site: bonaventure

title: Coll. 6

title_alt:
De quinto, sexto et septimo praecepto
On the fifth, sixth and seventh precept

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 525 -->

1. *Non occides. Non moechaberis. Non furtum facies*[^p525-4]. — *Tunc non confundar, cum perspexero in omnibus mandatis tuis.* Beatus Iacobus dicit: *Qui totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus;* non quod pro una transgressione tantum puniatur poena *sensus,* quantum pro transgressione omnium; sed punietur tantum poena *damni,* non tamen ita acriter pro uno, sicut pro omnibus. Ideo, si quis vult pertingere ad veram vitam, oportet, quod perspiciat *in omnibus mandatis* Dei corde, ore et opere. Et ideo dicit: *Cum perspexero,* id est, perfecte spexero et consideravero et iuxta hoc egero, non timebo confundi. Non est magnum confundi in praesenti, sed confundi aeternaliter. Talis confusio valde est abhorrenda. Sed non possumus evadere istam confusionem, nisi perspiciamus in omnibus mandatis Dei. Ideo in principio rogemus Deum, ut *revelet oculos nostros* ad *consideranda mandata.*

<!-- page 526 -->

2. *Non occides* etc. Dicebam[^p526-1] vobis, quod mandata Dei distinguebantur in duas tabulas. In prima continentur mandata secundum legem iustitiae ordinantia nos ad Trinitatem, qua continentur tria mandata secundum tria appropriata tribus personis. In secunda tabula continentur mandata ordinantia nos ad proximum, et hoc secundum duplicem partem iustitiae, scilicet *beneficentiae* et *innocentiae.* Reducitur autem tota iustitia ad tria: quia Deo debemus exhibere debitam *reverentiam* per orationem, per confessionem et per satisfactionem; patri debemus exhibere *beneficentiam,* et omnibus aliis *innocentiam.* — Dictum est de tribus mandatis, quae nos ordinant ad Deum; dictum est etiam de quarto mandato, quod accipitur penes partem iustitiae, quae est *beneficentia;* in quo praecipitur, quod debemus exhibere honorem patri et matri.

3. Sequitur de sex aliis mandatis, quae pertinent ad *innocentiam,* in quibus praecipitur, ne quis noceat proximo suo. Nocet autem quis proximo suo tripliciter: *perversitate operis, falsitate sermonis* et *improbitate voluntatis;* et secundum hoc Legislator primo prohibet nocumentum, quod provenit ex *perversitate operis.* Perversitas autem operis, qua quis alii iniuriatur, est triplex: aut enim iniuriatur quis alii in *persona propria,* aut in *persona coniuncta,* aut in *temporali substantia;* et secundum hoc sunt tria mandata, quae pertinent ad innocentiam. In primo prohibetur nocumentum in *propria persona,* ibi: *Non occides.* In secundo prohibetur nocumentum in *persona coniuncta,* ibi: *Non moechaberis.* In tertio prohibetur nocumentum in *substantia temporali,* ibi: *Non furtum facies.*

4. Primo, dico, in isto mandato: *Non occides,* prohibetur ira prorumpens in iniurias peremptivas vitae *naturalis* sive substantialis et vitae *incolumis* et vitae *honorabilis.* « Natura enim appetit quod melius est[^p526-2] », et ideo non sufficit sibi, quod habeat vitam stantem, immo cum hoc vult vitam salubrem et incolumem et honorabilem; et secundum hoc Legislator in isto mandato: *Non occides,* prohibet primo iras prorumpentes in iniurias peremptivas vitae *naturalis;* secundo, vitae *incolumis,* scilicet, quando fit iniuria per verbera, vel vulnera; tertio, vitae *honorabilis,* sicut est iniuria, quae fit per contumeliam apertam vel occultam, sicut illa quae fit per signum. — Unde in Evangelio[^p526-3]: *Audistis, quia dictum est antiquis: Non occides; qui autem occidet reus erit iudicio. Ego autem dico vobis, quia omnis, qui irascitur fratri suo, reus erit iudicio. Qui autem dixerit fratri suo: raca, reus erit concilio. Qui autem dixerit: fatue, reus erit gehennae ignis.* Ergo planum est, quod tribus modis facit homo contra illud mandatum: *Non occides,* scilicet quando quis irascitur fratri suo, vel quando dicit: *raca,* vel quando dicit: *fatue.* Et quando hoc facit ex deliberatione animi, tunc dicit, quod *reus est gehennae ignis.* Et quia vita naturalis est fundamentum aliarum, ideo sub isto modo: *Non occides,* Legislator expressit mandatum.

5. Manichaei autem obiiciunt nobis et dicunt, quod sibi contradicit Legislator. Dicit enim: *Non occides,* et alibi[^p526-4] dicit: *Maleficos non patieris vivere.* Et hoc est contra *principes* in christiana lege, qui per sententiam iudiciariam alios occidunt. — Item obiiciunt, quod Dominus dicit: *Omnes, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt:* ergo non licet gladium accipere. — Et similiter dicunt, quod non licet, *sacerdotem* esse occisorem. Et hoc est contra *Ecclesiam* et ecclesiasticas personas, quae exsequendo iudicium et imperando accipiunt gladium. — Item obiiciunt, quod dicitur[^p526-5]: *Ego autem dico vobis, non resistere malo,* et hoc est contra Legislatorem.

6. Intelligere debemus, quod prohibetur hic occisio *hominis,* non bestiarum vel virgultorum, sicut dicebant antiqui Manichaei, qui nolebant comedere de fructibus arborum[^p526-6]. — Occisio autem hominis potest esse *a lege,* aut *ab homine* in veritate, aut *interpretative.* Occisio autem hominis ab homine ut ab homine, non ut a lege, prohibetur; sed Deus, qui conditor est naturae et conservator naturae et legis,

<!-- page 527 -->

potest hominem privare vita, quando vult. — *Lex* autem occidit hominem, quando minister legis occidit, et hoc servato *iusto ordine, iusta causa,* et *iusto animo.*

7. Oportet, quod adsit *iustus ordo* et *iusta causa,* id est, quod ex iusta causa occidatur, quia lex dicit[^p527-1]: *Iuste quod iustum est exsequeris.* — Item, oportet habere *animum iustum,* ut homo, qui est minister legis, ex lege hominem occidat, non libidine vindictae, sed amore iustitiae. Unde Apostolus ad Romanos[^p527-2], loquens ad principes, dicit, quod *princeps non sine causa gladium portat. Dei enim minister est, vindex in iram ei qui male agit.* — Quod igitur Dominus dicit Petro: *Omnes, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt;* non refertur nisi ad hoc, quod ille qui non est minister legis, non debet occidere. — Et quod dicitur: non licet, sacerdotem esse occisorem, hoc non refertur ad principes. — Primum ergo, quod dicit Dominus: *Non occides,* verum est, ut *homo,* sed ut *minister legis.* Secundum, quod dicit Dominus: *Omnes, qui accipiunt gladium, gladio peribunt,* verum est, si *non praeest reipublicae.* — Tertium, quod dicit Dominus: *Ego autem dico vobis, non resistere malo,* verum est, *ultionis libidine;* sed *amore iustitiae* bene licet resistere malo. — Patet modo, quomodo *lex* occidit hominem.

8. Item, occiditur homo *ab homine* ut ab homine, et hoc contingit tribus modis: aut *casu,* aut *necessitate,* aut *voluntate.* — Si homo occidit hominem *casu;* aut adhibet operam rei licitae et adhibet debitam diligentiam; et tunc excusatur *a tanto* et *a toto.* Si vero sit homicidium *casuale,* et homo adhibet operam rei illicitae nec adhibet debitam diligentiam; tunc excusatur *a tanto,* non *a toto*[^p527-3].

9. Si autem fuerit homicidium *ex necessitate,* hoc est dupliciter: aut ex necessitate *evitabili,* aut *inevitabili.* Necessitas evitabilis est, si possum effugere, sed dimitto propter verecundiam, vel aliam causam; et in isto casu excusatur homo *a tanto,* non *ex toto,* quia melius esset, quod fugeret. Si autem sit necessitas *inevitabilis,* scilicet ut homo alium occidat non libidine vindictae, sed amore conservationis vitae et animae, ut non interficiat ipsum ex crudelitate, sed ut impediat ipsum, ne perdat suam vitam et animam, et si hoc fiat cum moderamine *inculpatae tutelae;* tunc concessum est personis *imperfectis,* non *perfectis* — et hoc dicit Augustinus *de Libero Arbitrio*[^p527-4] — et excusatur hic *a toto* et *a tanto.*

10. Tertio modo fit homicidium ab homine *voluntate,* et hoc dupliciter: aut *libidine vindictae,* sicut quando aliquis interficit patrem alterius; aut *animi crudelitate,* sicut latrones vel irati interficiunt alios; et utrumque istorum est prohibitum, et primum est gravius quam secundum.

11. Item fit homicidium *interpretative,* et hoc fit tripliciter: primo *omittendo* in facto; unde Ambrosius[^p527-5]: « *Pasce fame morientem; si non paveris, occidisti* ». — Secundo modo fit, quando aliquis occidit alium *consulendo,* vel *accusando,* vel *detrahendo,* quando hoc facit ex malignitate animi. — Tertio modo fit homicidium interpretative *odiendo* in animo; unde in canonica Ioannis[^p527-6]: *Qui odit fratrem suum homicida est.* — Dico igitur, quod secundum principalem intellectum prohibetur hic occisio, non quae *a lege* est, sed quae *ab homine,* et illa quae fit *voluntate,* aut *interpretative;* et hoc est quod dicit: *Non occides.*

### Sextum praeceptum.

12. Sequitur: *Non moechaberis.* Hic praecipitur, quod nemo uxorem proximi sui violet. Et dicit beatus Augustinus[^p527-7], quod hic prohibetur omnis illicitus usus membrorum generationis, qui fit ad procurationem libidinis cum impugnatione castitatis. Et hoc fit septem modis, scilicet per *adulterium, fornicationem, meretricium, stuprum, sacrilegium, incestum* et *peccatum contra naturam.*

13. Notandum, quod est pudicitia *coniugalis, communis* et *privilegiata*[^p527-8]. Secundum hoc dico, quod aliquis potest esse impugnator pudicitiae *coniugalis,* et dicitur *adulterium;* aut est impugnator castitatis *communis,* et hoc vel fit cum soluta simpliciter et vocatur *fornicatio,* vel cum soluta vagabunda et prostituta, et dicitur *meretricium.* Si quis autem sit impugnator pudicitiae *privilegiatae,* id est virginitatis, hoc est dupliciter: aut fit cum conditione adiuncta, quae est *defloratio,* et sic vocatur *stuprum;* aut fit cum domina Deo consecrata, et sic dicitur *sacrilegium,* scilicet quando aliquis Domino consecratam violat. — Si autem fit contra fundamentum

<!-- page 528 -->

omnium istorum, sic dicitur *peccatum contra naturam;* et hoc fit dupliciter: aut contra dictamen naturalis rationis, scilicet contra hoc « quod omnia animalia natura docuit[^p528-1] », et sic dicitur proprie *peccatum contra naturam;* aut fit contra instinctum naturae, et hoc modo est *incestus,* scilicet quando quis peccat cum persona sibi coniuncta. — Peccatum contra naturam scelestissimum est et super omnia fugiendum. Et de hoc crimine accusavit Ioseph fratres suos apud patrem suum crimine pessimo[^p528-2].

14. Dicit igitur: *Non moechaberis.* Patet primo, quomodo hic prohibetur omnis moechia cum uxore proximi; et secundum Augustinum[^p528-3] prohibetur omnis illicitus usus membrorum generationis, qui fit ad procurationem libidinis cum impugnatione castitatis. Patet etiam, penes quid accipiuntur septem transgressiones huius mandati: *Non moechaberis;* et quod peccatum contra naturam super omnia est fugiendum.

15. Narrat Petrus Damianus[^p528-4], quod duo fuerunt simul in deserto, qui asperrimam fecerunt poenitentiam. Unus illorum fuit idiota et, peccatis suis exigentibus, fuit illusus a diabolo, qui dixit ei, quod peccatum pollutionis contra naturam non esset maius peccatum, quam proiicere muccilagines de naso. Et tunc ille pestifer exercuit se in illa impudicitia. In morte diabolus portavit animam suam. Hoc videns alius miratus est, quod homo tantarum vigiliarum et dolorum esset perditus. Et tunc astitit Angelus Domini, qui narravit ei, quod totum foedaverat per tale peccatum.

16. Omnis igitur actus, qui est in experientia libidinis, qualicumque modo homo peccatum ipsum excogitet[^p528-5], est prohibitus, nisi fiat in forma matrimonii Ecclesiae. — In somnis patitur homo quandoque pollutiones absque culpa et absque causa. Quidam stultus presbyter confitenti sibi de nocturna pollutione dixit: *non potes denarium dare ad explendam libidinem tuam?* — Patet modo, quomodo prohibetur hic omnis illicitus usus corporis et libidinis, procuratus extra formam matrimonii.

### Septimum praeceptum.

17. Sequitur: *Non furtum facies.* Furtum est *contrectatio rei alienae, invito domino, ex cupiditate.* Si fiat non *ex cupiditate,* sicut filii Israel ex praecepto Domini portaverunt secum de Aegypto *vasa argentea et aurea*[^p528-6], vel cum quis alii aufert gladium, ne faciat malum; tunc non dicitur facere furtum.

18. Furtum autem dividitur in partes, quia furtum est contrectatio alienae rei, invito domino; et hoc fit aut per *meram fraudem,* aut per *violentiam,* aut per *circumventionem.* — Si fiat per meram fraudem et furtive, tunc dicitur *furtum.* — Si fiat per violentiam, aut illa est aperta, et sic dicitur *rapina;* aut est occulta, et sic dicitur *latrocinium.* — Si vero fiat contrectatio rei alienae per circumventionem, hoc potest fieri cum pactione adiuncta, et hoc tripliciter: aut cum pactione *fraudulenta,* aut *iniqua,* aut *profana.* Primo modo contingit in negotiationibus, et hoc fit tripliciter, scilicet aut in *pondere,* aut in *numero,* aut in *mensura*[^p528-7]; et de hoc rarissime evadunt mercatores. Si autem fiat cum pactione *iniqua,* sic est *usura,* in qua id quod venditur, est commune, scilicet *tempus.* Si autem fiat cum pactione *profana,* in qua venditur *proprium Dei,* sic est *simonia.*

19. Sed quaeritur: quare, si accommodo tibi vestem vel equum vel domum pro denariis, non est usura, sicut est de pecunia[^p528-8]? — Dico, quod in veste vel equo vel domo trahitur *usus* ex re, non ex pecunia; et ideo non dicitur usura. Quidam credunt, quod usura sit mala, quia prohibita; sed certe est prohibita, quia mala. In *mutuo* meum fit tuum; et si tu acquiras aliquid per industriam tuam ex illo mutuo, et ego aliquid de illo repeto; vendo tempus, quod est commune, et quod non est licitum vendere. Sed in *accommodato* non transit res mea in tuam, ut in *mutuo* pecunia mea fit tua; et non minoratur pecunia nec peioratur, sicut contingit in domo vel veste vel equo, quia oportet pecuniam reddere totam et integram. Et ideo, cum ex usura homo petit aliquid, est ibi perversio ordinis et appropriatio communitatis; et debet quilibet sibi de hoc cavere. Sic igitur, quando fit circumventio cum pactione *iniqua,* dicitur *usura.*

20. Si autem fiat circumventio cum pactione *profana,* sic dicitur *simonia*[^p528-9], in qua qui emit nihil acquirit, nec ille qui vendit, aliquid habet, sed solum rem alienam contrectant; et hoc fit, cum res spiritualis venditur tanquam res vilis. Contra quos dicit Dominus[^p529-1]: *Nolite domum Patris mei facere domum negotiationis.* Sed quidam faciunt eam

<!-- page 529 -->

*speluncam latronum;* unde: *Principes eius in muneribus iudicabant, et sacerdotes eius in mercede docebant, et prophetae eius in pecunia divinabant.* Rogemus ergo Dominum Iesum Christum etc.

---

english:
<!-- page 525 -->

1. *Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal*[^p525-4]. — *Then I shall not be confounded, when I shall have looked upon all thy commandments.* Blessed James says: *Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all;* not that for one transgression alone he is punished with the pain of *sense* as much as for the transgression of all, but he shall be punished only with the pain of *loss,* yet not so sharply for one as for all. Therefore, if anyone wishes to attain to the true life, it behooves him to look upon *all the commandments* of God with heart, mouth and deed. And therefore it says: *When I shall have looked,* that is, when I shall have perfectly looked and considered and acted accordingly, I shall not fear to be confounded. It is no great thing to be confounded in the present, but to be confounded eternally. Such confusion is greatly to be abhorred. But we cannot escape this confusion, unless we look upon all the commandments of God. Therefore at the beginning let us ask God that he *reveal our eyes* to *consider his commandments.*

<!-- page 526 -->

2. *Thou shalt not kill,* etc. I was telling[^p526-1] you that the commandments of God were divided into two tables. In the first are contained the commandments according to the law of justice ordering us to the Trinity, in which are contained three commandments according to the three things appropriated to the three divine persons. In the second table are contained the commandments ordering us to our neighbour, and this according to the twofold part of justice, namely of *beneficence* and of *innocence.* Now all justice is reduced to three things: because to God we owe the debt of *reverence* through prayer, through confession and through satisfaction; to a father we owe *beneficence,* and to all others *innocence.* — It has been said concerning the three commandments which order us to God; it has also been said concerning the fourth commandment, which is taken under the part of justice that is *beneficence;* in which it is commanded that we show honour to father and mother.

3. There follow the six other commandments, which pertain to *innocence,* in which it is commanded that no one harm his neighbour. Now a man harms his neighbour in three ways: by *perversity of deed, falsity of speech* and *wickedness of will;* and according to this the Legislator first forbids the harm that comes from *perversity of deed.* Now perversity of deed, by which one does injury to another, is threefold: for one does injury to another either in his *own person,* or in a *person joined to him,* or in his *temporal substance;* and according to this there are three commandments which pertain to innocence. In the first, harm is forbidden in one's *own person,* there: *Thou shalt not kill.* In the second, harm is forbidden in a *person joined to him,* there: *Thou shalt not commit adultery.* In the third, harm is forbidden in *temporal substance,* there: *Thou shalt not steal.*

4. First, I say, in this commandment: *Thou shalt not kill,* there is forbidden anger breaking out into injuries destructive of *natural* or substantial life, and of the life of *soundness,* and of the life of *honour.* « For nature desires what is better[^p526-2] », and therefore it is not enough for it to have a life that merely stands, but along with this it wills a life that is wholesome and sound and honourable; and according to this the Legislator, in this commandment: *Thou shalt not kill,* forbids first the angers that break out into injuries destructive of *natural* life; secondly, of the life of *soundness,* namely when injury is done through blows or wounds; thirdly, of the life of *honour,* as is the injury that is done through open or hidden insult, such as that which is done through a sign. — Whence in the Gospel[^p526-3]: *You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.* It is plain, then, that a man acts against that commandment: *Thou shalt not kill,* in three ways, namely when someone is angry with his brother, or when he says: *Raca,* or when he says: *Thou fool.* And when he does this out of deliberation of mind, then it is said that *he is in danger of hell fire.* And because natural life is the foundation of the others, therefore under this manner: *Thou shalt not kill,* the Legislator expressed the commandment.

5. The Manichaeans, however, object against us and say that the Legislator contradicts himself. For he says: *Thou shalt not kill,* and elsewhere[^p526-4] he says: *Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.* And this is against *princes* in the Christian law, who by judicial sentence put others to death. — Likewise they object, that the Lord says: *All that shall take the sword shall perish with the sword:* therefore it is not lawful to take up the sword. — And similarly they say that it is not lawful for a *priest* to be a slayer. And this is against the *Church* and ecclesiastical persons, who in carrying out judgment and in commanding take up the sword. — Likewise they object, that it is said[^p526-5]: *But I say to you, not to resist evil,* and this is against the Legislator.

6. We must understand that what is here forbidden is the killing of *man,* not of beasts or of plants, as the ancient Manichaeans used to say, who refused to eat of the fruits of trees[^p526-6]. — Now the killing of a man can be *by the law,* or *by man* in truth, or *interpretatively.* Now the killing of a man by man as man, not as the law, is forbidden; but God, who is the founder of nature and the preserver of nature and of the law,

<!-- page 527 -->

can deprive a man of life when he wills. — But the *law* kills a man when the minister of the law kills, and this with a *just order,* a *just cause,* and a *just intent* observed.

7. It is fitting that there be a *just order* and a *just cause,* that is, that he be killed for a just cause, because the law says[^p527-1]: *Justly shalt thou pursue that which is just.* — Likewise, it is fitting to have a *just intent,* that the man who is a minister of the law kill a man by the law, not from lust of vengeance, but from love of justice. Whence the Apostle to the Romans[^p527-2], speaking to princes, says that *the prince does not bear the sword without cause. For he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.* — What the Lord therefore says to Peter: *All that shall take the sword shall perish with the sword;* refers only to this, that he who is not a minister of the law ought not to kill. — And what is said: it is not lawful for a priest to be a slayer, this does not refer to princes. — The first, then, that the Lord says: *Thou shalt not kill,* is true of him as *man,* but not as *a minister of the law.* The second, that the Lord says: *All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,* is true, *if he be not set over the commonwealth.* — The third, that the Lord says: *But I say to you, not to resist evil,* is true with regard to *lust of vengeance;* but out of *love of justice* it is well lawful to resist evil. — It is now clear how the *law* kills a man.

8. Likewise, a man is killed *by man* as man, and this happens in three ways: either by *chance,* or by *necessity,* or by *will.* — If a man kills a man by *chance,* and he was engaged in a lawful act and used due diligence, then he is excused both *in part* and *wholly.* But if the homicide is by chance and the man was engaged in an unlawful act and did not use due diligence, then he is excused *in part,* not *wholly*[^p527-3].

9. But if the homicide should be by *necessity,* this is twofold: either by *avoidable* necessity, or by *unavoidable.* Necessity is avoidable if I am able to escape, but I let it pass out of shame, or some other cause; and in this case a man is excused *in part,* not *wholly,* because it would have been better that he should have fled. But if the necessity be *unavoidable,* namely that a man kill another not out of lust of vengeance, but out of love of the preservation of life and soul, so that he does not slay him out of cruelty, but so as to hinder him, lest he lose his own life and soul, and if this be done with the moderation of *blameless self-defence;* then it is granted to *imperfect* persons, not to *perfect* ones — and this Augustine says in the *Free Will*[^p527-4] — and here he is excused both *wholly* and *in part.*

10. In a third way homicide is done by man's *will,* and this is twofold: either from *lust of vengeance,* as when someone kills another's father; or from *cruelty of mind,* as robbers or angry men kill others; and both of these are forbidden, and the first is more grave than the second.

11. Likewise, homicide is done *interpretatively,* and this is done in three ways: first by *omission* in deed; whence Ambrose[^p527-5]: « *Feed him who is dying of hunger; if thou hast not fed him, thou hast killed him* ». — Secondly it is done, when someone kills another by *counselling,* or by *accusing,* or by *detracting,* when he does this out of malice of mind. — Thirdly, homicide is done interpretatively by *hating* in the mind; whence in the canonical epistle of John[^p527-6]: *He that hateth his brother is a murderer.* — I say, therefore, that according to the principal understanding what is here forbidden is not the killing that is *by the law,* but that which is *by man,* and that which is done by *will,* or *interpretatively;* and this is what it says: *Thou shalt not kill.*

### The sixth precept.

12. There follows: *Thou shalt not commit adultery.* Here it is commanded that no one violate the wife of his neighbour. And blessed Augustine[^p527-7] says that here is forbidden every unlawful use of the members of generation, which is done for the procuring of lust with the assailing of chastity. And this is done in seven ways, namely through *adultery, fornication, harlotry, rape, sacrilege, incest* and *the sin against nature.*

13. It is to be noted that there is a chastity that is *conjugal, common,* and *privileged*[^p527-8]. According to this, I say, one can be an assailant of *conjugal* chastity, and this is called *adultery;* or he is an assailant of *common* chastity, and this either happens with one unmarried simply, and is called *fornication,* or with one unmarried, roving and prostituted, and is called *harlotry.* But if one is an assailant of *privileged* chastity, that is, of virginity, this is twofold: either it happens with an attached condition, which is *defloration,* and thus it is called *rape;* or it happens with a woman consecrated to God, and thus it is called *sacrilege,* namely when someone violates a woman consecrated to the Lord. — But if it be against the foundation

<!-- page 528 -->

of all these, thus it is called *the sin against nature;* and this happens in two ways: either against the dictate of natural reason, namely against this, « that nature has taught all animals[^p528-1] », and thus it is properly called *the sin against nature;* or it happens against the instinct of nature, and in this way it is *incest,* namely when someone sins with a person joined to him. — The sin against nature is most wicked and above all to be fled. And of this crime Joseph accused his brothers before their father with a most wicked crime[^p528-2].

14. It says, therefore: *Thou shalt not commit adultery.* It is clear, first, how here is forbidden every adultery with the wife of one's neighbour; and according to Augustine[^p528-3] is forbidden every unlawful use of the members of generation, which is done for the procuring of lust with the assailing of chastity. It is clear also, under what head are taken the seven transgressions of this commandment: *Thou shalt not commit adultery;* and that the sin against nature is above all to be fled.

15. Peter Damian[^p528-4] relates, that there were two together in the desert, who did most severe penance. One of them was unlettered and, his sins requiring it, was mocked by the devil, who told him that the sin of pollution against nature was no greater a sin than casting mucus from the nose. And then that pestilent man exercised himself in that immodesty. At his death the devil carried off his soul. Seeing this, the other was amazed that a man of such great vigils and sorrows should be lost. And then an Angel of the Lord stood by, who told him that he had defiled the whole of it by such a sin.

16. Every act, therefore, that is in the experience of lust, in whatever way a man may devise the sin itself[^p528-5], is forbidden, unless it be done in the form of the marriage of the Church. — In sleep a man sometimes suffers pollutions without fault and without cause. A certain foolish priest said to one confessing to him a nocturnal pollution: *canst thou not give a penny to satisfy thy lust?* — It is now clear how here is forbidden every unlawful use of the body and of lust, procured outside the form of marriage.

### The seventh precept.

17. There follows: *Thou shalt not steal.* Theft is *the handling of another's thing, against the will of its owner, out of covetousness.* If it be done not *out of covetousness,* as the children of Israel by the Lord's command carried with them out of Egypt *vessels of silver and of gold*[^p528-6], or as when someone takes away another's sword, lest he do evil; then it is not said to be theft.

18. Now theft is divided into parts, because theft is the handling of another's thing, against the will of its owner; and this is done either by *mere fraud,* or by *violence,* or by *circumvention.* — If it be done by *mere fraud* and by stealth, then it is called *theft.* — If it be done by *violence,* either it is open, and thus it is called *robbery;* or it is hidden, and thus it is called *brigandage.* — But if the handling of another's thing be done by *circumvention,* this can happen with an attached agreement, and this in three ways: either with a *fraudulent* agreement, or an *unjust* one, or a *profane* one. The first way occurs in trading, and this happens in three ways, namely either in *weight,* or in *number,* or in *measure*[^p528-7]; and from this merchants very rarely escape. But if it be done with an *unjust* agreement, thus it is *usury,* in which what is sold is something common, namely *time.* But if it be done with a *profane* agreement, in which what is sold is *God's own,* thus it is *simony.*

19. But it is asked: why, if I lend thee a garment or a horse or a house for money, is this not usury, as it is with money[^p528-8]? — I say that in a garment or a horse or a house, the *use* is drawn from the thing itself, not from the money; and therefore it is not called usury. Some believe that usury is evil because it is forbidden; but surely it is forbidden because it is evil. In a *loan for consumption* my own becomes thine; and if thou shouldst acquire something by thy own industry from that loan, and I should ask back something from it, I am selling time, which is common, and which it is not lawful to sell. But in a *loan for use* my thing does not pass into thine, as in a *loan for consumption* my money becomes thine; and the money is neither lessened nor made worse, as happens in the case of a house or a garment or a horse, because it is fitting that the money be returned whole and entire. And therefore, when a man asks something from usury, there is in it a perversion of order and an appropriation of what is common; and everyone ought to beware of this for himself. Thus, therefore, when circumvention is done with an *unjust* agreement, it is called *usury.*

20. But if circumvention be done with a *profane* agreement, thus it is called *simony*[^p528-9], in which he who buys acquires nothing, nor does he who sells have anything, but they only handle another's thing; and this happens, when a spiritual thing is sold as though a cheap thing. Against such the Lord says[^p529-1]: *Make not the house of my Father a house of traffic.* But some make it a

<!-- page 529 -->

*den of thieves;* whence: *Her princes have judged for bribes, and her priests have taught for hire, and her prophets have divined for money.* Let us therefore beseech the Lord Jesus Christ, etc.

---

la: Exod. 20, 13-15. — Seq. locus est Ps. 118, 6; tertius Iac. 2, 10: *Quicumque autem totam legem* etc. (cfr. III. Sent. d. 36. q. 4. ad 1. et 2; IV. Sent. d. 22. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.).

en: Exodus 20:13–15. — The following passage is Psalm 118:6; the third is James 2:10: *For whosoever shall keep the whole law,* etc. (compare III *Sentences,* d. 36, q. 4, ad 1 and 2; IV *Sentences,* d. 22, a. 1, q. 2, in the body).

en: Collation 1, n. 21 and 22, and collation 2, n. 3 and 4.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10.). — Subinde substituimus ex A B C D *vitam stantem* lectioni Vat. *vitam subsistentem.*

en: According to Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 59 (c. 10). — We have accordingly substituted, from A B C D, *a life that stands* for the Vatican codex's reading *a life that subsists.*

en: Matthew 5:21 and 22.

la: Exod. 22, 18. — Seq. locus est Matth. 26, 52.

en: Exodus 22:18. — The following passage is Matthew 26:52.

en: Matthew 5:39.

la: August., de Haeresib. n. 46, refert, quod Manichaei « animas auditorum suorum in electos revolvi arbitrantur, aut feliciore compendio in escas electorum suorum, ut iam inde purgatae in nulla corpora revertantur. Ceteras autem animas et in pecora redire putant et in omnia, quae radicibus fixa sunt atque aluntur in terra. Herbas enim atque arbores sic putant vivere, ut vitam, quae illis inest, et sentire credant et dolere, cum laeduntur; nec aliquid inde sine cruciatu eorum quemquam posse vellere aut carpere. Propter quod agrum etiam spinis purgare nefas habent » etc. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 834. nota 4.

en: Augustine, *On Heresies,* n. 46, relates that the Manichaeans « suppose the souls of their hearers to be turned back into the elect, or, by a happier shortcut, into the food of their elect, so that once purged they may return into no bodies thereafter. But they think that the remaining souls return also into cattle and into everything that is fixed by roots and nourished in the earth. For they think that herbs and trees so live that they believe the life that is in them both feels and grieves when they are hurt, and that no one can pluck or pick anything from them without torment to them. On this account they hold it even a sin to clear a field of thorns » etc. Compare tom. III, p. 834, note 4.

la: Deut. 16, 20. Pro *exsequeris* Vulgata *persequeris.*

en: Deuteronomy 16:20. For *thou shalt execute* the Vulgate has *thou shalt pursue.*

la: Cap. 13, 4. — Seq. locus est Matth. 26, 52; tertius Matth. 5, 39.

en: Chapter 13:4. — The following passage is Matthew 26:52; the third is Matthew 5:39.

la: Ita B; sed A D et Vat. *nec excusatur a toto nec a tanto* (sed D et Vat., inverso ordine verborum).

en: So B; but A D and the Vatican codex have *he is excused neither wholly nor in part* (though D and the Vatican codex reverse the order of the words).

la: Libr. I. c. 4. n. 9. seqq. — Superius A B omittunt *inculpatae* ante *tutelae.* — Pro lectione codd. A B D *personis imperfectis, non perfectis* Vat. *personis etiam perfectis, non solum imperfectis;* quae lectio non est penitus improbanda, sed alia magis respondet eis quae ab Augustino loc. cit. n. 13. 14. docentur; unde etiam dicitur *excusatur, non approbatur.*

en: Book I, c. 4, n. 9 and following. — Above, A B omit *blameless* before *self-defence.* — For the reading of codices A B D, *to imperfect persons, not to perfect ones,* the Vatican codex has *to perfect persons also, not only to imperfect ones;* which reading is not wholly to be rejected, but the other better answers to what is taught by Augustine in the place cited, n. 13 and 14; whence too it is said *he is excused, not approved.*

la: Gratian. can. (21.): *Pasce,* d. 86: « Pasce fame morientem. Quisquis enim pascendo hominem servare poteras, si non pavisti, occidisti ». In nota adiecta dicitur: Caput hoc non est inventum apud B. Ambrosium... et Bartholomaeus Urbinas eremita in Milleloquio, quod collegit ex dictis B. Ambrosii, affert hunc locum ex eodem Ambrosio in libro de Alendis Pauperibus, qui liber hactenus desideratur.

en: Gratian's canon (21), *Pasce,* d. 86: « Feed him who is dying of hunger. For if, being able to save a man by feeding him, thou hast not fed him, thou hast killed him ». In an added note it is said: This chapter has not been found in blessed Ambrose... and Bartholomew of Urbino the hermit, in his *Milleloquium,* which he compiled from the sayings of blessed Ambrose, brings forward this passage from the same Ambrose's book *On the Feeding of the Poor,* which book is still wanting.

en: I Epistle 3:15.

la: Quaest. in Exod. q. 71. n. 4.

en: *Questions on Exodus,* q. 71, n. 4.

la: Cfr. supra Quaest. disput. de perfectione evangelica, q. 3. per totam.

en: Compare above, *Disputed Question on Evangelical Perfection,* q. 3, throughout.

la: Respicitur definitio iuris naturalis: *Ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit.* Cfr. tom. II. pag. 901, nota 3. et tom. IV. pag. 748, nota 7.

en: The definition of natural law is echoed: *Natural law is that which nature has taught all animals.* Compare tom. II, p. 901, note 3, and tom. IV, p. 748, note 7.

en: Genesis 37:2.

la: Vide supra pag. 527, nota 7.

en: See above, p. 527, note 7.

la: Opuscul. VII. c. 21.

en: *Opusculum* VII, c. 21.

la: Ita D, A B *modo homo cogitet,* Vat. *modo fiat.* Subinde substituimus *matrimonii Ecclesiae* pro *matris Ecclesiae,* sicut paulo inferius legitur *extra formam matrimonii;* supplendo etiam dici posset sic: *a coniugatis in forma Ecclesiae.*

en: So D; A B have *in whatever way a man may devise it,* the Vatican codex *in whatever way it should happen.* We have accordingly substituted *of the marriage of the Church* for *of the mother Church,* as is read a little below, *outside the form of marriage;* by way of supplying the sense it could also be put thus: *by married persons in the form of the Church.*

la: Exod. 12, 35. et 36. Cfr. ibid. 3, 22. et 11, 2. — De definitione furti secundum Iustinian. paulo superius data cfr. tom. III. pag. 835, nota 3.

en: Exodus 12:35 and 36. Compare there 3:22 and 11:2. — On the definition of theft according to Justinian given a little above, compare tom. III, p. 835, note 3.

la: Cfr. Lev. 19, 35. et 36; Deut. 25, 13-16; Prov. 11, 1; 20, 10. et 23. — Inferius post *proprium* Vat. et etiam codd. omittunt *Dei;* sed tunc sensus deficit, cum obiectum simoniae sit aliquid *spirituale,* vel *spirituali annexum* et Deo proprium, dicente S. Petro Simoni mago (Act. 8, 20.): *Quoniam donum Dei existimasti pecunia possideri.*

en: Compare Leviticus 19:35 and 36; Deuteronomy 25:13–16; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10 and 23. — Below, after *own,* the Vatican codex and other codices too omit *God's;* but then the sense fails, since the object of simony is something *spiritual,* or *annexed to what is spiritual* and God's own, as blessed Peter says to Simon Magus (Acts 8:20): *Because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.*

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 37. dub. 7. — *Accommodare* pro *commodare* occurrit etiam apud Gregorium.

en: See III *Sentences,* d. 37, dubium 7. — *Accommodare* for *commodare* occurs also in Gregory.

la: De simonia cfr. IV. Sent. d. 25. a. 4. q. 3. 4. et dub. 2-6. — In seqq. in Vat. et codd. locus corruptus est, quem sanavimus transponendo verba *emit* et *vendit.* — Sic locus respondet verbis S. Leonis in Decreto Gratiani (c. 1. q. 1. c. 1.): « Simoniaci... gratiam non accipiunt. Si autem non accipiunt, non habent; si autem non habent, nec gratis nec non gratis cuiquam dare possunt » (cfr. IV. Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 3. arg. 4. ad oppos.). Et in cit. q. 3. dicitur de mere spiritualibus rebus: *Impossibile est pretio comparare nec vendere.*

en: On simony compare IV *Sentences,* d. 25, a. 4, q. 3 and 4, and dubia 2–6. — In what follows, in the Vatican codex and other codices the passage is corrupt, which we have healed by transposing the words *buys* and *sells.* — Thus the passage answers to the words of St Leo in Gratian's *Decretum* (c. 1, q. 1, c. 1): « The simoniacal... do not receive grace. But if they do not receive it, they do not have it; and if they do not have it, they can give it to no one, neither freely nor for a price » (compare IV *Sentences,* d. 25, a. 1, q. 3, arg. 4, ad oppos.). And in the question cited, q. 3, it is said of purely spiritual things: *It is impossible to buy or sell for a price.*

la: Ioan. 2, 16. Cfr. Matth. 21, 13, ubi et dicitur: *Vos autem fecistis illam speluncam latronum.* — Seq. locus est Mich. 3, 11.

en: John 2:16. Compare Matthew 21:13, where too it is said: *But you have made it a den of thieves.* — The following passage is Micah 3:11. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi plate of pp. 525–529 (`extract-pages.py --volume vol5 --dpi 450`, then full-page overview reads at 1.3–1.7× cross-checked against `colcrop.py` column bands and targeted zooms at 2–4× for every apparatus digit and every boundary anchor), with the IA djvu OCR consulted only as a cross-check, never as the base — the plate was authoritative throughout. English translated fresh and literally against the corrected Latin. Scripture on the Douay-Rheims base, adjusted to Quaracchi's actual Latin. ⚠ **Pages 526 and 527 were first extracted at a stale, low resolution (1143×1699, left over from an earlier default-dpi pull) and read at that resolution before the mistake was caught; both were re-extracted at 450 dpi (`--force`) and re-read in full before any text was committed to this file** — every line transcribed here was verified against the 450 dpi plate, none against the low-resolution one.

**Span, closed positively at both ends.** This chunk opens mid-page-525, inside Collation V's shared leaf, at the anchor of n. 4 (`facies`⁴), and its own display heading — `COLLATIO VI.`, subtitle *De quinto, sexto et septimo praecepto.* (the shorter form, without *decalogi*, as V, VI and VII all have it), and a whole `SUMMARIUM.` — stands full-measure on that same leaf, below Collation V's ¶¶ 20–21 and above ¶ 1. The collation ends on p. 529, three lines into the leaf, at *Rogemus ergo Dominum Iesum Christum etc.,* immediately above the full-measure `COLLATIO VII.` display heading. Surviving page numerals were read on the plate at 526, 527, 528 and 529 (527's is affected by a period after the head, `527`, still legible), agreeing with the scouting doc's prediction table. `COLLATIO VI.` carries no apparatus anchor — read at 1.5× on the full-measure line, nothing stands after the period — and the Summarium is likewise unanchored: **the seventh work-division running to answer this way.** The Summarium's body count runs to `20.`, counted on the plate, and matches the body's twenty numbered paragraphs exactly.

**⚠⚠ BOUNDARY 6 (p. 525) RECEIVES, RE-DERIVED — and BOUNDARY 6 AT THE OTHER END (p. 529) IS THE WORK'S LAST, AND IT HANDS OFF.** This chunk closes both of the work's remaining open boundaries.
- **The p. 525 hand-off, re-derived rather than adopted:** that leaf carries four footer notes; nn. 1–3 are Collation V's (already transcribed in `bon-praec-c5`) and **n. 4 — `Exod. 20, 13-15. — Seq. locus est Ps. 118, 6; tertius Iac. 2, 10…` — is this collation's,** because this collation's ¶ 1 (*Non occides. Non moechaberis. Non furtum facies*) begins on that leaf, below the `COLLATIO VI.` heading and Summarium, and carries the anchor at *facies*⁴ — verified on the plate at the head of the left column of that leaf's lower region, with the entry itself printed last in the right footer block, matching the resume note's prediction exactly.
- **The p. 529 boundary — THE WORK'S LAST, AND THE ANSWER IS *YES*.** ¶ 20, this collation's own last paragraph, does not finish on p. 528: it runs across the gutter and down the page, ending only three lines into p. 529, at *Rogemus ergo Dominum Iesum Christum etc.* — immediately after which the full-measure `COLLATIO VII.` heading, subtitle *De octavo, nono et decimo praecepto.* and a whole Summarium stand on the same leaf, and **Collation VII's own ¶ 1 (*Non loqueris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium…*) begins beneath them, on that same leaf, carrying the anchor at *eius*²** (n. 2 answers *Nec desiderabis uxorem eius*²). By the p. 498 rule — a shared page forwards a runover only when the incoming collation's numbered **body** reaches it, never merely its heading or Summarium — **p. 529 forwards.** This chunk's own apparatus therefore closes at p. 529 n. 1 (`Ioan. 2, 16. Cfr. Matth. 21, 13…`, anchoring *Dominus*¹ in ¶ 20), and n. 2 onward belong to `bon-praec-c7`.

⛔ **The tally over all six shared leaves now stands at five "yes" and one "no" — p. 510 alone forwards nothing.** Every one of the six was re-asked on the plate, independently, reading the anchor and never the running head or the leaf's gross shape; none was copied forward from the last answer, including this one, the work's last boundary, where a copied "yes" would have been cheapest to write and impossible to catch afterward.

⭐ **Self-caught error, disclosed:** p. 529 n. 1 was first read at low zoom as `Matth. 24, 13`; a targeted 4× re-crop showed the digit clearly as `21`, matching Matthew 21:13 (*vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum*) — the verse the note is citing, and the one the body text (*speluncam latronum*) itself echoes. **This was the transcriber's misreading, not a printer's error** — the plate is unambiguous at proper zoom. Recorded here because the work's digit-correction discipline (below) exists to catch exactly this class of mistake, and this is the first instance in the work where the mistake was the transcriber's own rather than the compositor's.

**★ The running head names the incoming collation again, at both ends.** p. 525's head (read on `bon-praec-c5`) already carries `COLLATIO VI.`; p. 529's reads `DE DECEM PRAECEPTIS COLLATIO VII.` above three lines of Collation VI's own text. **This is the printing, not the OCR**, and every shared leaf in this work has answered so; a running head is still not evidence of who owns the top of a leaf.

**Gutter.** Three of the five leaves profile cleanly with the standard method; the two leaves this chunk shares with its neighbours are both structurally thin regions, consistent with the pattern the work has shown at every shared leaf so far.
- **p. 526: 1382**, a clean 60 px band (1352–1411) with the rule island at 1380–1386 (peak 78); the default (`colcrop` auto, 1384 on a 58 px run) is confirmed, not corrected — within 2 px.
- **p. 527: 1200**, the default (1169 on a 123 px run — too wide, the "no clean run" failure signal) corrected. The skew screen shows a stacked-region pattern (drift 90 px, one outlying slice at the body/footer gap); profiled over rows 0.20–0.75 the band closes at 1170–1230 (61 px) with the window consensus locked at 1200 (spread 1 px) and a 4 px rule island (peak 127) at its centre.
- **p. 528: 1377**, a clean 59 px band (1348–1406), rule island 1374–1382 (peak 118); the default (1379 on a 55 px run) is confirmed, not corrected, within 2 px.
- **p. 525, this chunk's region (below the heading/Summarium/¶ 1-opening block c5 already profiled at 1216 for rows 0.08–0.50):** the region is only three lines deep before the footer, the same "too thin" failure c5 hit at p. 522. At the standard threshold the run returns nothing usable across the windows tried; escalated to threshold 180–200 over rows 0.54–0.66 an isolated 11 px island appears at 1158–1168 (min ink 12), **1163 adopted**, but a neighbouring window (rows 0.56–0.64) returns a much wider, less clean run — **the value is reported honestly as the best obtainable from a region too thin for the window-consensus loop to arbitrate, not as a confirmed reading.** It did not affect the transcription: the column split for reading was done by eye against full-page overviews, not by trusting this number.
- **p. 529, this chunk's region (three lines before the `COLLATIO VII.` heading):** the same failure, more severe — the region is thinner still, and every threshold and window tried returns either a near-zero minimum spanning hundreds of pixels or two disjoint runs too far apart to merge. **No gutter value is reported for this region; it is left undetermined.** The auto default (1153, 57 px) measures Collation VII's own body further down the leaf, not this chunk's three lines, and should not be read as this chunk's value.

**Digits.** No printer's-error digit correction was needed in this chunk's own text or apparatus — a first for this work, and notable given the `3`/`5` class has fired on every one of the last three chunks. The one apparent digit problem found (p. 529 n. 1) was the transcriber's own misreading at low zoom, corrected on re-crop and disclosed above; it is not a printer's error and is not ledgered as one.

**⚠ No footnote runs over anything in this span.** Not over a page boundary and not over the gutter within a leaf. Every one of the twenty-five numbered entries, plus the one unanchored note, opens and closes inside the block it begins in.

**Register.** All standing rulings were applied; the fourth, carried-open question from `bon-praec-c4` is still not settled.
- ***pietas* does not occur anywhere in this chunk.**
- ***intellectus* → understanding, *intelligentia* → intelligence,** applied at the one site where the pair occurs: ¶ 11's *secundum principalem intellectum* → "according to the principal understanding." No *intelligentia* occurs in this chunk, so the pairing was not tested against itself here — a rare chunk where the rule was applied but not stressed.
- ***praeceptum* → precept · *mandatum* → commandment · *lex* → law,** following c1–c5, **carried, not settled — and this chunk gives the rule its heaviest run of continuous pressure yet.** ¶¶ 2–3 alone use *mandatum/mandata* nine times in describing the two tables of the Decalogue, and ¶¶ 6–7 turn *lex* over repeatedly in the technical sense of positive law and its ministers (*minister legis*), sustained across six consecutive paragraphs — the longest single stretch of legal-technical *lex* the work has produced. The two subheads *Sextum praeceptum.* and *Septimum praeceptum.* keep *praeceptum* visible at the chapter-division level throughout, so all three Latin words stay in view simultaneously for most of the chunk. **The rule held everywhere and cost nothing new** — no site forced an unidiomatic choice the way c1's ¶ 8 or c5's ¶¶ 4/19 did — but the sheer density of *mandatum/lex* alternation here is the strongest sustained test of the ruling's legibility that the work has produced, and is offered to the gate as such.
- ***vacatio* / *vacare* / *quies* — still does not occur.** Neither word appears anywhere in this chunk. c4's fourth register question remains carried, wholly untested across three consecutive chunks (c4, c5, c6); only c7 (already known to open with lying and vows) remains to test it before the gate.

**Marginalia** (trimmed from the body per the standing Vol V convention, listed here in body order):
p. 525 — Introductio.
p. 526 — Confusio duplex · Repetitio · De sex aliis praeceptis in genere · Distinctio · Subdistinctio · Pars I. De quinto praecepto · Triplex ira offensiva · Confirmatur · Obiiciunt Manichaei quatuor · Resp. · Triplex occisio.
p. 527 — Prima requirit tria · Explicantur haec tria · Respondetur Manichaeis · Secunda occisio fit tripliciter · Primo; fit distinctio · Secundo; fit distinctio · Tertio; fit distinctio · Tertia occisio fit tripliciter · Notandum · Pars II. de sexto · Septem species peccati · Triplex pudicitia · Sex species declarantur · Fundamentum istorum.
p. 528 — Septima est duplex · Repetitio · Exemplum · Conclusio · Nota · Pars III. De septimo. Quid furtum · Distinctio · Sex species · Differunt usura et commodatio.
p. 529 — none before this chunk's three closing lines.

**Apparatus count: 25 numbered entries plus 1 unanchored** — p. 525 one (n. 4, received) · p. 526 six (nn. 1–6) plus the unanchored editorial note on the Introductio · p. 527 eight (nn. 1–8) · p. 528 nine (nn. 1–9) · p. 529 one (n. 1, this chunk's; n. 2 onward forwarded to `bon-praec-c7`). This sits inside the pilot's original 26–30 estimate for the first time since `bon-praec-c1` — the arithmetic that explained c4's low count and c5's lower one runs the other way here: this chunk spans five leaves and owns a full register on three of them (526, 527, 528), contributing only single notes from the two it shares. Every entry was read off the plate at 1.8–4×, with the unanchored note and every digit additionally checked against an independent full-page overview pass.

**Cadence.** **ONE gate, at the work close** (26 pp); the shakedown trigger does not fire separately. **Deploy boundary = work close** — nothing deploys until all seven collations land; this is the sixth. Plates per collation, never in bulk. ⚠ Prod currently serves the *septem donis* deploy of 2026-08-29. **That line is DATED — never restate prod from a note; check it.**

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0