title: Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 6

source_text:
<!-- page 232 -->

### QUAESTIO VI.
### *Utrum daemones scrutari possint secreta conscientiae nostrae.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum daemones possint scrutari secreta nostrae conscientiae. Et quod sic, videtur.

*Ad oppositum (videtur).*

1. Daemonum officium est accusare, secundum quod legitur Apocalypsis duodecimo[^1]: *Proiectus est accusator fratrum* etc.: ergo si in iudicio arguemur de secretissimis cogitationibus, videtur, quod hae non lateant accusatorem nostrum.

<!-- page 233 -->

2. Item, peccatum est character bestiae, secundum quod insinuatur Apocalypsis decimo quarto[^2]. Sed unusquisque cognoscit proprium signaculum, ubicumque ponatur: ergo diabolus cognoscit peccatum, ubicumque sit. Sed nihil est in nobis secretius, quam sint peccata cogitationum et affectionum nostrarum: ergo si haec diabolus potest videre, secreta conscientiarum nostrarum rimari potest.

3. Item, Augustinus duodecimo super Genesim ad litteram[^3]: «Mali angeli cogitationem noverunt, quia multa praedicunt, quae non praedicerent, si cogitationes non novissent».

4. Item, hoc videtur per rationem. *Notior est operatio quam potentia, et potentia quam substantia*[^4]; quia per cognitionem operationis et potentiae pervenitur in cognitionem substantiae; sed substantia animae non potest latere diabolum: ergo nec eius operatio nec virtus: ergo si cogitatio et affectio sunt actiones animae, ergo non possunt latere daemonem.

5. Item, substantiae spirituales, sicut dicit Dionysius[^5], per sui naturam sunt specula; sed sic est in speculo materiali, quod quando unum obiicitur alteri, non solum repraesentat ipsum, sed etiam omne quod relucet in ipso: ergo si maioris communicationis sunt specula spiritualia, videtur, quod quando daemon intuetur et aspicit animam, non solum ipsam videat, sed omne quod est in ipsa.

6. Item, nihil potest oculus meus videre in me, quod non possit videre oculus alienus: si ergo sic est in oculo corporali respectu rei visibilis corporalis, pari ratione similiter erit in oculo spirituali respectu cognoscibilis spiritualis. Ergo si oculum meum spiritualem non latet secretum conscientiae meae, pari ratione nec oculos daemonum.

*In contrarium.*

**Ad oppositum:** 1. Tertii Regum octavo[^6]: *Tu solus nosti corda filiorum hominum*: non ergo daemon vel alius.

2. Item, Ieremiae decimo septimo[^7]: *Ego Dominus, scrutans corda et renes*: ergo si Dominus hoc sibi attribuit tanquam proprium, videtur, quod non communicet diabolo.

3. Item, primae ad Corinthios secundo[^8]: *Nemo scit quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui est in illo*; sed daemon nec est spiritus noster nec est in nobis: ergo non novit secreta conscientiae nostrae.

4. Item, Augustinus in libro *de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus*[^9]: «Internas cogitationes nostras diabolum non videre, certum est».

5. Item, ratione videtur: quia si internas cogitationes cognosceret, cognosceret et virtutes, ergo beati Iob patientiam cognovisset; quod si cognovisset, non tentasset, cum nolit superari; sed tentavit: ergo nec virtutem nec cogitationes eius cognovit[^10].

> **CONCLUSIO.**
>
> *Nulla creatura potest nosse conscientiae humanae secreta nisi per signa, vel per coniecturam.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sicut Deus voluntati rationalis creaturae dedit dominium sive arbitrium, cui nulla praesidet nisi divina potentia; sic eius cognitivae dedit conscientiae secretum, cuius secreta et profunda non penetrat nisi divina sapientia. *Conclusio 1.* Et ideo dico, quod nulla creatura, nec humana nec angelica, potest conscientiae humanae nosse secreta, nisi per signa vel per coniecturas, vel nisi noverit Dei revelatione, aut hominis denuntiatione sive detectione[^11]. Et quoniam pauca sunt ita secreta, quin prodeant in opera exteriora, vel appareant per signa exteriora faciei, vel per signa cordis, quod diversimode movetur secundum diversitatem affectionum; *Conclusio 2.* hinc est, quod multae cogitationes et affectiones nostrae deprehendi possunt a malignis spiritibus, nisi arceantur Dei virtute. Haec autem cognitio potius est coniecturae quam certae scientiae[^12]. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, quod angelus malus secreta conscientiae nostrae perscrutari non potest.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. *Notandum.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo in contrarium de accusatoris officio, dicendum, quod non solum ipse daemon erit accusator, immo etiam cor nostrum; unde etsi de exterioribus et visibilibus accusari possumus a diabolo, de occultis et secretis non. Neutra tamen impunita relinquentur, quia non deerit accusator et testis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod peccatum est character diaboli; dicendum, quod peccatum tunc dicitur esse character, quando scribitur in fronte; hoc autem est, cum peccat sine rubore et publice, ut iam possit ei dici: *Frons mulieris meretricis facta est tibi, noluisti erubescere*[^13]; et tunc absque

<!-- page 234 -->

dubio peccatum nostrum diabolo est cognitum, quia iam non est secretum, sed manifestum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Augustino, quod cogitationes noverunt; dicendum, quod loquitur de cognitione coniecturae, non certae scientiae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *notior est operatio quam substantia*; dicendum, quod verum est de operatione extrinseca; de intrinseca autem non habet semper veritatem. Multae enim res sunt nobis notae, quarum virtutes et operationes nos latent. — *Alia solutio.* Vel dicendum, quod hoc locum habet in operatione naturali, non in operatione voluntaria. Operatio enim naturalis, secundum quod naturalis est, ita se naturaliter nata est repraesentare nec se occultare potest, sicut nec substantia; immo per ipsam manifestatur substantia, dum plus habet de ratione actualitatis, ac per hoc manifestationis et lucis. In operatione autem voluntaria secus est. Nam cum substantia se naturaliter repraesentet, sicut naturaliter est, et se occultare non possit; operatio voluntaria, sicut voluntarie exit in esse, ita et voluntarie manifestatur; et ita occultari potest, immo non manifestatur, nisi homo velit. Talia autem sunt quae latent in secreto nostrae conscientiae. Ideo quamvis diabolus possit videre animam propria virtute, non tamen potest illam[^14] conspicere.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod speculum repraesentat aliud speculum et quae sunt in eo contenta; dicendum, quod duplex est speculum, quoddam naturale, et quoddam voluntarium. Speculum naturale, sicut naturaliter suscipit, ita et naturaliter reddit, et ita nihil occultat; ideo speculum sibi oppositum non solum ipsum, sed etiam omne quod lucet in eo, repraesentat. Speculum autem voluntarium non est in actu manifestationis eorum quae in se continet, nisi cum hoc facit voluntas[^15]; et tale est speculum spirituale. Ideo non est simile.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de oculo corporali, per hanc ipsam rationem iam patet responsio. Oculus enim unus corporalis videt quidquid videt alius, si obiectum sit utrique revelatum; si autem uni aperitur et alteri tegitur, unus potest videre quod non videt alius. Quia ergo nullus se sibi nec vult nec potest velare[^16], quia sibi semper praesens est; ideo oculum proprium, si quid in se est, non potest latere; alienum vero oculum potest subterfugere et se illi velare, quoniam non est ipsi praesens nec super eum potens: et ideo omnem oculum spiritualem potest conscientia nostra latere, excepto se et illo qui est supra se. Et ideo dicit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^17], quod «sicut substantiae corporales habent aliqua velamenta, quibus se alienis conspectibus occultant, sic in substantiis spiritualibus suo modo esse intelligendum est»; haec est verborum suorum sententia.

*Quaestio incidens.*

Et si tu quaeras, quomodo possit hoc esse vel intelligi, cum substantia spiritualis sit simplex et uniformis per totum, et ita videtur, quod qui videt modicum, nihil latet, et cum uniformis sit, non potest esse ibi aliquid occultans et aliquid occultatum; dicendum, quod obstaculum illud non habet intelligi per interpositionem alicuius naturae opacae, sicut est in visu nostro corporeo, vel obscurae, vel minus clarae; sed ibi *abscondere idem est quod manifestare nolle*. Et licet non sint ibi diversitates plicarum ex compositione diversarum naturarum, sunt tamen in anima gradus potentiarum et statuum, secundum quos quaedam dicuntur animae esse magis intima, utpote quae respiciunt potentias superiores et simpliciores sive puriores, secundum quas anima magis in se ipsa recolligitur, et ei quod summe unum est, unitur et simplificatur; et penes has maxime residet conscientiae secretum.

*Ad litteram Magistri.*

Et sic patet solutio obiectorum; ex quibus etiam manifestantur omnia quae in littera dicuntur. Hoc autem solum indiget explanatione, quod dicit Gennadius[^18], quod daemones *per energiam operationum* etc., quid ibi appellet energiam. *Energia.* Et dicendum, quod *energia* dicitur ab *en*, quod est *in*, et *ergon*, quod est *labor*, et *mene*, quod est *defectus*; unde *energia* quasi interior labor vel interior defectus[^19]. *Quid energumeni.* Unde illi dicuntur *energumeni*, qui interius laborant per vexationem daemonis interius obsidentis et animam laborare facientis. Et hoc est quod Gennadius intendit dicere.

english:
<!-- page 232 -->

### Question VI.
### *Whether the demons can scrutinize the secrets of our conscience.*

Sixth and last, it is asked whether the demons can scrutinize the secrets of our conscience. And that they can, it seems.

*For the affirmative.*

1. The office of demons is to accuse, according to what is read in Apocalypse twelve[^1]: *The accuser of the brethren is cast forth*, etc.: therefore, if in judgment we are arraigned concerning the most secret thoughts, it seems that these do not lie hidden from our accuser.

<!-- page 233 -->

2. Likewise, sin is the character of the beast, as is intimated in Apocalypse fourteen[^2]. But each one recognizes his own seal, wherever it be placed: therefore the devil recognizes sin, wherever it be. But nothing is in us more secret than are the sins of our thoughts and affections: therefore if the devil can see these, he can ferret out the secrets of our consciences.

3. Likewise, Augustine in book twelve on Genesis *ad litteram*[^3]: «The evil angels have known the thought, since they predict many things, which they would not predict if they had not known the thoughts».

4. Likewise, this seems by reason. *Operation is more known than power, and power than substance*[^4]; because through cognition of operation and power one arrives at cognition of substance; but the substance of the soul cannot lie hidden from the devil: therefore neither its operation nor power: therefore if thought and affection are actions of the soul, therefore they cannot lie hidden from the demon.

5. Likewise, spiritual substances, as Dionysius says[^5], by their nature are mirrors; but it is so in a material mirror that, when one is set over against another, it represents not only itself but also everything that shines in it: therefore if spiritual mirrors are of greater communication, it seems that, when a demon gazes upon and inspects the soul, he sees not only it but everything that is in it.

6. Likewise, nothing can my eye see in me which another's eye cannot see: if therefore it is so in the corporeal eye with respect to a visible corporeal thing, by parity of reason it will be likewise in the spiritual eye with respect to a spiritual knowable. Therefore, if the secret of my conscience does not lie hidden from my own spiritual eye, by parity of reason neither from the eyes of demons.

*To the contrary.*

**On the contrary:** 1. Third Kings, chapter eight[^6]: *Thou alone knowest the hearts of the sons of men*: therefore not the demon nor any other.

2. Likewise, Jeremiah seventeen[^7]: *I am the Lord, who search the heart and the reins*: therefore if the Lord attributes this to himself as proper, it seems that he does not share it with the devil.

3. Likewise, First Corinthians chapter two[^8]: *No one knows the things that are of a man, except the spirit of a man that is in him*; but the demon is neither our spirit nor is in us: therefore he does not know the secrets of our conscience.

4. Likewise, Augustine in the book *de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus*[^9]: «That the devil does not see our internal thoughts, is certain».

5. Likewise, it seems by reason: because if he knew the internal thoughts, he would also know the virtues; therefore he would have known blessed Job's patience; and if he had known, he would not have tempted, since he does not wish to be overcome; but he tempted: therefore he knew neither his virtue nor his thoughts[^10].

> **Conclusion.**
>
> *No creature can know the secrets of a human conscience save by signs, or by conjecture.*

**I respond:** For an understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that, just as God gave to the will of the rational creature dominion or free choice, over which nothing presides save the divine power; so to its cognitive [faculty] he gave the secret of conscience, whose secrets and depths nothing penetrates save divine wisdom. *Conclusion 1.* And therefore I say that no creature, neither human nor angelic, can know the secrets of a human conscience, except by signs or by conjectures, or unless it knows by divine revelation, or by a human being's announcement or disclosure[^11]. And since few things are so secret that they do not come forth in external works, or appear by external signs of the face, or by the signs of the heart, which is moved diversely according to the diversity of affections; *Conclusion 2.* hence it is that many of our thoughts and affections can be caught by the malignant spirits, unless they be hindered by the power of God. But this cognition is rather of conjecture than of certain knowledge[^12]. — And therefore the reasons showing that an evil angel cannot scrutinize the secrets of our conscience are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposed arguments.*

1. *Note.* To that which is objected first to the contrary, about the accuser's office, it must be said that not only will the demon himself be the accuser, but also our heart; whence, although we can be accused by the devil concerning external and visible things, concerning the hidden and the secret we cannot. Yet neither will be left unpunished, since there will be no lack of accuser and witness.

2. To that which is objected, that sin is the character of the devil; it must be said that sin is then called a character when it is written on the forehead; but this is when one sins without blush and publicly, so that it can already be said to him: *Thou hast the forehead of a harlot woman; thou refusedst to blush*[^13]; and then without

<!-- page 234 -->

doubt our sin is known to the devil, because already it is not secret but manifest.

3. To that which is objected from Augustine, that they have known thoughts; it must be said that he is speaking of cognition by conjecture, not of certain knowledge.

4. To that which is objected, that *operation is more known than substance*; it must be said that this is true of external operation; but it does not always hold true of internal operation. For many things are known to us whose powers and operations lie hidden from us. — *Another solution.* Or it must be said that this holds in natural operation, not in voluntary operation. For natural operation, insofar as it is natural, is naturally apt to represent itself and cannot conceal itself, just as neither can substance; nay, by it substance is manifested, since it has more of the character of actuality, and through this of manifestation and light. But it is otherwise in voluntary operation. For while substance naturally represents itself, just as it naturally is, and cannot conceal itself; voluntary operation, just as it voluntarily comes forth into being, so it is also voluntarily manifested; and so it can be concealed — nay, it is not manifested unless the man wills. And of such kind are the things which lie hidden in the secret of our conscience. Therefore, although the devil can see the soul by his own power, he cannot nevertheless catch sight of it[^14] [i.e., of voluntary operation].

5. To that which is objected, that a mirror represents another mirror and the things contained in it; it must be said that a mirror is twofold, one natural, and one voluntary. The natural mirror, just as it naturally receives, so it naturally renders, and so conceals nothing; therefore the mirror set opposite to it represents not only itself but also everything that shines in it. But the voluntary mirror is not in the act of manifesting the things which it contains in itself, unless the will makes it so[^15]; and such is the spiritual mirror. Therefore the case is not alike.

6. To that which is objected concerning the corporeal eye, the response is now clear by this very reason. For one corporeal eye sees whatever another sees, if the object is revealed to both; but if it is opened to one and covered to the other, one can see what the other does not see. Since therefore no one can or wills to veil himself from himself[^16], because he is always present to himself; therefore his own eye, if anything is in him, cannot lie hidden; but another's eye he can elude and veil himself from it, since he is not present to it nor has power over it: and therefore our conscience can lie hidden from every spiritual eye, except from itself and from him who is above it. And therefore Augustine on Genesis *ad litteram* says[^17] that «just as corporeal substances have certain coverings by which they conceal themselves from alien sight, so in spiritual substances it must be understood after their own manner»; this is the sense of his words.

*Incidental question.*

And if you ask how this can be or be understood, since a spiritual substance is simple and uniform throughout, and so it seems that he who sees a little, nothing lies hidden, and since it is uniform, there cannot be there something concealing and something concealed; it must be said that that obstacle is not to be understood by the interposition of any opaque nature, as is the case in our corporeal sight, or obscure, or less clear; but there *to hide is the same as to be unwilling to manifest*. And although there are not there diversities of folds from the composition of diverse natures, there are nevertheless in the soul gradations of powers and states, according to which certain things are said to be more inward to the soul, namely those which regard the higher and simpler or purer powers, according to which the soul more recollects itself in itself, and is united and simplified to that which is supremely one; and near these chiefly resides the secret of conscience.

*To the text of the Master.*

And thus the solution of the objections is clear; from which also all the things said in the *littera* are manifested. Only this needs explanation, that Gennadius says[^18] that the demons [act] *through the energy of operations*, etc. — what he there calls *energy*. *Energy.* And it must be said that *energy* is named from *en*, which is *in*, and *ergon*, which is *labor*, and *mene*, which is *defect*; whence *energy* is as it were an interior labor or interior defect[^19]. *What are energumens.* Whence those are called *energumens* who labor inwardly through the vexation of a demon inwardly besetting them and making the soul to labor. And this is what Gennadius means to say.

la: Vers. 10.

la: Vers. 9. et 11.

en: Chapter 17, n. 34 and following. Cf. ibid., c. 22, n. 48.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Anima, text II. (c. 1.) et II. text. 33. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *de Anima* I, text. 2 (c. 1) and II, text. 33 (c. 4).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 1.

en: Cf. above p. 83, note 1.

la: Vers. 39: *Tu nosti solus cor omnium filiorum hominum.* Cfr. II. Paralip. 6, 30.

en: Verse 39: *Thou alone knowest the heart of all the sons of men.* Cf. 2 Paralipomenon 6:30.

la: Vers. 11.

la: Cap. 48: *Internas animae cogitationes diabolum non videre, certi sumus.*

en: Chapter 48: *That the devil does not see the internal thoughts of the soul, we are certain.*

la: Hoc argumentum insinuat August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 34. — Unus alterque cod. cum Vat. *virtutes* pro *virtutem*.

en: This argument is suggested by Augustine, *de Gen. ad litteram* XII, c. 17, n. 34. — One or two codices, with the Vatican edition, read *virtutes* (*virtues*) for *virtutem* (*virtue*).

la: In Vat. desideratur *sive detectione*, pro quo plures codd. cum ed. 1 perperam *sive directione*.

en: In the Vatican edition *sive detectione* (*or by disclosure*) is wanting; in its place very many codices with edition 1 wrongly read *sive directione* (*or by direction*).

la: Cod. I subiungit *quia signa non semper sunt expressa et sunt fallibilia, quia plurium signa apta*. — Cfr. August., II. Retract. c. 30.

en: Codex I adds *since the signs are not always express and are fallible, because the signs are apt to many things*. — Cf. Augustine, *Retract.* II, c. 30.

la: Ier. 3, 3. — Paulo superius post *peccat* cod. V bene supplet *aliquis*.

en: Jeremiah 3:3. — A little above, after *peccat* (*he sins*), codex V well supplies *aliquis* (*someone*).

la: Scil. operationem voluntariam. — Vat. *illa* i. e. quae latent in secreto conscientiae. In cod. aa additur *quantum ad omnes suas potentias*.

en: Namely, the voluntary operation. — The Vatican edition has *illa* (i.e., those things which lie hidden in the secret of conscience). In codex aa is added *quantum ad omnes suas potentias* (*as regards all its powers*).

la: Cod. aa *nisi consentiat voluntas*.

en: Codex aa reads *unless the will consents*.

la: Vat. *revelare*. Mox nonnulli codd. *ipse praesens*, plures alii *ipsa praesens* pro *ipsi praesens*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *revelare* (*to reveal*) [for *velare*, *to veil*]. Shortly after, some codices have *ipse praesens*, many others *ipsa praesens*, for *ipsi praesens* (*present to him*).

la: Libr. XII. c. 22. n. 48. — In plurimis mss. et ed. 1 *sicut corporaliter substantiae corporales*.

en: Book XII, c. 22, n. 48. — In very many manuscripts and in edition 1: *sicut corporaliter substantiae corporales* (*just as corporeal substances corporeally*).

la: Vide lit. Magistri, c. 4. Editores Maurini in editione Augustini ad marginem dicunt, quod mss. omittunt *operationum* post energiam.

en: See the *littera* of the Master, c. 4. The Maurist editors in the Augustine edition note in the margin that the manuscripts omit *operationum* (*of operations*) after *energiam*.

la: Graece ἐνέργεια, quod derivatur ex his verbis ἐν i. e. *in* et ἔργον i. e. *opus sive labor*. S. Bonav. ad explicationem verbi *energumenus*, cuius ultimae syllabae formam participii exprimunt, falsa etymologia illius aetatis usus, adiungit tertium, scil. μήνη i. e. *luna*, quae crescendo et decrescendo signum est defectus. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: In Greek ἐνέργεια, which is derived from these words ἐν, i.e., *in*, and ἔργον, i.e., *work or labor*. St. Bonaventure, for the explanation of the word *energumenus* — the last syllables of which express the form of a participle — using the false etymology of his age, adds a third, namely μήνη, i.e., *moon*, which, by waxing and waning, is a sign of defect. Cf. *I Sent.* d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in corp. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Secundum titulum quaestionis tantum de daemonibus agitur, sed in responsione negative resolvitur in genere respectu cuiusvis creaturae. — *Conscientia* hoc loco sumitur pro potentia intellectus et voluntatis (cfr. infra d. 39. a. 1. q. 1.). — Quod autem de facto Angeli nesciant secreta cordium, in dubium vocatur a Durando (hic q. 8.), et cum eodem quoad «substantiam actionis in cogitatione» convenit Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 3. q. 13.), qui tamen quoad actus directionem in finem, sive bonum sive malum, nihil determinat. Etiam Aegid. R. aliique his ex parte consentiunt. — Scot. (II. Sent. d. 9. q. 2. n. 27. seqq.; Report. ibid. q. 2. n. 3-6; IV. Sent. d. 45. q. 4.) negat, Angelos de facto ista secreta cognoscere, sed dissentit quoad assignatam rationem et asserit, ista secreta speciali providentia Dei, concursum suum denegantis, subtrahi notitiae spirituum, praesertim daemonum. Hinc loquendo de possibili et praescindendo de negatione concursus generalis, idem putat, Angelos ea secreta per se posse cognoscere, dummodo sint praesentia, non futura. — Sed S. Thom. et communior sententia convenit cum S. Bonaventura tum in conclusionibus, tum in principali ratione. — Attentione dignae sunt solutiones ad 4. et 6.

**II.** Praeter iam citatos: S. Thom., S. p. I. q. 57. a. 4; de Malo, q. 16. a. 8; de Verit. q. 8. a. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 6. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4. — Aegid. R., II. Sent. d. 7. q. 2. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Biel, II. Sent. d. 9. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** According to the title only the demons are treated of, but in the response it is resolved negatively in general with respect to any creature. — *Conscience* is here taken for the power of intellect and will (cf. below d. 39, a. 1, q. 1). — But that the Angels do not in fact know the secrets of hearts, is called into doubt by Durandus (here q. 8), and with him as to «the substance of the action in thought» agrees Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 3, q. 13), who however as to the direction of the act toward an end, whether good or evil, determines nothing. Aegidius Romanus too and others partly consent. — Scotus (*II Sent.* d. 9, q. 2, n. 27ff.; *Reportatio* ibid. q. 2, nn. 3–6; *IV Sent.* d. 45, q. 4) denies that the Angels in fact know these secrets, but dissents as to the assigned reason and asserts that these secrets are withdrawn from the notice of spirits — especially of demons — by a special providence of God who denies his own concurrence. Hence, speaking concerning the possible, and prescinding from the denial of the general concurrence, the same [Scotus] thinks that Angels can know these secrets per se, provided they be present, not future. — But St. Thomas and the more common opinion agree with St. Bonaventure both in the conclusions and in the principal reason. — Worthy of attention are the solutions to [arguments] 4 and 6.

**II.** Besides those already cited: St. Thomas, *Summa* I, q. 57, a. 4; *de Malo*, q. 16, a. 8; *de Veritate*, q. 8, a. 13. — Bl. Albert, here a. 10. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. unica, a. 6, quaestiunc. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 4. — Aegidius Romanus, *II Sent.* d. 7, q. 2, a. 2. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 4. — Biel, *II Sent.* d. 9, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- s64 (2026-05-20): rebuilt from skeleton (raw 16721–16887) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set verbatim, fresh literal English, scholion I+II translated, 19-entry apparatus (p.232 footer ⁸ = [^1]; p.233 footer ¹–¹² = [^2]–[^13]; p.234 footer ¹–⁶ = [^14]–[^19]).
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Ad oppositum (videtur)*, *In contrarium*, *Conclusio 1/2*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum* (Solutio 1 *non solum daemon erit accusator, immo etiam cor nostrum*), *Alia solutio* (Solutio 4 naturalis/voluntaria dyad), *Quaestio incidens* (substantia spiritualis simplex et uniformis), *Ad litteram Magistri*, *Energia*, *Quid energumeni*.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: cundum→cundum/secundum-line-break; ralione→ratione; bestiae→bestiae; signaculum→signaculum; cogilationum→cogitationum; corcla→corda; volantate→voluntate; conipotens→competens; aiimentis→Argg.-sidebar; substanlia→substantia; clominium→dominium; nuUa→nulla; uniformis→uniformis; affTectionum→affectionum; sicul→sicut; natarae→naturae; Frmis→Frons; complemenlum→complementum; raagis→magis; intiraa→intima; nahil→nihil; vohmtaria→voluntaria; simulle→simile (×2 in raw); ergon/energia/mene Greek transliteration preserved as italic Latin without diacritics in body; Greek ἐνέργεια / ἐν / ἔργον / μήνη restored in apparatus [^19] per Quaracchi.
- No `[?]` flags — all 19 apparatus markers + body anchors verified column-by-column on 450 dpi colcrops of p.232 R-col (cached from s63, footer ⁷ scholion-cross-ref-only, footer ⁸ freshly read as [^1]) + p.233 (freshly extracted/cropped) + p.234 (freshly extracted/cropped).
- **DISTINCTION 8 NOW 16/16 = CLOSED. PARS II 7/7 = CLOSED.** d.8 complete: littera (s48) / p1-divisio (s49) / p1-a1-q1 (s51) / p1-a1-q2 (s52) / p1-a2-q1 (s53) / p1-a2-q2 (s54) / p1-a3-q1 (s55) / p1-a3-q2 (s56) / p1-dubia (s57) / p2-divisio (s58) / p2-a1-q1 (s59) / p2-a1-q2 (s60) / p2-a1-q3 (s61) / p2-a1-q4 (s62) / p2-a1-q5 (s63) / p2-a1-q6 (s64). Doctrinal close of d.8 is the *abscondere idem est quod manifestare nolle* maxim + the *gradus potentiarum et statuum* anima-recollection passage + the Greek etymology *energia/energumenus* — locked centerpieces of Bonaventurean demonology + conscience-doctrine.
- **NEXT: `d9-littera` Tier-2** — Petrus Lombardus *DISTINCTIO IX. De ordinum distinctione* (raw 16888+, opens at p.234 R-col `DISTINCTIO IX. Cap. I. De ordinum distinctione`). After littera: p1-divisio + p1-aN-qN (the angelic-orders distinction). Decade polish-blocker d.1–d.10 still ahead per `feedback_bonaventure-decade-polish-cadence`.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts on the text of the Master (Part I)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 223 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Deum in formis corporalibus apparuisse*. Videtur enim, quod talis apparitio potius sit occasio erroris quam veritatis. Deus enim caret forma et figura in corpore et corporeitate secundum veritatem, et qui credit vel opinatur contrarium, errat. Si ergo frequenter opinamur[^1] quae apparent sensibus, videtur, quod talis apparitio sit erroris occasio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod forma et figura corporalis non ducit immediate in cognitionem Dei, sed mediante spiritu rationali, cuius ministerio fiebat illa apparitio. Et quia in ascendendo prius fit abstractio a corporali forma et figura, quam perveniatur ad Deum, dum a corpore ad Deum ascenditur mediante spiritu incorporeo; ideo talis apparitio potius scala est perducens ad cognitionem veritatis, quam sit occasio deviandi. — Quod ergo obiicit, quod illa opinamur interius, quae apparent exterius; dicendum, quod illud verum est, si opinio vel ratio descendat ad sensum et ei innitatur; cum autem a sensu abstrahit et innititur fidei et revelationi, non habet occasionem errandi[^2], sed potius veritatem inquirendi[^3].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non videbit me homo, et vivet*. Contrarium huius habetur Exodi trigesimo tertio[^4]: *Loquebatur Dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem*. Et Numerorum duodecimo: *Palam et non per figuras et aenigmata Deum videt*; dicitur de eodem Moyse.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est ad hoc, quod in prima auctoritate significatur, quod Deus non potest videri a viatore in sui essentia et claritate[^5]; sed in duabus sequentibus insinuatur familiaritas Dei ad Moysen, quantum ad *apparitionem* et quantum ad *contemplationem*, in quarum utraque Prophetas alios excellebat. Familiaritas apparitionis notatur, cum dicitur, quod *loquebatur ei facie ad faciem* — subintelligendum est *in subiecta creatura* — eminentia contemplationis, cum dicitur: *Palam et non per figuras et aenigmata Deum videt*, quia non tantum fulgebat visione corporali, aut imaginaria, sed etiam intellectuali[^6].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Visibile enim quidquam non est, quod non est mutabile*. Corpus enim caeli empyrei visibile est, et tamen non est mutabile. — Item, quaero, de qua mutatione intelligat; aut de mutatione ad situm, aut de mutatione ad formam[^7]. Si de mutatione ad situm, hoc nihil est, quia ista nihil facit ad visum; si de mutatione ad formam, illud similiter falsum est, quia corpora supercaelestia sunt incorruptibilia et inalterabilia, et tamen sunt visibilia.

*Quaestio incidens.* — Iuxta hoc quaeritur etiam, de quo visu intelligat; aut enim intelligit de visu mentali, aut de visu corporali. Si de visu mentali, falsum est; si de visu

<!-- page 224 -->

corporali, quaeritur, quae necessitas sit, quod visibile sit mutabile, cum ita bene sensus iste percipiat corpora incorruptibilia, sicut corruptibilia.

**Respondeo:** *Ad quaestionem incidentem.* — Dicendum, quod Augustinus[^8] intellexit de visu *corporali*, et de hoc verum est quod dicit, quod omne visibile est mutabile. Nihil enim potest videre sensus corporalis sine extensione quantitatis[^9]; ubicumque autem est extensio quantitatis, ibi est compositio; ubi vero est compositio, possibilis est resolutio et mutatio ad minus, quantum est de natura rei. Solum enim omnino simplex est immutabile simpliciter; et ideo necessario sequitur, quod si aliquid videtur sensu corporeo, quod sit mutabile.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de empyreo et de aliis corporibus caelestibus, dicendum, quod nec empyreum nec aliud corpus caeleste nec corpus, quod est vel possit esse, omnino est immutabile. Quamvis enim non mutentur mutatione, quae est de *esse* in aliud *esse* sive de una forma in aliam: mutata[^10] tamen sunt mutatione, quae est de *non-esse* in *esse*, et mutabilia sunt per naturam mutatione, quae est in *non-esse*; et hoc, quia sunt composita, et ideo non sunt suum *esse*. Nullum enim ens est suum *esse* nisi summe simplex, sicut nullum agens est suum *agere* nisi summe simplex. Et propter hoc, quia mendicat suum *esse* aliunde, dicit Hilarius[^11], quod *omnibus creatis accidit esse*; et ideo per naturam suam omnia sunt possibilia ad *non-esse*. Et sic patet responsio ad totum.

---

english:
<!-- page 223 -->

## Doubts on the Text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says: *that God appeared in corporeal forms*. For it seems that such an appearing is more an occasion of error than of truth. For God lacks form and figure in body and corporeity in truth, and he who believes or supposes the contrary, errs. If therefore we frequently form opinions[^1] of what appears to the senses, it seems that such an appearing is an occasion of error.

**I respond:** It must be said that bodily form and figure does not lead immediately to the knowledge of God, but by means of the rational spirit, by whose ministry that appearing took place. And since in ascending there is first an abstraction from bodily form and figure before one comes to God — while one ascends from body to God through the medium of an incorporeal spirit — therefore such an appearing is rather a ladder leading to the knowledge of truth than an occasion of going astray. — And as to what is objected, that we suppose inwardly what appears outwardly: it must be said that this is true if the opinion or reasoning descends to sense and leans upon it; but when it abstracts from sense and leans upon faith and revelation, it has no occasion of erring[^2], but rather of seeking the truth[^3].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *No man shall see me, and live*. The contrary of this is had in the thirty-third [chapter] of Exodus[^4]: *The Lord spoke to Moses face to face*. And in the twelfth of Numbers: *Openly, and not by figures and riddles, does he see God*; which is said of the same Moses.

**I respond:** It must be said to this that in the first authority it is signified that God cannot be seen by the wayfarer in his essence and brightness[^5]; but in the two following ones is hinted the familiarity of God toward Moses, both as to *appearing* and as to *contemplation*, in each of which he excelled the other Prophets. The familiarity of appearing is noted when it is said that *he spoke to him face to face* — wherein it must be understood, *in the underlying creature* —; the eminence of contemplation, when it is said: *Openly, and not by figures and riddles, does he see God*, because he shone not only with bodily or imaginative vision, but also with intellectual[^6].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *For nothing is visible which is not changeable*. For the body of the empyrean heaven is visible, and yet it is not changeable. — Likewise, I ask, of what change he understands it; either of change as to position, or of change as to form[^7]. If of change as to position, this is nothing, because that does nothing for vision; if of change as to form, that likewise is false, because the supercelestial bodies are incorruptible and unalterable, and yet they are visible.

*An incidental question.* — Along with this it is also asked of what sight he understands it; for either he understands it of mental sight, or of bodily sight. If of mental sight, it is false; if of bodily

<!-- page 224 -->

sight, the question is, what necessity there is that the visible be changeable, since this sense perceives incorruptible bodies just as well as corruptible ones.

**I respond:** *To the incidental question.* — It must be said that Augustine[^8] understood it of *bodily* sight, and concerning this what he says is true, that everything visible is changeable. For the bodily sense cannot see anything without extension of quantity[^9]; but wherever there is extension of quantity, there is composition; and where there is composition, resolution and change to less is possible, so far as concerns the nature of the thing. For only what is altogether simple is unchangeable absolutely; and therefore it follows of necessity that if anything is seen by the bodily sense, it is changeable.

To the objection then about the empyrean and the other celestial bodies, it must be said that neither the empyrean nor any other celestial body, nor any body which is or can be, is altogether unchangeable. For although they are not changed by the change which is from *being* into another *being*, or from one form into another, yet they were once changed[^10] by the change which is from *non-being* into *being*, and they are by their nature changeable by the change which is into *non-being*; and this, because they are composite, and therefore are not their own *being*. For no being is its own *being* except the supremely simple, just as no agent is its own *acting* except the supremely simple. And on account of this, because it begs its *being* from elsewhere, Hilary[^11] says, *to all created things being befalls as an accident*; and therefore by their nature all things are possible to *non-being*. And so the answer to the whole is clear.

---

la: Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 3; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 6; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4; Aegid. R., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. I, q. 2, m. 2, a. 3; St. Thomas, *here*, q. I, a. 6; Peter of Tarentaise, *here*, q. 1, a. 4; Giles of Rome, *here*, on the text [*circa litteram*].

la: In codd. O cc et ed. 1 additur *interius*, quod etiam infra in solutione habetur.

en: In codices O, cc, and edition 1 there is added *interius* ("inwardly"), which also is had below in the solution.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 2. ad 4.

la: Vers. 11. — Sequens textus est Num. 12. 8, ubi Vulgata *Dominum* pro *Deum*.

en: Verse 11. — The following text is Num. 12:8, where the Vulgate has *Dominum* in place of *Deum*.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *deitate*.

en: Codex cc and edition 1 read *deitate* ("deity").

la: Eodem modo solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 1. a. 4; B. Albert., S. p. I. tract. 3. q. 13. m. 4.

en: In the same way Alexander of Hales solves it, *Summa*, p. I, q. 2, m. 1, a. 4; and Blessed Albert, *Summa*, p. I, tract. 3, q. 13, m. 4.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 31, nota 9. et tom. 1. pag. 663, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, page 31, note 9, and tom. 1, page 663, note 8.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. circa finem, ubi sunt verba Augustini, de quibus hoc dubium instituitur.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 3, near the end, where are the words of Augustine on which this doubt is raised.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Sensu et sensib. c. 3. — De seqq. I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. et p. II. q. 2.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Sense and the Sensible*, c. 3. — On what follows, see *I Sent.*, d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, and p. II, q. 2.

la: Vat. *mutabilia*.

en: The Vatican reads *mutabilia*.

la: Libr. VII. de Trin. n. 11, ubi per oppositionem de Deo dicit: *omne quod aliunde subsistit, accidens est ei accipere quod sit*.

en: Book VII of *On the Trinity*, n. 11, where by opposition concerning God he says: *Everything which subsists from elsewhere — for it, to-be is something received as an accident*. ---

translators_notes:
- Vol II convention: dubia chunks carry **no scholion**. The editorial scholion for d. 8 Pars I (i.e. SCHOLION I–IV at p. 220) closes Article III's commentary block in q.1; the dubia following the body commentary do not carry their own scholion in Quaracchi.
- The three dubia each target a quoted phrase from Lombard's *littera*: DUB I (*Deum in formis corporalibus apparuisse* — apparition-as-occasion-of-error); DUB II (*Non videbit me homo, et vivet* — vs. Exod. 33:11 + Num. 12:8); DUB III (*Visibile enim quidquam non est, quod non est mutabile* — empyrean counter-example + the *quaestio incidens* on mental vs bodily sight). DUB III contains a sub-question ("*Iuxta hoc quaeritur etiam*") which is preserved inline with its marginal label *Quaestio incidens*, per Vol II convention.
- DUB III's *Respondeo* carries the doctrinal punchline of the whole Pars I close: *Nullum enim ens est suum esse nisi summe simplex, sicut nullum agens est suum agere nisi summe simplex* — the absolute-simple/composite-being contrast, anchored by Hilary's *omnibus creatis accidit esse* (Lib. VII *de Trin.* n. 11). The Hilarius citation in the apparatus [^11] is a tight paraphrase rather than a verbatim Vulgate-style quotation; Bonaventure renders the substance with *quia mendicat suum esse aliunde*.
- Cross-chunk footer split (Vol II Override § 4): p. 223's footer carries 10 numbered notes total. nn. 1–3 belong to q.2 (captured as q.2's [^16]–[^18]); nn. 4–10 belong to this dubia chunk (captured here as [^2]–[^7] — re-ordered into body-flow as [^1] = n.6, [^2] = n.4, [^3] = n.5, [^4] = n.7, [^5] = n.8, [^6] = n.9, [^7] = n.10). p. 224's footer carries 4 numbered notes for the dubia body before the COMMENTARIUS Pars II opens; all four are captured here as [^8]–[^11]. (The Pars II opener at the bottom of p. 224-L has its own *Fundamenta* marginal label and footnotes that begin a fresh per-page sequence in the next chunk.)
- Marginal labels preserved inline as italicized phrases: *Quaestio incidens*, *Ad quaestionem incidentem*.
- OCR garbles silently cleaned: `CIRGA`→`CIRCA`; `litterani`→`litteram`; `fonnis`→`formis`; `el cor-poreitate`→`et corporeitate`; `frequenler`→`frequenter`; `o|jina-mur`→`opinamur`; `cognilionem`→`cognitionem`; `raediante`→`mediante`; `fle-bat`→`fiebat`; `flt`→`fit`; `Qgura`→`figura`; `perve-niatur`→`perveniatur`; `Nuraerorum`→`Numerorum`; `/iguras`→`figuras`; `el aenigmata`→`et aenigmata`; `Moj^se`→`Moyse`; `Dicendura`→`Dicendum`; `priraa`→`prima`; `signiflcatur`→`significatur`; `clarilate`→`claritate`; `insmuatur`→`insinuatur`; `loquebattir`→`loquebatur`; `subiecla`→`subiecta`; `Nuni.`→`Num.`; `seusu`→`sensu`; `exlensione`→`extensione`; `Solum enim omnino simplex esl`→`Solum enim omnino simplex est`; `iramntabile`→`immutabile`; `sequitiu',`→`sequitur,`; `rautatione`→`mutatione`; `rautabile`→`mutabile`; `inalterabilia`→`inalterabilia` (OK); `Quamvis enim non mutentur`→`Quamvis enim non mutentur` (OK); `iverum`→`verum`; `mutabiie`→`mutabile`; `est de natura rei`→`est de natura rei` (OK); `mendicat`→`mendicat` (OK); `naluram`→`naturam`.
- No `[?]` ambiguities parked. PDF column-band consultation (pp. 223-L/R and 224-L/R) cleanly resolved the cross-column DUB II/III flow (where the OCR interleaves DUB I respondeo / DUB II quaestio / DUB II respondeo / DUB III quaestio across columns within the same raw-line indices). The *Hilarius* note [^11]'s "ubi per oppositionem" cross-reference is rendered from the p. 224-L footer band.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 9

title_alt: Distinction 9. The text of the Master of the Sentences.

source_text:
<!-- page 235 -->

### Distinctio IX.

### Cap. I.

#### *De ordinum distinctione.*

Post praedicta superest cognoscere, de ordinibus Angelorum quid Scriptura tradat, quae in pluribus locis novem esse ordines Angelorum promulgat, scilicet Angelos, Archangelos, Principatus, Potestates, Virtutes, Dominationes, Thronos, Cherubim et Seraphim. Et inveniuntur in istis ordinibus tria terna esse, et in singulis tres ordines, ut Trinitatis similitudo in eis insinuetur impressa. Unde Dionysius[^1] tres ordines Angelorum esse tradit, ternos in singulis ponens: «Sunt enim tres superiores, tres inferiores, tres medii; superiores: Seraphim, Cherubim, Throni; medii: Dominationes, Principatus, Potestates; inferiores: Virtutes, Archangeli, Angeli».

### Cap. II.

#### *Quid appelletur ordo, et quae sit ratio nominis cuiusque.*

Hic considerandum est, quid appelletur ordo; deinde, utrum ab ipsa creatione fuerit distinctio illorum ordinum. — Ordo Angelorum dicitur multitudo caelestium spirituum, qui inter se in aliquo munere gratiae similantur, sicut et in naturalium datorum munere conveniunt. Ut verbi gratia, «*Gregorius.* Seraphim, ut beatus Gregorius[^2] ait, dicuntur qui prae aliis ardent caritate; Seraphim enim interpretatur ardens vel succendens. Cherubim, qui prae aliis in scientia eminent; Cherubim enim interpretatur plenitudo scientiae. Thronus dicitur sedes; Throni autem vocantur qui tanta divinitatis gratia replentur, ut in eis sedeat Deus et per eos iudicia decernat atque informet. Dominationes vocantur qui Principatus et Potestates transcendunt. Principatus dicuntur qui sibi subiectis[^3] quae sunt agenda disponunt eisque ad explenda divina mysteria principantur. Potestates nominantur hi qui hoc ceteris potentius in suo ordine acceperunt, ut virtutes adversae eis subiectae eorum refrenentur potestate, ne homines tantum tentare valeant, quantum desiderant. Virtutes vocantur illi, per quos signa et miracula frequenter fiunt; Archangeli, qui maiora nuntiant; Angeli, qui minora».

### Cap. III.

#### *Quod nomina illa sumta sunt a donis gratiae, non propter se, sed propter nos eis data.*

Haec nomina illis non propter se, sed propter nos data sunt. Qui enim sibi noti sunt contemplatione nobis innotescunt cognominatione. Et nominantur singuli ordines a donis gratiarum, quae non singulariter, sed excellenter data sunt in participatione. In illa enim caelesti patria[^4], ubi plenitudo boni est, licet quaedam data sint excellenter, nihil tamen possidetur singulariter. Omnia enim in omnibus sunt, non quidem aequaliter, quia alii aliis sublimius possident, quae tamen omnes habent. Cumque omnia dona gratiarum superiores ordines sublimius et perfectius[^5] perceperint, tamen ex praecipuis sortiti sunt vocabula, inferioribus cetera relinquentes ordinibus ad cognominationem: ut Seraphim, qui ordo excellentissimus aestimatur, tam dilectionem quam cognitionem divinitatis et cetera virtutum dona ceteris omnibus sublimius percipit; et tamen ab excellentiori dono, id est a caritate, nomen accepit ille superior ordo. Maius enim donum est caritas quam scientia[^6]. Item, maius est scire quam iudicare; scientia namque informat iudicium; ideoque secundus ordo a secundo dono, id est cognitione veritatis appellatus est, scilicet Cherubim. Ita et de aliis intelligendum est. Assignatur ergo excellentia ordinum secundum excellentiam donorum; et tamen, sicut *Gregorius.* Gregorius[^7] ait, «illa dona omnibus sunt communia. Omnes enim ardent caritate et scientia pleni sunt»; sic et de aliis, sed superiores aliis excellentius, ut iam dictum est, ipsa acceperunt, a quibus et nominantur. Unde Gregorius: «In illa summa civitate quisque ordo eius rei censetur nomine, quam plenius accepit in munere».

*Quaestio incidens.* Sed oritur hic quaestio talis. Si quisque ordo ab illo dono nominatur, quod plenius possidet, tunc Cherubim in scientia praeeminet[^8] omnibus, quia a scientia nominatur. — *Responsio.* Sed qui magis diligit plus cognoscit. Tan-

<!-- page 236 -->

tum enim, ut tradit auctoritas[^9], cognoscit ibi quisque, quantum diligit. Itaque Seraphim non solum in caritate, sed etiam in scientia praeeminent. Ideoque auctoritas illa sic videtur intelligenda, ut comparatio non referatur ad omnes ordines, sed ad quosdam, scilicet inferiores. Ille enim ordo non plenius Seraphim accepit scientiam in munere, sed plenius aliis ordinibus, qui sunt inferiores. Nec nominatur quisque ordo ab omni re, quam plenius aliis accepit, sed ab aliqua *Alia resp.* rerum, quas accepit. — Vel potest comparatio referri non ad ipsos ordines, sed ad alia dona, nec ad omnia alia dona, sed ad quaedam. Sicut enim homines, cum plura habeant dona, quaedam aliis excellentius possident, ita forte et Angeli quibusdam muneribus magis pollent et aliis quibusdam minus.

### Cap. IV.

#### *Utrum hi ordines ab initio creationis distincti fuerint.*

Iam nunc inquirere restat, utrum isti ordines a *Solutio 1.* creationis initio ita distincti fuerint. Quod ita fuerint distincti a primordio suae conditionis, videtur testimonio auctoritatis[^10] insinuari, quae tradit, de singulis ordinibus aliquos cecidisse. De ordine namque superiori lucifer ille fuit, quo nullus dignior conditus est. Apostolus etiam *principatus* et *potestates tenebrarum* nominat ostendens, de ordinibus illis cecidisse qui, cum in malis ministerium exerceant, non tamen pe*Obiicitur.* nitus nominibus ordinum suorum privati sunt. — Sed videtur illud non posse stare. Non enim tunc caritate ardebant nec sapientia pollebant, neque in eis Deus sedebat; si enim haec habuissent, non cecidissent. Non ergo tunc erant Seraphim, vel Cherubim, vel Throni. *Solutio auctoris.* — Ad quod dicimus, quia ante casum quorundam non erant isti ordines, quia nondum habebant dona, in quorum participationibus conveniunt; sed quibusdam cadentibus, aliis apposita sunt, eisque qui ceciderunt collata fuissent eadem dona, si perstitissent. Ideoque Scriptura dicit, de singulis ordinibus aliquos cecidisse, non quia fuissent[^11] in ordinibus et postea corruerint, sed quia, si perstitissent, eorum aliqui in singulis fuissent ordinibus, qui et in naturae tenuitate et in formae perspicacitate differentes gradus habebant, sicut illi qui perstiterunt. Alii enim, ut praediximus, superiores, alii inferiores conditi sunt: superiores, qui natura magis subtiles et sapientia amplius perspicaces; inferiores, qui natura minus subtiles et intelligentia minus perspicaces facti sunt. Has autem invisibiles differentias invisibilium solus ille ponderare potuit, qui *omnia in numero et mensura et pondere disposuit*, id est «*Augustinus.* in se ipso, qui est mensura omni rei modum praefigens, et numerus omni rei speciem praebens, et pondus omnem rem ad stabilitatem trahens, id est terminans et formans et ordinans omnia[^12]».

### Cap. V.

#### *Utrum omnes Angeli eiusdem ordinis sint aequales.*

Praeterea considerari oportet, utrum omnes Angeli eiusdem ordinis aequales sint. — Ita esse quibusdam placuit. Sed non est hoc probabile nec assertione dignum, quia lucifer, qui fuit de collegio superiorum, ipsis etiam dignior exstitit, qui aliis excellentiores creati fuerant. Ex quo percipitur, quod si perstitisset, in ordine superiori fuisset et aliis eiusdem ordinis dignior exstitisset. Sicut enim unus est ordo Apostolorum et alter Martyrum, et tamen in Apostolis alii aliis sunt digniores, similiter et in Martyribus alii aliis sunt superiores; ita et in ordinibus Angelorum recte creditur esse.

### Cap. VI.

#### *Quomodo dicat Scriptura, decimum ordinem compleri de hominibus.*

Notandum etiam, quod decimus ordo legitur de hominibus restaurandus. Sed cum non sint nisi novem ordines, nec plures fuissent, etiam si illi qui ceciderunt perstitissent, moventur lectores, quomodo Scriptura[^13] dicat, decimum ordinem compleri ex hominibus. Gregorius namque dicit, homines assumendos in ordine Angelorum, quorum alii assumuntur in ordine superiorum, qui scilicet magis ardent caritate, alii in ordine inferiorum, qui scilicet minus perfecti sunt. Ex quo apparet, non esse de hominibus formandum decimum ordinem, tanquam novem sint Angelorum et decimus hominum, sed homines pro qualitate meritorum statuendos in ordinibus Angelorum. Quod ergo legitur decimus ordo complendus de hominibus, ex tali sensu dictum fore accipi potest, quia de hominibus restaurabitur, quod in Angelis lapsum est, de quibus tot corruerunt, unde posset[^14] fieri decimus ordo. Propter quod Apostolus[^15] dicit, *restaurari omnia in Christo, quae in caelis et quae in terris sunt*, quia per Christum redemptum est genus humanum, de quo fit reparatio ruinae angelicae; tamen non minus salvaretur homo, etsi Angelus non cecidisset.

<!-- page 237 -->

### Cap. VII.

#### *Utrum homines assumantur iuxta numerum stantium vel lapsorum spirituum.*

Non enim iuxta numerum eorum qui ceciderunt, sed eorum qui permanserunt, homines ad beatitudinem admittuntur. Unde *Gregorius.* Gregorius[^16]: «Superna illa civitas ex Angelis et hominibus constat, ad quam credimus tantos humani generis ascendere, quantos illic contingit Angelos remansisse, sicut scriptum est in Cantico Deuteronomii: *Statuit terminos populorum iuxta numerum Angelorum Dei*». — *Alia opinio.* A quibusdam tamen putatur, quod homines reparentur iuxta numerum angelorum, qui ceciderunt, ut illa caelestis civitas nec suorum civium numero privetur nec maiori copia regnet. Quod *Favet Augustinus.* Augustinus in *Enchiridio*[^17] sentire videtur, hoc asserens, de hominibus plus salvari, quam corruit de Angelis, sed non minus, ita dicens: «Superna Ierusalem, mater nostra, civitas Dei, nulla civium suorum numerositate fraudabitur, aut uberiore etiam copia fortasse regnabit. Neque enim numerum aut sanctorum hominum, aut immundorum daemonum novimus, in quorum locum succedentes filii catholicae matris, quae sterilis apparebat in terris, in ea pace, de qua illi ceciderunt, sine ullo temporis termino permanebunt. Sed illorum civium numerus, sive qui est, sive qui fuit, sive qui futurus est, in contemplatione eius artificis est, *qui vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt*[^18]». — Ecce aperte dicit, non minus de hominibus salvari, quam corruit de Angelis, sed plus non asserit.

---

english:
<!-- page 235 -->

### Distinction IX.

### Chapter I.

#### *On the distinction of the orders.*

After the things already said, it remains to know what Scripture hands down concerning the orders of the Angels — which in many places proclaims that there are nine orders of Angels, namely: Angels, Archangels, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominions, Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim. And in these orders three threefolds are found, and in each there are three orders, so that the likeness of the Trinity may be intimated as impressed in them. Whence Dionysius[^1] hands down that there are three orders of Angels, placing three in each: «For there are three superior, three inferior, three intermediate; the superior: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones; the intermediate: Dominions, Principalities, Powers; the inferior: Virtues, Archangels, Angels».

### Chapter II.

#### *What is called an order, and what is the reason of each name.*

Here it must be considered what is called an order; then, whether from creation itself there was a distinction of those orders. — An order of Angels is called a multitude of celestial spirits, who are made alike to one another in some endowment of grace, just as they likewise agree in the endowment of natural gifts. For example, «*Gregory.* the Seraphim, as blessed Gregory[^2] says, are so called who burn beyond others with charity; for *Seraphim* is interpreted *burning* or *enkindling*. The Cherubim, who eminently surpass others in knowledge; for *Cherubim* is interpreted *fullness of knowledge*. *Throne* means *seat*; and Thrones are called those who are filled with so great a grace of divinity that God sits in them and through them decrees and forms his judgments. Dominions are called those who transcend the Principalities and Powers. Principalities are called those who dispose for those subject to them[^3] what is to be done, and who exercise rule over them for the carrying out of divine mysteries. Powers are named those who in their order have received this more powerfully than the rest, so that the adverse powers, subject to them, may be restrained by their power, lest they be able to tempt men as much as they desire. Virtues are called those through whom signs and miracles frequently come to pass; Archangels, those who announce greater things; Angels, those who announce lesser».

### Chapter III.

#### *That those names are taken from gifts of grace, given to them not on their own account but on ours.*

These names have been given to them not on their own account, but on ours. For those who are known to themselves by contemplation become known to us by the surname. And the several orders are named from gifts of graces, which have been given not singly, but excellently, in participation. For in that celestial fatherland[^4], where there is fullness of good, although certain things are given excellently, yet nothing is possessed singularly. For all things are in all, though not equally, since some possess more sublimely than others what nevertheless all have. And although the superior orders perceive all the gifts of graces more sublimely and more perfectly[^5], yet they have obtained their names from the chief gifts, leaving the others to the inferior orders for their surnaming: as the Seraphim, who are reckoned the most excellent order, perceive both the love and the knowledge of the Godhead and the other gifts of the virtues more sublimely than all the rest; and yet that superior order received its name from the more excellent gift, that is, from charity. For charity is a greater gift than knowledge[^6]. Likewise, to know is greater than to judge, for knowledge informs judgment; and therefore the second order is named from the second gift, that is, from the cognition of truth, namely the Cherubim. So also is it to be understood of the others. Therefore the excellence of the orders is assigned according to the excellence of the gifts; and yet, as *Gregory.* Gregory[^7] says, «those gifts are common to all. For all burn with charity and are full of knowledge»; so too of the others, but the superior received them, as has already been said, more excellently than the others, and from these they are named. Whence Gregory: «In that highest city each order is reckoned by the name of that thing which it received more fully as its endowment».

*Incidental question.* But here such a question arises. If each order is named from the gift which it possesses more fully, then the Cherubim preeminate[^8] all in knowledge, since they are named from knowledge. — *Reply.* But he who loves more knows more. For so —

<!-- page 236 -->

— much, as authority hands down[^9], does each one there know, as he loves. And therefore the Seraphim preeminate not only in charity, but also in knowledge. And therefore that authority seems to be understood thus, that the comparison is referred not to all orders, but to certain ones, namely the inferior. For that order [of Seraphim] did not receive knowledge as its endowment more fully than itself, but more fully than the other orders which are inferior. Nor is each order named from every thing which it received more fully than the others, but from some *Another reply.* of the things which it received. — Or the comparison can be referred not to the orders themselves, but to other gifts, and not to all other gifts, but to certain ones. For just as men, when they have many gifts, possess some more excellently than others, so perhaps the Angels too are stronger in certain endowments and less so in certain others.

### Chapter IV.

#### *Whether these orders were distinct from the beginning of creation.*

Now it remains to inquire whether these orders were thus distinct from *Solution 1.* the beginning of creation. That they were thus distinct from the first founding of their condition, seems to be intimated by the testimony of authority[^10], which hands down that some of each of the orders fell. For of the superior order was that Lucifer, than whom none more dignified was created. The Apostle also names *principalities* and *powers of darkness*, showing that there fell from those orders [those] who, although they exercise their ministry in evil things, are nevertheless not utterly deprived of the names of their orders. — *Objection.* But this seems not to be able to stand. For they were not then burning with charity nor strong in wisdom, nor did God sit in them; for if they had had these things, they would not have fallen. Therefore they were not then Seraphim, or Cherubim, or Thrones. — *Solution of the author.* To this we say that before the fall of certain of them these orders did not exist, because they did not yet have the gifts in whose participations they agree; but when some had fallen, [these gifts] were applied to others, and the same gifts would have been conferred upon those who fell, had they persevered. And therefore Scripture says that some of each of the orders fell — not because they had been[^11] in the orders and afterwards collapsed, but because, had they persevered, some of them would have been in each of the orders — [orders] which, both in tenuity of nature and in clearness of form, had differing grades, just as those who persevered. For some, as we said above, were created superior, others inferior: the superior, who in nature are more subtle and in wisdom more clear-sighted; the inferior, who were made less subtle in nature and less clear-sighted in intelligence. But these invisible differences of invisible beings he alone was able to weigh, who *disposed all things in number and measure and weight*, that is, «*Augustine.* in himself, who is *measure* prescribing for each thing its mode, and *number* furnishing each thing its species, and *weight* drawing each thing to stability — that is, terminating and forming and ordering all things[^12]».

### Chapter V.

#### *Whether all the Angels of the same order are equal.*

Further, it must be considered whether all the Angels of the same order are equal. — That they are so has been pleasing to some. But this is neither probable nor worthy of assertion, since Lucifer, who was of the college of the superior ones, was even more dignified than they themselves, who had been created more excellent than the rest. From which it is perceived that, had he persevered, he would have been in the superior order and more dignified than the others of the same order. For just as there is one order of Apostles and another of Martyrs, and yet among the Apostles some are more dignified than others, similarly also among the Martyrs some are superior to others; so too it is rightly believed to be in the orders of the Angels.

### Chapter VI.

#### *How Scripture says that the tenth order is to be filled from men.*

It is also to be noted that a tenth order is read of as to be restored from men. But since there are only nine orders, nor would there have been more even if those who fell had persevered, readers are moved [to ask] how Scripture[^13] says that the tenth order is to be filled from men. For Gregory says that men are to be assumed into the order of the Angels, of whom some are assumed into the order of the superior — namely those who burn more with charity — others into the order of the inferior, namely those who are less perfect. From which it appears that a tenth order is not to be formed from men, as though there were nine of Angels and the tenth of men, but that men are to be placed in the orders of the Angels according to the quality of their merits. Therefore what is read — that the tenth order is to be filled up from men — can be understood as said in this sense: that from men there will be restored what fell in the Angels, of whom so many fell that from them a tenth order could[^14] have been made. On account of which the Apostle[^15] says, *all things are restored in Christ, both those which are in the heavens and those which are on earth*, since through Christ the human race has been redeemed, from which is made the repair of the angelic ruin; yet man would no less be saved, even if no Angel had fallen.

<!-- page 237 -->

### Chapter VII.

#### *Whether men are assumed according to the number of the standing or of the fallen spirits.*

For it is not according to the number of those who fell, but of those who remained, that men are admitted to beatitude. Whence *Gregory.* Gregory[^16]: «That heavenly city consists of Angels and of men, to which we believe that as many of the human race ascend as it happens that Angels there remained, as it is written in the Canticle of Deuteronomy: *He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Angels of God*». — *Another opinion.* But by some it is thought that men are restored according to the number of the angels who fell, so that that celestial city is neither deprived of the number of its citizens nor reigns with a more abundant supply. Which *Augustine favors.* Augustine in the *Enchiridion*[^17] seems to think, asserting this — that more of men are saved than fell of Angels, but not less — speaking thus: «The supernal Jerusalem, our mother, the city of God, will be cheated of none of the multitude of her citizens, or perhaps will reign with an even more abundant supply. For we know neither the number of the holy men, nor that of the unclean demons, into whose place the sons of catholic mother — succeeding her who appeared barren on earth — will remain without any end of time in that peace from which those fell. But the number of those citizens, whether what is, or what was, or what shall be, is in the contemplation of that artisan, *who calls the things that are not, as though they were*[^18]». — Behold, he openly says that no less are saved of men than fell of Angels, but he does not assert that more are saved.

---

la: *De Caelest. Hierarch.* c. 6. § 2. — Quoad hanc dist. cfr. Hugo, *Sum. Sent.* tr. 2. c. 5, et I. *de Sacram.* p. V. c. 30.

en: Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 6, § 2. — On this distinction cf. Hugh [of St. Victor], *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 2, c. 5, and *de Sacramentis* book I, part V, c. 30.

la: Hom. 34. in Evang. n. 10, sed alio ordine et ampliore expositione. — Verba *ut beatus Gregorius ait* sola Vat. hoc loco ponit, ceterae edd. cum omnibus codd. post verba *Throni autem vocantur* ea interserunt, at minus convenienter. — Paulo superius pro *datorum munere* codd. *datorum participatione*.

en: Gregory, *Homily 34 on the Gospels*, n. 10, but in a different order and with a fuller exposition. — The words *as blessed Gregory says* are placed in this position only by the Vatican edition; the other editions, with all the codices, interpose them after the words *Thrones are called those*, but less suitably. — A little above, in place of *endowment of gifts* the codices have *participation of gifts*.

la: Edd. 1, 8 *subditis*. — Ad verbum mox sequens *mysteria* cod. Erf. annotat: alias *ministeria*; Gregorius habet *mysteria*, similiter Hugo.

en: Editions 1 and 8 read *subditis* (*subordinates*) [for *subiectis*]. — On the word that immediately follows, *mysteria*, codex Erf. notes: otherwise *ministeria*; Gregory has *mysteria*, and similarly Hugh.

en: The Vatican edition with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 reads *curia* (*court*) [for *patria*].

la: Vat. cum plurimis edd. adiungit *et perfectius*, codd. refragantibus.

en: The Vatican edition with very many editions adds *et perfectius* (*and more perfectly*), the codices resisting.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 13.

en: 1 Corinthians 13:13.

la: Loc. cit. n. 14, ubi etiam sequens textus habetur.

en: Loc. cit. n. 14, where the following text is also found.

la: Sola Vat. *praeeminent*. In nostra ed. supple *ordo* ad vocem *Cherubim*.

en: Only the Vatican edition reads *praeeminent* (plural). In our edition supply *ordo* with the word *Cherubim*.

la: Scil. Gregorius, loc. cit. n. 10. in fine: *tanto magis ardent, quanto hunc (Deum) vicinius vident* etc.

en: Namely Gregory, loc. cit. n. 10, at the end: *they burn the more, the more nearly they see him (God)*, etc.

la: Ezech. 28, 12. seqq. Cfr. Gregor., loc. cit. n. 7. in fine. Locus Apostoli est Eph. 6, 12.

en: Ezekiel 28:12ff. Cf. Gregory, loc. cit. n. 7, at the end. The Apostle's passage is Ephesians 6:12.

la: Sola Vat. *quod fuerint*. Paulo superius pro *quia ante* codd. D E *quod ante*. Aliquanto inferius pro *amplius perspicaces* Vat. cum nonnullis aliis edd. *magis perspicaces*.

en: Only the Vatican edition reads *quod fuerint*. A little above, in place of *quia ante* codices D and E read *quod ante*. Somewhat further below, in place of *amplius perspicaces* the Vatican edition with some other editions reads *magis perspicaces*.

la: August., IV. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 3. n. 7. Locus s. Scripturae praecedens est Sap. 11, 21.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* book IV, c. 3, n. 7. The preceding passage of Sacred Scripture is Wisdom 11:21.

la: Luc. 15, 8-10, quem locum Gregorius (loc. cit. n. 6.) exponens intelligit decimam drachmam perditam hominem lapsum, asserens: *ut compleretur electorum numerus, homo decimus est creatus, qui a Conditore suo nec post culpam periit, quia hunc aeterna Sapientia, per carnem miraculis coruscans ex lumine testae, reparavit*. Cfr. ibid. n. 11.

en: Luke 15:8–10, which passage Gregory (loc. cit. n. 6), in expounding, understands the lost tenth drachma to be fallen man, asserting: *that the number of the elect might be filled up, a tenth man was created, who did not perish from his Maker even after his fault, because the eternal Wisdom, shining with miracles through the flesh from the light of the potsherd, restored him*. Cf. ibid. n. 11.

la: Vat. cum edd., exc. 1, *ut possit*, contradicentibus omnibus codd., etiam cod. Erf., qui hic annotat: *haec est sententia Gandolphi, lib. II. c. 35*.

en: The Vatican edition with the editions, except edition 1, reads *ut possit*; all the codices contradict, including codex Erf., which here notes: *this is the opinion of Gandulphus, book II, c. 35*.

la: Eph. 1, 10. (Vulg. *instaurare*). Deinde respicitur I. Petr. 1, 18.

en: Ephesians 1:10 (the Vulgate has *instaurare*). Then 1 Peter 1:18 is referred to.

la: Loc. cit. n. 11. In textu cit. ed. 4 *tantum humani generis ascendere, quantos*; originale *tantum credimus humanum genus ascendere, quantos*. Locus Deut. est 32, 8. Vulgata: *Constituit terminos populorum iuxta numerum filiorum Israel*. Lectio Gregorii est iuxta Septuag.

en: Loc. cit. n. 11. In the cited text, edition 4 reads *tantum humani generis ascendere, quantos*; the original reads *tantum credimus humanum genus ascendere, quantos*. The Deuteronomy passage is 32:8. The Vulgate has: *He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel*. Gregory's reading is according to the Septuagint.

la: Cap. 29. n. 9, et XXII. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 1. Verba *quae sterilis apparebat* alludunt ad Isai. 54, 1: *Lauda sterilis, quae non paris; decanta laudem et hinni, quae non pariebas: quoniam multi filii desertae* etc.

en: Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 29, n. 9, and *de Civitate Dei* book XXII, c. 1. The words *who appeared barren* allude to Isaiah 54:1: *Praise, O barren one, who do not bear; break forth into praise and neigh, you who did not bring forth: for many are the children of the forsaken one*, etc.

translators_notes:
- s65 (2026-05-20): rebuilt from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 16858–17003) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR over 450 dpi colcrops of pp.235–237, fresh literal English (Lombard's *De ordinum distinctione* Cap. I–VII), no scholion (littera chunk), 18-entry apparatus (p.235 footer ¹–⁸ = [^1]–[^8]; p.236 footer ¹–⁷ = [^9]–[^15]; p.237 footer ¹–³ = [^16]–[^18]).
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Gregorius* (×3 — Cap. II Seraphim-interpretation block + Cap. III *illa dona omnibus sunt communia* citation + Cap. VII Cantico-Deuteronomii citation), *Quaestio incidens* + *Responsio* + *Alia resp.* (Cap. III Cherubim-in-scientia query), *Solutio 1* + *Obiicitur* + *Solutio auctoris* (Cap. IV initio-creationis dispute), *Augustinus* (Cap. IV closing *omnia in numero et mensura et pondere* IV de Gen. ad lit. anchor), *Alia opinio* + *Favet Augustinus* (Cap. VII iuxta-numerum-stantium / iuxta-numerum-lapsorum dispute).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: cogDOscere→cognoscere; Au gelorum/Augelorum/Angeloruni→Angelorum (multiple); Arcliangeli→Archangeli; Clierubim→Cherubim; Cherubini→Cherubim (Cap. II *interpretatur plenitudo scientiae* paragraph); insiuuetur→insinuetur; subiectis* placeholder→[^3] anchor; Polestates→Potestates; appelklur→appelletur; ail→ait; multitudo (clean); subiectis→subiectis; iuvisibilium→invisibilium; lerusalem→Ierusalem; honiinibus→hominibus; immundoruin→immundorum; nunierum→numerum (×3); Au gelorum running-head bleed verified clean. Diagonal cascade-shatter on p.236 L-col Cap. IV body lines 16939–16952 reflowed column-by-column per Vol II discipline.
- Outgoing cross-chunk split at mid-p.237 L-col CLEAN: Cap. VII body ends `sed plus non asserit.` (raw 17003); immediately below in same L-col `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX. De angelicorum ordinum distinctione. Post praedicta superest cognoscere etc. DIVISIO TEXTUS. Supra egit Magister de consequentibus ad malorum obstinationem...` belongs to next chunk `bon-sent-II-d9-divisio` (raw 17004+). All three p.237 footers are anchored in Cap. VII body (Greg.loc.cit.n.11 at *Gregorius* citation, Aug. Enchirid. c.29 + XXII de Civ.Dei + Isai 54:1 at *in Enchiridio*, Rom 4:17 at the Pauline-verse quotation embedded in Aug.); the COMMENTARIUS apparatus stream on p.237 R-col opens a new renumbered sequence that d9-divisio will take in full.
- No `[?]` flags — all 18 superscripts + body anchors + the *DISTINCTIO IX.* opening header + the Cap. I–VII chapter titles + the embedded Greg. Hom.34 quotation block in Cap. II + the embedded Aug. Enchirid. quotation in Cap. VII verified column-by-column on 450 dpi colcrops.
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW 1/11.** Next chunk: `d9-divisio` (raw 17004–17301, p.237 L-col-mid through ~p.240; COMMENTARIUS + PRAENOTATA DE NOMINIBUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM; ARTICULUS UNICUS opener at raw 17302 folds into a1-q1 per locked Vol II convention).