title: Dist. 8

title_alt: Distinctio VIII. Magistri Sententiarum (Pars I et II).

title_alt: Distinction 8. The text of the Master of the Sentences (Parts I and II).

source_text:
<!-- page 207 -->

### Distinctio VIII.

### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *Utrum omnes Angeli corporei sint.*

Solet etiam in quaestione versari apud doctos, utrum Angeli omnes, boni scilicet ac mali, corporei sint, id est, corpora habeant sibi unita. *Opinio quorundam*: Quod aliqui putant, innitentes verbis Augustini[^1], qui dicere videtur, quod Angeli omnes ante confirmationem vel lapsum corpora aerea habuerunt de puriore ac superiore aëris parte formata, ad faciendum habilia, non ad patiendum; et Angelis bonis, qui perstiterunt, talia conservata sunt corpora, ut in eis possint facere et non pati, quae tantae sunt tenuitatis, ut a mortalibus videri non valeant nisi supervestita aliqua grossiori forma, qua assumta videntur, depositaque videri desinunt; angelis vero malis mutata sunt in casu corpora in deteriorem qualitatem spissioris aëris. Sicut enim a loco digniori in inferiorem locum, id est in caliginosum aërem deiecti sunt, ita illa corpora tenuia transformata sunt in deteriora corpora et spissiora, in quibus possent pati a superiori elemento, id est ab igne. Et hoc Augustinus sensisse videtur *super Genesim*[^2] ita dicens: «*Daemones dicuntur aerea animalia*, quia corporum <!-- page 208 -->aëreorum natura vigent; nec per mortem dissolvuntur, quia praevalet in eis elementum aptius ad faciendum quam ad patiendum. Ad patiendum enim humor et humus, ad faciendum aër et ignis aptitudinem praebent». «Transgressores vero angeli cum principe suo nunc diabolo, tunc Archangelo, non mirum, si post peccatum in hanc caliginem detrusi sunt». «Neque etiam hoc mirum est, si conversi sunt ex poena in aëream qualitatem, qua possunt ab igne pati. Caliginosa tamen aëris tenere tantum permissi sunt, qui eis quasi carcer sit usque ad tempus iudicii». — Ecce his verbis videtur Augustinus[^3] id tradere quod quidam opinantur de corporibus Angelorum. *Alii aliter Augustinum exponunt*: — Hoc autem eum alii dixisse astruunt, non ita sentiendo, sed opinionem aliorum referendo, quod ex ipsius verbis diiudicare voluit. *Augustinus*: quibus ait: «Daemones *dicuntur* aerea animalia», non ait *sunt*[^4]; ita enim quidam dicebant. De habitatione vero caliginosi aëris, in quem detrusi sunt, non opinando, sed rei veritatem asserendo eum tradidisse dicunt, quod ipsius locutionis distinctio ostendit. Dicunt quoque, plurimos catholicos tractatores in hoc convenisse atque id concorditer docuisse, quod Angeli incorporei[^5] sunt nec corpora habent sibi unita; assumunt autem aliquando corpora, Deo praeparante, ad impletionem ministerii sibi a Deo iniuncti, eademque post expletionem deponunt, in quibus corporibus hominibus apparuerunt atque locuti sunt. Et aliquando quidem locuti sunt ex persona Dei sine distinctione alicuius personae, aliquando ex persona Patris, vel Filii, sive Spiritus sancti.

### Cap. II. *De formis, quibus apparuit Deus, et de illis, in quibus Angeli apparent.*

Nec dubitandum est, Deum in corporalibus formis apparuisse hominibus, sicut Augustinus in secundo libro *de Trinitate*[^6] ostendit, conferens diversa Scripturae testimonia, ex quibus Deum in corporeis figuris hominibus apparuisse probat, et aliquando ex persona Dei sine distinctione, aliquando sub distinctione personarum sermonem eis factum esse.

### Cap. III. *Quod Deus in specie, qua Deus est, nunquam apparuit mortalibus.*

Sed ubi Deum hominibus in corporalibus imaginibus apparuisse asserit, perplexam quaestionem proponit, quam nec absolvit, quaerens, utrum in ipsis corporalibus apparitionibus creatura aliqua crearetur ad illud opus tantum, in qua Deus hominibus appareret; an Angeli, qui ante erant, ita mitterentur, manentes in suis spiritualibus corporibus, assumerent ex corpulenta inferiorum elementorum materia aliquam speciem corporalem, quam coaptatam quasi aliquam vestem mutarent in quaslibet species corporales, veras quidem; an corpus suum proprium verterent in species aptas actionibus suis, per virtutem sibi a Deo datam. *Augustinus*: Ait enim ita Augustinus in tertio *de Trinitate*[^7]: «Quaerendum est in illis antiquis corporalibus formis et visis, utrum ad hoc opus tantum creatura formata sit, in qua Deus, sicut tunc oportuisse iudicavit, humanis ostenderetur aspectibus; an Angeli, qui iam erant, ita mittebantur, ut ex persona Dei loquerentur, assumentes corporalem speciem de creatura corporea in usum ministerii sui; an ipsum corpus suum, cui non subduntur, sed subditum regunt, mutantes atque vertentes in species, quas vellent, accommodatas atque aptas actionibus suis secundum attributam sibi a Creatore potentiam»? «Sed fateor[^8] excedere vires intentionis meae, utrum Angeli, manente spirituali sui corporis qualitate, per hanc occultius operantes assumant ex inferioribus elementis corpulentioribus corpus, quod sibi coaptatum quasi aliquam vestem mutent et vertant in quaslibet species corporales, et ipsas veras, sicut aqua vera in vinum verum conversa est a Domino; an ipsa propria corpora sua transforment in id quod volunt, accomodatum[^9] ad id quod agunt. Sed quod horum sit, quoniam homo sum, nullo experimento comprehendere valeo, sicut Angeli, qui hoc agunt». — *Iudicium Magistri*: Attende, lector, quia quaestionem propositam non solvit, sed indiscussam reliquit, utrum Angeli, qui mittebantur, servatis suis propriis spiritualibus corporibus, supervestirentur aliqua corpulentiori specie, in qua possent videri; an ipsum corpus mutarent et transformarent in quamcumque vellent speciem, in qua possent cerni. In quibus verbis videtur Augustinus attestari, Angelos esse corporeos ac propria et spiritualia habere corpora.

*Deus in se mortali oculo non apparuit*: Ceterum haec velut nimis profunda atque obscura relinquentes, illud indubitanter teneamus, quod Deus in specie essentiae suae nunquam mortalibus apparuit, sicut famulo suo Moysi dicit[^10]: *Non videbit me homo, et vivet*. Et in Evangelio Ioannis legitur: *Deum nemo vidit unquam*. *Dubium 1*: «Visibile enim quidquam non est, quod non sit mutabile». *Dubium 2*: «Ideo substantia sive essentia Dei, quoniam nullo modo mutabilis est, nullo modo potest per se ipsam esse visibilis. Proinde illa omnia, quae patribus visa sunt, cum Deus illis praesentaretur, per creaturam facta esse manifestum est. Etsi nos latet, quomodo ea ministris Angelis fecerit Deus, per Angelos tamen facta esse dicimus». *Dubium 3*: «Audeo igitur fiducialiter dicere, nec Deum Patrem nec Verbum eius nec Spiritum eius, qui est unus Deus, per id quod est atque id ipsum est, ullo modo esse mutabilem, ac per hoc multo minus visibilem»[^11].

<!-- page 209 -->

### Pars II.

### Cap. IV. *Quomodo dicuntur daemones intrare in homines.*

Illud etiam consideratione dignissimum videtur, utrum daemones, sive corporei sive incorporei sint, hominum *substantialiter* intrent corpora eorumque animabus illabantur; an ideo intrare dicantur, quia malitiae suae *effectum* ibi exercent Dei permissione, opprimendo atque vexando eas, vel in peccatum pro voluntate sua trahendo. — Quod in homines introeant atque ab eis expulsi exeant, Evangelium[^12] aperte declarat, commemorans daemonia in quosdam ingressa et per Christum eiecta; sed utrum *secundum substantiam* fuerint ingressa, an propter mali *effectum* dicantur ingressa, non adeo perspicuum est. De hoc autem *Gennadius*: Gennadius in *Definitionibus ecclesiasticorum Dogmatum*[^13] ait: «Daemones per energicam operationem non credimus *substantialiter illabi* animae, sed applicatione et oppressione *uniri*. *Illabi* autem menti illi soli possibile est, qui creavit, qui natura subsistens incorporeus capabilis est suae facturae». — Ecce hic videtur insinuari, quod *substantialiter* non illabantur daemones vel introeant corda hominum. *Beda* quoque super illum locum *Actuum Apostolorum*[^14], ubi Petrus ait Ananiae: *Cur tentavit et implevit satanas cor tuum?* dicit: «Notandum, quod mentem hominis iuxta substantiam nihil *implere* possit nisi creatrix Trinitas, quia tantummodo secundum operationem et voluntatis instinctum anima de his quae sunt creata, impletur. *Implet* vero satanas cor alicuius, non quidem ingrediens in eum et in sensum eius, neque introiens aditum cordis — siquidem potestas haec solius Dei est — sed callida et fraudulenta deceptione animam in effectum malitiae trahens per cogitationes et incentiva vitiorum, quibus plenus est. *Implevit* ergo satanas cor Ananiae non intrando, sed malitiae suae virus inserendo». Idem[^15]: «Spiritus immundus, flamma virtutum de cordibus fidelium expulsus, doctoribus veritatis venenum persecutionis infundit». — His auctoritatibus ostenditur, quod daemones non *substantialiter* intrant corda hominum, sed propter malitiae *effectum*, de quibus *pelli* dicuntur, cum nocere non sinuntur.

---

english:
<!-- page 207 -->

### Distinction 8.

### Part I.

### Cap. I. *Whether all Angels are corporeal.*

It is also wont to be debated among the learned, whether all Angels, namely both good and evil, are corporeal — that is, whether they have bodies united to themselves. *The opinion of certain men*: Some hold this, relying on the words of Augustine[^1], who seems to say that all Angels before their confirmation or fall had airy bodies formed from the purer and higher part of the air, fit for acting, not for suffering; and for the good Angels who stood firm, such bodies were conserved, so that in them they could act and not suffer, [bodies] which are of such tenuity that they cannot be seen by mortals unless overclothed with some grosser form, in which assumed they are seen, and when [the form is] laid aside they cease to be seen; but for the evil angels their bodies were changed in their fall into the worse quality of denser air. For just as they were thrown down from a more dignified place into a lower place — that is, into the murky air — so those tenuous bodies were transformed into worse and denser bodies, in which they could suffer from a higher element, that is, from fire. And Augustine seems to have meant this *on Genesis*[^2], thus saying: «*Demons are called airy animals*, because they thrive by the nature of airy <!-- page 208 -->bodies; nor are they dissolved by death, because in them the element prevails which is more fit for acting than for suffering. For to suffering, moisture and earth, [and] to acting, air and fire offer fitness». «But the angels who transgressed, with their prince — now the devil, then the Archangel — it is no wonder if after sin they were thrust down into this murk». «Neither indeed is it wonderful, if they were turned by their punishment into an airy quality, by which they can suffer from fire. Yet they have been allowed to keep only the murky [part] of the air, which to them is as a prison until the time of judgment». — Behold, by these words Augustine[^3] seems to hand down that which some hold concerning the bodies of Angels. *Others expound Augustine otherwise*: — But others maintain that he said these things not by holding so, but by reporting the opinion of others, which he wished to be judged by his own words. *Augustine*: He says: «Demons are *called* airy animals»; he does not say *are*[^4]; for thus some were saying. But concerning the inhabiting of the murky air, into which they were thrust down, they say that he handed [it] down not by opining, but by asserting the truth of the matter, which the distinction of his own speech shows. They also say that very many catholic doctors have agreed in this and have concordantly taught that the Angels are incorporeal[^5] and have no bodies united to themselves; but that they sometimes assume bodies, God preparing them, for the fulfillment of the ministry enjoined upon them by God, and lay them aside again after the fulfillment — in which bodies they appeared to men and spoke. And sometimes indeed they spoke from the person of God without distinction of any [trinitarian] person; sometimes from the person of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

### Cap. II. *Of the forms in which God appeared, and of those in which Angels appear.*

Nor is it to be doubted that God appeared to men in bodily forms, as Augustine shows in the second book *On the Trinity*[^6], by comparing diverse testimonies of Scripture from which he proves that God appeared to men in bodily figures, and that sometimes speech was made [to them] from the person of God without distinction, sometimes under a distinction of persons.

### Cap. III. *That God in the species in which God is never appeared to mortals.*

But where he asserts that God appeared to men in bodily images, he proposes a perplexing question, which he does not resolve, asking whether in those bodily appearances some creature was created for that work alone, in which God might appear to men; or whether Angels who existed before were so sent, [that] remaining in their own spiritual bodies, they assumed from the corpulent matter of the lower elements some bodily species, which fitted to them as a kind of garment they changed into whatever bodily species they would, true ones indeed; or whether they turned their own proper body into species fit for their actions, by virtue given to them by God. *Augustine*: For Augustine says thus in the third [book] *On the Trinity*[^7]: «It must be asked, concerning those ancient bodily forms and visions, whether a creature was formed for this work only, in which God, as he then judged fitting, might be shown to human eyes; or whether the Angels who already were [in being] were so sent, that they spoke from the person of God, assuming a bodily species from a bodily creature for the use of their ministry; or [whether] their own body — to which they are not subjected, but [which] subjected they govern — they were changing and turning into the species they would, accommodated and fit for their actions, according to the power attributed to them by their Creator»? «But I confess[^8] it exceeds the powers of my intention [to determine] whether the Angels, the spiritual quality of their body remaining, by it operating more hiddenly, assume from the more corpulent lower elements a body which, fitted to themselves as a kind of garment, they change and turn into whatever bodily species [they will] — and those true ones, as true water was turned into true wine by the Lord —; or whether they transform their own proper bodies into that which they will, accommodated[^9] to that which they do. But which of these it is, since I am a man, I can by no experience comprehend, as the Angels, who do this, [can]». — *The Master's judgment*: Notice, reader, that he did not resolve the proposed question, but left it undiscussed, whether the Angels who were sent, retaining their own proper spiritual bodies, were overclothed with some more corpulent species in which they could be seen; or whether they changed and transformed the body itself into whatever species they would, in which they could be perceived. In these words Augustine seems to attest that the Angels are corporeal and have their own proper and spiritual bodies.

*God in himself has not appeared to a mortal eye*: But leaving these things as too deep and obscure, let us undoubtedly hold this, that God in the species of his own essence has never appeared to mortals, as he says to his servant Moses[^10]: *Man shall not see me, and live*. And in the Gospel of John it is read: *No one has ever seen God*. *Doubt 1*: «For there is nothing visible which is not mutable». *Doubt 2*: «Therefore the substance or essence of God, since it is in no way mutable, can in no way be in itself visible. Hence all those things which were seen by the fathers, when God was being presented to them, it is manifest were made through a creature. And although it is hidden from us how God did these things through the ministering Angels, yet we say that they were done through Angels». *Doubt 3*: «I dare therefore confidently to say, that neither God the Father, nor his Word, nor his Spirit — who is one God — in respect of that which he is, and is the very same, is in any way mutable, and through this much less visible»[^11].

<!-- page 209 -->

### Part II.

### Cap. IV. *In what way demons are said to enter into men.*

That also seems most worthy of consideration, whether demons — whether they be corporeal or incorporeal — *substantially* enter into the bodies of men and pour themselves into their souls; or whether they are said to enter [only] for this reason, that they exercise the *effect* of their malice there, by God's permission, oppressing and harassing them, or drawing them into sin by their own will. — That they do enter into men and, expelled by them, go out, the Gospel[^12] openly declares, recording the demons that entered into certain people and were cast out by Christ; but whether they entered *according to substance*, or are said to enter on account of the *effect* of evil, is not so clear. Concerning this, however, *Gennadius*: Gennadius in the *Definitions of Ecclesiastical Dogmas*[^13] says: «We do not believe that demons *substantially flow into* the soul by an energetic operation, but [that they] are *united* [to it] by application and oppression. To *flow into* the mind is possible to him alone who created [it], who, being by nature subsisting incorporeal, is capable of his own creation». — Behold, here it seems insinuated that demons do not *substantially* flow into or enter the hearts of men. *Bede* also, upon that passage of *the Acts of the Apostles*[^14], where Peter says to Ananias: *Why has Satan tempted and filled your heart?*, says: «It must be noted, that nothing can *fill* the mind of man according to substance except the Trinity which created [it], because only according to operation and the instinct of the will is the soul filled by those things which are created. But Satan *fills* the heart of someone, not indeed entering into him and into his senses, nor going in by the entrance of the heart — since this power belongs to God alone — but by a cunning and fraudulent deception dragging the soul into the effect of malice through the thoughts and incitements of the vices, with which he himself is full. Satan therefore *filled* the heart of Ananias not by entering, but by infusing the poison of his own malice». The same[^15]: «The unclean spirit, a flame of vices driven from the hearts of the faithful, pours the poison of persecution into the teachers of the truth». — By these authorities it is shown that demons do not *substantially* enter the hearts of men, but on account of the *effect* of malice, on account of which they are said to be *driven out*, when they are not allowed to harm.

---

la: Retract. I. c. 26. Cfr. Sermo 277. c. 8. n. 8, et praecipue Fulgent., *de Trin.* c. 9. — Paulo ante pro *doctos* codd. C E *doctores*. Paulo inferius pro *conservata*, quod ex codd. A C et edd. 1, 8 restituimus, Vat. cum aliquibus codd. et edd. *observata*.

en: Augustine, *Retractationes* I, c. 26. Cf. Sermon 277, c. 8, n. 8, and especially Fulgentius, *On the Trinity* c. 9. — A little before, for *doctos* ['the learned'] codices C and E read *doctores* ['doctors']. A little below, for *conservata* ['conserved'] (which we have restored from codices A and C and editions 1 and 8), the Vatican edition with some codices and editions reads *observata* ['observed'].

la: Libr. III. c. 10. n. 14. et 15, ubi et duo loci seqq. — Cod. Erf. ad hunc locum recte annotat: *et est in Glossa Gen.* — *Producant aquae* [v. 20.]. In originali: *quapropter, etsi daemones aerea sunt animalia* etc. In Glossa ponitur, ut hic, *dicuntur*. — Paulo superius post *tenuia* Vat. cum paucis tantum codd. interiicit *mutata sunt et*. In textu cit. Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *qui corporum* pro *quia corporum*.

en: *On Genesis [literally]*, book III, c. 10, nn. 14 and 15, where also the two following passages [are found]. — Codex Erf. rightly notes at this place: *and it is in the Gloss on Genesis*. — *Let the waters bring forth* [v. 20]. In the original: *wherefore, even though demons are airy animals* etc. In the Gloss it is put, as here, *they are called*. — A little above, after *tenuous*, the Vatican edition with only a few codices inserts *they were changed and*. In the text cited, the Vatican edition with several codices reads *who of bodies* in place of *because of bodies*.

la: Cfr. etiam lib. VIII. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 16.

en: Cf. also *On the City of God*, book VIII, c. 16.

la: Sed cfr. supra pag. 207, nota 2.

en: But cf. above, p. 207, note 2.

la: Sola Vat. *corporei*, quae et paulo inferius cum cod. B E et nonnullis edd. voci *ministerii* adiungit *sui*.

en: The Vatican edition alone reads *corporei* ['corporeal'] [for *incorporei*], and likewise a little below, with codices B E and several editions, adds *sui* ['his/its own'] to the word *ministerii*.

en: Chapters 5, 6, 7 ff.

en: Chapter 1, n. 4, and II, c. 7, n. 13.

la: Ibid. (III. c. 1.) n. 5. Paulo inferius respicitur Ioan. 2.

en: Ibid. (III, c. 1) n. 5. A little below, John 2 is referred to.

la: Vat. sola *accomodata*. — Ad verba sequentia *In quibus verbis videtur Augustinus attestari* annotat cod. Erf.: *Non hoc asserit August., quod hic asserit Magister... sicut patet XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 10, quem librum posterius scripsit quam librum de Trin., sicut patet libro II. Retract.*

en: The Vatican edition alone reads *accomodata* [feminine]. — On the following words *In these words Augustine seems to attest* codex Erf. notes: *Augustine does not assert this — what the Master here asserts — as is clear from XXI* On the City of God *c. 10, a book he wrote later than the book* On the Trinity, *as is clear from book II of his* Retractationes.

la: Exod. 33, 20; seq. loc. Evang. Ioan. 1, 18.

en: Exodus 33, 20; the following passage [is from] the Gospel of John 1, 18.

la: August., III. *de Trin.* c. 10. n. 21. Loc. sequens ibid. habetur c. 11. n. 21. 22, in quo textu pro *potest... esse visibilis* Vat. cum nonnullis aliis edd. *visibilis est*. Tertius locus est ibid. c. 10. n. 21. Post verba *per id quod est* edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt *invariabile*.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* III, c. 10, n. 21. The following passage is found in the same [work], c. 11, nn. 21–22, in which text for *can ... be visible* the Vatican edition with several other editions reads *is visible*. The third passage is in the same place, c. 10, n. 21. After the words *through that which is*, editions 1 and 8 add *invariable*.

en: Matthew 8, 16; Mark 1, 23 ff.; Luke 4, 41.

la: *De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus* c. 50. — Vat. et ed. 4 verbis *in libro de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus* praefigunt *Augustinus*; falso. Cod. Erf. annotat: «Forte Gennadius iste compilavit de verbis August. libellum suum, sicut Prosper de Vera Innocentia». Sed infra dicit: «Illud est Augustini in libro de Ecclesiast. Dogmat.».

en: *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*, c. 50. — The Vatican edition and edition 4 prefix to the words *in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas* the name *Augustinus* — falsely. Codex Erf. notes: «Perhaps this Gennadius compiled his little book from the words of Augustine, just as Prosper [did from his] *On True Innocence*». But below he says: «That is from Augustine in the book *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*».

la: Cap. 5, 3. Verba *et implevit* exstant in codd. et edd. 1, 8, sed in Vulg. desunt. Sumta sunt ex Glossa ordin., ubi legitur: *Beda, alia translatio: Quare implevit satanas cor tuum*; notandum, quod *mentem* etc. Cod. Erf. hic annotat: «...et illud est in libro Didymi *de Spiritu sancto* [n. 18.]».

en: Acts 5, 3. The words *and filled* are present in the codices and editions 1 and 8, but are absent from the Vulgate. They are taken from the ordinary Gloss, where it reads: *Bede, in another translation: Why has Satan filled your heart?*; it must be noted that *the mind* etc. Codex Erf. notes here: «...and that is in the book of Didymus *On the Holy Spirit* [n. 18]».

la: Ibid. ad c. 28, 3, in expositione Bedae et in Glossa ordinaria. In textu cit. post *veritatis* Vat. cum aliquibus edd. interiicit *luctantibus*.

en: Ibid., at c. 28, 3, in the exposition of Bede and in the ordinary Gloss. In the text cited, after *of the truth*, the Vatican edition with some editions inserts *struggling*. ---

translators_notes:
**Boundaries (verified s48):**
- **Incoming d7-p2-dubia → d8-littera CLEAN cross-distinction split at p.207 RECEIVED** (this session's prior chunk): d7-p2-dubia owns p.207's main-stream footer ¹–⁵ ([^9]–[^13] of that chunk) and explicitly defers the separately-headed `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block on the p.207 footer to this chunk — verified by lemma match (Retract./Augustinus → *verbis Augustini*; Libr. III. de Trin. → *super Genesim*) on the cached crops; no backfill into d7-p2-dubia, that chunk not modified.
- **Outgoing d8-littera → d8-p1-divisio CLEAN cross-chunk split at p.209**: Cap. IV body closes at p.209 R-col (`…cum nocere non sinuntur.`). The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII. — PARS I. — DIVISIO TEXTUS` heading then opens on p.209 L-col (raw 15127+). The separately-headed `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block on p.209 R-col footer (¹ `Vat. Angeli, et paulo inferius pro Et aliquando quidem locuti sunt etc. substituit Assumunt autem aliquando corpora.`) is the next chunk `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-divisio`'s apparatus opener — no backfill into this chunk.

**Apparatus per-page totals (15 entries):**
- p.207 `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` ¹² (2 entries: Retract. l. c. 26 / Libr. III. de Trin. c. 10. n. 14) → [^1]–[^2]
- p.208 footer ¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹ (9 entries: L-col ¹⁻⁷ = Cfr. lib. VIII. de Civ. Dei c. 16 / Sed cfr. supra p. 207 nota 2 / Sola Vat. *corporei* var. / Cap. 5, 6, 7 / Cap. 1. n. 4 et II. c. 7. n. 13 / Ibid. (III. c. 1.) n. 5 + Ioan. 2 / Vat. sola *accomodata* + cod. Erf. note ; R-col ⁸⁹ = Exod. 33, 20 + Ioan. 1, 18 / August. III. de Trin. c. 10. n. 21 + variants) → [^3]–[^11]
- p.209 footer ¹²³⁴ (4 entries: L-col ¹⁻³ = Matth. 8, 16 + Marc. + Luc. / De Ecclesiast. Dogmat. c. 50 + Vat. var. + cod. Erf. note / Cap. 5, 3 + Glossa Beda quote + cod. Erf. Didymus note ; R-col ⁴ = Ibid. ad c. 28, 3 + Bedae expositione) → [^12]–[^15]

**No own SCHOLION** (standard for littera chunks).

**Marginal labels preserved inline** per Vol II convention: *Opinio quorundam* / *Augustinus* (×2, at Cap. II *Ait enim* anchor + Cap. III *Sed fateor* anchor) / *Alii aliter Augustinum exponunt* / *Iudicium Magistri* / *Deus in se mortali oculo non apparuit* / *Dubium 1* / *Dubium 2* / *Dubium 3* / *Gennadius* / *Beda* — editorial marginal anchors that signal Bonaventure's commentary will treat these as locus for dubia; woven into the body at their printed-margin positions.

**OCR repairs (silent):**
- `DISTINCTIO YIII.` → *DISTINCTIO VIII.* (digit-mangle Y→V; Vol II Override note 3)
- `C.\p.` → *Cap.* (period-backslash garble); `aëreorum` retained; `tlaeraonibus` → *daemonibus*; `principe suo nunc diabolo` retained; `Trinitate'` → *Trinitate*; `Anan(iae)` retained; `accomodatum` retained as printed (Quaracchi spelling); `accommodatas` retained; `substantialiter` italics retained per printed convention; `effectum`/`secundum substantiam` italics retained per Magister's distinguishing phrases; `Notandum` quote-internal retained verbatim (Bede's own *notandum*, not a marginal gloss).
- p.207 → p.208 cross-page break sits inside Cap. I body at `aëreorum natura vigent` (column break inside the embedded Augustine quotation).
- p.208 → p.209 cross-page break sits inside Cap. III body at `<!-- page 209 -->` placed before `Pars II.` heading on p.209 L-col.

**No [?] flags** — all 15 superscripts + the received p.207 NOTAE split + the cross-chunk NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM split + the OCR-garbled `DISTINCTIO YIII.` heading + the marginal-gloss anchors verified column-by-column on the cached `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p20{7,8,9}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` and `raw/vision/vol2/p-20{7,8,9}.png` 450 dpi extractions.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem VIII, Pars I — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 8, Part I — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions.

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 209 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.
### Pars I.

*De potestate daemonum, quam habent super corpora similia humanis.*

**Solet etiam in quaestione versari etc.**

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de potestate daemonum respectu creaturarum corporalium communiter; in hac parte agit de eorum potestate respectu hominum. Dividitur autem haec pars in duas. In prima agit de potestate daemonum sive Angelorum super corpora similia humanis. In secunda vero agit de potestate, quam habent super homines, infra distinctione eadem: *Illud quoque consideratione* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat, qualiter Angeli assumunt corpora. In secunda vero incidenter dubiam quaestionem Augustini inducit, quae tangit hanc materiam, et eam determinat, ibi: *Sed ubi Deum hominibus in corporalibus* etc. Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat modum, per quem daemones[^1] habent corpora sibi coniuncta. In secunda vero determinat actum, ibi: *Et aliquando quidem locuti sunt* etc. Similiter secunda pars habet duas. In prima movet quaestionem; in secunda determinat. Primum facit ibi: *Sed ubi Deum hominibus* etc. In secunda vero determinat certa, relinquens dubia, ibi: *Ceterum haec velut nimis.*

<!-- page 210 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria quaeruntur circa assumtionem corporum ab Angelis, tam bonis quam malis.

Primum spectat ad corporis[^2] et spiritus unionem. Secundum ad corporis assumti formationem. Tertium spectat ad corporis formati et assumti operationem.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum Angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita. Secundo, utrum habeant corpora voluntarie assumta.

---

english:
<!-- page 209 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VIII.
### Part I.

*Of the power of the demons, which they have over bodies like to those of men.*

**"It is also wont to be raised in question," etc.**

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the power of the demons with respect to bodily creatures in general; in this part he treats of their power with respect to men. And this part is divided into two. In the first he treats of the power of the demons or of the Angels over bodies like to those of men. In the second, by contrast, he treats of the power which they have over men, below in the same distinction: *That also is to be considered* etc.

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines in what manner the Angels assume bodies. In the second, by way of digression, he brings in a doubtful question of Augustine which touches this matter, and he settles it, there: *But where God [appeared] to men in bodily forms* etc. The first part [again] has two. In the first he determines the manner by which the demons[^1] have bodies joined to themselves. In the second, by contrast, he determines the act, there: *And sometimes, indeed, they have spoken* etc. Likewise the second part has two. In the first he raises the question; in the second he settles it. The first he does there: *But where God [appeared] to men* etc. In the second, by contrast, he settles what is certain, leaving the doubts aside, there: *But these matters, as too [obscure to determine]* etc.

<!-- page 210 -->

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, three things are asked concerning the assumption of bodies by the Angels, both good and evil.

The first regards the union of body[^2] and spirit. The second [regards] the formation of the assumed body. The third regards the operation of the formed and assumed body.

Concerning the first, two things are asked. First it is asked whether the Angels have bodies naturally united to themselves. Secondly, whether they have bodies voluntarily assumed.

---

la: Vat. *Angeli*, et paulo inferius pro *Et aliquando quidem locuti sunt* etc. substituit *Assumunt autem aliquando corpora.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *Angeli* [Angels, in place of *daemones*], and a little below substitutes *Assumunt autem aliquando corpora* [They sometimes assume bodies] for *Et aliquando quidem locuti sunt* [And sometimes, indeed, they have spoken] etc.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *corporis assumti.*

en: Codex cc and edition 1 [read] *corporis assumti* [of the assumed body]. ---

translators_notes:
- This chunk is the *Divisio textus* and *Tractatio quaestionum* of the COMMENTARIUS on Distinction VIII, **Pars I** (Bonaventure's commentary on Lombard's text *De potestate daemonum quam habent super corpora similia humanis* — Lombard d.8, c. I–IV). The DIVISIO maps Lombard's d.8 first into two parts (this Pars I = demonic power over body-like bodies; the second, *Illud quoque consideratione* etc., = Pars II on demonic power over men), then subdivides Pars I again into two (first the *modum*, then the *actum* of the demons' assumption of bodies) and the second Pars-I subpart again into two (movet quaestionem / determinat). The TRACTATIO declares the COMMENTARIUS's three quaestio-trajectories *circa assumtionem corporum* (union of body and spirit; formation of the assumed body; operation of the formed and assumed body) and announces that the first of these splits into **two articulus-level questions** ("Circa primum quaeruntur duo": [a] *utrum Angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita*; [b] *utrum habeant corpora voluntarie assumta*). Spans pp.209–210 (PDF 231–232); the COMMENTARIUS opens mid-p.209 below Lombard's Cap. IV (preceding chunk `bon-sent-II-d8-littera`), and the TRACTATIO opens p.210; ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I (raw 15174 ff.) fold into `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q1` per locked Vol II chunking convention.
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Transcribed from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 15127–15173) and re-set against the 450 dpi pp.209–210 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 209-210 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 209`/`210`), read L column top→bottom then R column, body then footer. The DIVISIO TEXTUS body is two-column on p.209 (reflowed L-then-R); the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM body is two-column on p.210 (likewise reflowed L-then-R, with the L-column tail "Tertium spectat ad corporis formati et assumti" + R-column head "operationem" rejoined as a single clause).
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a divisio chunk has no scholion.
- **Chunking convention (Vol II).** The short `ARTICULUS I.` opener + title (*De assumtione corporum quoad corporis et spiritus unionem.*) + `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 15174–15180) folds into the following `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q1` (locked Vol II convention — no standalone article-divisio chunk). This divisio ends at the TRACTATIO's close (raw 15173); `line_end` 15173.
- **Cross-chunk footer — INCOMING (clean, no backfill).** The committed `bon-sent-II-d8-littera` already captured p.209's `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM`-stream notes ¹ (`Matth. 8, 16; Marc. 1, 23. seqq; Luc. 1, 41.`), ² (`De Ecclesiast. Dogmat. c. 50. — Vat. et ed. 4 verbis in libro de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus praefigunt Augustinus; falso. Cod. Erf. annotat: «Forte Gennadius iste compilavit de verbis August. libellum suum…» etc.`), ³ (`Cap. 5, 3. Verba et implevit exstant in codd. et edd. I, 8, sed in Vulg. desunt. Sumta sunt ex Glossa ordin.…`) and the runover ⁴ (`Ibid. ad c. 28, 3, in expositione Bedae et in Glossa ordinaria. In textu cit. post veritatis Vat. cum aliquibus edd. interiicit luctantibus.`) — all anchored to the Lombard Cap. IV body. p.209's separately-headed `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` stream begins below and contains a single note ¹ (`Vat. Angeli, et paulo inferius pro Et aliquando quidem locuti sunt etc. substituit Assumunt autem aliquando corpora.`), taken here as **[^1]** at DIVISIO TEXTUS *per quem daemones*¹. The d8-littera commit's published Notes confirm the split; no backfill into d8-littera needed.
- **Cross-chunk footer — OUTGOING divisio→a1-q1 split at p.210 (documented for the d8-p1-a1-q1 build).** p.210's footer is a single `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` stream beginning at note ¹. Note **¹** `Cod. cc et ed. 1 corporis assumti.` anchors this divisio's TRACTATIO *Primum spectat ad corporis*¹ → **[^2]** (variant on the term of the union: *corporis assumti* "of the assumed body" for *corporis* "of body"). Notes **²** (`Cap. 16, ubi ex Apuleii libro de Deo Socratis illa daemonum definitio affertur; in originali substituitur tempore pro duratione. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.` → *Augustinus octavo de Civitate Dei*²), **³** (`Hom. 10. in Evang. n. 1.` → *Gregorius in homilia de Epiphania*³), **⁴** (`Serm. 3. n. 6.` → *Bernardus in Canticum homilia tertia*⁴), **⁵** (`Supple cum cod. cc et ed. 1 Angelus. Paulo superius verbis nata est cod. aa praemittit apta. — De maiori cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 32. (c. 3.).` → q.I ratio 4 *Sed*⁵ *habet illud naturaliter sibi unitum*), **⁶** (`Ed. 1 cum cod. cc influere; cod. aa influere enim vitam signum etc.` → q.I ratio 5 *influentia*⁶), **⁷** (`Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 3.` → q.I ad-opp. 1 *Damascenus*⁷), **⁸** (`De Div. Nom. c. 4. §§ 1. 2. 22. et c. 7. § 2. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 83, nota 4.` → q.I ad-opp. 2 *Dionysius*⁸) all anchor into QUAESTIO I and belong to **`bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q1`**. **The d8-p1-a1-q1 build starts its p.210 apparatus at note ², no backfill into this divisio.**
- **Apparatus crosswalk:** p.209 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` ¹ → [^1] (DIVISIO TEXTUS *per quem daemones*); p.210 footer ¹ → [^2] (TRACTATIO *Primum spectat ad corporis*); p.210 footer ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ … deferred to `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q1`.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Both superscripts and both apparatus notes verified on the 450 dpi crops (p.209-R-2 for the body anchor *daemones*¹ and the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` ¹ entry directly beneath it; p.210-L-0 for the TRACTATIO body anchor *corporis*¹ and p.210-L-2 for the footer ¹ entry). The divisio→a1-q1 split confirmed by lemma (note ² *Cap. 16, ubi ex Apuleii libro de Deo Socratis* = the *Augustinus octavo de Civitate Dei* of QUAESTIO I ratio 1, not a divisio anchor).

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. 8, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem VIII, Pars II — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 8, Part II — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 224 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.
### Pars II.

*De potestate daemonum respectu hominum.*

**Illud etiam consideratione dignissimum videtur etc.**

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 209.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de virtute daemonum, et etiam bonorum spirituum respectu corporum humanorum similium. In hac parte agit de virtute et potestate daemonum respectu hominum. Dividitur autem haec pars in quatuor particulas. In prima Magister determinat veritatem[^1], in secunda confirmat per auctoritatem Evangelii, ibi: *Quod in homines introeant* etc. In tertia vero explanat per auctoritatem Gennadii, ibi: *De hoc autem Gennadius* etc. In quarta et ultima illam explanat per auctoritatem Bedae presbyteri, ibi: *Beda quoque super illum locum* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis sex incidunt dubitabilia.

Primo enim quaeritur, utrum daemones habitare possint in humanis corporibus.

Secundo, utrum illabantur animabus.

Tertio, utrum possint ludificare humanos sensus.

Quarto, utrum possint cogitationes immittere.

Quinto, utrum possint affectiones incendere.

Sexto, utrum possint scrutari secreta nostrae conscientiae.

---

english:
<!-- page 224 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VIII.
### Part II.

*Of the power of the demons with respect to men.*

**"This also seems most worthy of consideration," etc.**

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER, SEE ABOVE, P. 209.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the power of the demons, and also of the good spirits, with respect to bodies similar to those of men. In this part he treats of the power and authority of the demons with respect to men. And this part is divided into four sections. In the first the Master determines the truth[^1] [of the matter]; in the second he confirms [it] by the authority of the Gospel, there: *That they enter into men* etc. In the third, however, he explains [it] by the authority of Gennadius, there: *But of this Gennadius* etc. In the fourth and last he explains it by the authority of the priest Bede, there: *Bede also upon that place* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, six points fall to be considered.

First it is asked whether the demons can dwell in human bodies.

Secondly, whether they slip into souls.

Thirdly, whether they can delude the human senses.

Fourthly, whether they can implant thoughts.

Fifthly, whether they can inflame affections.

Sixthly, whether they can scrutinize the secrets of our conscience.

---

la: Vat. *Magister quaerit. In secunda determinat per* etc.

en: The Vatican edition reads *Magister quaerit. In secunda determinat per* [The Master inquires. In the second [part] he determines through] etc. [i.e., in place of *Magister determinat veritatem, in secunda confirmat per*]. ---

translators_notes:
- This chunk is the *Divisio textus* and *Tractatio quaestionum* of the COMMENTARIUS on Distinction VIII, **Pars II** (Bonaventure's commentary on the second half of Lombard's d. 8, *De potestate daemonum respectu hominum* — *Illud etiam consideratione dignissimum videtur* etc.; Lombard's text of Pars II is printed above on p. 209, where the d.8 Lombard block is collected, hence the rubric `TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 209.`). The DIVISIO maps Lombard's Pars II into **four sections**: (1) *determinat veritatem*; (2) *confirmat per auctoritatem Evangelii* (*Quod in homines introeant* etc.); (3) *explanat per auctoritatem Gennadii* (*De hoc autem Gennadius* etc.); (4) *explanat per auctoritatem Bedae presbyteri* (*Beda quoque super illum locum* etc.). The TRACTATIO declares the COMMENTARIUS's **six dubitabilia** — habitation in human bodies / illapse in souls / delusion of the senses / implantation of thoughts / inflammation of affections / scrutiny of the secrets of conscience — which together constitute the single article (ARTICULUS UNICUS) of Pars II (q. 1–q. 6). The chunk sits entirely on p. 224 (PDF 246) below the preceding `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-dubia`'s close (*Et sic patet responsio ad totum*).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Transcribed from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 16128–16151) and re-set against the 450 dpi p. 224 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 224 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 224`), read L column top→bottom then R column, body then footer. The DIVISIO TEXTUS body is two-column (reflowed L-then-R, with the L-column tail *Magister determinat veritatem⁵. In secunda confirmat* + R-column head *per auctoritatem Evangelii, ibi: Quod in homines introeant* etc. rejoined as a single continuous clause). The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM list is two-column (q. 1–q. 2 in the L column, q. 3–q. 6 in the R column, reflowed top-to-bottom into the canonical six-item ordering).
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a divisio chunk has no scholion.
- **Chunking convention (Vol II).** The short `ARTICULUS UNICUS.` opener + title (*De potestate daemonum respectu hominum.*) + `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 16152 ff.) folds into the following `bon-sent-II-d8-p2-a1-q1` (locked Vol II convention — no standalone article-divisio chunk for a single-article pars). This divisio ends at the TRACTATIO's close (raw 16151); `line_end` 16151.
- **Cross-chunk footer — INCOMING (clean, no backfill).** The committed `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-dubia` (session 57) already captured p. 224 footer ¹ (*Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. circa finem, ubi sunt verba Augustini, de quibus hoc dubium instituitur.*), ² (*Cfr. Aristot., de Sensu et sensib. c. 3. — De seqq. vide I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. et p. II. q. 2.*), ³ (*Vat. mutabilia.*) and ⁴ (*Libr. VII. de Trin. n. 11, ubi per oppositionem de Deo* etc.) — all anchored to DUB I–III of `d8-p1-dubia`. Footer ⁵ (*Vat. Magister quaerit. In secunda determinat per etc.*) belongs to this divisio's DIVISIO TEXTUS *Magister determinat veritatem*⁵, taken here as **[^1]** (variant on the lemma of the divisio's first particula). The d8-p1-dubia commit's published Notes confirm the split; no backfill into d8-p1-dubia needed.
- **Cross-chunk footer — OUTGOING divisio→a1-q1 split at p.224 (documented for the d8-p2-a1-q1 build).** Notes ⁶ (*Matth. 8, 16. et 32; Marc. 1, 34; Luc. 11, 14. — De Apostolis cfr. Matth. 10, 1; Marc. 3, 15.*) → q. I videtur 1 *cut legitur in Evangeliis*⁶ Gospel-citation, and ⁷ (*Cap. 5. n. 9.*) → q. I videtur 2 *Augustinus de Divinatione daemonum*⁷, anchor into QUAESTIO I and belong to **`bon-sent-II-d8-p2-a1-q1`**. **The d8-p2-a1-q1 build starts its p.224 apparatus at note ⁶, no backfill into this divisio.**
- **Apparatus crosswalk:** p.224 footer ⁵ → [^1] (DIVISIO TEXTUS *Magister determinat veritatem*); p.224 footer ⁶ ⁷ deferred to `bon-sent-II-d8-p2-a1-q1`.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Both the superscript ⁵ anchor and the apparatus note ⁵ verified on the 450 dpi crops (p.224-L-1 for the body anchor *veritatem⁵* and p.224-R-2 for the footer ⁵ entry *Vat. Magister quaerit*). The divisio→a1-q1 split confirmed by lemma (note ⁶ *Matth. 8, 16* etc. = the Gospel-evangelization series of QUAESTIO I videtur 1, not a divisio anchor).
- **OCR garbles cleaned silently.** Running-head `COMMENTAPJUS IN I)I8TINCTI0Js'EM VIII.` → COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.; `consicleratione dignissimmn videlur` → consideratione dignissimum videtur; `TEXTUJI M.\GISTRI VIDE SUPR.A P.\G.` → TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG.; `virtule` → virtute; `corifirmat` → confirmat; `aiUem` → autem; `particnlas` → particulas; `Maeister` → Magister; `iricidunt` → incidunt; `dubitabilia` (OK); `halsitare'possint` → habitare possint; `huraanis` → humanis; `illaliantur` → illabantur; `himianos` → humanos; `possiiit` → possint; `utrura` → utrum.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 210 -->

### ARTICULUS I.

*De assumtione corporum quoad corporis et spiritus unionem.*

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum Angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod Angeli habeant corpora sibi naturaliter unita:

1. Primo *auctoritate*. Augustinus octavo de Civitate Dei[^1], ubi definiens daemones dicit: «Daemones sunt genere animalia, mente rationalia, animo passiva, corpore aerea, duratione aeterna»: si ergo eadem est natura bonorum spirituum et malorum, patet etc.

2. Item, Gregorius in homilia de Epiphania[^2]: «Iudaeis tanquam ratione utentibus rationale animal, id est Angelus, nuntiare debuit»; sed omne animal habet corpus naturaliter sibi unitum: si ergo Angelus est animal, ergo etc.

3. Item, Bernardus in Canticum homilia tertia[^3]: «Liquet, omnem spiritum creatum corporeo prorsus indigere solatio»; sed Angelus habet omne illud quo naturaliter indiget: cum ergo sit spiritus creatus, habet sibi corpus naturaliter unitum.

4. Item, ad hoc est *ratio*. Quanto substantia est nobilior, tanto in potentiis est multiplicior; sed Angelus est nobilior substantia quam anima: ergo si anima nata est vivificare corpus, multo magis et Angelus. Sed[^4] habet illud naturaliter sibi unitum, ad quod vivificandum naturaliter est aptus natus: ergo etc.

5. Item, nobiliori modo vivit quod vivit et influit vitam, quam quod non influit; influentia[^5] enim signum perfectionis est et complementi: ergo si Angelus est ita nobile vivens, sicut anima, et anima potest aliquid vivificare, ergo et Angelus. Sed non potest vivificare nisi corpus naturaliter sibi unitum: ergo etc.

**Ad oppositum:** 1. Damascenus[^6] definiens Angelum dicit, quod «Angelus est substantia intellectualis, incorporea»: ergo Angelus non habet corpus sibi unitum, quia, si haberet corpus naturaliter sibi unitum, sicut homo dicitur esse corporeus, ita et Angelus.

2. Item, Dionysius[^7] in pluribus locis dicit, quod Angeli sunt «divinae mentes et spiritualia lumina, immateriales et incorporei».

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *rationibus* sic. Tanto substantia nobilior[^8], quanto Deo est similior; sed Deus omnino caret corpore: ergo substantia spiritualis omnino carens corpore est nobilior inter substantias creatas: ergo vel est eam ponere in universo, vel in universo deficiet nobilissima creatura; et tunc universum esset *acephalum*[^9], quod est inconveniens.

4. Item, si aliquid componitur ex diversis naturis, et alteram illarum est reperire *per se*, contingit similiter *per se* reperire et reliquam[^10]; sed homo componitur ex substantia spirituali et corporali: cum ergo sit reperire substantiam pure cor<!-- page 211 -->poralem, *per se* est reperire substantiam pure spiritualem; hanc autem dicimus Angelum: ergo Angelus non habet corpus.

5. Item, quia homo componitur ex corpore et anima, cum peccavit, effectus est passibilis et mortalis: ergo si Angelus haberet corpus sibi unitum, sicut et homo, videtur saltem, quod Angeli, qui peccaverunt, sint mortales; quod si plane falsum est, manifestum est etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Angeli boni et mali non habent corpora nec naturaliter sibi unita, nec inseparabiliter alligata.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum est, quod circa istam quaestionem dubitaverunt aliquando magni doctores, utrum scilicet Angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita; unde super hoc dubie loquitur tam Augustinus quam Bernardus[^11]. Sed nunc satis certitudinaliter tenetur, et Richardus affirmat, quod Angeli sunt naturaliter incorporei, nec habent corpora naturaliter sibi unita. — De hoc tamen plures dubitant, utrum daemones habeant corpora sibi inseparabiliter alligata, in quibus torqueantur. — Sed satis planum est, quod sicut boni Angeli non habent corpora nisi voluntarie assumta, sic nec mali. Et huius signum est, sicut dicit Richardus, quod corpus modicae quantitatis a maxima multitudine daemonum aliquando obsidetur, sicut legitur Marci quinto[^12] de illo qui dixit: *Legio mihi nomen est.* «Legio enim, ut idem Richardus dicit, continet sex millia sexcentos sexaginta sex»; unde, si daemones corpora haberent, cum suis corporibus nullo modo possent subintrare corpus ita modicum.

Propter quod satis probabiliter dici potest, quod non solum non habent corpora sibi naturaliter unita, verum etiam nec boni nec mali habent inseparabiliter alligata, quantum est de lege communi. Nec obstat eorum cruciatus, quia, sicut in quarto libro[^13] ostendetur, spiritus absque corpore secundum ordinem divinae iustitiae potest ab igne materiali puniri. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes ad hanc partem.

**Ad argumenta:** 1. Ad illud vero Augustini, quod inducitur, octavo de Civitate Dei; dicendum, quod ibi loquitur Augustinus secundum opinionem Apuleii; et frequenter circa hanc materiam plus loquitur secundum opinionem aliorum quam secundum sententiam suam.

2. Ad illud Gregorii, quod Angelus est animal; dicendum, quod aliquid esse animal dupliciter dicitur: aut ratione formae, aut ratione operationis animali debitae. Ibi autem dicitur Angelus animal non ratione formae, sed potius ratione operationis consequentis. — Vel aliter. Esse animal dupliciter potest dici: vel secundum veritatem, vel secundum ostensionem sive apparentiam. Gregorius autem loquitur secundo modo, quia Angelus apparet esse animal, cum assumit corpus. Ipse autem obiicit secundum primum modum accipiendi animal.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Bernardo, quod omnis spiritus creatus indiget corporeo solatio; dicendum, quod indigere corpore potest esse dupliciter: aut propter se, aut propter alios. Spiritus indigens propter se est spiritus brutalis, vel humanus; et de hoc verum est, quod habet corpus naturaliter sibi unitum. Spiritus vero indigens propter alios est spiritus angelicus; et iste non habet corpus sibi naturaliter unitum, sed assumtum voluntarie, ut ministret aliis. Unde Bernardus[^14]: «Angelici spiritus ad ea capienda, quae bonam faciunt creaturam, nullo modo suis corporibus adiuvantur». Et ideo non habent ea coniuncta propter indigentiam supplendam in se ipsis, sed in nobis; et quia hanc supplent ad tempus, ideo non habent ea unita simpliciter, sed ad tempus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod substantia nobilior est, quae multiplicior est in potentiis; dicendum, quod verum est de illis potentiis, quae simpliciter attestantur perfectioni. Potentia autem vivificandi corpus, etsi quodam modo sit perfectionis, nihilominus tamen coniunctam[^15] habet quandam indigentiam et imperfectionem, et ideo ab illa substantia, quae perfectissima est inter creaturas, est aliena; haec autem est substantia angelica, nec de hac potentia concludit ratio supradicta.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod influens vitam et habens vitam nobilius est quam habens tantum; dicendum, quod aliquid communicare sive dare vitam alii potest dupliciter: aut per modum efficientis, et hoc simpliciter perfectionis est, et sic competit soli Deo; aut per modum informantis, et sic non est simpliciter perfectionis, immo perfectionis cum imperfectione iunctae. Et ideo neutrum convenit Angelo, quia perfectio sua maior est, quam sit perfectio vivificantis per modum formae, et minor, quam sit perfectio dantis vitam per modum causae. Et loquor de vita, quae competit substantiae rationali.

<!-- page 212 -->

english:
<!-- page 210 -->

### ARTICLE I.

*On the assumption of bodies as regards the union of body and spirit.*

### QUESTION I.

*Whether the Angels have bodies naturally united to themselves.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the Angels have bodies naturally united to themselves:

1. First, by *authority*. Augustine, [book] eight, *On the City of God*[^1], where, defining the demons, he says: «Demons are, by genus, animals; in mind, rational; in soul, passive; in body, aerial; in duration, eternal»: if therefore the nature of the good spirits and of the evil is the same, it is plain etc.

2. Likewise, Gregory in the homily *On the Epiphany*[^2]: «To the Jews, as using reason, a rational animal — that is, an Angel — had to announce [the news]»; but every animal has a body naturally united to itself: if therefore an Angel is an animal, therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Bernard *On the Canticle*, homily three[^3]: «It is clear that every created spirit altogether needs a corporeal solace»; but the Angel has all that of which he naturally has need: since therefore he is a created spirit, he has a body naturally united to himself.

4. Likewise, for this there is a *reason*. The nobler a substance is, the more manifold it is in [its] potencies; but the Angel is a nobler substance than the soul: therefore if the soul is fitted by nature to give life to a body, much more so the Angel. But[^4] he has that naturally united to himself, to which by his nature he is born apt to give life: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, that which lives and infuses life lives in a nobler mode than that which does not infuse [life]; for an infusion[^5] is a sign of perfection and of completeness: therefore if the Angel is a living thing so noble as the soul, and the soul can give life to something, therefore so can the Angel. But he cannot give life save to a body naturally united to himself: therefore etc.

**On the opposite side:** 1. [John] Damascene[^6], defining an Angel, says that «an Angel is an intellectual, incorporeal substance»: therefore the Angel does not have a body united to himself, because, if he had a body naturally united to himself, just as a man is said to be corporeal, so also [would be] the Angel.

2. Likewise, Dionysius[^7] in many places says that the Angels are «divine minds and spiritual lights, immaterial and incorporeal».

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by *reasonings* thus. A substance is so much the nobler[^8], by how much the more it is like to God; but God altogether lacks a body: therefore a spiritual substance altogether lacking a body is the noblest among created substances: therefore either it must be posited in the universe, or in the universe the noblest creature will be wanting; and then the universe would be *headless* [acephalum][^9], which is unfitting.

4. Likewise, if anything is composed out of diverse natures, and one of them is to be found *per se*, it likewise befalls [one] to find *per se* the other[^10]; but man is composed out of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: since therefore there is to be found a purely cor<!-- page 211 -->poreal substance, *per se* there is to be found a purely spiritual substance; and this we call an Angel: therefore the Angel does not have a body.

5. Likewise, since man is composed of body and soul, when he sinned he became passible and mortal: therefore if an Angel had a body united to himself, like a man, it would seem at least that the Angels who sinned are mortal; and since this is plainly false, it is manifest etc.

### Conclusion.

> *The good and evil Angels have bodies neither naturally united to themselves nor inseparably bound [to themselves].*

**I respond:** For the understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted that concerning this question great doctors once had their doubts — namely whether the Angels have bodies naturally united to themselves; whence on this point both Augustine and Bernard[^11] speak doubtfully. But now it is held with sufficient certainty — and Richard [of St Victor] affirms [it] — that the Angels are naturally incorporeal, and do not have bodies naturally united to themselves. — Yet on this many still doubt, whether the demons have bodies inseparably bound to themselves, in which they are tormented. — But it is plain enough that just as the good Angels do not have bodies save those voluntarily assumed, so also [is it] with the evil. And a sign of this is, as Richard says, that a body of small quantity is sometimes besieged by a vast multitude of demons, as is read in Mark, [chapter] five[^12], of him who said: *Legion is my name.* «For a Legion, as the same Richard says, contains six thousand six hundred and sixty-six»; whence, if the demons had bodies, they could in no way enter into so small a body with their own bodies.

For which [reason] it can be said with sufficient probability that not only do they not have bodies naturally united to themselves, but also neither the good nor the evil have [bodies] inseparably bound [to themselves], so far as it pertains to the common law. Nor does their torment stand in the way, because, as will be shown in book four[^13], a spirit without a body can, according to the order of divine justice, be punished by material fire. — The arguments for this side must therefore be conceded.

**To the arguments:** 1. To that [text] of Augustine which is adduced, *On the City of God*, [book] eight; it must be said that Augustine there speaks according to the opinion of Apuleius; and frequently in this matter he speaks more according to the opinion of others than according to his own judgment.

2. To that of Gregory — that the Angel is an animal — it must be said that for something to be an animal can be said in two ways: either by reason of *form*, or by reason of an *operation* due to an animal. There [in Gregory] the Angel is called an animal not by reason of form, but rather by reason of an operation which follows. — Or otherwise: to be an animal can be said in two ways: either according to *truth*, or according to *manifestation* or appearance. Now Gregory is speaking in the second way, because the Angel appears to be an animal when he assumes a body. But [the objection] objects according to the first way of taking [the term] *animal*.

3. To that which is objected from Bernard, that every created spirit needs a corporeal solace; it must be said that to need a body can be in two ways: either on account of itself, or on account of others. A spirit needing [a body] on account of itself is the brutal or the human spirit; and of this [kind] it is true that it has a body naturally united to itself. But a spirit needing [a body] on account of others is the angelic spirit; and this [spirit] does not have a body naturally united to itself, but [a body] voluntarily assumed, to minister to others. Whence Bernard[^14]: «The angelic spirits, for receiving those things which make the creature good, are in no way aided by their bodies». And so they do not have them joined [to themselves] for the sake of supplying a need in themselves, but in us; and because they supply this [need] for a time only, they do not have them united simply, but for a time.

4. To that which is objected — that the substance is nobler which is the more manifold in [its] potencies — it must be said that this is true of those potencies which simply attest to perfection. But the potency of giving life to a body, although in some way it is of perfection, nevertheless has a certain need and imperfection conjoined[^15] [to it], and is therefore alien to that substance which is the most perfect among creatures; but this [most perfect substance] is the angelic substance, nor does the aforesaid reasoning conclude [anything] concerning [the angelic substance] from this potency.

5. To that which is objected — that what infuses life and has life is nobler than what only has [life] — it must be said that to communicate or to give life to another can [be done] in two ways: either by way of an *efficient* [cause], and this is simply of perfection, and so belongs to God alone; or by way of an *informing* [cause], and this is not simply of perfection, but rather a perfection joined with imperfection. And so neither [of these] befits the Angel, because his perfection is greater than is the perfection of one who gives life by way of *form*, and lesser than is the perfection of one who gives life by way of a *cause*. And I speak of the life which befits a rational substance.

<!-- page 212 -->

la: Cap. 16, ubi ex Apuleii libro de Deo Socratis illa daemonum definitio affertur; in originali substituitur *tempore* pro *duratione*. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: C. 16, where that definition of demons is brought forward from Apuleius's book *On the God of Socrates*; in the original [the text] substitutes *tempore* [in time] for *duratione* [in duration]. Cf. also here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Hom. 10. in Evang. n. 1.

en: Homily 10 *On the Gospels*, n. 1.

en: Sermon 3, n. 6.

la: Supple cum cod. cc et ed. 1 *Angelus.* Paulo superius verbis *nata est* cod. aa praemittit *apta*. — De *maiori* cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 32. (c. 3.).

en: Supply with cod. cc and ed. 1 *Angelus* [Angel]. A little above, to the words *nata est* [is fitted by nature] cod. aa prefixes *apta* [apt]. — On the *major* [premise] cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 32 (c. 3).

la: Ed. 1 cum cod. cc *influere*; cod. aa *influere enim vitam signum* etc.

en: Ed. 1 with cod. cc [reads] *influere* [to infuse]; cod. aa [reads] *influere enim vitam signum* [for to infuse life [is] a sign] etc.

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 3.

en: [John Damascene,] Book II, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 3.

la: De Div. Nom. c. 4. §§ 1. 2. 22. et c. 7. § 2. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 83, nota 1.

en: *On the Divine Names* c. 4, §§ 1, 2, 22, and c. 7, § 2. Cf. also above, p. 83, note 1.

la: Cod. K interserit *sicut dicit Gregorius*, de quo cfr. XX. Moral. c. 16. n. 41; magis autem respondet locus Richardi a S. Vict., IV. de Trin. c. 23.

en: Cod. K inserts *sicut dicit Gregorius* [as Gregory says], concerning whom cf. *Morals* XX, c. 16, n. 41; but the passage of Richard of St Victor, IV *On the Trinity*, c. 23, corresponds more [closely].

la: Ex Graeco ἀκέφαλον i. e. sine capite. Richard. a S. Vict., IV. de Trin. c. 25, probans incorporeitatem Angelorum ait: *Quod ergo est in operatione humana humani corporis effigies sine capite, hoc esse videtur in operatione divina universitatis fabrica sine optimo genere creaturae.*

en: From the Greek ἀκέφαλον, i. e. *without a head*. Richard of St Victor, IV *On the Trinity*, c. 25, proving the incorporeity of the Angels, says: *That, therefore, which in the human operation is the effigy of a human body without a head, this is seen to be in the divine operation the fabric of the universe without [its] best kind of creature.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 37. (c. 3.), ubi docet, quod si contingit dare aliquod, quod movet et movetur, et aliquod, quod tantum movetur, rationabile etiam est dare aliquod, quod tantum movet et non movetur. — Plures codd. cum ed. 1 *reliqua.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 37 (c. 3), where he teaches that if it befalls [one] to grant something which both moves and is moved, and something which is only moved, it is also reasonable to grant something which only moves and is not moved. — Several codices with ed. 1 [read] *reliqua* [the remaining things].

la: De sententia Augustini cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. seq.; de Bernardi opinione vide Serm. 5. in Cant. n. 2. seqq. — Ea quae mox ex Richardo allegantur, habentur IV. de Trin. c. 25. — Vat. *et Magister et Richardus affirmant.*

en: On the judgment of Augustine cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1 ff.; on Bernard's opinion see Sermon 5 *On the Canticle*, n. 2 ff. — Those things which are presently adduced from Richard are found IV *On the Trinity*, c. 25. — The Vatican edition [reads] *et Magister et Richardus affirmant* [both the Master and Richard affirm].

la: Vers. 9.

en: Verse 9.

en: [Book IV,] Distinction 44, p. II, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Serm. 5. in Cant. n. 4, ubi textus originalis *beatam spiritualem* pro *bonam.*

en: Sermon 5 *On the Canticle*, n. 4, where the original text [reads] *beatam spiritualem* [blessed spiritual] for *bonam* [good].

la: Vat. *propter coniunctum* scil. corpus.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *propter coniunctum*, namely [the] body. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quaestio haec omnino differt ab alia, utrum Angeli et daemones aliquo modo compositi sint ex principio materiali et forma, de qua actum est supra d. 3. p. 1. q. 1. — Quod autem etiam Angeli subtile aliquod et aethereum corpus naturaliter habeant unitum, fuit opinio nonnullorum antiquorum Patrum; et ipse magnus S. Augustinus in hac quaestione decidenda animum non parum habebat perplexum. Sed posteriores theologi, praesertim post Concil. Lateran. IV. (a. 1215), omnino conveniunt in solutione negativa.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 34. m. 1. — Scot. apud Hier. de Montefortino, t. II. q. 31. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 1; S. p. I. q. 51. a. 1; S. c. Gent. II. c. 49; de Potent. q. 6. a. 6; de Spirit. Creaturis, a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aigid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Durand., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question is altogether distinct from the other [question] — whether the Angels and demons are in some way composed out of a material and a formal principle — concerning which it was treated above, d. 3, p. 1, q. 1. — That, however, the Angels also have a certain subtle and ethereal body naturally united [to themselves], was the opinion of some among the ancient Fathers; and the great St. Augustine himself, in deciding this question, had a mind not a little perplexed. But the later theologians, especially after the IV Lateran Council (a. 1215), agree altogether in the negative solution.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. II, q. 34, m. 1. — Scotus, apud Jerome of Montefortino, t. II, q. 31, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 1; *Summa* p. I, q. 51, a. 1; *Summa contra Gentiles* II, c. 49; *De Potentia* q. 6, a. 6; *De Spiritualibus Creaturis*, a. 7. — Blessed Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following questions, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- This chunk is **ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO I** of the COMMENTARIUS on Distinction VIII, **Pars I** (*De assumtione corporum quoad corporis et spiritus unionem* — whether the Angels have bodies naturally united to themselves). Per the locked Vol II chunking convention, the short `ARTICULUS I.` opener + article title (*De assumtione corporum quoad corporis et spiritus unionem.*) + `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 15174–15180) are folded into this q1 chunk — there is no standalone article-divisio chunk. Structure: 5 *videtur* (Augustine *de Civ. Dei* 8 ex Apuleii / Gregory Hom. 10 *in Evang.* / Bernard *in Cant.* Sermon 3 + 2 *rationes* on the *nobilior-est-multiplicior* and the *influens-vitam* maxims) + **Ad oppositum** in 5 ad-opp (Damascene's *incorporea-substantia* definition / Dionysius's *immateriales et incorporei* string / *nobilior-substantia-Deo-similior* with the *universum acephalum* Richard-of-St-Victor gloss / *aliquid componitur ex diversis* with the *per-se-reperire-reliquam* corollary / the *peccavit-mortalis* ratio) + *Conclusio* (blockquote) + **Respondeo** (Augustine + Bernard *dubie loquuntur* on the open question; Richard *affirmat* Angelos esse naturaliter incorporeos; the *Marci quinto Legio* demonstration that demons cannot have bodies inseparably bound — *Legio enim continet sex millia sexcentos sexaginta sex*; the *quantum est de lege communi* qualification; the cross-ref to Book IV d.44 p.II a.3 q.2 for *spiritus absque corpore ab igne materiali puniri*) + **Ad argumenta** in 5 grouped replies (Augustine = *secundum opinionem Apuleii*; Gregory = double distinction on *animal*: *ratione formae / ratione operationis* and *secundum veritatem / secundum ostensionem*; Bernard = *indigere propter alios non propter se*, with the *Angelici spiritus ad ea capienda* Bernard quote; *substantia nobilior* objection = *potentia vivificandi corpus* has *coniunctam indigentiam*; *influens vitam* = *per modum efficientis / per modum informantis*, neither convenit Angelo, who exceeds the *vivificans-per-modum-formae* and falls short of the *dans-vitam-per-modum-causae*) + editorial **SCHOLION I–II** on p.212 (I = the *materiali-et-forma* clarification + the Concil. Lateran. IV. 1215 historical anchor; II = the cross-reference list of Alex. Hal. / Scotus / S. Thom. / B. Albert. / Petr. a Tar. / Richard. a Med. / Aegid. R. / Durand. / Dionys. Carth. / Biel). Spans pp.210–212 (PDF 232–234).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 15174–15303) over the 450 dpi pp.210–212 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 210-212 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 <p>`), read **Left column top→bottom, then Right column**, body bands then footer band, reflowed column-by-column (not raw-line order). The two-column cascade-shattering on p.210 (the *Ad oppositum* break in the OCR raw + the *Sed habet illud naturaliter sibi unitum* runover at ratio 4) and the Respondeo + Ad-argumenta replies on p.211 are the regions where the column-band PDF read is authoritative; the videtur running prose is clean OCR base. Editorial marginal glosses bleeding inline (*Ad oppositum, Fundamenta, Notandum, Dubium de daemonibus alligatis, Conclusio* [the second, intra-Respondeo one, marking the *Propter quod satis probabiliter* paragraph], *Solutio oppositorum, Distinctio* ×3 — at *animal dupliciter / ratione formae aut operationis*, at *indigere corpore dupliciter / propter se aut propter alios*, and at *aliquid communicare vitam dupliciter / per modum efficientis aut informantis*, *Alia ratio*) trimmed per CLAUDE.md (structural ### / **bold** headers carry the same scaffolding).
- **Scholion present** (`has_scholion: true`) — two-paragraph editorial SCHOLION I–II on p.212 (the IV Lateran Council historical-anchor paragraph + the cross-reference list). No superscript anchors in either scholion paragraph; all references inline.
- **Chunking convention (Vol II).** The short `ARTICULUS I.` opener + article title (*De assumtione corporum quoad corporis et spiritus unionem.*) + `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 15174–15180) folds into this q1 chunk (locked Vol II convention — no standalone article-divisio chunk). This chunk ends at the SCHOLION II close (raw 15303); `line_end` 15303. The next chunk `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q2` opens at QUAESTIO II (raw 15304) on p.212.
- **Cross-chunk footer — INCOMING (clean, no backfill).** The committed `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-divisio` already took p.210 footer ¹ (`Cod. cc et ed. 1 corporis assumti.`) as its [^2] at the TRACTATIO *Primum spectat ad corporis*¹ and explicitly defers p.210 footer ²–¹¹ to this chunk. d8-p1-divisio not modified. This chunk's p.210 apparatus starts at footer ² → [^1].
- **Cross-chunk footer — OUTGOING q1→q2 split at p.212 CLEAN.** The SCHOLION I–II reference list closes mid-p.212 just above QUAESTIO II (raw 15304+); SCHOLION I (the Concil. Lateran. IV. solution-history paragraph) and SCHOLION II (the cross-reference roll) carry no numbered footer apparatus — all citations are inline. p.212's body footer (if any below QUAESTIO II's videtur) is wholly the following `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q2`'s; no backfill into this chunk. **The d8-p1-a1-q2 build starts its p.212 apparatus fresh at the first footer entry below QUAESTIO II's first videtur.**
- **Apparatus crosswalk:** p.210 footer ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ ¹¹ → [^1]–[^10] (videtur 1–5 + ad-opp 1–4 + the *acephalum* gloss + ad-opp 4 *reliquam*); p.211 footer ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ → [^11]–[^15] (Respondeo *Bernardus* + *Marci quinto* + cross-ref *quarto libro*; Ad-arg 3 *Bernardus* + Ad-arg 4 *coniunctam*); p.212 SCHOLION carries no apparatus.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Every superscript anchor (15 in the body) + every apparatus entry (15 in the footer) verified column-by-column on the 450 dpi crops (p.210-L-0/L-1/L-2 + p.210-R-1/R-2 for the videtur sequence + ad-opp 1–4 + p.210 footer ²–¹¹; p.211-L-1/L-2 + p.211-R-1/R-2 for the Conclusio + Respondeo + Ad-argumenta + p.211 footer ¹–⁵; p.212 for the SCHOLION I–II close). The p.211 footer ⁴ Bernardus reference reads **Serm. 5** (not 3) on the 450 dpi crop, against the OCR raw `Serm. 3` — the printed page is authoritative per Vol II Override (and p.211 footer ¹'s *de Bernardi opinione vide Serm. 5. in Cant. n. 2. seqq.* corroborates: both Quaracchi cross-refs on p.211 anchor in Bernard *Cant.* Sermon 5, not 3; the videtur 3 citation at [^3] keeps the Sermon 3 reading as that footer is on the **left** column of p.210 where the OCR is clean, while the p.211 Bernardus references are in the cascade-shattered right-column footer where the printed crop is authoritative).