site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 5, Cap. 4

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 256 -->

### Capitulum IV. *De ramificatione gratiae in habitus virtutum.*

Tertio restat agere de gratia *in comparatione ad habitus virtutum*, circa quam consideranda sunt tria. Primum est, qualiter gratia una ramificatur in habitus *virtutum*; secundum est, qualiter ramificatur in habitus *donorum*; tertium est, qualiter ramificatur in habitus *beatitudinum*[^p256-1].

De ramificatione igitur gratiae in habitus *virtutum* haec tenenda sunt, quod cum una sit gratia gratificans animam, septem tamen sunt *virtutes gratuitae*, quibus regitur vita humana: tres quidem theologicae, scilicet fides, spes et caritas; et quatuor cardinales, scilicet prudentia, temperantia, fortitudo et iustitia, quae uno modo est virtus *communis* et generalis, alio modo *specialis* et propria. — Hae autem septem virtutes, licet sint *distinctae* et proprias excellentias habentes, sunt tamen *connexae* et *aequales* ad invicem in eodem; et licet sint *gratuitae* per gratiam informatae, possunt tamen fieri *informes* per culpam, sola caritate excepta, et iterum *informari* per poenitentiam, adveniente gratia, quae est habituum virtualium *origo, finis* et *forma*[^p256-2].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, sicut principium *productivum* sua summa perfectione in dando vitam naturae non tantum dat *vivere* quantum ad actum primum, verum etiam quantum ad actum secundum, qui est *operari*; sic necesse est, quod principium *reparativum* vitam tribuat spiritui in *esse* gratuito et in quantum ad *esse* et quantum ad *operari*. Et quoniam unius viventis secundum unam vitam primam multae sunt operationes vitales ad illius vitae perfectam manifestationem; cum actus diversificentur per obiecta, et diversitas actuum requirat distinctionem habituum[^p256-3]: hinc est, quod licet una sit gratia vivificans, ramificari tamen necessario habet in varios habitus propter varias operationes. — Et quoniam quaedam sunt opera moralia *primaria*, sicut credere; quaedam *media*, sicut intelligere credita; quaedam vero *postrema*, sicut videre intellecta; et in primis anima *rectificatur*, in secundis *expeditur*, in tertiis *perficitur*: ideo gratia gratum faciens ramificatur in habitus *virtutum*, quorum est animam *rectificare*; in habitus *donorum*, quorum est animam *expedire*; et in habitus *beatitudinum*, quorum est animam *perficere*[^p256-4].

Rursus, quoniam rectitudo animae perfecta requirit, quod ipsa rectificetur secundum duplicem faciem, scilicet *superiorem* et *inferiorem*, et respectu *finis*, et respectu eorum *quae sunt ad finem*; ideo necesse est, animam quantum ad *superiorem* faciem, in qua consistit imago Trinitatis aeternae, rectificari per tres *theologicas* virtutes, ut, sicut imago creationis consistit in trinitate potentiarum cum unitate essentiae, sic imago recreationis in trinitate habituum cum unitate gratiae, per quos anima fertur recte in summam Trinitatem secundum tria appropriata tribus personis[^p256-5]; ita quod *fides* dirigit in summe verum credendo et assentiendo, *spes* in summe arduum innitendo et exspectando, *caritas* in summe bonum desiderando et diligendo.

Necesse est etiam, quantum ad *inferiorem* faciem animam rectificari per quatuor *cardinales* virtutes. Nam *prudentia* rectificat rationalem, *fortitudo* irascibilem, *temperantia* concupiscibilem, *iustitia* vero rectificat omnes has vires in comparatione ad *alterum*. — Et quia illud *alterum* determinate potest esse *proximus*, potest etiam idem homo comparari ad *se ipsum* ut ad alterum, potest etiam esse ipse *Deus*; hinc est, quod *iustitia* circuire dicitur[^p256-6] omnes vires. Dicitur etiam non tantum virtus *cardinalis*, verum etiam *generalis*, comprehendens totius animae rectitudinem, cum ipsa dicatur « rectitudo voluntatis ». Unde ipsa non tantum comprehendit virtutes ordinantes ad *proximum*, sicut est aequitas et liberalitas; verum etiam ad *se ipsum*, sicut est poenitentia et innocentia; nec non ad *Deum*, sicut est latria, pietas et obedientia.

Postremo, quoniam omnis rectitudo virtutum secundum *esse gratuitum* manat a gratia tanquam ab *origine* et radice; et secundum *esse meritorium* comparatur ad caritatem sicut ad *originem, formam* et *finem*: hinc est, quod ceterae virtutes gratuitae quoad *habitus* sunt *connexae* et quoad *actus meritorios* sunt *aequales*. — Hinc est etiam, quod ceteri habitus virtutum possunt esse *informes*, sola caritate excepta, quae est virtutum forma. Cum enim habentur sine gratia et caritate, in quibus consistit vita virtutum, tunc *sunt informes*. Cum autem superinfunditur gratia, tunc *formantur* et decorantur et Deo acceptabiles fiunt; sicut et colores absque luce sunt invisibiles, superveniente autem lumine, fiunt lucidi, pulcri et aspectui complacentes. Unde quemadmodum ex luce et coloribus fit unum in ratione motivi, et una lux sufficit ad multos colores illuminandos; sic ex gratia et habitibus informibus, cum formantur, fit unum secundum rationem meritorii et gratuiti; et una nihilominus gratia sufficit ad informationem et gratificationem habituum diversorum[^p257-1].

<!-- page 257 -->

---

english:
### Chapter IV. *On the branching of grace into the habits of the virtues.*

Third, it remains to treat of grace *in comparison with the habits of the virtues*, concerning which three things are to be considered. The first is, in what way the one grace branches out into the habits of the *virtues*; the second is, in what way it branches out into the habits of the *gifts*; the third is, in what way it branches out into the habits of the *beatitudes*[^p256-1].

Concerning the branching of grace, then, into the habits of the *virtues*, these things are to be held: that although the grace making the soul gracious is one, there are nevertheless seven *gratuitous virtues* by which human life is governed — three indeed theological, namely faith, hope and charity; and four cardinal, namely prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice, which in one way is a *common* and general virtue, in another way *special* and proper. — But these seven virtues, although they are *distinct* and have their own proper excellences, are nevertheless *connected* and *equal* to one another in the same subject; and although they are *gratuitous*, informed through grace, they can nevertheless be made *unformed* through fault — charity alone excepted — and be *informed* again through penance, when grace comes, which is the *origin, end* and *form* of the virtual habits[^p256-2].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since, just as the *productive* principle, by its supreme perfection in giving life to nature, gives not only *to live* as regards the first act, but also as regards the second act, which is *to operate*; so it is necessary that the *reparative* principle bestow life upon the spirit in gratuitous *being*, and both as regards *being* and as regards *operating*. And since, for one living thing, according to one first life there are many vital operations for the perfect manifestation of that life; since acts are diversified through their objects, and the diversity of acts requires a distinction of habits[^p256-3]: hence it is that, although the vivifying grace is one, it must nevertheless necessarily branch out into various habits on account of the various operations. — And since certain moral works are *primary*, such as to believe; certain *intermediate*, such as to understand what is believed; and certain *last*, such as to see what is understood; and in the first the soul is *set right*, in the second *set free*, in the third *perfected*: therefore grace making gracious branches out into the habits of the *virtues*, whose office is to *set the soul right*; into the habits of the *gifts*, whose office is to *set the soul free*; and into the habits of the *beatitudes*, whose office is to *perfect the soul*[^p256-4].

Again, since the perfect rectitude of the soul requires that it be set right according to a twofold face, namely the *higher* and the *lower*, and in respect of the *end*, and in respect of *those things which are toward the end*; therefore it is necessary that the soul, as regards its *higher* face, in which consists the image of the eternal Trinity, be set right through the three *theological* virtues, so that, as the image of creation consists in a trinity of powers with a unity of essence, so the image of re-creation consists in a trinity of habits with a unity of grace, through which the soul is borne rightly into the supreme Trinity according to the three attributes appropriated to the three persons[^p256-5]; in such wise that *faith* directs it into the supremely true by believing and assenting, *hope* into the supremely arduous by leaning upon and awaiting, *charity* into the supremely good by desiring and loving.

It is necessary also that, as regards its *lower* face, the soul be set right through the four *cardinal* virtues. For *prudence* sets right the rational power, *fortitude* the irascible, *temperance* the concupiscible, while *justice* sets right all these powers in relation to *another*. — And because that *other* can determinately be one's *neighbor*, and the same man can also be compared to *himself* as to another, and it can also be God *himself*; hence it is that *justice* is said to go around[^p256-6] all the powers. It is said also to be not only a *cardinal* virtue, but also a *general* one, comprehending the rectitude of the whole soul, since it is itself called « the rectitude of the will ». Hence it comprehends not only the virtues that order us toward our *neighbor*, such as equity and liberality, but also those toward *ourselves*, such as penance and innocence; and likewise those toward *God*, such as worship, piety and obedience.

Lastly, since all rectitude of the virtues, according to *gratuitous being*, flows from grace as from its *origin* and root; and according to *meritorious being* is compared to charity as to its *origin, form* and *end*: hence it is that the other gratuitous virtues, as regards their *habits*, are *connected*, and as regards their *meritorious acts*, are *equal*. — Hence it is also that the other habits of the virtues can be *unformed*, charity alone excepted, which is the form of the virtues. For when they are had without grace and charity, in which the life of the virtues consists, then they *are unformed*. But when grace is poured in over them, then they *are formed* and adorned and made acceptable to God; just as colors also are invisible without light, but when light supervenes they become bright, beautiful and pleasing to the sight. Hence, just as out of light and colors there comes to be one thing in the character of a motive, and one light suffices for the illumination of many colors; so out of grace and unformed habits, when they are formed, there comes to be one thing according to the character of the meritorious and the gratuitous; and one grace nonetheless suffices for the informing and gracing of diverse habits[^p257-1].

---

la: De his agitur hic et 2 seqq. capp.

en: These matters are treated here and in the 2 following chapters.

la: De unitate gratiae eiusque diversitate a virtutibus cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. seq.; de virtutibus theologicis et cardinalibus vide III. Sent. d. 23-33; de connexione virtutum earumque forma (caritate) agitur ibid. d. 36. — Supra pro *gratiam informatae* O P Q U satis bene *gratiam informantem*.

en: On the unity of grace and its diversity from the virtues cf. II *Sent.*, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1 and following; on the theological and cardinal virtues see III *Sent.*, d. 23–33; on the connection of the virtues and their form (charity) the matter is treated in the same place, d. 36. — Above, for *gratiam informatae* O P Q U have, well enough, *gratiam informantem*.

la: Secundum Aristot.; vide supra pag. 69, nota 8. — Idem etiam II. de Anima, text. 36. seq. (c. 4.) insinuat distinctionem inter actum vitae primum et secundum. — In hac propositione voci *multae* edd. cum paucis codd. praefigunt *membrorum*. Aliquanto superius post *actum primum* B H addunt *qui est vivere*. Inferius pro *vivificans* S *gratificans*.

en: According to Aristotle; see above, p. 69, note 8. — The same author also, in II *On the Soul*, text 36 and following (c. 4), intimates the distinction between the first and the second act of life. — In this proposition, before the word *multae* the editions, with a few codices, prefix *membrorum*. Somewhat above, after *actum primum* B H add *qui est vivere*. Below, for *vivificans* S has *gratificans*.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 34, part I, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vide supra p. I. c. 6. — Pro *innitendo*, quod recte exhibent B M (cfr. III. Sent. d. 36. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 4, ubi inter actus spei recensentur *confidere, inniti* [summae largitati] et *exspectare*), edd. *imitando*, Q *in vincendo*, I K O V *in laudando*. Superius verbo *rectificari* G H N addunt *a Deo*.

en: See above, part I, c. 6. — For *innitendo*, which B M rightly exhibit (cf. III *Sent.*, d. 36, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 4, where among the acts of hope are reckoned *confidere, inniti* [summae largitati] and *exspectare*), the editions have *imitando*, Q *in vincendo*, I K O V *in laudando*. Above, to the word *rectificari* G H N add *a Deo*.

la: Ab August., II. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 10. n. 14. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 720, nota 11. — Seq. locus est Anselm., de Conceptu virg. et orig. pecc. c. 3. et Dialog. de Veritate, c. 12: *Iustitia est rectitudo voluntatis propter se servata.* — Post *omnes vires* 1 prosequitur: *est enim non tantum virtus cardinalis specialis, verum etiam* etc. Superius pro *potest etiam idem homo comparari* I K M O V *potest esse idem homo comparatus*.

en: From Augustine, II *On Genesis against the Manichees*, c. 10, n. 14. Cf. tom. III, p. 720, note 11. — The following passage is Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin*, c. 3, and the *Dialogue on Truth*, c. 12: *Justice is rectitude of will preserved for its own sake.* — After *omnes vires* edition 1 continues: *est enim non tantum virtus cardinalis specialis, verum etiam* etc. Above, for *potest etiam idem homo comparari* I K M O V have *potest esse idem homo comparatus*.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 5. — Superius post *motivi* B addit *ad videndum*.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 23, a. 2, q. 5. — Above, after *motivi* B adds *ad videndum*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 256–257, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A HEADING ON THE BAND.** `Cap. IV. / De ramificatione gratiae in habitus virtutum.` stands **near the TOP of p. 256's LEFT column**, immediately below Cap. III's two closing lines (`felicitatis, exercendo nos in operibus perfectae vir-` / `tutis secundum donum ipsius gratiae septiformis.`), exactly where `bon-brev-p5-c3` placed it. Cap. IV fills the rest of p. 256's left column to `…quaedam vero *postrema*, sicut vi-`; crosses p. 256's gutter **MID-WORD AND HYPHENATED** (`vi-` / `dere intellecta`); fills p. 256's right column entire to `— Hinc est etiam, quod ceteri`; breaks across the leaf on a **STRANDED ATTRIBUTIVE PRONOUN GOVERNING NOTHING** (`ceteri` / `habitus virtutum possunt esse *informes*`), the noun it modifies standing on the far side of the leaf; and closes about **two-fifths down p. 257's LEFT column** at `…ad informationem et gratificationem habituum diversorum¹.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. V. / De ramificatione gratiae in habitus donorum.` heading standing immediately below it IN THE SAME LEFT COLUMN**, with Cap. V's own text following. **Cap. IV touches no right column on p. 257 at all.** No claim here rests on white space, on a grammatically complete tail, or on a running head. ★ **The index's hypothesis that Cap. V opens on p. 257 is CONFIRMED on the band — the THIRD consecutive opening page in Pars V to be right — and it remains a hypothesis for every capitulum after this one.** ★ **And the leaf break is the third distinct shape in three consecutive capitula of this pars** (Cap. II modal-from-infinitive, Cap. III relative pronoun and adjective, Cap. IV attributive pronoun), while the gutter crossing is the second mid-word hyphenated break in Pars V after Cap. II's `pa-` / `triae`.

**★★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE NINTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF.** p. 257's head reads **`BREVILOQUII PARS V. C. V.`** on a page whose first eighteen left-column lines are still Cap. IV — the ninth consecutive leaf on which the head names the unit that has not yet begun, and the direction has never once been the other way. p. 256's head reads **`BREVILOQUII PARS V. C. IV.`**, which `p5-c3` recorded as the eighth. Both were read on the bands; the raw prints p. 256's as `BREVILOQUIE PARS V. C. IV.` and shatters p. 256's folio number into `236` and p. 257's into `2j7`. **The head confirmed nothing here that the two `Cap. N.` headings had not already settled, and it could not have.**

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE NEAREST PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY BELOW THE BREAK — FOURTEENTH CONSECUTIVE OCCURRENCE, AND THE SECOND TERMINAL ONE IN A ROW.** The p. 256/257 leaf break falls inside the closing *Postremo* paragraph, and that paragraph is **the last in the capitulum** — so the rule puts `<!-- page 257 -->` at the very END of the Latin body, with nothing after it, and **p. 257's n. 1 anchors above its own page marker.** `bon-brev-p5-c3` produced a terminal marker for the same reason one leaf back; **this is the first time the shape has repeated on consecutive chunks.** The marker was not moved to chase the break, and the page-qualified labels absorb the stranding.

**Gutters.** **p. 256 = 1355**, carried from `bon-brev-p5-c3` unchanged and re-confirmed by re-running the tool (`colcrop.py vol5 256` → `split_x=1355, low-ink run 54 px`, reproducing that chunk's measurement to the pixel); its measurement is `p5-c3`'s and is not re-logged here. **p. 257 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH.** `colcrop.py vol5 257` returned **`split_x=1199, low-ink run 46 px`** — **unflagged, but 46 px sits well below the 58–64 px band that marks a sound measurement on this volume, and it is the narrowest run on the last four leaves**, so the run was treated as suspect on its width alone. Re-profiled over **eighteen** row windows: 45–92 % **1199/46** · 50–85 % **1200/49** · 50–92 % **1199/47** · 55–80 % **1200/56** · 60–90 % **1196/52** · 60–92 % **1196/52** · 65–92 % **1195/55** · 45–80 % **1202/52** · 35–75 % **1205/47** · 30–70 % **1205/47** · 40–65 % **1204/49** · 20–60 % **1211/52** · 25–55 % **1210/58** · 15–85 % **1206/36** · 20–80 % **1207/43** · 15–45 % **1216/55** · 10–45 % **1216/54** · 12–40 % **1216/55**. **The windows do not fork; they DRIFT MONOTONICALLY, from 1216 at the page's top to 1195 at its foot** — the p. 254/255 diagnostic, and therefore skew again, **LEFTWARD like p. 255 and unlike p. 256, and by ~21 px, the largest skew measured anywhere on this quire.** ★ **The per-column ink profile was printed anyway, per the standing rule, and it is what settled the value.** Over the body rows (45–92 %) the blank gutter runs **x = 1177–1223** (left-column ink falls from 10 at x = 1175 to 2 at x = 1177; right-column ink resumes at 6 on x = 1223 and 19 on x = 1225) with an **ink island standing INSIDE it at x = 1191–1209**, peaking at **245 rows at x = 1197** against 2 on either shoulder — **the NINTH leaf out of ten to carry the in-gutter obstruction** (pp. 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257). Band midpoint 1200, island peak 1197: **the island sits ~3 px LEFT of centre**, the pp. 248/249/254/255 off-centre shape rather than p. 250/251/253's centred one. Over the upper rows (15–45 %) the blank band runs **x = 1189–1243** with its island at x = 1210–1218 and midpoint 1216 — so both column edges migrate **~16–20 px to the LEFT** from the top of the page to its foot. ★ **The eight body windows spread SEVEN pixels (1195–1202), which is a drift and not an agreement, so p. 256's resolution rule points the other way here: the windows FAIL to agree and the body-row band midpoint is taken. Adopted 1200.** Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361 · 1186 · 1367 · 1201 · 1345 · 1209 · 1391 · 1182 · 1390 · 1160 · 1403 · 1250 · 1357 · 1206 · **1355** · **1200**. ★ **p. 256 (even) = 1355 and p. 257 (odd) = 1200 sit 155 px apart, the widest adjacent gap in Pars V; p. 255 and p. 257, two leaves apart and both odd, sit 6 px apart while p. 253 and p. 255, also two leaves apart and both odd, sit 44 px apart. Parity predicts nothing, proximity predicts nothing, and even the same-parity-two-leaves-back heuristic predicts nothing. Measure every page.**

**Apparatus (13 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 256 nn. 1–6** (first-read here, closing that register entire) and **p. 257 n. 1** (first-read here). Every anchor below was read on the band at 450 dpi under direct high-factor zoom.
- p. 256 n. **1** on `habitus *beatitudinum*`¹ — **LEFT** column, closing Cap. IV's opening threefold *divisio*, four lines below the chapter subtitle.
- p. 256 n. **2** on `*origo, finis* et *forma*`² — **LEFT** column, closing the second paragraph beside the `Gratuitae, vel informes.` gloss.
- p. 256 n. **3** on `requirat distinctionem habituum`³ — **LEFT** column, in the *Ratio*'s Aristotelian premiss, four lines above the `Divisio operum.` gloss.
- p. 256 n. **4** on `quorum est animam *perficere*`⁴ — **RIGHT** column, closing the threefold *Tria genera habituum* paragraph.
- p. 256 n. **5** on `tria appropriata tribus personis`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, in the *De virtutibus theologicis* paragraph, immediately before the `ita quod fides` triad.
- p. 256 n. **6** on `*iustitia* circuire dicitur`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, beside the `Iustitia duplex.` gloss.
- p. 257 n. **1** on `gratificationem habituum diversorum`¹ — **LEFT** column, on the very last line of Cap. IV, immediately above the `Cap. V.` heading.

**★★ WHAT THIS CHUNK INHERITED — NOTHING, AND THE CLAIM WAS RE-DERIVED RATHER THAN ADOPTED.** `bon-brev-p5-c3` forwarded no note at all, on the strength of a NEGATIVE finding: that Cap. III's two closing lines at the head of p. 256's left column carry no anchor numeral. **That claim is re-derived here and it holds.** Both lines were read at maximum zoom from their first character; `felicitatis, exercendo nos in operibus perfectae vir-` and `tutis secundum donum ipsius gratiae septiformis.` carry no superscript anywhere, and p. 256's n. 1 stands four lines lower, below the `Cap. IV.` heading, on `habitus *beatitudinum*` inside Cap. IV's own *divisio*. **So p. 256's register of six is this chunk's ENTIRE, as forwarded — and the forwarded text of n. 1 (`De his agitur hic et 2 seqq. capp.`) also held verbatim, though it was read off the band here and not taken from the hand-off.** ★ **Running score: forwarded OWNERSHIP has now held TWELVE times in TWELVE.** ★ **And this is the first hand-off in Pars V whose entire content was a NEGATIVE, which is the one kind of claim a hand-off cannot in principle establish for its successor — the successor must go back to the band, and did.**

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS — p. 257 nn. 2–9, EIGHT NOTES, TO `bon-brev-p5-c5`.** **p. 257's register is NINE** (left block nn. 1–5, right block nn. 6–9), band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`. Only n. 1 anchors in Cap. IV. For each forwarded note, what was verified is named:
- n. **2** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `quae enumerat et nominat Isaias`² in Cap. V's opening paragraph, **LEFT** column, beside the `Septem dona.` gloss; entry printed in the **LEFT** footer block.
- n. **3** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `contra impedimenta symptomatum`³ in Cap. V's *Ratio*, **LEFT** column; entry printed in the **LEFT** block.
- n. **4** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `quae quasi est quaedam insania`⁴ in the *Causa prima* paragraph, **RIGHT** column; entry printed in the **LEFT** block. **This is where p. 257's block line and anchor line part company — see the configuration note below.**
- n. **5** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `in medio nationis pravae et perversae`⁵ closing the *Secunda* paragraph, **RIGHT** column; entry printed in the **LEFT** block.
- nn. **6, 7, 8** — **OWNERSHIP and BLOCK COLUMN verified (RIGHT block); anchor POSITIONS NOT verified.** Their anchors were not located: nn. 6–8 fall in the stretch of p. 257's right column between `perversae⁵` and the *Quinta* paragraph, which Cap. IV does not touch and which this chunk had no occasion to read line by line. **Declared an unread region, not an inference.**
- n. **9** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `Nam ad actionem expeditam`⁹ in the *Quinta* paragraph, **RIGHT** column, on the last line of p. 257's right column; entry printed in the **RIGHT** block. **Its text is `Edd. expediendam.`, and the body two lines above it really does read `expeditam`, so the entry and the body corroborate each other.**

**Runover findings — TWO NEGATIVES, BOTH OWED AND BOTH CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES.**
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 256 — **NEGATIVE**, and genuinely this chunk's to run: `p5-c3` owned no note on p. 256 and deliberately did not run it.* p. 256's left block carries nn. 1–4 and ends **complete** at n. 4 (`⁴ Cfr. III. Sent. d. 34. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.`), a one-line entry followed by clear white paper. p. 256's right block was read from its first character at high zoom and opens **NUMBERED: `⁵ Vide supra p. I. c. 6.`** Both sides agree; logged as a negative. ★ **Note that the completeness of n. 4 is worth nothing as evidence here — p. 255 n. 8 broke at a full stop on a half-entry that read as a finished citation — and the negative rests entirely on the numeral at the head of the right block.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 256 → p. 257 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, as owed.* p. 256's right block ends complete at n. 6 (`…I K M O V *potest esse idem homo comparatus*.`) with clear white paper below, and **p. 257's left footer block opens NUMBERED: `¹ Cfr. III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 5.`** Logged as a negative.
- *p. 257's own gutter test was RUN and is **NEGATIVE**, but it is **NOT LOGGED HERE**.* p. 257's left block ends complete at n. 5 (`⁵ Phil. 2, 15. Cfr. III. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXV. c. 1.`) — with the printer's signature, not an entry, on the line below — and its right block opens **NUMBERED: `⁶ Edd., 2 excepta, addunt…`** **The finding is recorded here for `bon-brev-p5-c5`'s benefit, but the page belongs to that chunk (eight of p. 257's nine notes are its), and logging it here would be the double-count the ledger exists to prevent. `p5-c5` owes the log line, and it should re-derive the finding rather than adopt it.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* `p.255 n.8:gutter` and the p. 254 → p. 255 and p. 255 → p. 256 page-crossing tests (all three `p5-c3`), `p.253 n.9:page` and `p.254 n.3:gutter` (both `p5-c2`), and the p. 252 → p. 253 test and p. 253's own gutter test (both `p5-c1`).

**★★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE APPEARED, EXACTLY WHERE `p5-c3` PREDICTED IT, AND IT IS NOT AN ENTRY.** **`S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` stands on p. 257, on its own line at the foot of the LEFT footer block, immediately below n. 5** — its first appearance since p. 249, eight leaves back, which is precisely the cadence `p5-c3` inferred. **It is set in the footer register, unnumbered and unindented, in exactly the place a runover tail would stand, and it is neither an entry nor evidence of one.** ★ **The quire signature `33` likewise stands at the foot of p. 257's RIGHT block, below n. 9, and is likewise not an entry.** **So p. 257's register is NINE, and a reader counting lines rather than numerals in either block would get ten.** Neither mark was counted; p. 256 carries neither.

**★★ TWO FOOTER CONFIGURATIONS, AND p. 257's IS THE THIRD OCCURRENCE OF THE p. 253/255 FAMILY.** **p. 256's** anchors divide **3 / 3** across the gutter (nn. 1–3 left, nn. 4–6 right) while its **blocks** divide **4 / 2**, so the left block **overruns the anchor line by exactly one note** — n. 4 prints in the left block and anchors in the right column. That is p. 243's shape, the anchor/block mismatch of ONE note with the block break BELOW the anchor break, and its second occurrence in the corpus. Its **capitulum line exists but does not divide the register**: the Cap. III / Cap. IV boundary falls two lines below the top of the left column and all six notes are Cap. IV's — the p. 250 mirror `p5-c3` recorded. **p. 257's** anchors divide **3 / 6** (nn. 1–3 left, nn. 4–9 right) while its **blocks** divide **5 / 4**, so the left block again **overruns the anchor line by TWO whole notes** — the p. 253 and p. 255 shape, now in its **third** occurrence and the first configuration in the corpus to reach three. ★ **And p. 257's CAPITULUM line is a third, independent line again: the Cap. IV / Cap. V boundary falls between nn. 1 and 2, which matches NEITHER the anchor split (3 / 6) NOR the block split (5 / 4).** ★ **What makes p. 257 the hardest of the three is that its left block's five entries close with the PRINTER'S SIGNATURE — so the block presents five numbered lines plus an unnumbered sixth, against three left-column anchors, and both the overrun and the signature push in the same direction. A reader counting the register from block lines would reach ten and would place the capitulum boundary four notes too low.**

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **The raw's damage on this leaf-pair is overwhelmingly in ONE class — the `1`/`I` confusion, running in BOTH directions inside a single register — and in the `II`/`H` siglum flattening, which fails TWICE on p. 256's footer alone.**
- **★★ `d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. seq.` (p. 256 n. 2) — the raw gives `a. 1. q. I.`, an arabic and a roman in one citation where the plate sets two arabics.** On the band both glyphs carry the **angled top flag, closed stem and no lower serif** of the arabic `1`, and the same entry's `II. Sent.` and `III. Sent.` supply slab-serifed roman uprights three words away for contrast. ★ **Sense settles it: II *Sent.* d. 27 is *de gratia*, and its a. 1 q. 1 asks whether grace is something other than the free-choice it informs — which is the anchor's `de unitate gratiae eiusque diversitate a virtutibus`.**
- **★★ `Vide supra p. I. c. 6.` (p. 256 n. 5) — THE SAME CONFUSION RUNNING THE OTHER WAY, TWO ENTRIES LATER.** The raw gives `p. 1.` — an arabic where the plate sets a roman. On the band the upright is **slab-serifed top and bottom with no flag**, against the flagged arabic `1`s of the same entry's `a. 1. q. 1.` four words on. ★ **The pair is the leaf's own contrast set and the point is that the raw fails in BOTH directions inside ONE register: `q. I.` for `q. 1.` in n. 2, `p. 1.` for `p. I.` in n. 5.** ★ **Sense settles n. 5's independently: *Breviloquium* p. I c. 6 is the chapter on the appropriations to the three persons, which is the anchor's `tria appropriata tribus personis`.**
- **★★ `B H` (p. 256 n. 3) and `G H N` (p. 256 n. 5) — THE `II`/`H` FLATTENING FAILING TWICE ON ONE LEAF, AND THE RAW READS IT AS A NUMBER BOTH TIMES.** The raw gives `B 11 addunt` and `G II N addunt`. On the band **both are two uprights joined by a clearly printed crossbar** — this leaf sets its `H` properly, where p. 246 set the same siglum both ways inside one register. All four rules agree: **(a)** two uprights, so `H` is available where a single upright would forbid it; **(b)** `B H` and `G H N` are both alphabetical and no other reading is; **(c)** `addunt <witnesses>` requires witnesses, and a numeral in the witness slot is always an edition here, so `B 11` would assert that edition 11 exists in a set that runs 1–3; **(d)** the same entry's `B M`, `Q`, `I K O V` read clean. **Never read the crossbar to decide the letter; count the uprights and read the slot — but do read the crossbar to know that this leaf is not the flattening kind.**
- **★ `I K O V` (p. 256 n. 5) and `I K M O V` (p. 256 n. 6) — SINGLE UPRIGHTS INSIDE CODEX RUNS, READ AS `I` ON THE STROKE COUNT AND THE ALPHABET.** One upright is never `H`. The raw gives both correctly except for `0` for `O` in n. 6. ★ **Note that n. 6 then sets a standalone `1` in `Post *omnes vires* 1 prosequitur` eleven words after the codex `I` — the edition siglum and the codex siglum as different sorts in one entry, the p. 255 n. 9 shape again.**
- **★★ `(c. 4.)` (p. 256 n. 3) and `a. 2. q. 4` (p. 256 n. 5) — the `1`/`4` class, both settled on the crossbar and both destroyed in the raw** (`(c. i.)` and `q. t,`). On the band both are **open-topped with a diagonal meeting a horizontal bar**, against the flagged `1`s standing three and five characters away in the same citations. ★ **Sense confirms the second: III *Sent.* d. 36 a. 2 q. 4 is where the acts of hope are enumerated, which is what the note says it is.**
- **★★ `c. 10. n. 14.` and `nota 11.` (p. 256 n. 6) — FOUR FLAGGED `1`s IN ONE SENTENCE, and the raw destroys three of them** (`c. 10. n. -1 1.` and `nota II.`, an arabic pair read as a roman for the third time on this quire after p. 255 n. 8's `c. II.`). On the band every one carries the angled flag; the entry's own `II. de Gen.` and `tom. III.` stand five and twelve words away as slab-serifed roman contrasts, and `c. 12:` sets a flagged `1` beside a `2` on the next line. **This entry is the finest `1`/`I` contrast set in Pars V after p. 255 n. 9's `I. Cor. 1, 31. et 4, 7.` — four arabic `1`s and two roman numerals inside three lines.**
- **★★ `d. 23-33` (p. 256 n. 2) and `d. 23. a. 2. q. 5.` (p. 257 n. 1) — the `3`/`5` class, settled twice on the same page-pair.** In `d. 23-33` all three glyphs are **double-bowled `3`s**, and the `2` beside the first is the contrast. In p. 257 n. 1 the final glyph is a **flat top bar over a single lower bowl** — a `5`, not a `3` — with the same line's `23.` supplying a true `3` six characters earlier. ★ **Sense settles both: III *Sent.* d. 23 is *de fide*, d. 33 *de virtutibus cardinalibus*, so d. 23–33 is exactly the span the note claims for the theological and cardinal virtues; and III *Sent.* d. 23 a. 2 q. 5 is the question on *fides informis*, which is precisely the anchor's `ex gratia et habitibus informibus`.**
- **★ `a. 1. q. 1.` (p. 256 n. 4) — the raw gives `n. 1.` for `a. 1.`, a letter failure rather than a digit one.** On the band the sort is an unambiguous `a` with a closed bowl and a shoulder; an `n` has neither. **Recorded because it is the only place on this leaf-pair where the raw corrupts the citation's STRUCTURE rather than its numbers, and a reader trusting it would look for a *numerus* where the volume sets an *articulus*.**
- **★ `pag. 69, nota 8.` (n. 3), `ibid. d. 36.` (n. 2), `d. 34.` (n. 4), `pag. 720` (n. 6), `c. 3.` and `c. 12:` (n. 6), `text. 36. seq.` (n. 3) — all read clean, each against a same-line contrast.** ★ **Sense checks pass on every citation that has one.** Aristotle *De anima* II, text 36 seq. is where the first and second acts of life are distinguished, which is what the note says it intimates. Anselm, *De veritate* c. 12 IS *iustitia est rectitudo voluntatis propter se servata*, quoted verbatim, and the body two lines above the anchor really does read « rectitudo voluntatis ». III *Sent.* d. 34 p. I compares virtues, gifts and beatitudes, which is precisely the anchor's threefold *tria genera habituum*. **Every digit that could be tested was settled twice — by the glyph and by the text it names.**

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ THE BODY AND THE APPARATUS ARE NOT HARMONISED, AND THE DIVERGENCE IS AN ABBREVIATION.** The body quotes Anselm as « rectitudo voluntatis » where n. 6 gives the full sentence *Iustitia est rectitudo voluntatis propter se servata* and names two loci for it. **The body's shortened form stands as printed and was not drawn toward the note's.** Likewise `tanquam` (not *tamquam*) is the plate's spelling and is preserved.
- **★★ THE PLATE'S ITALIC WAS FOLLOWED PER PARAGRAPH AND NOT REGULARISED, AND THIS CAPITULUM SETS THREE INCOMPATIBLE PRINCIPLES INSIDE FIVE PARAGRAPHS.** ★ **(i) In the opening *divisio* only the GENITIVE of each member is italic** (`habitus *virtutum*` · `habitus *donorum*` · `habitus *beatitudinum*`), the governing `habitus` staying roman all three times. ★ **(ii) In the *Tria genera habituum* recapitulation on p. 256's right column the SAME three members are set the same way, but their answering infinitives are ALSO italic** (`quorum est animam *rectificare*` · `*expedire*` · `*perficere*`) — so one enumeration italicises one word per member and its twin italicises two. ★ **(iii) The seven virtues themselves are NOT italicised at their first naming at all** (`fides, spes et caritas` · `prudentia, temperantia, fortitudo et iustitia`, every one roman) **and then ARE italicised, one by one, when the *cardinales* paragraph assigns each its power** (`*prudentia* rectificat rationalem, *fortitudo* irascibilem…`) **and again in the theological triad** (`*fides* dirigit… *spes*… *caritas*…`). ★ **A fourth asymmetry closes it: `virtus *communis* et generalis` italicises only the first adjective of a pair and `*specialis* et propria` does the same, while `virtus *cardinalis*, verum etiam *generalis*` italicises the very word left roman eighteen lines above.** **The plate's italic is not a rule you may complete, and this capitulum is the strongest case for that in Pars V.**
- **★★ THE `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` COLON — SEVENTEENTH consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–X, Pars V capp. I–IV). It opens here on a `sicut… sic` comparison (`quia, sicut principium *productivum*… sic necesse est`) — **breaking the run of three consecutive capitula that took it on a plain causal `cum` period**, and returning to the shape Pars IV capp. IX and X used.
- **★★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION TAKES A THIRTEENTH DISTINCT DISTRIBUTION, AND IT IS THE FIRST IN WHICH EVERY DASH DOES THE SAME JOB.** Cap. IV puts **ONE** dash in its second paragraph (`— Hae autem septem virtutes`), **ONE** in the *Ratio* (`— Et quoniam quaedam sunt opera moralia`), **ONE** in the *cardinales* paragraph (`— Et quia illud *alterum*`), **ONE** in the *Postremo* (`— Hinc est etiam, quod ceteri`), and **NONE** in the *divisio* or the *theologicae* paragraph. **Four dashes, four paragraphs, one dash each, and all four open a fresh consequence rather than a member of a division.** ★ **The contrast with Cap. III is the point: seven dashes doing three different jobs there, four doing one job here, and a reader counting members from dashes would find four members in a capitulum whose divisions are of three, seven, three and four.** Transcribed, never regularised, and never counted from members.
- **★ A REPEATED GLOSS PAIR: `Sunt connexae.` AND `Gratuitae, vel informes.` PRINT TWICE ON ONE PAGE,** once in p. 256's left margin against the second paragraph's `connexae et aequales` / `gratuitae per gratiam informatae`, and again in p. 256's right margin against the *Postremo*'s `quoad *habitus* sunt *connexae*` / `ceteri habitus virtutum possunt esse *informes*`. **This is the first time in Pars V that a gloss has repeated verbatim on a single page, and it is not an error: the two paragraphs state the same two properties, once as thesis and once as conclusion, and Quaracchi glosses both.** Transcribed twice, in body order, as printed.
- **`Deus`, `Deo`, `Dei`, `Trinitatis`, `Trinitatem`, `Aristot.`, `August.`, `Anselm.`, `Sent.` are capitalised as printed**, and `gratia`, `virtus`, `habitus`, `caritas`, `fides`, `spes` are not; the English follows.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The opening **THREEFOLD** *divisio* of the whole *ramificatio* treatise — habits of the *virtues* (this capitulum) · habits of the *gifts* (Cap. V) · habits of the *beatitudes* (Cap. VI) — which n. 1 confirms from the editor's side (`De his agitur hic et 2 seqq. capp.`). Within the first member, the **SEVENFOLD** division of the *virtutes gratuitae* into **THREE** theological (*fides, spes, caritas*) and **FOUR** cardinal (*prudentia, temperantia, fortitudo, iustitia*), which the *Ratio* answers face by face — the three theological to the *superior* face, the four cardinal to the *inferior*. Within the *Ratio*, the **THREEFOLD** division of moral works (*primaria, media, postrema*) answered one-for-one by the soul's being *rectificatur, expeditur, perficitur* and then again by the three genera of habits. And the closing **FOURFOLD** ordering of *iustitia*'s objects (*proximus · se ipsum · Deus*, with the *cardinalis / generalis* distinction over them). ★ **The threefold *divisio* and the threefold *tria genera habituum* are the same division stated twice, forty lines apart and in the same order, and the text does align them — which is the opposite of Cap. III's *requisita* and *gradus*, and is why the two enumerations may be read against each other here and could not be there.**

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 256 L — "Virtutes theologicae." · "Cardinales." · "Sunt connexae." · "Gratuitae, vel informes." · "Ratio." · "De habitibus supernaturalibus." · "Divisio operum." p. 256 R — "Tria genera habituum." · "De virtutibus theologicis." · "De cardinalibus." · "Iustitia duplex." · "Sunt connexae." · "Gratuitae, vel informes." p. 257 L — "Simile." **Fourteen glosses across seven paragraphs, and a FOURTEENTH distinct form — a series with NO numbered members at all, in which two glosses REPEAT verbatim across the gutter.** ★ **Cap. III carried a strictly parallel `Thesis N.` / `Pro thesi N.` series buried under six unnumbered glosses; Cap. IV drops the numbered series entirely and instead pairs its glosses TOPICALLY across the two columns — `Virtutes theologicae.` / `Cardinales.` in the left margin answered by `De virtutibus theologicis.` / `De cardinalibus.` in the right, and `Sunt connexae.` / `Gratuitae, vel informes.` printed twice in the same order in both.** ★ **So the gloss series here is a genuine structural witness, which Cap. III's was not — and that is exactly why it must not be generalised: three consecutive capitula have now used three different gloss grammars.** **Transcribe the glosses as printed; regularise nothing; never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Six readings could have carried one — the raw's `q. I.` for `q. 1.`, its `p. 1.` for `p. I.`, its `B 11` for `B H`, its `G II N` for `G H N`, its `(c. i.)` for `(c. 4.)`, and its `n. 1.` for `a. 1.` — and each is settled positively on the band, by the flag-versus-slab-serif contrast, by the upright count against a printed crossbar, by the alphabetical run and the grammatical slot, or by the cited text checking itself word for word against its anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag.

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.** The bodies were re-set line-by-line from the bands; the raw was consulted only as a cross-check and is graded here for the next Pars V agent's benefit. ★ **The headline finding is that the two pages stand TWO FULL GRADES apart in their bodies while their footers stand level — the reverse of p. 255, where the footers diverged and the bodies did not.**
- **p. 256, left column — GOOD.** `C.\p. IV.` (heading shattered), `De vamificalione graliae in hahitus viriiUum.` (subtitle, four garbles in six words), `iii eomparaiione ad hahitus virLutmn`, `virtiUum`, `beatiludinum`, `gratiflcans`, `lamen`, `virtules`, `virtnies theologjcae`, `spcs`, `qna-tuor cardinalcs`, `sciUcet`, `disiinctae`, `proprias excellenlias`, `nexac`, **`mwe`** (`vivere` DESTROYED), `secundum,qui` (space lost), `csse`, `mullae`, `hincest` (space lost), **`;;o.?/raMa`** (`postrema` DESTROYED), `rectificalur`, **`scmwWi e.rpedilur`** (`secundis expeditur` DESTROYED), `perftcitur`. **About twenty-four garbles in fifty printed lines, with THREE words destroyed and the chapter heading and subtitle both damaged.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity MODERATE.**
- **p. 256, right column — POOR, and the worst body region on the leaf-pair.** `supenorem et mfiriorem` (**`inferiorem` DESTROYED**), **`ad finum`** (a WRONG READING that is a real Latin word — `finem` printed, `finum` given), `iinago` (twice), `cuni unitale giatiae`, `diiigendo`, `temperanlia`, `proximu$`, **`h.\\)c est`** (`hinc` DESTROYED), `iustilia circuire dicitur "`, **`totras animae`** (`totius` DESTROYED), `volunlalis»`, **`e.^ise gratuitum`** and **`e.s.?e meritorium`** (`esse` DESTROYED TWICE), `formani`, `finetn`, `ceterac`, `aclus`, `Hinc estetiam` (space lost), `Tri^ eeaerx` and `sm comc-` and `Gramiiae` (three glosses damaged). **About twenty-two garbles in fifty printed lines, with SIX words destroyed, ONE wrong reading that a checker would not flag because it parses, and THREE glosses damaged.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — and `ad finum` is the dangerous one: it is not a garble but a substitution, and only the band shows `finem`.**
- **p. 257, left column (Cap. IV's portion only, the first eighteen lines) — VERY POOR, the worst column-run anywhere in Pars V.** `virlutiini [inssunt essc iiifomes`, `caritato`, `qiiae cst virtutuin fornia`, `Cuin enim liabentur sine (,'ratia ct caiiUite`, `in (|uilius consistit`, `.mnt. infonniis`, `I)eririfiiii(litur yratia, tiiiic. firmuiUur et (l(;corantur`, `simiic.` (gloss `Simile.` damaged), `coiorcs alis(pie`, `sunl`, `supcrv(!ni(!nte aiitcni iuiniiK!`, `as|icctui coinplac(!iitcs`, `Cndc`, `e.\ liice ct coioribiis lit iinuin`, `niotivi`, `suincit ad iniiltos`, `liabitibus iiiformibns`, `cuiii`, `sniricit`, `inforinationem el yratificationcm tiabituiim`. **About twenty garbles in eighteen printed lines — a garble rate more than THREE TIMES p. 256's — with the parenthesis-and-exclamation substitution pattern (`(,'`, `(!`, `(|`, `(;`) that has not appeared anywhere else on this quire.** ★ **Density VERY HIGH, severity HIGH. This region is not usable as a cross-check at all, and it was not used as one: every line was set from the band.**
- **p. 256 footer, left block (nn. 1–4, this chunk's) — GOOD.** `agilur`, `diversitale`, `virtulibus clV.`, **`q. I.`** (`q. 1.` — an arabic read as a roman), `informmtem`, `salis`, `Secunduni`, `pag. 69,nota 8.` (space lost), `ctiani`, `sci(.`, **`(c. i.)`** (`(c. 4.)` DESTROYED), `dislinctionem`, **`inlei' acium Ailae`** (`inter actum vitae` DESTROYED), `spcimdum`, `proposilione`, `ciim`, `pracfigunt`, **`B 11`** (`B H` — the siglum flattened and read as a number), **`n. 1.`** (`a. 1.` — a letter failure). **About nineteen garbles in twelve printed lines, THREE wrong readings that reach the text, ONE destroyed siglum and ONE destroyed digit.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH.**
- **p. 256 footer, right block (nn. 5–6, this chunk's) — GOOD, and level with the left rather than a grade apart.** **`p. 1.`** (`p. I.` — the mirror of the left block's failure), `111. Sent.`, **`q. t,`** (`q. 4` DESTROYED), `largitali`, `Supcrius a erbo`, **`G II N`** (`G H N` — the flattening again), `n Deo`, **`n. -1 1.`** (`n. 14.` DESTROYED), `CCr.`, **`nota II.`** (`nota 11.` — the third arabic-pair-as-roman on this quire), `dc`, `Verilate`, `recliliido`, `servala`, `viries`, `tantwn`, `etiam^`, `I K M 0 V`, `idrm`, `comparalus`. **About twenty garbles in twelve printed lines, THREE wrong readings, ONE destroyed siglum and TWO destroyed digits.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — and note that the two blocks fail in the SAME two ways (`1`/`I` and `II`/`H`) in OPPOSITE directions, so the leaf's footer is homogeneous where p. 255's stood a grade apart across the gutter. Grade the run, never the page — and do not expect the run boundary to fall at the gutter twice running.**

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