuation goes on giving references for the same *Corollaria* paragraph, ending with the `quia nihil` variant whose lemma stands four lines *below* n. 8's anchor in the body. Rendered joined under the p. 255 n. 8 label and logged as `p.255 n.8:gutter`. **This is the second runover in Pars V, and the first in the pars to fall at a SENTENCE END rather than mid-word, mid-lemma or mid-verse — a half-entry that is grammatically complete and typographically finished, and still a fragment.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 255 → p. 256 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 255's right block ends complete at n. 10 (`…praefiximus *Dei*.`) with clear white paper below, and **p. 256's left footer block opens NUMBERED: `¹ De his agitur hic et 2 seqq. capp.`** Logged as a negative.
- *NOT re-logged here:* the p. 253 → p. 254 page-crossing test and p. 254's own gutter test (both closed and logged by `p5-c2`), and the p. 252 → p. 253 test and p. 253's own gutter test (both closed and logged by `p5-c1`). **p. 256's own gutter test is NOT this chunk's** — Cap. III takes only two lines of p. 256's left column and owns none of its register, so the test belongs to `bon-brev-p5-c4`, which owns the page. It is neither run nor logged here.

**★★ p. 255's THREE LINES, AND A SIXTEENTH FOOTER CONFIGURATION WHICH IS ALSO THE SECOND OCCURRENCE OF p. 253's.** p. 255's **anchors** divide **6 / 4** across the gutter (nn. 1–6 left, nn. 7–10 right). Its **blocks** divide **8 / 2 with the split falling INSIDE n. 8**, so the left block **OVERRUNS the anchor line by two whole notes** and then by half of a third. Its **capitulum line does not exist at all**: no boundary falls on p. 255, and all ten notes are owned by one chunk. ★ **The block-break-two-notes-below-the-anchor-break shape is exactly p. 253's (anchors 4 / 5, blocks 6 / 3), which was itself called the first of its kind — it is now the second configuration in the corpus to occur twice, after the pp. 248/251 pair.** ★ **And note what makes p. 255 harder than p. 253: on p. 253 the overrunning notes were the FIRST two of the page, printed at the head of the left block; here they are the LAST two of an eight-entry block, so an eye running down the register finds eight left-hand entries and four right-hand anchors and no obvious seam.** ★★ **p. 256 then supplies a seventeenth configuration in miniature and one that would fool a reader working from structure: a page on which a CAPITULUM BOUNDARY FALLS — two lines below the top of the left column — and whose register is nonetheless owned ENTIRE by the INCOMING chunk, because the outgoing capitulum's two surviving lines carry no anchor.** p. 250 was the mirror of this (a capitulum heading part-way down the page, register owned entire by the OUTGOING chunk); p. 256 is the same lesson from the other end. **A capitulum heading on a page is not evidence that the register divides — in either direction.**

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **Two raw readings are corrected here in the apparatus and one in a marginal gloss; the two confusable digit classes split one to nothing again, and the raw's real damage on this leaf-pair is once more in the SIGLA.**
- **★★ `c. 11.` (p. 255 n. 8) — the `1`/`I` class running the OTHER WAY, and the sharpest instance yet.** The raw gives `c. II.` — an arabic pair read as a roman numeral, where every previous failure on this quire has gone from roman to arabic (`d. 41` for `d. 4I`, `Vulgata et 1` for `et I`). On the band both glyphs carry **the angled top flag, closed stem and no lower serif** of the arabic `1`, against the slab-serifed roman `I` of the same entry's `tom. IV.` and of `p. I.` two entries above. ★ **Sense settles it twice over: Augustine, *Serm.* 169, c. 11, n. 13 is the locus of `qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te`, which is the anchor's quotation word for word — and a roman `c. II.` would name a chapter that does not contain it.**
- **★★ `d. 25.` (p. 255 n. 5) — the raw gives `d..2S.`, an `S`-for-`5` failure, which is the `3`/`5` family's near neighbour.** On the band the glyph is a **flat top bar over a single lower bowl** — a `5`, not an `S`, which would close on both sides. The same line's `q. 5,` supplies the contrast four words on, and the entry's `p. II.` supplies a two-upright roman for the stroke count. ★ **Sense confirms: II *Sent.* d. 25 p. II q. 5 is the question on whether God moves the will without compelling it, which is what the note says it shows (`licet Deus immutet voluntatem, non tamen ipsam cogat`).**
- **★★ `A B M P` (p. 255 n. 3) — TWO SIGLA DESTROYED IN THE RAW AND BOTH RECOVERED FROM THE PLATE.** The raw gives `.\ n M P`: the `A` reduced to a backslash-dot and the `B` read as a lowercase `n`. On the band both are sound capitals, and all three siglum rules agree — **(a)** the run is alphabetical, **(b)** `contra plurimos codd., inter quos sunt <witnesses>` requires codices, **(c)** neither glyph is an upright at all, so the `H`/`I` question does not arise. The same entry's `F G M` reads clean in both.
- **★★ `E H I K M S` (p. 255 n. 9) — the `H`/`I` pair standing SIDE BY SIDE, the cleanest such contrast in Pars V.** The second glyph sets **two uprights with a visible crossbar**; the third sets **a single upright with slab serifs top and bottom**. All three rules agree: **(a) one upright is NEVER `H`**, so the third is `I`; **(b) `E H I K M S` is alphabetical while any other reading repeats or disorders a siglum**; **(c) `omittitur ab <witnesses> et 2` requires witnesses.** The raw gives it correctly here — the first time on this quire that it has got a crossbar-bearing `H` right — but the plate, not the raw, is what settled it. **Never read the crossbar; count the uprights and read the slot.** The same entry then sets `B D F et 1 quod in se est` and `pro *commonitionem* 1 *communicationem*`, both standalone edition `1`s carrying the angled flag, four words from the codex run: **the whole `1`/`I` contrast set inside one entry.**
- **★ `G I K M O Q` (p. 255 n. 10) — a single upright inside a codex run, read as `I` on the stroke count and the alphabet.** The raw agrees. The plate fuses the `M` and the `O` at their shoulders (`MO`); they are two sorts, not a ligature, and the alphabetical run requires both.
- **★ `I. Tim. 2, 5.` (p. 255 n. 3) — A BATTERED PERIOD THAT IMITATES A DIFFERENT LETTER.** The raw gives `I.- Tim.`; at fourteenfold zoom the plate sets **a single slab-serifed upright followed by a period whose ink has dragged to the right along the baseline**, so that upright-plus-drag reads as an `L`. It is not one: **an `L`'s foot bar joins the stem, and this mark stands detached and below.** One upright is never `H` and, with no joined foot, never `L` either. ★ **Sense settles it independently and completely: I Tim. 2, 5 is *unus enim Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus* — the anchor's own italic quotation, word for word.** **This is a fourth species of upright-confusion on this quire, after `H`/`I`, `1`/`I` and `II`/`H`: a sound `I` plus a battered point.**
- **★★ `pag. 241` (p. 255 n. 3), `pag. 237` and `nota 4.` (n. 1), `pag. 218, nota 5.` (n. 5), `d. 4. p. I. dub. 2.` (n. 6), `Serm. 169. (alias 15.) … n. 13.` (n. 8), `pag. 327, nota 2.` and `Rom. 9, 16.` (n. 8's continuation), `I. Cor. 1, 31. et 4, 7.` (n. 9), `Serm. 30. (alias 12.) c. 8. n. 10.` and `pag. 600, nota 6, … d. 26. q. 6.` (n. 10) — all read clean, each against a same-line contrast.** ★ **`pag. 241,` is the leaf's own `1`/`4` contrast set inside three characters — a crossbarred `4` and a flagged `1` touching — and `Cfr. I. Cor. 1, 31. et 4, 7.` is the finest single line in the register: a roman `I`, a flagged `1`, a two-bowled `3`, a second flagged `1` and a crossbarred `4` in eleven characters. Use that line the way Pars IV used p. 248 n. 5's `q. 3. / d. 15.` pair.** ★ **Sense checks pass on every citation that has one.** Ambrose *supra* p. 237 nota 4 is the source of the definition `peccatum est transgressio legis divinae et caelestium inobedientia mandatorum`, quoted at the anchor. II *Sent.* d. 26 q. 4 asks how grace joins us to Christ, which is the anchor's `continuat nos suae origini, facit nos membra Christi`. IV *Sent.* d. 4 p. I is on the baptism of infants, which is the anchor's `in parvulis sufficit fides Ecclesiae`. Rom. 9, 16 IS *non est volentis neque currentis, sed Dei miserentis*, the body's next quotation. I Cor. 1, 31 IS *qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur*, the anchor's `sed in Domino gloriari`; I Cor. 4, 7 IS *quid habes quod non accepisti?*, the anchor's `quasi non acceperit`. **Every digit that could be tested was settled twice — by the glyph and by the text it names.**
- **★ ONE FURTHER RAW DIGIT FAILURE, IN A MARGINAL GLOSS RATHER THAN THE REGISTER: `Pro thesi 2.` (p. 255's left margin) is given by the raw as `Pro thesi 1`.** On the band the glyph is unmistakably a `2`. The gloss answers the capitulum's second thesis, and `Pro thesi 1.` already stands in p. 254's right margin, so both the plate and the series exclude the raw's reading. **Marginal glosses are outside the apparatus, but they are not outside the digit rules.**

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ TWO WORD-BREAKS WITH NO HYPHEN SORT AT ALL, BOTH INSIDE ONE FOOTER ENTRY — A NEW KIND OF PLATE ODDITY.** p. 255 n. 10 breaks `expli` / `cantur.` and, two lines later, `praefixi` / `mus`, and in **both** cases the line ends with clean paper after the last letter: at sixteenfold zoom there is **no hyphen, no shoulder, and no broken sort** — the hyphen was simply never set. Every other broken word in this register and on this leaf carries its hyphen normally (`omitti-` / `tur`, `co-` / `ronat`, `in-` / `obedientiae`), including one three lines above in the same block. **Rendered whole as `explicantur` and `praefiximus` per the corpus's broken-word convention, and the omission recorded here rather than flagged: a missing hyphen is a compositor's omission, not an ambiguity and not a reading.** ★ **This is distinct from the battered-sort family (`vigorem`, `actum`, `aliae`), where a sort printed faintly or failed; here the sort is absent by setting, and it is absent TWICE in one entry, which is what makes it a plate habit rather than an accident.**
- **★ A SPECKED SORT IN A MARGINAL GLOSS: `Corollaria.` (p. 255's right margin) PRINTS WITH A STRAY POINT ABOVE THE SECOND `o`,** so that the raw gives `coroUaria` and a reader might take the mark for an accent. At ninefold zoom it is a detached speck of ink standing clear of the letter's shoulder with no stroke weight — the same species as p. 253 n. 9's spur between `B` and `C` and p. 254's specked `gloriam`. **Rendered whole, recorded, not flagged.**
- **★ THE MARGINAL GLOSSES ARE SET IN A SMALL BOLD FACE WHOSE `u` PRINTS AS A FILLED BOWL**, so that `Gradus 5 in hoc processu.` reads on the plate as `Gradns … processo.` and `Virtutes` as `Virtntes`. This is a property of the face, not of the individual sorts, and it recurs on every gloss on both leaves. **Rendered whole throughout; the raw reproduces the defect (`oradns 5 in … hoc proces- so.`) and must not be followed.**
- **★★ THE `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` COLON — SIXTEENTH consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–X, Pars V capp. I–III). It opens here on a plain causal `cum` period (`quia, cum primum principium … sit causativum omnium`) — **the same shape Capp. I and II took, so THREE consecutive capitula have now taken the *Ratio* the same way, which has never happened before**; Pars IV's longest such run was two (capp. IX and X, both on *sicut/sic*).
- **★★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION TAKES A TWELFTH DISTINCT DISTRIBUTION, AND IT IS THE FIRST TO SPEND A PAIR OF DASHES ON A PARENTHESIS.** Cap. III puts **TWO** dashes in its opening thesis paragraph, marking theses 2 and 3 of a **threefold** division (`— *Illa autem gratia*` · `— Expellitur ergo culpa`), thesis 1 undashed — the same 2-of-3 shape Cap. II used; **TWO** in the *Ratio*'s second paragraph used **as a matched parenthetical pair around an aside** (`in adultis — in adultis dico … impotentia sui — necesse est, inquam`), which no capitulum in Partes IV–V has done; **NONE** in the *Quia vero recreat* or *Postremo* paragraphs; and **THREE** in the closing *Corollaria* paragraph, each opening a fresh `— Verum est etiam` member of a **fourfold** series whose first member (`Verum est igitur`) is undashed — the 3-of-4 shape Pars IV Cap. X used. **Seven dashes, five paragraphs, three different jobs: member-marking, parenthesis, and a second member-marking on a different division.** ★ **The parenthetical pair is the point: a dash here marks neither a member nor a conclusion but an interruption, and a reader counting members from dashes would find nine.** Transcribed, never regularised, and never counted from members.
- **★ THE PLATE'S TYPOGRAPHY WAS FOLLOWED PER PARAGRAPH AND NOT REGULARISED.** The fourfold *requisita* are italicised **entire, as phrases** (*infusio gratiae, expulsio culpae, contritio* et *motus liberi arbitrii*) and are then recapitulated **twice** — once as `*culpa expellatur*` / `*gratia introducatur*` (verb phrases, italic entire) and once as `*expulsioni culpae*` / `*introductioni gratiae*` (noun phrases, italic entire) — while the fourth member's recapitulation, `quam vocamus *motum liberi arbitrii*`, straddles the gutter. ★ **By contrast the five *gradus* of the same process italicise only the participle or infinitive of each member** (*excitare* · *consentire* · *dissentire* · *consentientis* · *suscipientis* · *cooperari* · *contrariari* · *pervenire*) **and leave every governing word roman** — two enumerations of the same doctrine, four lines apart, italicised on two different principles. ★ **And a third asymmetry: `gratis datae` / `gratis data` is italic at four of its five occurrences and roman at the fifth (`indiget adminiculo gratiae *gratis datae*` italic, `gratiae gratis datae est *excitare*` roman), while `gratum faciens` alternates the same way.** **The plate's italic is not a rule you may complete.**
- **★ THE BODY AND THE APPARATUS ARE NOT HARMONISED.** The body reads `sed in Domino gloriari` where n. 9 cites I Cor. 1, 31, whose Vulgate is *in Domino glorietur*; and the body reads `qui creavit te sine te non iustificabit te sine te` where n. 8's source (Augustine, *Serm.* 169, c. 11, n. 13) reads *qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te*. **Both stand as printed in the body, and neither was drawn toward its source.** Likewise `assumta` (not *assumpta*) is the plate's spelling and is preserved.
- **`Deus`, `Deo`, `Deum`, `Dei`, `Spiritus sancti`, `Christi`, `Christus Iesus`, `Ecclesiae`, `Patris`, `Verbum`, `Augustinus`, `Rom.`, `Cor.` are capitalised as printed**, and `gratia`, `liberum arbitrium`, `culpa`, `poena` are not; the English follows.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The **THREEFOLD** thesis on grace as *remedium contra peccatum* — free choice falls of itself but cannot rise of itself · grace is a sufficient remedy but is not infused into an adult without consent · fault is expelled by God's gift, not by free choice, yet not without it. Within the second, the **FOURFOLD** *requisita* of the justification of the ungodly (*infusio gratiae* · *expulsio culpae* · *contritio* · *motus liberi arbitrii*), which the *Ratio* answers member for member in its second and third paragraphs. Within the third, the **FIVEFOLD** *gradus* of the process the plate's own margin numbers (`De 5 gradibus.`) — to rouse · to consent or dissent · to prepare oneself · to have grace infused · to cooperate to the end. And the closing **FOURFOLD** *Corollaria*, each member opening `Verum est` — Augustine on *sine te* · Rom. 9, 16 · that God crowns his own gifts · that inability does not excuse. ★ **The five *gradus* and the four *requisita* are two different divisions of one process and the plate keeps them apart: the *requisita* answer thesis 2 and the *gradus* answer thesis 3, and the text never aligns them. NEITHER may be reordered toward the other.**

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 254 R — "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Requiruntur quatuor." · "Thesis 3." · "Gradus 5 in hoc processu." · "Ratio." · "Pro thesi 1." p. 255 L — "Corruit, sed non resurgit per se." · "Facit quatuor." · "Modus reparationis." · "Pro thesi 2." p. 255 R — "Pro thesi 3." · "De 5 gradibus." · "Corollaria." · "Notandum." p. 256 L — **none**: Cap. III's two closing lines carry no gloss, verified by reading the left margin strip beside them. **Fifteen glosses across nine paragraphs, and a THIRTEENTH distinct form — a `Thesis N.` / `Pro thesi N.` series that is STRICTLY PARALLEL (`Thesis 1.`–`Thesis 3.` answered one-for-one by `Pro thesi 1.`–`Pro thesi 3.`) and is nonetheless not countable, because SIX unnumbered topical glosses are distributed through it on no pattern at all** — two inside the thesis paragraph itself (`Requiruntur quatuor.`, `Gradus 5 in hoc processu.`), one between the theses and their answers (`Ratio.`), two inside *Pro thesi 1* (`Corruit, sed non resurgit per se.`, `Facit quatuor.` — both, note, glossing the *Ratio*'s answer and not the thesis), one inside *Pro thesi 2* (`Modus reparationis.`), and two below the last numbered answer (`Corollaria.`, `Notandum.`). ★ **Cap. I put two unnumbered glosses below its last numbered answer and nothing else; Cap. II had no `Thesis` series at all; Cap. III restores the series intact and then buries it under six unnumbered glosses, four of which stand between `Thesis 1.` and `Pro thesi 2.`** ★ **And two of the unnumbered glosses are COUNTS that disagree with each other — `Requiruntur quatuor.` and `Gradus 5 in hoc processu.` stand nine lines apart in one paragraph and number two different divisions.** A reader taking either for the capitulum's structure gets it wrong. **Transcribe the glosses as printed; regularise nothing; never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's, and never take a gloss's own number for the paragraph's.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Five readings could have carried one — the `L`-shaped `I.` of `I. Tim.`, the raw's `c. II.` for `c. 11.`, the raw's `d..2S.` for `d. 25.`, the two hyphenless word-breaks in n. 10, and the specked `Corollaria.` — and each is settled positively on the band, by the stroke count, by a same-line glyph contrast, by the absence of a joining foot bar, by clean paper where a hyphen would be, or by the cited text checking itself word for word against its anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag.

**★ NEITHER SIGNATURE FALLS ON pp. 255 OR 256.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` and the quire signature both last fell on p. 249; pp. 250–256 carry neither, so the printer's signature is now overdue on its ~8-leaf cadence and should be expected within the next leaf or two. Neither is ever an entry. **p. 254's register is six** (band-derived by `p5-c2`, re-confirmed here) **and p. 255's is ten**, band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`.

**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.
- **p. 254, right column (Cap. III's portion only) — GOOD.** `qiiantum` (in the chapter title), `peccalum`, `potentissimum^`, `tainen`, `reiuedium`, `coUigitur`, `cxdpae, conlrilio`, `molus libcri arhitrii`, `hberuin`, `consentientis ■ at gra.t\a.m` (**`est gratiam` DESTROYED**), `Tiiesis -2.`, `Rcqaireninr`, `oradns 5 in … so.`, `Pro thcsn`. **About fifteen garbles in twenty-five printed lines, with ONE word destroyed** — and note that four of the fifteen are in the MARGINAL GLOSSES rather than the body. ★ **Density LOW, severity LOW.**
- **p. 255, left column — MODERATE, and worse than either of p. 254's.** `corniii, soii` (running head fused to the first gloss), `traiisgrossioiics legis divinue et caeieslium`, `mandatornm`, `oirensivum`, `Dci`, `'n^'0"i"i"t,ibili` (**`incommutabili` DESTROYED, the worst single word on the leaf-pair**), `offeruIU Dcum` (**`offendit` DESTROYED**), `(hfoi-niat`, `ohiigal`, `igilur`, `annihiiatio`, `odensa`, `infmiti`, `impossibiie`, `rcmiltatur olTensa`, `Solui;`, `creatiuuin`, `scilicct Palris`, `lesus, medialor`, `sinc`, `pocnam`, `liinc`, `iniinica`, `gratuitaai` (**`gratuitam` DESTROYED**), `quoniara`, `sullicit`, `impo-tenlia`, `wodus repa-`. **About thirty garbles in fifty printed lines, with THREE words destroyed and two glosses damaged.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — and the severity is concentrated in one sentence: `incommutabili, offendit Deum` loses TWO words in eleven characters.**
- **p. 255, right column — MODERATE, and a shade better than the left.** `nioluiH liheri arbitrii` (**`motum` DESTROYED**), `Postrcmo`, `plctivam dctet` (**`debet` DESTROYED**), `gratiac`/`graliae`, `liinc`, `gratiac gratis datac e&l excilare` (**`est` DESTROYED**), `oe 5 gradi-`, `vcl`, `consentien-lis cst`, `pracparare`, `quwl in sc est` (**`quod` DESTROYED**), `ct sic disposilo`, `gralum facierui liabet` (**`faciens` DESTROYED**), `polest`, `firiem`, `te.sinete` (spaces lost), `Jion esl volcntis`, `gloriarl`, `riec`, `dala`, `graliam`, `principahus`, `scssor`, `aeternce`, `coroUaria`, `Noundum.`. **About twenty-five garbles in fifty printed lines, with FIVE words destroyed.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — more words destroyed than the left column on fewer garbles, so density and severity move independently on ONE PAGE across ONE GUTTER, which is the p. 253 lesson in a milder form.**
- **p. 254 footer, right block (nn. 5–6, this chunk's) — GOOD.** `liernardo`, `loni. II.`, `pag. IIS` (**`115` set with the flagged `1`s as `I`s and the `5` as `S` — three glyphs wrong in one number**), `Ilberum arbiU-ium`, `gralis data`, `Inferlus`, `llla auteni`, `aiilem`, `concuirunt`, `requisilis`, `Senl.`, `tolam`. **About twelve garbles in eight printed lines, no wrong digit of the confusable classes, and ONE number mangled outright.**
- **p. 255 footer, left block (nn. 1–8, this chunk's) — GOOD.** `Anibros.`, `nola 4. allegalum.`, `tanla`, `qucntus`, `oJendUur`, `elc.`, `Epist. I.- Tim.`, `recreaiipum`, `el reparativum conlra`, **`.\ n M P`** (**`A B M P` — TWO sigla destroyed**), `actemi`, **`d..2S.`** (**`d. 25.` — an `S` for a `5`**), `tanien`, **`c. II. n. 13.`** (**`c. 11.` — an arabic pair read as a roman numeral**). **About fourteen garbles in fourteen printed lines, TWO wrong readings that reach the text and TWO destroyed sigla.**
- **p. 255 footer, right block (n. 8's tail and nn. 9–10, this chunk's) — GOOD, and the cleanest register on the leaf.** `lom. IV.`, `nola 2.`, `9,16` (space lost), `mcrita`, `niunera`, `qnia niliil`, `liabel`, `dormt ct` (**`donat et` damaged**), `el 4 , 7.`, `E H I K M S` **correct, crossbar and all**, `quantim`, `AugusL`, `e\ G I K MO Q` (**`ex` destroyed, `M O` fused**), `praeflxi nius`. **About fourteen garbles in eleven printed lines, NOT ONE wrong digit and not one wrong siglum.** ★ **So the leaf's two registers stand a full grade apart across one gutter, in the direction opposite to the bodies above them — and the right register, which the raw gets right in every digit and every siglum, is the one carrying the runover. Grade the run, never the page, and never carry a footer grade across a gutter or a leaf.**