title: Pars 4, Cap. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 241 -->

### PARS QUARTA. *De incarnatione Verbi.*

### Capitulum I. *De ratione, qua Verbum Dei debuit incarnari vel decuit.*

Postquam aliqua praedicta sunt de Trinitate Dei, de creatura mundi et de corruptela peccati; restat nunc aliqua breviter dicere de incarnatione Verbi, per quod quidem Verbum incarnatum facta est salus et reparatio generis humani, non quia aliter Deus non potuerit humanum genus salvare vel liberare, sed quia nullus alius modus erat ita congruus et conveniens ipsi *reparatori* et *reparabili* et *reparationi*[^p241-3].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum principium effectivum rerum non potuerit nec decuerit esse nisi Deum; et non minus sit res conditas reparare quam in *esse* producere[^p241-4], sicut non minus est *bene esse* quam *simpliciter esse*: decentissimum fuit, rerum principium reparativum esse Deum summum, ut, sicut omnia creaverat Deus per Verbum increatum, sic omnia curaret per Verbum incarnatum[^p241-5]. Quoniam ergo Deus omnia fecit potenter, sapienter et optime seu benevolenter; decuit, ut sic repararet, quod suam *potentiam, sapientiam* et *benevolentiam* ostenderet. Quid autem *potentius* quam coniungere extrema summe distantia in unam personam[^p241-6]? Quid *sapientius* et congruentius, quam quod ad perfectionem totius universi fieret coniunctio primi et ultimi, Verbi scilicet Dei, quod est omnium principium, et humanae naturae, quae fuit ultima omnium creaturarum? Quid *benevolentius*, quam quod Dominus propter servi salutem accipiat *formam servi*[^p241-7]? Immo hoc tantae benignitatis est, ut nihil clementius, nihil benignius, nihil amicabilius cogitari possit. — Convenientissimus ergo erat hic modus Deo *reparatori* propter commendandam divinam potentiam, sapientiam et benevolentiam.

Rursus, quia homo, cadens in culpam, averterat se et recesserat a principio[^p241-8] potentissimo, sapientissimo et benevolentissimo; ideo corruerat in *infirmitatem, ignorantiam* et *malignitatem*, ac per hoc de spirituali effectus est carnalis, animalis et sensualis; et ideo ineptus erat ad divinam *virtutem imitandam*, ad *lucem cognoscendam*, ad *bonitatem diligendam*. Ad hoc igitur, quod homo ab isto statu repararetur, congruentissimum fuit, ut ei condescenderet primum principium, reddendo se illi *noscibile, amabile* et *imitabile*. Et quia homo carnalis, animalis et sensualis non noverat nec amabat nec sequebatur nisi sibi proportionalia et consimilia; ideo ad eripiendum hominem de hoc statu *Verbum caro factum est*[^p241-9], ut ab homine, qui caro erat, et *cognosci* posset et *amari* et *imitari* ac per hoc et homo Deum cognoscens et amans et imitans remediaretur a morbo peccati.

Postremo, quia homo perfecte reparari non poterat, nisi recuperaret *mentis innocentiam, Dei amicitiam* et *suam excellentiam*, qua soli Deo suberat; et hoc non poterat fieri nisi per Deum in forma servi: ideo congruum fuit, Verbum incarnari. — *Excellentiam* namque recuperare non poterat, nisi reparator esset Deus; quia, si mera creatura, tunc homo esset illi merae creaturae subiectus, et sic non recuperaret statum excellentiae[^p241-10]. — *Amicitiam* quoque Dei recuperare non poterat nisi per mediatorem convenientem, qui manum posset ponere in utrumque et utrique parti conformis esset et utrique amicus, et ideo, sicut similis Deo per Divinitatem, sic similis homini per humanitatem. — *Innocentiam* vero mentis recuperare non poterat, nisi dimissa culpa; quam dimittere non decebat divinam iustitiam nisi per satisfactionem condignam; et quia satisfacere non *poterat* nisi Deus pro toto humano genere, nec *debebat* nisi homo, qui peccaverat: ideo congruentissimum fuit, humanum genus reparari per Deum-hominem natum[^p242-1] de genere Adae. — Quoniam ergo *excellentia* recuperari non poterat nisi per reparatorem excellentissimum, nec *amicitia* reformari poterat nisi per mediatorem amicabilissimum, nec *innocentia* reacquiri poterat nisi per satisfactorem sufficientissimum; *excellentissimus* autem reparator non est, nisi sit Deus; *amicabilissimus* mediator non est, nisi sit homo; *sufficientissimus* satisfactor non est, nisi sit Deus pariter et homo: congruentissima fuit nostrae reparationi incarnatio Verbi, ut; sicut genus humanum in *esse* exierat per Verbum *increatum* et in culpam ceciderat deserendo[^p242-2] Verbum *inspiratum*; sic a culpa resurgeret per Verbum *incarnatum*.

<!-- page 242 -->

---

english:
### PART FOUR. *On the Incarnation of the Word.*

### Chapter I. *On the reason why the Word of God had to be incarnate, or why it was fitting.*

After some things have been said above concerning the Trinity of God, concerning the creation of the world and concerning the corruption of sin; it now remains to say some few things briefly concerning the incarnation of the Word, through which Word incarnate the salvation and reparation of the human race was indeed brought about — not because God could not otherwise have saved or freed the human race, but because no other mode was so congruous and fitting to the *repairer* himself and to the *repairable* and to the *reparation*[^p241-3].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the effective principle of things could not, and would not have been fitting to be, anything but God; and since it is no less a thing to repair things once founded than to produce them into *being*[^p241-4], just as *to be well* is no less than *simply to be*: it was most becoming that the reparative principle of things should be the highest God, so that, as God had created all things through the Word uncreated, so he should heal all things through the Word incarnate[^p241-5]. Since therefore God made all things powerfully, wisely and in the best way, that is to say benevolently; it was fitting that he should so repair them as to show forth his *power, wisdom* and *benevolence*. But what is more *powerful* than to join extremes supremely distant into one person[^p241-6]? What is more *wise* and more congruous than that, for the perfection of the whole universe, there should be made a conjunction of the first and the last — namely, of the Word of God, which is the principle of all things, and of human nature, which was the last of all creatures? What is more *benevolent* than that the Lord, for the salvation of the servant, should take up *the form of a servant*[^p241-7]? Nay, this is of such great kindness that nothing more clement, nothing more kind, nothing more friendly can be thought. — This mode, therefore, was most fitting to God the *repairer*, for the commending of the divine power, wisdom and benevolence.

Again, because man, falling into fault, had turned himself away and withdrawn from the principle[^p241-8] most powerful, most wise and most benevolent; therefore he had fallen headlong into *infirmity, ignorance* and *malignity*, and through this from spiritual he was made carnal, animal and sensual; and therefore he was unfit *to imitate* the divine *power*, *to know* the *light*, *to love* the *goodness*. To this end, therefore, that man might be repaired from that state, it was most congruous that the first principle should condescend to him, rendering itself to him *knowable, lovable* and *imitable*. And because man, carnal, animal and sensual, neither knew nor loved nor followed anything except what was proportioned and like to himself; therefore, to snatch man out of this state, *the Word was made flesh*[^p241-9], so that by man, who was flesh, he might both be *known* and be *loved* and be *imitated*, and through this man also, knowing and loving and imitating God, might be healed of the disease of sin.

Lastly, because man could not be perfectly repaired unless he recovered *the innocence of mind, the friendship of God* and *his own excellence*, by which he was subject to God alone; and this could not be brought about except through God in the form of a servant: therefore it was congruous that the Word be incarnate. — For *excellence* he could not recover unless the repairer were God; because, if he were a mere creature, then man would be subject to that mere creature, and so would not recover the state of excellence[^p241-10]. — The *friendship* of God, too, he could not recover except through a suitable mediator, one who could lay his hand upon both and be conformed to each party and a friend to each, and therefore, as like to God through Divinity, so like to man through humanity. — And *innocence* of mind he could not recover unless the fault were remitted; and to remit it did not befit the divine justice except through a condign satisfaction; and because none could *make satisfaction* but God for the whole human race, and none *was bound to* but man, who had sinned: therefore it was most congruous that the human race be repaired through the God-man born[^p242-1] of the stock of Adam. — Since therefore *excellence* could not be recovered except through a most excellent repairer, nor could *friendship* be reformed except through a most friendly mediator, nor could *innocence* be reacquired except through a most sufficient satisfier; and since the *most excellent* repairer is not such unless he be God, the *most friendly* mediator is not such unless he be man, the *most sufficient* satisfier is not such unless he be God and man alike: the incarnation of the Word was most congruous to our reparation, so that; as the human race had gone forth into *being* through the Word *uncreated* and had fallen into fault by forsaking[^p242-2] the Word *inspired*; so it should rise again from fault through the Word *incarnate*.

<!-- page 242 -->

---

la: August., de Verbis Apostoli, serm. 176. (alias 10.) c. 5. n. 5: *Nemo recreat, nisi qui creat* etc. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 28, nota 2. — Superius edd., excepta 2, voci *principium* praefigunt *primum*, et 1 *Deus* pro *Deum*.

en: Augustine, *On the Words of the Apostle*, sermon 176 (elsewhere 10), c. 5, n. 5: *No one re-creates save he who creates*, etc. Cf. tom. III, p. 28, note 2. — Above, the editions, except edition 2, prefix *primum* to the word *principium*, and edition 1 has *Deus* for *Deum*.

la: Cfr. Ioan. 1, 3. et 14. Vide tom. III. pag. 30, nota 5. — Pro *curaret* A W *recrearet*, Vat., 1 et 3 *repararet*, quae etiam inferius post *repararet* addunt *reparanda*.

en: Cf. John 1:3 and 14. See tom. III, p. 30, note 5. — For *curaret* A W have *recrearet*, the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 *repararet* — which also, further below, after *repararet* add *reparanda*.

la: Vide Bernard., Serm. 3. in Vigilia Nativit. Domini, n. 8. et Serm. 2. in Nativit. Domini, n. 4. — Seq. ratio est secundum Irenaeum; cfr. tom. III. pag. 19, nota 2.

en: See Bernard, *Sermon 3 on the Vigil of the Nativity of the Lord*, n. 8, and *Sermon 2 on the Nativity of the Lord*, n. 4. — The following reason is according to Irenaeus; cf. tom. III, p. 19, note 2.

la: D I L M V *a primo principio*. Inferius vocibus *divinam virtutem* S interserit *iustitiam vel*, et pro *statu* C I P substituunt *casu*.

en: D I L M V have *a primo principio*. Further below, between the words *divinam virtutem* S inserts *iustitiam vel*, and for *statu* C I P substitute *casu*.

la: Ioan. 1, 14. Cfr. August., de Vera Relig. c. 16. n. 30. seqq. et c. 55. n. 110. — Post *eripiendum* B H addunt *vel erigendum*. Inferius permulti codd. et 2 omittunt *et imitari*.

en: John 1:14. Cf. Augustine, *On True Religion*, c. 16, n. 30 ff., and c. 55, n. 110. — After *eripiendum* B H add *vel erigendum*. Further below, very many codices and edition 2 omit *et imitari*.

la: Vide supra pag. 183, nota 3. — Edd., excepta 2, *statum prioris excellentiae*. Superius pro *namque* P S *autem*. Inferius post *et ideo* E brevius concludit *Deus factus est similis homini* etc.

en: See above, p. 183, note 3. — The editions, except edition 2, read *statum prioris excellentiae*. Above, for *namque* P S have *autem*. Further below, after *et ideo* E concludes more briefly: *God was made like to man*, etc.

la: A E addunt *de Virgine*.

en: A E add *de Virgine*.

la: Vat. et 3 cum uno alterove cod. tantum (ut K) pro *deserendo* substituunt *per*, referentes *verbum inspiratum* ad verba serpentis in paradiso. Quae lectio nec codd. nec modo loquendi S. Doctori familiari (cfr. infra Itinerar. c. 4.) convenit.

en: The Vatican edition and edition 3, with only one or another codex (such as K), substitute *per* for *deserendo*, referring *verbum inspiratum* to the words of the serpent in paradise. That reading agrees neither with the codices nor with the manner of speaking familiar to the holy Doctor (cf. below, *Itinerarium*, c. 4). ---

translators_notes:
**⚠ Index verification — PARS IV HAS TEN CAPITULA, confirmed against the volume's own index.** The Breviloquium's capitula table (raw `doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt` L93855–93890, the block headed `Pars IV. / De incarnatione Verbi.`) lists exactly ten, and the titles match the hand-off list word for word once the raw's garbles are read off: I *De ratione, qua Verbum Dei debuit incarnari vel decuit* (raw `De ratione, qua Verlnim Dei debult incarnari vel decuit`) · II *De incarnatione quantum ad unionem naturarum* · III *De incarnatione quantum ad modum* · IV *De incarnatione quantum ad plenitudinem temporum* · V *De plenitudine gratiae Christi quantum ad charismata in affectu* · VI *De plenitudine sapientiae in intellectu* · VII *De perfectione meriti in effectu* · VIII *De passione Christi quantum ad statum patientis* · IX *De passione Christi quantum ad modum patiendi* · X *De passione Christi quantum ad exitum passionis*. The block that follows is `Pars V. / De gratia Spiritus sancti.`, so the count closes positively at ten. **The index gives opening pages only — every span must still be established on the bands, and this chunk's was.** (Verified per-pars, as `bon-brev-p3-c1` did for Pars III.)

**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 241–242, OPENING MID-PAGE AND CLOSING MID-COLUMN, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY.** `PARS QUARTA. / De incarnatione Verbi.` is a full-width display heading standing **part-way down p. 241**, with Pars III's closing paragraph above it (set across both columns, four lines left and four right) and `Cap. I. / De ratione, qua Verbum Dei debuit incarnari vel decuit.` below it. Per the frozen convention the part opening folds into this chunk and is set as `###`, never `##`. Cap. I fills the rest of p. 241's left column to `…accipiat formam servi⁷?`, crosses the gutter at a **sentence boundary** (`Immo hoc tantae benignitatis est…`), fills the right column to `— Amicitiam quoque Dei`, breaks across the page at a **word boundary** into the head of **p. 242's left column** (`recuperare non poterat nisi per mediatorem convenientem…`), and closes **part-way down p. 242's left column** at `…sic a culpa resurgeret per Verbum incarnatum.` **The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. II. / De incarnatione quantum ad unionem naturarum.` heading standing immediately below it in the same left column** — no inference from white space anywhere, and none was available to draw.

**★ THE PAGE-CROSSING SENTENCE IS THE SECOND MEMBER OF A THREE-MEMBER SERIES, AND THE SERIES IS THE UNIT.** The *Excellentiam / Amicitiam / Innocentiam* triad opens at the foot of p. 241's right column, its second member is cut in half by the leaf, and its third and its conclusion stand on p. 242. **The `<!-- page 242 -->` marker therefore sits at the nearest paragraph boundary BELOW the break, which — because the break falls inside the capitulum's CLOSING paragraph — is the end of the body itself.** That is the `bon-brev-p3-c10` placement rule applied in its limiting case, and it is the only placement that keeps p. 241's note 10, whose anchor stands in that same paragraph above the break, on the p. 241 side of the marker. **★ A NEW SHAPE: for a capitulum whose page break falls in its LAST paragraph, the "boundary below" is the body's end and the marker carries no text after it. Do not move it up to the paragraph's head to make it look useful — that would strand a p. 241 anchor behind a p. 242 marker.**

**Gutter.** **p. 241 = 1228**, adopted from `bon-brev-p3-c11`'s re-measurement and not re-derived, per the hand-off. The value matters: `colcrop.py vol5 241` with no constant returns **1218 on a 39 px run**, which is *above* the tool's 15 px failure threshold and therefore **not flagged** — a silently-wrong measurement, 10 px off the 1228 that rows 20–60 %, 25–65 % and 30–70 % all return on a 60 px run. Bands here were cut at 1228 and every one of p. 241's eight anchors and both footer blocks read cleanly. **p. 242 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH, with no constant, as the standing rule requires: `colcrop.py vol5 242` → `split_x=1361, low-ink run 61 px` on a 2571×3823 page.** That is a healthy run — comfortably inside the ~60 px the volume normally gives, no ⚠ flag — and it was confirmed visually on the bands: the left column's text edge and the right column's opening capitals both fall where 1361 predicts. **Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361.** p. 242 is the **highest even-page value yet recorded** (the prior high was p. 234's 1341), and p. 241's 1228 sits well above the odd-page cluster's 1194–1211. **Parity is spent twice over; measure every page.**

**★ A FULL-WIDTH DISPLAY HEADING INSIDE THE PAGE DID NOT BREAK THE MEASUREMENT — the second confirmation.** `PARS QUARTA` crosses p. 241's gutter, and the default row window (45–92 %) still returned a usable run, because the heading sits above those rows. CLAUDE.md's pp. 201/219 failure mode needs the heading *inside* the measured rows. **Expect it at a work opening; do not assume it at a part opening.**

**Apparatus (10 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 241 nn. 3–10** and **p. 242 nn. 1–2**. Every anchor was read on the band at 450 dpi; none was inferred from page coverage, from raw anchor glyphs, or from which footer block holds a note.
- p. 241 n. **3** on `et reparationi`³ — **left** column, closing the opening period.
- p. 241 n. **4** on `in esse producere`⁴ — **left** column, inside the *Ratio*.
- p. 241 n. **5** on `per Verbum incarnatum`⁵ — **left** column.
- p. 241 n. **6** on `in unam personam`⁶ — **left** column.
- p. 241 n. **7** on `formam servi`⁷ — **left** column, its last line.
- p. 241 n. **8** on `a principio`⁸ — **RIGHT** column, second line of the *Rursus* paragraph.
- p. 241 n. **9** on `Verbum caro factum est`⁹ — **right** column.
- p. 241 n. **10** on `statum excellentiae`¹⁰ — **right** column, its last line.
- p. 242 n. **1** on `per Deum-hominem natum`¹ — **left** column.
- p. 242 n. **2** on `ceciderat deserendo`² — **left** column, in Cap. I's closing period.

**★ A SEVENTH FOOTER SHAPE — p. 241's REGISTER IS DIVIDED BY *PARS*, p. 242's BY *CAPITULUM*, AND NEITHER DIVISION IS THE BLOCK DIVISION.** p. 241's left block holds nn. **1–5** and its right block nn. **6–10**, but the *pars* boundary falls between nn. 2 and 3 — so this chunk takes the tail of the left block and the whole of the right. p. 242's left block holds nn. **1–4** and its right block nn. **5–6**, but the *capitulum* boundary falls between nn. 2 and 3 — so this chunk takes only the head of the left block. **On both leaves the block split and the ownership split are unrelated, and they fail to coincide in opposite directions.** After the overrun (pp. 220, 221, 226, 233, 239), the underrun (pp. 234, 237), the coincidence (pp. 231, 232, 235, 240), the split-inside-a-note (pp. 236, 238, 240) and the two-at-once (p. 239), this is a further configuration again. **The footer block's extent tells you nothing about which column, or which unit, a note's anchor is in. Read anchors, only anchors.**

**★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE AND THE QUIRE SIGNATURE BOTH SIT INSIDE p. 241's REGISTER AND NEITHER IS AN ENTRY.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` stands at the foot of the left block, below n. 5 (its fourth appearance in the Breviloquium; the last was on p. 233), and the quire signature `31` stands at the foot of the right block, below n. 10. p. 242 carries neither. **p. 241's register is ten entries and p. 242's is six** — both band-derived, both fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`'s `KNOWN_TOTALS`.

**Runover findings — ONE NEGATIVE LOGGED, ONE NEGATIVE INHERITED, ONE POSITIVE FORWARDED.**
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 241 — **NEGATIVE**, and it is on THIS chunk's ledger line although `bon-brev-p3-c11` derived it.* p. 241's left block closes complete at n. 5 (`…quae etiam inferius post repararet addunt reparanda.`), followed only by the printer's signature; its right block opens with a numbered entry `⁶`. Re-confirmed here from both sides on the bands read for this chunk, but **not re-derived** — it is logged as a negative on `p4-c1`'s line because nn. 5 and 6 both anchor in Pars IV, exactly as `p3-c11` directed.
- *Page-crossing, p. 241 → p. 242 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, and this chunk's to run.* p. 241's last entry, n. 10, closes complete (`…E brevius concludit Deus factus est similis homini etc.`), and p. 242's left footer block opens with a numbered entry `¹` (`A E addunt de Virgine.`). No unnumbered fragment stands at the head of either. The **body** crosses this leaf and the **footer** does not — the two are independent, and this leaf prints the contrast.
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 242 — **POSITIVE**, but NOT this chunk's to log or render.* p. 242's left block breaks off inside n. 4 at `— Pro his ta-`, **MID-WORD**, and the right block opens **UNNUMBERED** with `men 1, 2, 3 cum pluribus codd. his tantum. Superius vocibus ita quod A C S T et 2 interserunt tamen.` before carrying nn. 5–6. **n. 4 anchors in Cap. II** (on `assumtio carnis a Deitate`, in the *Thesis 1* sentence), so by the rule `p3-c11` applied to p. 241, **the p. 242 gutter belongs to `bon-brev-p4-c2`'s ledger line.** It is recorded here so that chunk need not re-derive it. **A fourth distinct break position in five leaves** — p. 238 mid-word, p. 239 word boundary, p. 240 punctuation boundary, p. 241 none at all, p. 242 mid-word again. **The break position carries no information; only the next block's first line does.**
- *`p3-c11` logs `p.240 n.4:gutter`; it is **not** re-logged here, and the p. 240 → p. 241 page-crossing test was already CLOSED NEGATIVE.*

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; both p. 241 footer blocks and p. 242's left block re-read under direct high-factor zoom).
- **`Cfr. III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 1. 3; d. 20. q. 1. 2. et 6.` (p. 241 n. 3)** — every one of the raw's uprights (`d. I. a. 2. q. I. 3; d. 20. q. I. 2.`) is the **flagged serif digit `1`**, not the roman `I`; only `III.` before `Sent.` is the fully serifed roman, being the book number. The comma-less list style is Quaracchi's own (`q. 1. 3` = quaestiones 1 and 3, as `q. 1. 2. et 6.` is 1, 2 and 6 four words later). **Independently right in sense:** III *Sent.* d. 1 a. 2 is *utrum incarnatio fuerit necessaria vel congrua*, and d. 20 is the distinction on the mode of the reparation — which is precisely this chapter's matter.
- **`serm. 176. (alias 10.)` and `c. 5. n. 5` (p. 241 n. 4)** — `176` reads clean; the `1` is the flagged upright the raw renders as `1` here and as `I` elsewhere in the same register. The raw's `c. .'i.` for `c. 5.` is a shattered old-style `5` (flat top bar over a bowl), and the second `5` four characters later prints the same sort intact — **the page settles its own ambiguity.** Augustine, *Sermo* 176 c. 5 n. 5 is indeed where *Nemo recreat, nisi qui creat* stands.
- **★ `et 1 Deus pro Deum` (p. 241 n. 4) — the EDITION siglum, and the raw agrees for once.** The flagged upright stands beside `edd., excepta 2` in the same sentence, so the digit reading is confirmed by its own context. **Thirteenth leaf on which the `1` vs `I` split appears.**
- **`Cfr. Ioan. 1, 3. et 14. Vide tom. III. pag. 30, nota 5.` (p. 241 n. 5) — TWO raw digit errors in one line.** The raw reads `et 1 1.` and `nola 3.`; the plate prints **`14`** (the two flagged uprights of `1` followed by a serif `4`, which in this face is a *different* sort with an open counter) and **`5`** (the old-style flat-bar-and-bowl, contrasting with the double-bowl `3` of `1, 3.` seven words earlier — **the contrast stands inside the same note**). Independently right in sense: John 1:3 is *omnia per ipsum facta sunt* (the creation through the uncreated Word) and John 1:14 *Verbum caro factum est* (the incarnate Word) — the two halves of the very sentence the note anchors on.
- **`A W` (p. 241 n. 5)** — both letters read clean; `W` is a standing Breviloquium siglum and is not confusable with the flattened `II`.
- **`Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 241 n. 5)** — the flagged serif uprights are the EDITION sigla standing beside `Vat.`, exactly as on p. 240 n. 5; the raw flattens the first to `I` (`Vat., I et 3`) on both leaves. Read **`1 et 3`**.
- **`Serm. 3. … n. 8.` and `Serm. 2. … n. 4.` (p. 241 n. 6)** — the raw's `n. t.` for `n. 4.` is a broken sort; the band shows the open-countered `4` clean. Bernard's *Sermo 2 in Nativitate Domini* n. 4 is where the *coniunctio extremorum* is developed, which is what the note is citing it for.
- **`cfr. tom. III. pag. 19, nota 2.` (p. 241 n. 6)** — `19` read clean, the `1` again the flagged upright; and the note names Irenaeus, whose recapitulation argument is what Vol. III's p. 19 note 2 documents.
- **★ `D I L M V` and `C I P` (p. 241 n. 8) — BOTH `I`s ARE THE CODEX SIGLUM, and the note is the hand-off's named trap.** Under zoom both uprights carry the roman `I`'s symmetric head-and-foot serifs and lack the digit `1`'s angled top flag — the same contrast p. 240 n. 3 printed between `p. I.` and `Vat., 1`. They stand inside unbroken runs of letter sigla (D, L, M, V; C, P), and **there is no edition `1` in a run of codices.** Read **`D I L M V`** and **`C I P`**. The raw flattens both, and prints `CIP` unspaced.
- **★ `c. 16. n. 30. seqq. et c. 55. n. 110.` (p. 241 n. 9) — the raw's `c. 33.` is WRONG and the plate settles it.** The band prints two old-style `5`s (flat top bar over a closed bowl), not the double-bowl `3` the raw gives; `c. 16.`'s `16` is likewise the flagged `1` plus a `6` the raw read as `G`. **Independently right in sense and decisive:** Augustine's *De vera religione* has exactly **fifty-five** chapters, and c. 55 n. 110 is its closing chapter — there is no c. 33 n. 110 in the work, because n. 110 falls in the last chapter. This is the same class of fix as `bon-brev-p3-c10`'s `d. 33`→`d. 35`, and again a `3`/`5`.
- **`B H` (p. 241 n. 9)** — the `H` prints a **clean, unmistakable crossbar** here. Recorded because it is the contrast case: p. 240's register carried no crossbarred `H` at all and its `E H S` rested on the siglum set alone. **The plate remains inconsistent within a few lines of itself, exactly as pp. 238 and 239 showed; the `II`→`H` flattening is a typeface fact and every instance is still resolved from the siglum set, not from the glyph.**
- **`Vide supra pag. 183, nota 3.` (p. 241 n. 10)** — `183` read clean; the `1` is the flagged upright and the `8` and `3` are unambiguous. p. 183 falls in *De perfectione evangelica*, and its note 3 is on the *status excellentiae* — consistent with the cross-reference.
- **`P S` (p. 241 n. 10) and `A E` (p. 242 n. 1)** — all four letters read clean; no flattening candidate among them.
- **`(cfr. infra Itinerar. c. 4.)` (p. 242 n. 2)** — `4` reads clean as the open-countered sort. **A forward reference out of the Breviloquium into the *Itinerarium*, the next work in the volume** — the first such cross-work citation this corpus has met, and worth noting for the Itinerarium chunking to come.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **`ut; sicut genus humanum…`** — the plate prints a **semicolon after `ut`**, which is not what the syntax wants (the *ut* clause runs on to `resurgeret`). The raw carries it too. **Transcribed as printed**; the English mirrors it with a semicolon in the same position rather than repairing the pointing. This is a Quaracchi pointing decision, not a broken sort, and falls under the same rule as `delectactione` on p. 238.
- **`Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia,` carries the COLON** — fourth consecutive attestation (Capp. IX, X, XI of Pars III, now Pars IV Cap. I), and the first outside Pars III. p. 237's full stop stands confirmed as a one-off.
- **The em-dash articulation is asymmetric in both directions on this page.** The `Immo hoc tantae benignitatis est…` sentence runs on from the *Quid benevolentius* question **without** a dash and then takes ` — ` before `Convenientissimus ergo erat`; the *Excellentiam / Amicitiam / Innocentiam* triad takes ` — ` before **all three** members; and the concluding `— Quoniam ergo excellentia…` takes one as well. **Transcribed, never regularised.**
- **`assumtio`, `assumtae`, `praesumtio`-style spelling without the `p`** appears on p. 242 in Cap. II's opening (not this chunk's text), consistent with Pars III's `praesumtio`. Noted only so the next chunk does not "correct" it.
- **`reparatori` / `reparabili` / `reparationi` are italic; `Deum-hominem` is roman and hyphenated as printed.** The triad `potentiam, sapientiam et benevolentiam` is italic on its first appearance and **roman** at its restatement six lines later (`propter commendandam divinam potentiam, sapientiam et benevolentiam`) — Quaracchi italicise the terms only where they are being introduced as the division. Preserved.
- **`mentis innocentiam, Dei amicitiam et suam excellentiam` are italic in the triad's announcement, and the three members' catchwords `Excellentiam`, `Amicitiam`, `Innocentiam` are italic again at the head of each member**, but the argument's own `excellentia / amicitia / innocentia` in the concluding *Quoniam ergo* period is likewise italic. Set as printed throughout.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The **three** congruences of the opening thesis (*reparatori / reparabili / reparationi*) — announced in the first period and then taken up in that order as the three bodies of the *Ratio*, each with its own marginal gloss; the **three** divine attributes shown forth (*potentia, sapientia, benevolentia*), each answered by its own *Quid potentius / sapientius / benevolentius* question; the **three** things man fell into (*infirmitas, ignorantia, malignitas*) answering the **three** superlatives he withdrew from (*potentissimo, sapientissimo, benevolentissimo*), and the **three** ways the first principle made itself accessible (*noscibile, amabile, imitabile*) answering the three he was unfit for (*virtutem imitandam, lucem cognoscendam, bonitatem diligendam*); and the **three** things man had to recover (*mentis innocentia, Dei amicitia, sua excellentia*), each requiring one of the **three** superlative offices (*reparator excellentissimus, mediator amicabilissimus, satisfactor sufficientissimus*). **Note that the third triad is announced in the order innocentia–amicitia–excellentia and then developed in the REVERSE order excellentia–amicitia–innocentia, before the concluding period returns to the developed order.** Both orders are printed as they stand; neither was reordered, and the English keeps the Latin's order in every list. Note also that the *virtutem imitandam / lucem cognoscendam / bonitatem diligendam* series **inverts** its own answering series (*noscibile, amabile, imitabile*) — likewise preserved.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 241 L — "Modus congruit tribus." · "Ratio." · "Congruit reparatori tripliciter." p. 241 R — "Congruit reparabili tripliciter." · "Congruit reparationi tripliciter." · "Primo." · "Secundo." p. 242 L — "Tertio." · "Concluditur." **The gloss series runs continuously across the leaf and is the clearest outline the Breviloquium has yet carried**: it names the three congruences, then numbers the third triad's members *Primo / Secundo / Tertio* and closes with *Concluditur*, which stands beside the `Quoniam ergo` period — **an independent confirmation, from the editors' own outline, that the capitulum's argument closes on p. 242 and not on p. 241.** It was not used to set the boundary (the `Cap. II.` heading did that), but it agrees.

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.**
- **p. 241, left column, Cap. I's opening + *Ratio* — FAIR, a clear step UP from the same page's Pars III paragraph eight lines above.** The `Cap. I.` heading and the display heading survive; garbles are scattered and mostly single-letter: `bumani`, `(|uia alitcr`, `iiumannm gcnus`, `libcrare`, `rcparatori et rcparahili ct reparationi`, `clTectivum`, `Deuin`, `repararc`, `cssc`, `hene csse quam simpliciler m-e` (the worst phrase on the page), `benevolentcr`, `rcpararet`, `potenlius`, `coniungcre extrcma suinme`, `iinam perso-nam`, `ficrct`, `Vcrbi`, `cst`, `bumanac`, `ullima oniiiiuin`, `creaturarumV` (for `creaturarum?`), `hcnevokntius`, `salutcm`, `formam scrvi`. **The gloss `Modascon-/"'""'"'"'■` is the most shattered thing in the run and is not body text.**
- **p. 241, right column — FAIR to GOOD, level with the left and cleaner in its second half.** `lanlae benignilatis`, `iit niliil (•leineii-tius`, `pns-sit`, `liic inodus`, `benc^olenliam`, `reccsscrat a principio'`, `idco corruerat in in-(irmilatcm, vjnoranliain et maWjnilatem` (the worst three words), `iioc dc spirituali`, `sensnalis`, `idco ineptus crat`, `imilandapi`, `cofjnoscendam`, `honitutem ditirjerjam` (for *bonitatem diligendam*), `qiiod liomo`, `fiiit`, `noscihile, amdhilc et imitahile`, `silti proporlionalia`, `bomincm`, `Verhuni caru faclum cst`, `liomine`, `cognosei`, `pcccati`, `perfccte reparari non no-terat` (for *poterat*), `rcciipcraret`, `««»'-citiam` (a gloss bleed splitting *amicitiam*), `excellentiani`, `el hoc`, `congriuim`, `namfjuc rccuperare`, `essct Dcus`, `creaturac`, `recnpera-ret stalum excellcnliae`.
- **p. 241 footer, nn. 3–10 — FLATTENED, and the numeric citations are again the worst of it**, as on every Vol V leaf so far. `Cfr. 111. SenL d. I. a. 2. q. I. 3`, `Augiisl.`, `serm. 176. (alias 10.) c. .'i.`, `Nenio recreat, nisi qtii creat`, `niiiii 2.` (for *nota 2.*), `Siiperius edd.`, `praefi-^■iihi primnm` (for *praefigunt primum*), `Cfr. loan. 1 , 3. et 1 1.` (for *et 14.*), `nola 3.` (for *nota 5.*), `Pio cwaret AW recrenrel`, `Vat., I et 3`, `qiiae cii:iin iiilriins pnst reparuret` (for *quae etiam inferius post repararet*), `Bcrnard.`, `Dumini, n. t.` (for *n. 4.*), `Ircnacum`, `png. 19`, `D I L M V` (read correctly by the raw for once, though `CIP` is run together), `imlitiam vel`, `stalu`, `loan. I , U.` (for *Ioan. 1, 14.*), `dc Vcra Rctig. c. IG. n. 30.` (for *c. 16.*), `et c. 33. n. 110.` (for *c. 55.* — **the one substantive error in the register**), `B H addunt cel eri-gendum`, `omilltint rt imitari`, `nola 3.`, `oxcepta 2, sla-tum prioris excellenliae`, `niimque P S anlem`, `brcvius concludit Deiis furlus est similis homini`.
- **p. 242, left column, Cap. I's tail — GOOD, the cleanest run this chunk sets from.** `mediatoreni`, `dccebat`, `po-teral`, `debe-bat`, `natuui'` (for *natum*), `cx-cellentissimum`, `reforinari`, `salisfactorem sulficientissi-mum`, `exceUentissimtis`, `su/Jicienlissimus`, `congruenlissima`, `incrcatum`, `\'erbum inspiratum ;_` — **twelve garbles in seventeen printed lines, none of them a whole word lost.** The `Cap. II.` heading below it survives intact as `Cap. II.` — **the second Breviloquium chapter heading in three leaves the raw has not shattered.**
- **p. 242 footer, nn. 1–2 — FLATTENED but short and legible.** `A E addunt de Virgine.` reads clean; n. 2 gives `alterove cod. tantum (ut K)`, `rcferentes`, `serpcntis`, `Quae lectio nec codd. nec modo loquendi`, `(cfr. infra ltinerar. c. 4.) convenit` — the `lt`/`It` confusion in *Itinerar.* being the only real ambiguity, settled on the band.

**No `[?]` flags.**

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up from `bon-brev-p3-c11`:* **p. 241 footer notes 3–10 — EIGHT entries, the only PENDING anywhere in Vol V.** Every anchor was re-verified on the band as falling in Cap. I's body below the `PARS QUARTA` heading, and **every digit and siglum was re-read at 450 dpi rather than adopted from the hand-off's orientation text.** Two readings the hand-off relayed from the raw were **corrected**: n. 9's `c. 55. n. 110.` (raw and hand-off `c. 33.`) and n. 5's `nota 5.` (raw `nota 3.`); three more were **confirmed against the flattening** (`q. 1. 3` in n. 3, `1 et 3` in n. 5, `D I L M V` / `C I P` in n. 8). The hand-off's other structural claims were checked and all hold: `PARS QUARTA` stands part-way down p. 241; Cap. I opens `Postquam aliqua praedicta sunt…`; p. 241's register is ten entries; its gutter runover is negative from both sides.
- *Forwarded to `bon-brev-p4-c2` (Pars IV, Cap. II, *De incarnatione quantum ad unionem naturarum*):* **p. 242 footer notes 3–6 — FOUR entries, all of them Cap. II's.** Anchors verified on the band as falling below the `Cap. II.` heading. Content, for orientation only — **read each at 450 dpi and settle every digit yourself**: n. 3 `De primo agitur c. 2-4; de secundo c. 5-7; de tertio c. 8-10.`; n. 4 `Cfr. III. Sent. d. 1. a. 1. q. 2, ubi de operatione Trinitatis in incarnatione; d. 2. a. 2, ubi de natura assumta, scil. carne et spiritu; d. 5-7. de ipsa unione; d. 11. a. 2. q. 3. ad 3, ubi de exceptis a communicatione idiomatum. — Pro his tamen 1, 2, 3 cum pluribus codd. his tantum. Superius vocibus ita quod A C S T et 2 interserunt tamen.`; n. 5 `Ed. 1, omisso substantia, legit et summa virtus. S. Doctor respicere videtur illam trimembrem divisionem superius pag. 205, nota 7. ex Dionysio allatam; de qua, I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2, docet, quod in omni creato, sed non in Deo, illa membra realiter differant. — T et summa substantia, virtus.`; n. 6 `Secundum loquendi modum Damasc.; cfr. tom. III. pag. 268, nota 2. — Inferius pro inanimatio fere omnes codd. et 2 animatio.` **Every digit there is a serif `1`/`4`, `3`/`5` candidate — none is settled by this note.**
- *Recorded for `bon-brev-p4-c2`, from bands read here but not owned here:* **Cap. II opens part-way down p. 242's LEFT column** under `Cap. II. / De incarnatione quantum ad unionem naturarum.`, with `Circa ipsum autem Verbum incarnatum tria nobis consideranda occurrunt, scilicet unio naturarum, plenitudo charismatum et perpessio passionum propter redimendum genus humanum³.` — **no incoming body-text seam to reconstruct, but the capitulum runs on past p. 242's foot** (its right column ends mid-sentence at `mediatio autem proprie convenit Dei Filio: ideo`), **so its end must be fixed positively from the `Cap. III.` heading on p. 243, which has not been extracted.** **p. 242's bands already exist; its gutter is 1361, auto-measured with no constant on a healthy 61 px run — but p. 243 must be extracted and auto-measured FRESH.** **p. 242's six-note register IS band-read and IS in `KNOWN_TOTALS` (242: 6); nn. 1–2 are consumed here and nn. 3–6 are the forwarded PENDING.** **★ p. 242's own GUTTER RUNOVER IS POSITIVE and is `p4-c2`'s to render and to log** — the left block breaks MID-WORD inside n. 4 at `— Pro his ta-` and the right block opens UNNUMBERED with `men 1, 2, 3 cum pluribus codd. …`; n. 4 must be rendered joined. **The p. 241 → p. 242 page-crossing test is CLOSED NEGATIVE here and must not be re-logged; the p. 242 → p. 243 test is still open and is `p4-c2`'s to run.**


site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 4, Cap. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 242 -->

### Capitulum II. *De incarnatione quantum ad unionem naturarum.*

Circa ipsum autem Verbum incarnatum tria nobis consideranda occurrunt, scilicet *unio naturarum, plenitudo charismatum* et *perpessio passionum* propter redimendum genus humanum[^p242-3]. — Circa *naturarum unionem* haec tria consideranda sunt ad intelligendum incarnationis mysterium, scilicet *opus, modus* et *tempus*.

De *opere* autem incarnationis haec tenenda sunt secundum fidem christianam, quod incarnatio est operatio Trinitatis, per quam fit assumtio carnis a Deitate et unio Deitatis cum carne; ita quod assumtio non tantum est carnis sensibilis, sed etiam spiritus rationalis secundum potentiam vegetandi, sentiendi et intelligendi; ita etiam, quod unio non fit in unitate *naturae*, sed *personae*, non *humanae*, sed *divinae*, non *assumtae*, sed *assumentis*; non personae *cuiuslibet*, sed personae *solius Verbi*; in qua tanta fit unio, ut quidquid dicitur de Filio Dei dicatur de filio hominis, et e converso, his tamen exceptis, in quibus exprimitur unio, vel clauditur negatio[^p242-4].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia incarnationis opus non solum est a primo principio, in quantum est effectivum in producendo, verum etiam, in quantum est reparativum *remediando, satisfaciendo* et *reconciliando*. Quoniam ergo incarnatio, in quantum dicit aliquem effectum, est a primo principio, quod omnia facit ratione summae virtutis; et substantia, virtus[^p242-5] et operatio unita est et indivisa omnimode in tribus personis: hinc est, quod necesse est, incarnationis operationem a tota Trinitate manare.

Quia vero est a primo principio, in quantum est reparativum *remediando*; et totum genus humanum lapsum fuerat et vitiatum, non solum ratione animae, verum etiam carnis: hinc est, quod necesse fuit, quod totum assumeretur, ut totum curaretur[^p242-6]. — Et quoniam nobis magis nota est pars carnis et magis a Deo distat; ut expressior fiat nominatio, et maior exprimatur humiliatio, et profundior explicetur dignatio: hinc est, quod opus illud non *inanimatio*, sed *incarnatio* nominatur.

Rursus, quia est a primo principio, in quantum est reparativum *satisfaciendo*, et satisfactio non fit, nisi ab eo qui *debet* et *potest*; et non *debet* nisi homo, nec *potest* nisi Deus: oportuit, quod in satisfactione simul esset concursus utriusque naturae, divinae scilicet et humanae. Et quia impossibile est, quod divina natura concurrat cum alia sicut pars ad constitutionem tertii; nec quod ipsa transeat in aliam naturam, nec alia natura transeat in ipsam, propter simplicitatem et immutabilitatem ipsius perfectissimam: hinc est, quod Deitas et humanitas non uniuntur in unitate *naturae* nec *accidentis*, uniuntur ergo in unitate *personae* et *hypostasis*. Et quoniam divina natura in nullo supposito potest subsistere praeterquam in propria hypostasi; ideo unio illa non potest esse in hypostasi seu persona *hominis*, sed *Dei*; ac per hoc per illam unionem primum principium in una suarum hypostasum fecit se ipsum suppositum humanae naturae: et ita una tantum est ibi personalitas et unitas personalis, ex parte scilicet *assumentis*.

Postremo, quia est a primo principio, ut est reparativum *reconciliando*; et reconcilians est mediator, mediatio autem proprie convenit Dei Filio: ideo et incarnatio. Mediatoris namque est esse *medium* inter hominem et Deum ad reducendum hominem ad divinam *cognitionem*, ad divinam *conformitatem* et ad divinam *filiationem*. Nullum autem magis decet esse *medium* quam personam, quae producit et producitur, quae est media trium personarum; nullumque magis decet reducere hominem ad divinam *cognitionem* quam Verbum, quo se Pater declarat, quod est unibile carni, sicut et verbum voci[^p243-1]; nullum etiam magis decet reducere ad divinam *conformitatem*, quam eum qui est imago Patris; nullum magis decet ad *filiationem adoptivam* reducere quam Filium naturalem: ac per hoc nullum magis decet fieri filium hominis quam ipsum Filium Dei[^p243-2].

<!-- page 243 -->

Quoniam ergo omnino idem est Filius hominis et Dei ratione incarnationis; et « quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, inter se sunt eadem[^p243-3] »: hinc est, quod necessario fit communicatio idiomatum, nisi sit vocabulum, in quo aliqua repugnantia includatur; sicut sunt illa, in quibus includitur respectus unionis unius naturae ad alteram, sicut *unire, incarnari, assumere* et *assumi*; vel negatio alicuius, cuius oppositum alteri competit, sicut *incipere* esse, *creari* et consimilia, in quibus instantia fertur contra regulam praehabitam propter causam praedictam.

---

english:
### Chapter II. *On the incarnation as regards the union of the natures.*

Now concerning the incarnate Word itself three things present themselves for our consideration, namely the *union of the natures*, the *fulness of the charisms* and the *endurance of the sufferings* for the redeeming of the human race[^p242-3]. — Concerning the *union of the natures* these three things are to be considered for the understanding of the mystery of the incarnation, namely the *work*, the *mode* and the *time*.

Now concerning the *work* of the incarnation these things are to be held according to the Christian faith: that the incarnation is an operation of the Trinity, through which there comes about the assumption of flesh by the Deity and the union of the Deity with flesh; in such wise that the assumption is not only of sensible flesh, but also of the rational spirit according to the power of vegetating, of sensing and of understanding; and in such wise also that the union does not come about in a unity of *nature*, but of *person*, not of a *human* person, but of a *divine* one, not of the person *assumed*, but of the person *assuming*; not of *any* person whatever, but of the person *of the Word alone*; in which person so great a union comes about that whatever is said of the Son of God is said of the son of man, and conversely — those things nevertheless excepted in which the union is expressed, or a negation is enclosed[^p242-4].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the work of the incarnation is not only from the first principle inasmuch as it is effective in producing, but also inasmuch as it is reparative *by remedying, by making satisfaction* and *by reconciling*. Since therefore the incarnation, inasmuch as it names some effect, is from the first principle, which makes all things by reason of its highest power; and since substance, power[^p242-5] and operation are united and in every way undivided in the three persons: hence it is that the operation of the incarnation must necessarily flow from the whole Trinity.

But because it is from the first principle inasmuch as it is reparative *by remedying*; and the whole human race had fallen and been vitiated, not only by reason of the soul, but also of the flesh: hence it is that it was necessary that the whole be assumed, so that the whole might be healed[^p242-6]. — And since the part which is flesh is better known to us and stands further from God; in order that the naming might be more expressive, and the humiliation more greatly expressed, and the condescension more profoundly unfolded: hence it is that that work is named not *inanimation*, but *incarnation*.

Again, because it is from the first principle inasmuch as it is reparative *by making satisfaction*, and satisfaction is not made except by him who *is bound to* and *is able to*; and none *is bound to* but man, nor *is able to* but God: it behoved that in the satisfaction there should be at once a concurrence of both natures, the divine namely and the human. And because it is impossible that the divine nature should concur with another as a part toward the constitution of a third; nor that it should pass over into another nature, nor another nature into it, on account of its most perfect simplicity and immutability: hence it is that the Deity and the humanity are not united in a unity of *nature* nor of *accident*, and they are therefore united in a unity of *person* and of *hypostasis*. And since the divine nature can subsist in no supposit save in its own hypostasis; therefore that union cannot be in the hypostasis or person *of a man*, but *of God*; and through this, by that union the first principle in one of its hypostases made itself the supposit of the human nature: and so there is there only one personality and one personal unity, on the part namely of the one *assuming*.

Lastly, because it is from the first principle as it is reparative *by reconciling*; and the one reconciling is a mediator, and mediation properly befits the Son of God: therefore the incarnation too befits him. For it belongs to a mediator to be a *middle* between man and God, for the leading back of man to divine *knowledge*, to divine *conformity* and to divine *sonship*. But nothing more befits being a *middle* than a person who both produces and is produced, who is the middle of the three persons; and nothing more befits leading man back to divine *knowledge* than the Word, by which the Father declares himself, which is unitable to flesh, as a word also is to a voice[^p243-1]; nothing likewise more befits leading back to divine *conformity* than him who is the image of the Father; nothing more befits leading back to *adoptive sonship* than the natural Son: and through this nothing more befits becoming the son of man than the Son of God himself[^p243-2].

<!-- page 243 -->

Since therefore the Son of man and the Son of God are altogether the same by reason of the incarnation; and since « whatever things are the same as one and the same thing are the same as each other[^p243-3] »: hence it is that the communication of idioms necessarily comes about, unless there be a word in which some repugnance is enclosed; such as are those in which the respect of the union of one nature to the other is included, as *to unite, to be incarnate, to assume* and *to be assumed*; or the negation of something whose opposite belongs to the other, as *to begin* to be, *to be created* and the like — in which cases an instance is brought against the rule already laid down, for the reason aforesaid.

---

la: De primo agitur c. 2-4; de secundo c. 5-7; de tertio c. 8-10.

en: The first is treated in capp. 2–4; the second in capp. 5–7; the third in capp. 8–10.

la: Cfr. III, Sent. d. 1. a. 1. q. 2, ubi de operatione Trinitatis in incarnatione; d. 2. a. 2, ubi de natura assumta, scil. carne et spiritu; d. 5-7. de ipsa unione; d. 11. a. 2. q. 3. ad 3, ubi de exceptis a communicatione idiomatum. — Pro *his tamen* 1, 2, 3 cum pluribus codd. *his tantum*. Superius vocibus *ita quod* A C S T et 2 interserunt *tamen*.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 1, a. 1, q. 2, where the operation of the Trinity in the incarnation is treated; d. 2, a. 2, where the nature assumed — namely flesh and spirit — is treated; d. 5–7, on the union itself; d. 11, a. 2, q. 3, ad 3, where the things excepted from the communication of idioms are treated. — For *his tamen* editions 1, 2 and 3, with several codices, have *his tantum*. Above, between the words *ita quod* A C S T and edition 2 insert *tamen*.

la: Ed. 1, omisso *substantia*, legit *et summa virtus*. S. Doctor respicere videtur illam trimembrem divisionem superius pag. 205, nota 7. ex Dionysio allatam; de qua, I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2, docet, quod in omni creato, sed non in Deo, illa membra realiter differant. — T *et summa substantia, virtus*.

en: Edition 1, omitting *substantia*, reads *et summa virtus*. The holy Doctor seems to have in view that threefold division adduced above on p. 205, note 7, from Dionysius; concerning which, in I *Sent.*, d. 8, p. II, q. 2, he teaches that in every created thing — but not in God — those members really differ. — T has *et summa substantia, virtus*.

la: Secundum loquendi modum Damasc.; cfr. tom. III. pag. 268, nota 2. — Inferius pro *inanimatio* fere omnes codd. et 2 *animatio*.

en: According to the manner of speaking of the Damascene; cf. tom. III, p. 268, note 2. — Further below, for *inanimatio* nearly all the codices and edition 2 have *animatio*.

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 4. Cfr. etiam supra p. I. c. 2. seq.

en: See I *Sent.*, d. 27, p. II, q. 4. Cf. also above, Pars I, c. 2 f.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 3.

la: Aristot., I. Elench. c. 5. (c. 6.).

en: Aristotle, I *Elenchi*, c. 5 (c. 6). ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 242–243, OPENING MID-COLUMN AND CLOSING MID-COLUMN, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY.** `Cap. II. / De incarnatione quantum ad unionem naturarum.` stands **part-way down p. 242's LEFT column**, immediately below Cap. I's last line (`…sic a culpa resurgeret per Verbum incarnatum.`) — so the opening is fixed by Cap. I's close, exactly as `bon-brev-p4-c1` recorded it, and there was no incoming body-text seam to reconstruct. Cap. II fills the rest of p. 242's left column to `…fit unio, ut quidquid dicitur de Filio Dei dicatur de`, crosses that page's gutter at a **word boundary** (`filio hominis, et e converso…`), fills the whole of p. 242's right column to `…mediatio autem proprie convenit Dei Filio: ideo`, breaks across the leaf at a **word boundary** into the head of **p. 243's LEFT column** (`et incarnatio. Mediatoris namque est esse medium…`), and closes **part-way down p. 243's left column** at `…contra regulam praehabitam propter causam praedictam.` **The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. III. / De incarnatione quantum ad modum.` heading standing immediately below it in the same left column** — p. 243 was extracted and banded for that purpose, and Cap. II does **not** reach p. 243's gutter. No inference from white space was drawn anywhere.

**★ TWO WORD-BOUNDARY BREAKS IN ONE CAPITULUM — and the leaf break is the softer of the two.** Both the p. 242 gutter crossing and the p. 242 → p. 243 leaf crossing fall at word boundaries, and both fall **mid-sentence**: `…dicatur de` / `filio hominis` inside the *Thesis 5* clause, and `…convenit Dei Filio: ideo` / `et incarnatio.` inside the *Postremo* period, where `ideo` and its verb-phrase `et incarnatio` are split across the leaf. **The second is the more dangerous of the two**: `ideo` reads as a plausible sentence-end and `et incarnatio.` as a plausible sentence-start, so a chunk built from p. 242 alone would have closed grammatically and been wrong. **The `Cap. III.` heading, not the shape of the sentence, is what settles the span.**

**★ THE PAGE MARKER MOVED DOWN — the p3-c10 rule, and this time it strands the NEW page's anchors above the marker.** The p. 242/243 break falls inside the **`Postremo` paragraph**, so `<!-- page 243 -->` is placed at the nearest paragraph boundary **below** it (before `Quoniam ergo omnino idem est Filius hominis…`), per the standing convention. **The consequence, which is new: p. 243's notes 1 and 2 anchor in that `Postremo` paragraph and therefore stand ABOVE the `<!-- page 243 -->` marker.** This is the mirror image of `bon-brev-p4-c1`'s limiting case (where moving the marker up would have stranded a p. 241 anchor behind a p. 242 marker). **The page-qualified labels absorb it — that is what they are for — but do not "fix" the marker to chase the anchors.** The true break position is recorded here, as the convention requires.

**Gutter.** **p. 242 = 1361**, adopted from `bon-brev-p4-c1`'s fresh auto-measurement (61 px run, no flag) and not re-derived; every one of p. 242's four anchors owned here and both its footer blocks read cleanly at that split. **p. 243 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH, with no constant, as the standing rule requires: `colcrop.py vol5 243` → `split_x=1180, low-ink run 50 px`** — no ⚠ flag, but **50 px is under the ~60 px this volume normally gives, which method note 6 says is exactly when to re-profile rather than trust.** Re-profiling over seven further row windows returned **1188/53 · 1188/53 · 1186/54 · 1190/57 · 1185/53 · 1192/58 · 1183/55**; every one of them sits **above** the default's 1180, and the widest run (58 px, rows 10–45 %) gives 1192. **1186 was adopted** as the centre of that agreement and confirmed visually on the bands: p. 243's left-column text edge and right-column opening capitals both fall where 1186 predicts, and 1180 shaves the left column's right-hand edge. **The default was 6 px low — a small quiet error of the same family as p. 241's 10 px one, not large enough to break a band but large enough to prove that the sub-60 px run is a real warning.** Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · **1361** · **1186**. p. 243's 1186 sits **below** the odd-page cluster's 1194–1228 just as p. 241's 1228 sat above it, and it follows the highest even-page value ever recorded. **Parity is not merely spent; the odd-page cluster has now been broken in both directions across three consecutive leaves. Measure every page, and re-profile any run under 60 px.**

**Apparatus (7 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 242 nn. 3–6** and **p. 243 nn. 1–3**. Every anchor was read on the band at 450 dpi; none was inferred from page coverage, from raw anchor glyphs, or from which footer block holds a note.
- p. 242 n. **3** on `redimendum genus humanum`³ — **left** column, closing Cap. II's opening division.
- p. 242 n. **4** on `vel clauditur negatio`⁴ — **RIGHT** column, its second line, closing the *De opere* thesis-block. **★ The hand-off from `p4-c1` relayed this anchor as standing on `assumtio carnis a Deitate` in the LEFT column; on the band it does not — it stands at the end of the sentence, two lines into the RIGHT column. Ownership is unaffected (it is Cap. II's either way), but the column is not what was forwarded.** This is precisely why the standing rule is that a forwarded anchor location is orientation, never evidence.
- p. 242 n. **5** on `substantia, virtus`⁵ — **right** column, inside the *Ratio*.
- p. 242 n. **6** on `ut totum curaretur`⁶ — **right** column, closing the *Quia vero* period.
- p. 243 n. **1** on `sicut et verbum voci`¹ — **left** column, in the *Postremo* period.
- p. 243 n. **2** on `ipsum Filium Dei`² — **left** column, closing the *Postremo* period.
- p. 243 n. **3** on `inter se sunt eadem`³ — **left** column. **★ The marker stands INSIDE the guillemets, before the closing `»`** (`…inter se sunt eadem³ »:`), the same placement `bon-brev-p3-c10` recorded three times on p. 239. Rendered at that exact position in both languages.

**★ AN EIGHTH FOOTER SHAPE — p. 243's REGISTER IS DIVIDED BY *CAPITULUM* AND THE DIVISION FALLS INSIDE THE LEFT BLOCK.** p. 243's left block holds nn. **1–5** (n. 5 breaking off mid-sentence at `…non repetunt decet eius nec operari, quod`) and its right block holds the continuation plus nn. **6–9**; but the *capitulum* boundary falls between nn. **3 and 4**, so this chunk takes only the **head of the left block** and forwards its tail together with the whole right block. On p. 242 the same thing happened one note earlier in a four-note block; here it happens **two notes above a block break that is itself inside a note**. Adding to the catalogue: overrun (pp. 220, 221, 226, 233, 239) · underrun (pp. 234, 237) · coincidence (pp. 231, 232, 235, 240) · split-inside-a-note (pp. 236, 238, 240, **243**) · both at once (p. 239) · split by PARS (p. 241) · split by CAPITULUM (pp. 242, **243**). **The footer block's extent still tells you nothing about which column, or which unit, a note's anchor is in. Read anchors, only anchors.**

**★ NEITHER p. 242 NOR p. 243 CARRIES THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE OR A QUIRE SIGNATURE.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` last fell on p. 241 (its fourth Breviloquium appearance) and the quire signature `31` with it. **p. 242's register is six entries and p. 243's is nine** — both band-derived; p. 243's total is newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`'s `KNOWN_TOTALS`, and p. 242's register is now closed by this chunk.

**Runover findings — ONE POSITIVE LOGGED, ONE NEGATIVE CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES, ONE POSITIVE FORWARDED.**
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 242 — **POSITIVE**, and it is THIS chunk's to render and to log.* p. 242's left block breaks off inside **n. 4** at `— Pro his ta-`, **MID-WORD**, and its right block opens **UNNUMBERED** with `men 1, 2, 3 cum pluribus codd. his tantum. Superius vocibus ita quod A C S T et 2 interserunt tamen.` before carrying nn. 5–6. **n. 4 is rendered joined above**, and the runover is logged on `p4-c2`'s ledger line, exactly as `bon-brev-p4-c1` directed (it deliberately did not log it, because n. 4 anchors in Cap. II). Re-derived here from both sides on the bands, not adopted.
- *Page-crossing, p. 242 → p. 243 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, and this chunk's to run.* p. 242's last entry, n. 6, closes complete (`…fere omnes codd. et 2 animatio.`), and p. 243's left footer block opens with a numbered entry `¹` (`Vide I. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 4. …`). No unnumbered fragment stands at the head of either. **The body crosses this leaf and the footer does not — the second consecutive leaf on which the two behave independently** (p. 241 → p. 242 printed the same contrast).
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 243 — **POSITIVE**, but NOT this chunk's to log or render.* p. 243's left block breaks off inside **n. 5** at `Multi codd. non repetunt decet eius nec operari, quod`, at a **WORD boundary**, and its right block opens **UNNUMBERED** with `etiam paulo post omittitur a pluribus codd. Superius ante com|munissimo et completissimo edd. et plures codd. repetunt modo.` before carrying nn. 6–9. **n. 5 anchors in Cap. III** (on `decet eius largitatem operari⁵ communiter`, in that capitulum's *Ratio*), so by the standing rule **the p. 243 gutter belongs to `bon-brev-p4-c3`'s ledger line.** It is recorded here so that chunk need not re-derive it. **A sixth distinct break position in six leaves** — p. 238 mid-word · p. 239 word boundary · p. 240 punctuation boundary · p. 241 none at all · p. 242 mid-word · p. 243 word boundary again but *mid-clause after a comma*. **The break position carries no information; only the next block's first line does.**
- *p. 243's right block closes complete at n. 9 (`— Pro peracta P operata.`), so the p. 243 → p. 244 test is NEGATIVE from the p. 243 side. It is recorded, not logged: p. 243's last notes are `p4-c3`'s, and the p. 244 side has not been read.*
- *`p4-c1` logs `-` (all-negative) and the p. 241 → p. 242 page-crossing test was already CLOSED NEGATIVE from both sides; neither is re-logged here.*

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; p. 242's left and right footer blocks and p. 243's left block re-read under direct high-factor zoom). **★ Pars IV cites Vol. III of this same edition constantly, and every one of those digits is in the serif `1`/`4`, `3`/`5` confusion class. None was adopted from the hand-off's orientation text; all were re-read.**
- **★ `c. 2-4; … c. 5-7; … c. 8-10.` (p. 242 n. 3) — the raw's `c. 3-7` is WRONG and the plate settles it, decisively and from sense.** The raw reads `c. 2-i ; do sccundo c. 3-7 ; dc tcrtio c. 8-10.`; the band prints an open-countered **`4`** in `2-4` and an old-style **`5`** (flat top bar over a closed bowl) in `5-7`, contrasting inside the same line with the `3` the raw wrongly repeated. **Independently right in sense and self-checking against the capitula table:** Pars IV's three members are the *unio naturarum* (capp. II–IV, the *unio* / *modus* / *tempus* of Cap. II's own sub-division), the *plenitudo charismatum* (capp. V–VII: *charismata in affectu*, *sapientia in intellectu*, *meritum in effectu*) and the *perpessio passionum* (capp. VIII–X, the three chapters *De passione Christi*). **There is no reading of the ten capitula on which `c. 3-7` can stand.** Same class of fix as `p4-c1`'s `c. 55` and `p3-c10`'s `d. 35`, and again a `3`/`5`.
- **★ `Cfr. III, Sent.` (p. 242 n. 4) — the plate prints a COMMA after `III`, not a period, and it is not a battered sort.** Under high zoom the mark carries a clear descending tail, in direct contrast with the baseline dots of `Cfr.` and `Sent.` in the same three words. **p. 241 n. 3 and p. 243 n. 2 both print `Cfr. III. Sent.` with a period**, so the house style is not uniform *within two leaves of itself*. **Transcribed as printed and not harmonised** — the same rule that preserved `ut; sicut` on p. 242.
- **★ `d. 1. a. 1. q. 2` against `III` (p. 242 n. 4) — the hand-off's named trap, and the raw flattens it exactly as predicted.** The raw gives `Cfr. 111, Sent. d. 1. a. 1. q. 2`, running the roman `III` together as three uprights and then printing the two book-internal digits correctly. On the band the `III` carries the roman's symmetric head-and-foot serifs while both `1`s carry the digit's angled top flag — the same contrast p. 241 n. 8 printed between `D I L M V` and `Vat., 1`. **Read `III` roman, `d. 1. a. 1.` digits.**
- **`d. 5-7.` and `d. 11. a. 2. q. 3. ad 3` (p. 242 n. 4)** — the raw's `d. 1 1.` is the flagged upright doubled; the band prints `11` clean. **Independently right in sense:** III *Sent.* d. 5–7 are the distinctions on the union itself, and **d. 11 is the distinction on the communication of idioms** — which is precisely what this note cites it for, and what the body sentence it anchors on is about. `d. 2. a. 2` on the *natura assumta* likewise checks.
- **★ `Ed. 1` vs `I. Sent.` vs `p. II.` INSIDE ONE ENTRY (p. 242 n. 5) — the recurring trap, all three resolved separately.** `Ed. 1` is the **edition** siglum (angled top flag, and it stands where an edition must, before `omisso substantia, legit`); `I. Sent. d. 8.` is the **book** number (symmetric roman serifs; the raw flattens it to `1. Senl.`); `p. II.` is the **pars** number in roman. The raw prints `1. Senl. d. 8. p. II. q. 2` — getting the roman `II` right and the roman `I` wrong in the same six words. **Fourteenth leaf on which the `1` / `I` split appears, and the first on which all three species stand in one entry.**
- **★ `pag. 205, nota 7.` (p. 242 n. 5) — the raw's `pag. 203` is WRONG and the plate settles it.** The band prints the old-style flat-bar-and-bowl `5`, not the double-bowl `3`; the contrast is available on the same page in n. 3's `c. 5-7`. **Independently right in sense:** p. 205 falls in the Breviloquium's own prologue, where the Dionysian trimembris divisio *substantia / virtus / operatio* is adduced — which is what the note says it is pointing back to, and what `substantia, virtus et operatio` in the body sentence is quoting. Second raw digit error corrected in this chunk, and the second `3`/`5`.
- **`A C S T` and `T` (p. 242 nn. 4, 5)** — all read clean; none is a flattening candidate, and there is no edition `1` inside either run of codices.
- **`cfr. tom. III. pag. 268, nota 2.` (p. 242 n. 6)** — `268` reads clean (the `6` and `8` are unambiguous and there is no upright to flag); `III.` is the roman with a period. The note names the Damascene, whose *De fide orthodoxa* III is where the *incarnatio*-not-*inanimatio* point is made.
- **`I. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 4.` (p. 243 n. 1) — three separate readings in eight characters.** `I.` roman (book), `d. 27.` clean, `p. II.` roman (pars — a clear gap between the uprights, not the flattened `H`), and **`q. 4.` the open-countered `4`, not a flagged `1`** — the counter is visibly open and the diagonal meets the stem, exactly as in n. 3's `c. 2-4` on the previous leaf. I *Sent.* d. 27 p. II is the *verbum* distinction, and the note anchors on `sicut et verbum voci`.
- **`supra p. I. c. 2. seq.` (p. 243 n. 1) — `p. I.` is the roman PARS number of this work, not a page.** It stands beside `supra` and beside a chapter number, which is Quaracchi's internal-reference form; the raw flattens it, as it did the identical `p. I.` on p. 240. Rendered in English as `Pars I, c. 2 f.` so the reference cannot be misread as a page.
- **`Cfr. III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 3.` (p. 243 n. 2)** — `III.` roman with a **period** (the contrast case for p. 242 n. 4's comma, two leaves apart); `d. 1.` the flagged digit. **Sense-check:** III *Sent.* d. 1 a. 2 q. 3 is on whether it befitted the Son rather than another person to become incarnate — exactly the body sentence's claim.
- **`Aristot., I. Elench. c. 5. (c. 6.).` (p. 243 n. 3)** — `I.` roman (book I of the *Sophistici Elenchi*); `c. 5.` the old-style `5`; `(c. 6.)` Quaracchi's alternative chapter division, in their standard parenthetical form. The maxim quoted in the body (*quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, inter se sunt eadem*) is the *Elenchi*'s, and the note gives both chapter numberings because the divisions differ between editions.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **`assumtio`, `assumta`, `assumtae` without the `p`** throughout Cap. II, against `assumere`, `assumi` and `assumentis` which have no `p` to lose — consistent with Pars III's `praesumtio` and flagged in `p4-c1`'s Notes in advance. **Not "corrected" to `assumptio`.**
- **`inanimatio` in p. 242 n. 6 is a BATTERED, INK-CLOGGED SORT-CLUSTER and is rendered whole.** The final `-tio` is overprinted into an unreadable blot (the raw reads `imnimatic`), but the **body** two lines above prints `non inanima-/tio, sed incarnatio nominatur` cleanly across the line break, and the note's own sense (`pro inanimatio … codd. et 2 animatio`) admits no other word. **This is the `eoru a` → `eorum` rule (p. 239), not the `delectactione` rule (p. 238): a broken sort is rendered whole and recorded; a genuine plate reading is preserved as printed.** The two are not collapsed.
- **`Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` carries the COLON** — **fifth consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–II). p. 237's full stop remains the one-off. **Note also that Cap. III, visible below on p. 243, opens its own *Ratio* with the same colon** — a sixth, recorded here but belonging to `p4-c3`.
- **The em-dash articulation is asymmetric again.** ` — ` stands before `Circa naturarum unionem` in the opening division and before `Et quoniam nobis magis nota est` in the *Quia vero* paragraph, but **not** before `Rursus` or `Postremo`, which open paragraphs without one, and not before `Quoniam ergo` in the *Ratio*. **Transcribed, never regularised.**
- **The thesis-block's italics are selective and were set exactly as printed:** `naturae / personae / humanae / divinae / assumtae / assumentis / cuiuslibet / solius Verbi` are italic, but `unitate`, `personae` in `unitate personae et hypostasis` further down, `Deitas` and `humanitas` are roman; and `debet` / `potest` are italic at their first two appearances in the *Rursus* period and roman nowhere. Quaracchi italicise a term where it is functioning as a member of a division, not wherever it recurs.
- **`hypostasis` / `hypostasi` / `hypostasum` are roman except in the italic pair `personae et hypostasis`**, and `suppositum` is roman throughout. Set as printed.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The **three** things to be considered about the incarnate Word (*unio naturarum, plenitudo charismatum, perpessio passionum*), which n. 3 maps onto capp. 2–4 / 5–7 / 8–10; the **three** things to be considered about the union itself (*opus, modus, tempus*), of which this capitulum treats only the first — capp. III and IV take the other two, as their titles show; the **three** modes in which the incarnation is reparative (*remediando, satisfaciendo, reconciliando*), announced in the *Ratio* and then developed **in that order** by the *Quia vero* / *Rursus* / *Postremo* paragraphs; the **five** theses of the *De opere* block, numbered by the editors' own marginal glosses and then answered one by one by the marginal *Pro thesi 1–5*; and the **three** ends to which the mediator leads man back (*cognitio, conformitas, filiatio*), taken up in that same order by the three *nullum … magis decet* members. **The editors' `Pro thesi N` glosses run 1, 2, 3, 4 down p. 242's right column and 5 at the head of p. 243's left — an independent confirmation from Quaracchi's own outline that the capitulum's argument is not complete on p. 242.** It was not used to set the boundary (the `Cap. III.` heading did that), but it agrees.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 242 L — "Tria consideranda." · "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Thesis 4." · "Thesis 5." p. 242 R — "Ratio." · "Pro thesi 1." · "Reparatio fit tripliciter." · "Pro thesi 2." · "Corollarium." · "Pro thesi 3." · "Pro thesi 4." p. 243 L — "Pro thesi 5." **This is the densest gloss series the Breviloquium has yet carried — thirteen glosses across a capitulum of seven paragraphs — and it is also the first that is a genuine two-column APPARATUS rather than an outline**: the left column numbers the theses as they are stated, the right column answers them one by one in the same numbering. The `Corollarium.` gloss marks the *inanimatio / incarnatio* remark as an editorial corollary to thesis 2, not a fourth member.

**No `[?]` flags.**

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.**
- **p. 242, left column, Cap. II's opening + the thesis block — GOOD, level with the same column's Cap. I tail** (`p4-c1` graded that run the cleanest in the leaf, and this run holds it). The `Cap. II.` heading survives intact; the display subtitle garbles only in one word (`(juanturn` for *quantum*, `nalurarum`). Body garbles are scattered and single-letter: `Ws` (a gloss bleed splitting *nobis*), `nalura-rum`, `plenitutlo c/mismatum`, `propler`, `lantum`, `scd`, `inteliigendi`, `ila etiam`, `ussumtae`, `cuiusiibet`, `fil unio`. **Sixteen garbles in twenty-two printed lines, none of them a whole word lost.** The raw also **mis-numbers the marginal glosses**, printing `Thesis 3.` where the plate prints `Thesis 2.` — a gloss error, not a body error, but a reminder that the raw's glosses are no more trustworthy than its digits.
- **p. 242, right column — GOOD to FAIR, the cleanest full column in this chunk.** `naiio.` (the gloss *Ratio.*), `ellectivum`, `?-e(we-diando` (the worst thing in the run, splitting *remediando* across a gloss bleed `iieparauom`), `satisfuciendo`, `oinnia l;icit`, `binc est` (five times — the plate's `h` reads as `b` throughout this column), `qmxl`, `quai totum`, `Ei quoniain`, `m;igis`, `bumiliatio`, `inanima-lio`, `sutisfacierulo`, `polest`, `ipiod`, `cuin`, `naluram`, `Iranseat`, `ipsain`, `unilate`, `accideiitis`, `persojiae et hijpostasis`, `natui'a`, `unlo`, `prlinuni`, `recorwiliamlo`, `Postroino`. **Twenty-seven garbles in forty-two lines, all single-letter or single-syllable; nothing dropped.**
- **p. 242 footer, nn. 3–6 — FLATTENED, and the numeric citations are again the worst of it**, as on every Vol V leaf so far. `Dc primo agitur c. 2-i` (for `c. 2-4`), **`do sccundo c. 3-7`** (for `c. 5-7` — **the first substantive error in this register**), `Cfr. 111, Sent.` (the roman run together), `opcratione`, `d. 1 1. a. 2. q. 3. ad 3`, `communicationc idiomatuni`, `Pro hii ta-` (for `his ta-`), `kis tanlum` (for `his tantum`), `ita qiiod`, `Ed. 1 , omisso substantia, legit et sumnia virlus`, `rcspicere \idclur`, `trimembreni divisioncm`, **`pag. 203, nota 7.`** (for `pag. 205` — **the second substantive error**), `1. Senl. d. 8.` (for `I. Sent.` — the roman flattened to the edition digit), `omnl crcato`, `niembra rcaliter diflerant`, `Daniasc;` (the plate has `Damasc.;`), `(om. III.` (for `tom. III.`), **`imnimatic`** (for `inanimatio` — the battered sort, above).
- **p. 243, left column, Cap. II's tail — FAIR, a clear step DOWN from p. 242's right column and the weakest run this chunk sets from.** `namquc cst cssc vwdium` (three words in four), `reducen^Jum liominem`, `cogniliomm`, `confonnilatem`, `fliiatioiwm` (for *filiationem*, badly), `auteiu mai,'is dccet`, `essc iwdiuni qiia.m pcrsonam`, `quac jjroducit`, `nnllum-que`, `co-yuUionem` (for *cognitionem*, split across the line and mangled in both halves), `dcclarat`, `csl unibilc`, `vcrbum voci'`, `divinain confor-mitalcih`, `quani`, `fdiationcm adoptivam rcduccrc`, `ficri filium hominis qua/JYi` (for *quam* — a gloss bleed), `Filium Dei l` (the anchor eaten), `crgo omnino idcm cst`, `csi 3.` (a shattered `Pro thesi 5.` gloss), `quaccumque`, `cidcm sant cadcm` (for *eidem sunt eadem*), `cadcm'`, `idiomalum`, `rcpugnantia`, `respcctus`, `unias naturac` (for *unius*), `sicnt unire`, `assumi ;yc\ ncgatio` (for `assumi; vel negatio` — the worst cluster in the run), `allcri compctit`, `rcgu-lam prachabitam`, `pracdiclam`. **Thirty-one garbles in twenty-two printed lines — roughly one and a half per line, against p. 242 right column's two-thirds.** The `Cap. III.` heading below it nevertheless survives intact as `Cap. III.`, the third Breviloquium chapter heading in four leaves the raw has not shattered.
- **p. 243 footer, nn. 1–3 — FLATTENED but short and legible; every one of the three is a bare citation.** `Vide 1. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 4.` (the roman `I` flattened to the edition digit again, while `p. II.` survives — the same inconsistency as p. 242 n. 5, on the adjacent leaf), `supra p. I. c. 2. seq.` (read correctly for once), `Cfr. III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 3.`, `Aristot., I. Elench. c. 5. (c. 6.).` **The raw's digits happen to be right in all three entries here — which is not a reason to have trusted them, and each was still settled on the band.**

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up from `bon-brev-p4-c1`:* **p. 242 footer notes 3–6 — FOUR entries, closing p. 242's register.** Every anchor was re-verified on the band as falling in Cap. II's body below the `Cap. II.` heading, and **every digit and siglum was re-read at 450 dpi rather than adopted from the hand-off's orientation text.** **Two raw readings are corrected here against the band, and in both cases the hand-off's orientation text happened to agree with the band rather than with the raw — which was checked, not assumed**: n. 3's `c. 5-7` (raw `c. 3-7`) and n. 5's `pag. 205, nota 7.` (raw `pag. 203`). Both were settled from the plate and then independently confirmed from sense; neither was adopted from the hand-off. **One structural claim in the hand-off did NOT hold and is corrected here: n. 4's anchor is on `vel clauditur negatio` in p. 242's RIGHT column, not on `assumtio carnis a Deitate` in the left.** Ownership is unaffected. Everything else held: Cap. II opens part-way down p. 242's left column with `Circa ipsum autem Verbum incarnatum…`; p. 242's register is six entries; p. 242's gutter runover is positive, mid-word at `Pro his ta-`/`men`, and is rendered joined and logged here; p. 242's gutter is 1361 on a sound 61 px run.
- *Forwarded to `bon-brev-p4-c3` (Pars IV, Cap. III, *De incarnatione quantum ad modum*):* **p. 243 footer notes 4–9 — SIX entries, all of them Cap. III's.** Anchors verified on the band as falling below the `Cap. III.` heading. **★ p. 243's own GUTTER RUNOVER IS POSITIVE and is `p4-c3`'s to render and to log** — the left block breaks off inside **n. 5** at a word boundary (`…decet eius nec operari, quod`) and the right block opens UNNUMBERED with `etiam paulo post omittitur a pluribus codd. …`; **n. 5 must be rendered joined.** The p. 242 → p. 243 page-crossing test is CLOSED NEGATIVE here and must not be re-logged; **the p. 243 → p. 244 test is still open** (p. 243's right block closes complete at n. 9, so it is negative from the p. 243 side, but p. 244 has not been read).
- *Recorded for `bon-brev-p4-c3`, from bands read here but not owned here:* **Cap. III opens part-way down p. 243's LEFT column** under `Cap. III. / De incarnatione quantum ad modum.`, with `De modo incarnationis hoc tenendum est, quod Angelo nuntiante beatissimae Virgini Mariae mysterium incarnationis perficiendum in ipsa, Virgo credidit, appetiit et consensit…` — **no incoming body-text seam to reconstruct.** It runs past p. 243's gutter and past p. 243's foot (the right column ends mid-sentence at `…completio debita debuit esse in prole, hinc est, quod in`), **so p. 244 must be extracted and auto-measured FRESH and Cap. III's end fixed positively from the `Cap. IV.` heading there.** **p. 243's bands exist; its gutter is 1186 — adopted after re-profiling, NOT the default 1180, which came in 6 px low on a 50 px run.** **p. 243's nine-note register IS band-read and IS in `KNOWN_TOTALS` (243: 9).**

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