title: Pars 7, Cap. 1

title_alt:
De iudicio in communi
On the judgment in general

source_text:
<!-- page 281 -->

### PARS SEPTIMA. *De statu finalis iudicii.*

### Capitulum I. *De iudicio in communi.*

Postquam aliqua breviter dicta sunt de Trinitate Dei, de creatura mundi, de corruptela peccati, de incarnatione Verbi, de gratia Spiritus sancti et de medicina Sacramenti; restat nunc septimo et ultimo aliqua breviter tangere de *statu finalis iudicii*. De quo in *summa* tenendum est, quod sine dubio iudicium universorum futurum est, in quo Deus Pater per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum iudicabit vivos et mortuos, bonos et malos, reddendo unicuique secundum exigentiam meritorum[^p281-1]. — In hoc autem iudicio fiet *apertio librorum*, scilicet conscientiarum, quibus merita et demerita universorum sibi ipsis et ceteris innotescent, faciente hoc virtute illius *libri vitae*, Verbi scilicet incarnati; qui in forma *Divinitatis* non videbitur nisi a bonis, in forma vero *humanitatis*, in qua et sententiam promulgabit, videbitur tam a bonis quam a malis, licet terribilis in eadem forma appareat reprobis et blandus iustis[^p281-2].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum primum principium, hoc ipso quod primum, sit a se ipso, secundum se ipsum et propter se ipsum, hoc ipso ipsum est *efficiens*, *forma* et *finis*, universa *producens*, *regens* et *perficiens*; ita quod, sicut *producit* secundum *altitudinem suae virtutis*, sic etiam *regit* secundum *rectitudinem veritatis* et *consummat* secundum *plenitudinem bonitatis*. Quoniam ergo *altitudo summae virtutis* requirebat, ut non tantum esset productio creaturae ad *vestigium*, verum etiam ad *imaginem*; non solum creaturae *irrationalis*, verum etiam *rationalis*; non solum creaturae, quae movetur secundum *impetum naturalem*, verum etiam secundum *libertatem voluntatis*; et creatura, quae est ad *imaginem*, quia Dei capax[^p281-3], est *beatificabilis*, creatura *rationalis* est *disciplinabilis*, creatura *habens libertatem* voluntatis est secundum legem iustitiae *ordinabilis* et *deordinabilis*: hinc est, quod *rectitudo veritatis* legem homini imponere debuit, in qua ad beatitudinem *invitaret* et ad veritatem *erudiret* et ad iustitiam *obligaret*; ita tamen, quod libertatem voluntatis non cogeret, quin pro suae libitu voluntatis iustitiam relinquere posset et sequi, cum « sic res, quas condidit, administrat, ut eas agere proprios motus sinat[^p281-4] ». Et quia *plenitudo bonitatis* in consummando operatur, secundum quod exigit *altitudo virtutis* et *rectitudo veritatis*; hinc est, quod consummatio beatitudinis non datur a bonitate summa nisi his qui servaverunt *iustitiam* a rectitudine veritatis impositam, qui susceperunt *disciplinam* et amaverunt illam summam et perpetuam *felicitatem* plus quam bona transitoria. — Et quoniam quidam hoc agunt, quidam autem oppositum, pro suarum varietate voluntatum, quae interius occultantur et in statu viae secundum suum arbitrium currunt; hinc est, quod ad manifestationem *altitudinis virtutis*, *rectitudinis veritatis* et *plenitudinis bonitatis*, necesse est, universale iudicium sequi; in quo fiant iustae *retributiones* praemiorum, apertae *declarationes* meritorum et irrevocabiles *lationes* sententiarum, ut in iustis *retributionibus* stipendiorum summae bonitatis appareat plenitudo, in apertis *declarationibus* meritorum veritatis appareat rectitudo, et in irrevocabilibus *lationibus* sententiarum summae virtutis et potestatis appareat altitudo. — Primum igitur, quoniam iusta *retributio* respicit culpam, cui debetur poena, vel iustitiam, cui debetur gloria; et universi filii Adae habent hanc, vel illam: hinc est, quod necesse est, iudicio retributionis *omnes* iudicari, ut iusti glorificentur, et impii condemnentur[^p281-5].

Rursus, quia aperta *declaratio* meritorum requirit, quod simul appareat, quid agendum est, et quid actum est vel omissum a libertate voluntatis humanae secundum varietatem circumstantiarum; hinc est, quod et *libri conscientiarum* aperientur, ut appareant merita, et *liber vitae*, ut appareat ipsa iustitia, secundum quam approbanda, vel reprobanda sunt merita illa. Et quoniam ille *liber vitae* est liber, in quo scripta sunt omnia, simul et lucidissime,
<!-- page 282 -->
et in *conscientiis* scribuntur veraciter; ideo ex concursu apertionis horum librorum fiet aperta *declaratio* omnium meritorum, ita quod occulta cordis cuiuslibet et sibi et ceteris innotescant. Unde, ut vult Augustinus[^p282-1], liber ille est « vis, qua fiet, ut ad memoriam cuiuslibet cuncta mirabiliter revocentur », ut lucide appareat aequitas divinorum iudiciorum in apertissimo lumine veritatis.

Postremo, quia irrevocabilis *latio* sententiarum debet fieri ab eo qui possit audiri et videri, et a quo non possit appellari; et videri ab universis non potest summa lux, quam tenebrosi oculi videre non possunt, pro eo quod *facie ad faciem*[^p282-2] videri non potest sine deiformitate mentis et iucunditate cordis: necesse est, quod iudex appareat in effigie creaturae. Quia vero pura creatura auctoritatem non habet summam, a qua appellari non possit; hinc est, quod necesse est, quod iudex noster et *Deus* sit, ut iudicet per auctoritatem summam; et *homo* sit, ut videatur et disceptet cum peccatoribus in effigie humana. Et quia una vox disceptationis terret culpabiles et assecurat innocentes; hinc est, quod una eius effigies iustos laetificabit et e contrario impios deterrebit.

---

english:
### PART SEVEN. *On the state of the final judgment.*

### Chapter I. *On the judgment in general.*

After some things have been said briefly concerning the Trinity of God, concerning the creation of the world, concerning the corruption of sin, concerning the incarnation of the Word, concerning the grace of the Holy Spirit and concerning the medicine of the Sacrament; it remains now, seventhly and lastly, to touch briefly upon some things concerning the *state of the final judgment*. Concerning which this must be held in *summary*: that without doubt there is to be a judgment of all, in which God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ will judge the living and the dead, the good and the wicked, rendering to each one according to the requirement of his merits[^p281-1]. — But in this judgment there will come about the *opening of the books*, namely of the consciences, by which the merits and demerits of all will become known to themselves and to the rest, this being effected by the power of that *book of life*, namely of the incarnate Word; who in the form of *Divinity* will not be seen save by the good, but in the form of *humanity*, in which he will also promulgate the sentence, will be seen as much by the good as by the wicked, although in that same form he appear terrible to the reprobate and gentle to the just[^p281-2].

Now the reason for the understanding of the aforesaid is this: since the first principle, by this very fact that it is first, is from itself, according to itself and for the sake of itself, by this very fact it is *efficient [cause]*, *form* and *end*, *producing*, *governing* and *perfecting* all things; so that, just as it *produces* according to the *height of its own power*, so also it *governs* according to the *rectitude of truth* and *consummates* according to the *fulness of goodness*. Since therefore the *height of the highest power* required that there should be a production of the creature not only unto a *vestige*, but also unto an *image*; not only of the *irrational* creature, but also of the *rational*; not only of the creature which is moved according to a *natural impulse*, but also according to *freedom of will*; and [since] the creature which is unto the *image*, because it is capable of God[^p281-3], is *beatifiable*, the *rational* creature is *teachable*, the creature *having freedom* of will is according to the law of justice *orderable* and *disorderable*: hence it is that the *rectitude of truth* had to impose a law upon man, in which it might *invite* him to beatitude and *instruct* him unto truth and *oblige* him unto justice; yet in such a way that it should not coerce the freedom of the will, but that according to the pleasure of his own will he might be able both to forsake justice and to follow it, since « he so administers the things which he founded, that he lets them exercise their own motions[^p281-4] ». And because the *fulness of goodness* operates in consummating, according as the *height of power* and the *rectitude of truth* require; hence it is that the consummation of beatitude is not given by the highest goodness save to those who have kept the *justice* imposed by the rectitude of truth, who have received *discipline* and have loved that highest and perpetual *felicity* more than transitory goods. — And since some do this, but some the opposite, according to the variety of their wills, which are inwardly hidden and in the state of the way run according to their own choice; hence it is that for the manifestation of the *height of power*, of the *rectitude of truth* and of the *fulness of goodness*, it is necessary that a universal judgment follow; in which there come about just *retributions* of rewards, open *declarations* of merits and irrevocable *deliverances* of sentences, so that in the just *retributions* of wages the fulness of the highest goodness may appear, in the open *declarations* of merits the rectitude of truth may appear, and in the irrevocable *deliverances* of sentences the height of the highest power and authority may appear. — First therefore, since a just *retribution* regards fault, to which punishment is owed, or justice, to which glory is owed; and all the sons of Adam have the one or the other: hence it is that it is necessary that *all* be judged by the judgment of retribution, so that the just may be glorified and the wicked condemned[^p281-5].

Again, because the open *declaration* of merits requires that there appear at once what is to be done, and what has been done or omitted by the freedom of the human will according to the variety of circumstances; hence it is that both the *books of the consciences* will be opened, so that merits may appear, and the *book of life*, so that that very justice may appear according to which those merits are to be approved or reproved. And since that *book of life* is a book in which all things are written, at once and most lucidly,
<!-- page 282 -->
and in the *consciences* they are written truthfully; therefore from the concurrence of the opening of these books there will come about an open *declaration* of all merits, so that the hidden things of each one's heart may become known both to himself and to the rest. Hence, as Augustine will have it[^p282-1], that book is « a power by which it will come about that all things be marvellously recalled to the memory of each one », so that the equity of the divine judgments may lucidly appear in the most open light of truth.

Lastly, because the irrevocable *deliverance* of sentences ought to be made by one who can be heard and seen, and from whom there can be no appeal; and the highest light cannot be seen by all, which darkened eyes cannot see, for the reason that it cannot be seen *face to face*[^p282-2] without deiformity of mind and gladness of heart: it is necessary that the judge appear in the semblance of a creature. But because a pure creature does not have the highest authority, from which there can be no appeal; hence it is that it is necessary that our judge be also *God*, that he may judge by the highest authority; and be *man*, that he may be seen and may dispute with sinners in a human semblance. And because one voice of disputation terrifies the culpable and reassures the innocent; hence it is that one and the same semblance of his will gladden the just and, on the contrary, deter the wicked.

---

en: Cf. Matt. 16:27; 25:31; Apoc. 22:12; the same, 20:15, on the book of life.

la: Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 21. n. 3: *Omnipotens Deus et terribilis peccatoribus et blandus est iustis.* Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 987, nota 6. — De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 43. a. 2. et 3, ubi de libro vitae et conscientiae; d. 48, ubi de forma iudicis.

en: Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels*, book II, homily 21, n. 3: *Almighty God is both terrible to sinners and gentle to the just.* Cf. tom. IV, p. 987, note 6. — On this chapter cf. IV *Sent.* d. 43, a. 2 and 3, where the book of life and of conscience is treated; d. 48, where the form of the judge is treated.

la: Ut insinuat August., XIV. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11. Cfr. supra p. II. c. 9. et 12. — Superius pro *suae virtutis* edd. *summae virtutis*. Inferius post *disciplinabilis* D F addunt *creatura irrationalis indisciplinabilis*, et post *in qua* P supplet *hominem*, plures alii codd. *et.*

en: As Augustine intimates, *On the Trinity* XIV, c. 8, n. 11. Cf. above, Part II, c. 9 and 12. — Earlier, for *of its own power* the editions have *of the highest power*. Further below, after *teachable* D and F add *the irrational creature is unteachable*, and after *in which* P supplies *man*, several other codices *and*.

la: Secundum August. supra pag. 218, nota 5. allegatum. — Superius pro *suae libitu voluntatis*, quod habent B C I L O, edd. *suo libito voluntatis*, P *suo velle*.

en: According to Augustine, cited above at p. 218, note 5. — Earlier, for *according to the pleasure of his own will*, which B, C, I, L, O have, the editions read *at his own good pleasure of will*, P *at his own willing*.

la: Cfr. II. Cor. 5, 10. — Pro *iusti* Vat., 1 et 3 *boni*.

en: Cf. II Cor. 5:10. — For *the just* the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 read *the good*.

la: Libr. XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 14. Pro *cuncta* C *opera* (textus originalis *opera sua, vel bona vel mala cuncta*).

en: *On the City of God*, book XX, c. 14. For *all things* C reads *works* (the original text has *their own works, whether good or evil, all of them*).

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12. — De seqq. cfr. Ioan. 5, 22. seqq. — Inferius pro *non habet summam* K *non habet ferendi sententiam*.

en: The Epistle I Cor. 13:12. — On what follows cf. John 5:22 and following. — Below, for *does not have the highest [authority]* K reads *does not have [the authority] of pronouncing sentence*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 281–282, TWO LEAVES, AND THE CLOSE IS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM THE `Cap. II.` HEADING ON THE PLATE.** p. 281 carries, **across the full width of the leaf above both columns**, the display heading `PARS SEPTIMA.` with the subtitle `De statu finalis iudicii.` beneath it; below that, centred in the **LEFT** column at about **18 %** of the leaf, `Cap. I.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De iudicio in communi.`; and below that the opening `Postquam aliqua breviter dicta sunt de Trinitate Dei…`. All three were re-set line by line off the band rather than adopted from the hand-off, which had read them at 2.6× only. **Per the frozen short-opener rule the `PARS SEPTIMA` heading and its subtitle fold into this chunk.** Cap. I fills the whole of p. 281 — its left column breaks to the right column **MID-WORD** (`rectitudo veritatis le-` / `gem homini imponere debuit`, splitting *legem*), and p. 281's right column runs to the foot and breaks to p. 282 **AT A COMMA MID-SENTENCE** (`in quo scripta sunt omnia, simul et lucidissime,` / `et in conscientiis scribuntur veraciter`) — and closes about **40 %** down p. 282's **LEFT** column at `…iustos laetificabit et e contrario impios deterrebit.`, immediately above the centred `Cap. II.` with its **TWO-line** subtitle `De antecedentibus ad iudicium, cuiusmodi est poena purgatoria.` ★ **That heading, read directly off the band, is what closes Cap. I, and nothing else was used.** The index's hypothesis (Cap. II at p. 282, therefore Cap. I running 281–282) turns out right and **was used for nothing**, exactly as the standing caution requires. **The running heads were used for nothing**: p. 281's reads `PARS VII. C. I.` — true of the leaf, but only accidentally, since the leaf also carries a full-width part heading — and **p. 282's reads `BREVILOQUII PARS VII. C. II.` although 40 % of its left column is still Cap. I**, the running head once again running a unit *ahead*. **The title is taken from the `Cap. I.` heading, not from the volume index**, whose Pars VII entry is OCR-garbled in the raw (`De iiidicio in communi`). Neither crossing's *shape* was treated as evidence: one is mid-word, the other at a comma, and Pars VI has already shown five consecutive crossings at five different shapes.

**★★ PARS VII SCOPE, VERIFIED AGAINST THE VOLUME'S OWN INDEX** (raw `doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt`, the index block at L≈93998–94020). **Pars VII has SEVEN capitula**, and the work closes at p. 291: Cap. I *De iudicio in communi* p. 281 · II *De antecedentibus ad iudicium, cuiusmodi est poena purgatoria* p. 282 · III *De antecedentibus ad iudicium, cuiusmodi sunt suffragia ecclesiastica* p. 283 · IV *De concomitantibus iudicium, sicut est conflagratio ignium* p. 284 · V *De concomitantibus iudicium, sicut est resurrectio corporum* p. 286 · VI *De consequentibus ad iudicium, sicut est poena infernalis* p. 287 · VII *De gloria paradisi* p. 288. **Those page numbers are the index's claim, not a span** — every one of them is to be re-derived from the `Cap. N.` heading on the plate. This index has already been caught under-reporting a span inside Pars VI.

**Gutters — BOTH measured fresh with no constant, and p. 281 is the structurally unsafe leaf the frozen rule names.**
- **★★ p. 281 = 1231.** `colcrop.py vol5 281` with no constant returns **1230 on a 55 px run** — below the 58–64 px trust band, and therefore suspect on its own showing before any other consideration. The window sweep shows exactly the failure the frozen rule predicts for a part opening: 5–25 % → 1315 on a **347 px** run · 10–30 % → 1219/**161** · 15–35 % → 1328/**351** · 20–40 % → 1210/**115** · 25–45 % → 1211/**117** — **the full-width `PARS SEPTIMA` display heading crosses the gutter and destroys the blank-column run over the whole upper page**, as on pp. 201, 219, 241 and 252. Confined to **body rows only**, nine consecutive windows agree: 30–50 % → 1236/62 · 35–55 % → 1235/61 · 40–60 % → 1234/60 · 45–65 % → 1233/62 · 50–70 % → 1232/61 · 55–75 % → 1231/61 · 60–80 % → 1230/62 · 65–85 % → 1229/63 · 70–90 % → 1227/60 — **a 9 px spread on runs of 60–63 px, inside the trust band**. The per-column ink profile over body rows (28–92 %) puts the zero band at **x = 1206–1258** with the printed column rule inside it as an ink island at **x = 1227–1239, peaking 658 rows**: **band midpoint 1231, rule centre 1233**, and the band is **stable across noise floors of 1, 2 and 3 rows** (1206–1257 / 1206–1258 / 1206–1258), so the threshold-sensitivity `p6-c13` met on p. 279 does not arise here. **1231 adopted**; the six bands cut there read clean edge to edge in both columns, body and footer. The default's 1230 is 1 px left of it — recorded, not absorbed.
- **★ p. 282 = 1357, settled fresh on a leaf never before cropped.** The default returns **1361 on a 56 px run** — just under the trust band. Fourteen windows drift monotonically 1345 → 1364 on runs of 51–64 px, which is the signature of an **off-centre** column rule rather than of a failed measurement; the ink profile over body rows (10–92 %) settles it, band **x = 1333–1382** with the rule inside it at **x = 1349–1367, peaking 461 rows** — band midpoint **1357**, rule centre 1358. **1357 adopted**; the bands cut there read clean in both columns. ★ **Eighteen consecutive leaves now measure 1150 · 1422 · 1163 · 1370 · 1186 · 1373 · 1202 · 1326 · 1164 · 1403 · 1145 · 1392 · 1247 · 1351 · 1191 · 1331 · 1231 · 1357. Parity predicts nothing, proximity predicts nothing, and the run width remains the only confidence signal.**

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All seven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands** (6 bands at 2.6×, then 14 at 4.6× and 24 at 7.0× for the digits and sigla); the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 281's total of 5 and p. 282's total of 7 are both established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`.**

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS A CLAIM, AND IT WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL. IT HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR.** `bon-brev-p6-c13` forwarded **no apparatus at all** — Pars VI closed with its last register complete — and stated its observation of p. 281 with its verification level exactly: block positions and the five entries' text read at 2.6×, **no anchor, no column, no digit and no total claimed**. Every one of those five entries is confirmed here verbatim, and everything the hand-off explicitly declined to claim is established here for the first time. Verification level of every note **as established here**:
- **p. 281 nn. 1–5** — POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD, OWNERSHIP, EXTENT, DIGITS and SIGLA all verified here. n. 1 anchors on `secundum exigentiam meritorum ¹. —` in the **LEFT** column, closing Thesis 1; n. 2 on `appareat reprobis et blandus iustis ².` in the **LEFT**, closing Thesis 3; n. 3 on `quia Dei capax ³,` in the **LEFT**, inside the *Principia generalia* period; n. 4 on `agere proprios motus sinat ⁴ ».` in the **RIGHT**; n. 5 on `impii condemnentur ⁵.` in the **RIGHT**, closing the *Arguitur ex primo* period. **All five are Cap. I's.**
- **p. 282 nn. 1–2** — POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD, OWNERSHIP, EXTENT and DIGITS verified here. n. 1 anchors on `ut vult Augustinus ¹,` in the **LEFT**; n. 2 on `pro eo quod *facie ad faciem* ²` in the **LEFT**. **Both are Cap. I's.**

**★ p. 281's SPLIT MAP — the leaf is fully consumed by this capitulum.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3 — **n. 3 straddling the gutter, breaking off at `Ut insinuat August., XIV. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11. Cfr. su-`**. Right footer block: n. 3's unnumbered continuation (`pra p. II. c. 9. et 12. — Superius pro suae virtutis edd. summae virtutis…`), then nn. 4, 5, ending complete at `Pro *iusti* Vat., 1 et 3 *boni*.` **Anchors:** nn. 1–3 **LEFT**, nn. 4–5 **RIGHT**. **Total 5.** So the block split is 3/2, the anchor split 3/2 and the capitulum split 5/0 — block and anchor coincide on this leaf, which they did *not* on p. 280, and no inference is drawn from the coincidence.

**★★ p. 282's SPLIT MAP — read in full here although only two of its notes are owned here, because the leaf's total is this chunk's to establish.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 — **n. 4 straddling the gutter, breaking off at `De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. per totam. —`**. Right footer block: n. 4's unnumbered continuation (`Pro quibus sufficienter purgatis P a quibus sufficienter purgati, et pro reliquiis S sordibus; post corporali 1 addit eis.`), then nn. 5, 6, 7, ending complete at `Paulo ante pro *levius* B Q et 2 *lenius*.` **Anchors:** nn. 1, 2 in the **LEFT** column inside Cap. I; n. 3 on `poena purgatoria et suffragia ecclesiastica ³.` also in the **LEFT**, but inside Cap. II. **Total 7.** **Capitulum split 2/5** — nn. 3–7 are `bon-brev-p7-c2`'s. ★ **Note that the capitulum boundary falls INSIDE the left footer block and INSIDE the left column, three notes above the block break: block 4/3, anchors LEFT-heavy, capitulum 2/5 — three independent structures again, on a leaf where none of the three cuts in the same place.**

**★ SIGLA — three runs, one of which turns on the one-upright rule.**
1. **★ `B C I L O` (p. 281 n. 4)** — the third sort is a **SINGLE upright** and is therefore `I`, never a crossbar-less `H`, which needs two. The **alphabetical order of the run** corroborates it independently: `B < C < I < L < O` ascends, and `B C H L O` would ascend equally, so order alone does not decide — **stroke count does**, and at 4.6× the sort is one upright. The raw prints it `BCII. 0`, merging the `I` with the following `L`, which is exactly the corruption class the frozen rule names.
2. **`I K M O P Q V` and `B I K L M O P V` (p. 282 nn. 3, 6)** — forwarded, not owned; both are long alphabetical runs whose sorts are unambiguous, and both are recorded here only so the next chunk can check them, not adopted.
3. **`Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 281 n. 5)** — **EDITION sigla standing in the same register as the codex letters**, the shape met at p. 280 n. 4 and p. 278 n. 3. Its independent check is that Vol V has only three editions (1, 2, 3) beside `Vat.`, so an arabic sort in this position can be nothing else. Likewise `edd.` in nn. 3 and 4 and `2` in p. 282 n. 7.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). ★ **The `1`/`4` class dominates these two leaves almost completely — nine of the eleven decisions — and there is not one `3`/`5` decision on either leaf. Do not calibrate on it.**
- **★ p. 281 n. 1's `Matth. 16, 27` — settled by the anchor it glosses.** Matt. 16:27 is *tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera eius* ✓, and the anchor reads `reddendo unicuique secundum exigentiam meritorum`. Decisive.
- **★ p. 281 n. 1's `25, 31` — settled by content.** Matt. 25:31, *Cum autem venerit Filius hominis in maiestate sua… tunc sedebit super sedem maiestatis suae*, opens the judgment of all the nations ✓, which is the `iudicium universorum` of the same clause.
- **★ p. 281 n. 1's `Apoc. 22, 12` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by content.** Apoc. 22:12 is *merces mea mecum est, reddere unicuique secundum opera sua* ✓ — the same *reddere unicuique* formula a third time.
- **★★ p. 281 n. 1's `ibid. 20, 15` — settled by the note's OWN gloss.** The note appends `de libro vitae`, and Apoc. 20:15 is *qui non inventus est in libro vitae scriptus, missus est in stagnum ignis* ✓. Apoc. 20:13 is the sea giving up its dead and names no book. Decisive, and it is the only one of the four scripture coordinates the note glosses for itself.
- **★★ p. 281 n. 2's `tom. IV. pag. 987, nota 6.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled DECISIVELY against the corpus, on BOTH digits.** Printed p. 987 of Tomus IV is owned by **`bon-sent-IV-d48-a1-q3`** (*Utrum Christus apparebit reprobis in forma humanitatis gloriosa*), and **that chunk's own note `p987-6` is Isidore's *mitis apparebit in iudicio Christus electis et terribilis reprobis*** ✓ — the very sentence p. 281 n. 2 is glossing with its Gregory quotation. Both the page and the note number match their target exactly.
- **★★ p. 281 n. 2's `IV. Sent. d. 43. a. 2. et 3` and `d. 48` — settled DECISIVELY by reading the targets, and the note tells you what to look for.** It says `ubi de libro vitae et conscientiae`: `bon-sent-IV-d43-a2-q1` is *De quidditate libri vitae*, `-a2-q2` *Utrum in libro vitae omnia scribantur*, `-a2-q3` *Utrum liber vitae necessario aperietur*, and `-a3-q1` *Utrum in conscientia legantur omnia merita* ✓ — a. 2 **is** the book of life and a. 3 **is** conscience. It says `ubi de forma iudicis`: `bon-sent-IV-d48-a1-q2` is *Utrum Christus in forma Divinitatis apparebit malis* and `-a1-q3` *Utrum Christus apparebit reprobis in forma humanitatis gloriosa* ✓ — which is word for word this capitulum's `in forma Divinitatis… in forma vero humanitatis`. Decisive on both.
- **★ p. 281 n. 2's `homil. 21. n. 3` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by a second, independent witness.** Gregory's *Homiliae in Evangelia* book II runs homilies 21–40, so 21 is the book's first and is admissible where a smaller number would not be; and **the raw independently reads `Iiomil. 21. n. 3`**, an OCR pass that has no access to the plate's serif. Two witnesses agreeing is the standard the frozen rule sets.
- **★★ p. 281 n. 3's `XIV. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11.` — settled by the anchor's own words.** Augustine, *De Trinitate* XIV, 8, 11 reads *eo quippe ipso imago eius est, quo eius capax est* ✓, and the anchor is `creatura, quae est ad imaginem, quia Dei capax ³`. The note's `Ut insinuat` is doing exactly that. Decisive.
- **★★ p. 281 n. 3's `supra p. II. c. 9. et 12.` — two `1`/`4` decisions settled by reading both targets.** **`bon-brev-p2-c9`** is *De productione hominis quantum ad spiritum* ✓ — the image, the capacity for God and the freedom of will this anchor turns on; **`bon-brev-p2-c12`** is *De completione et ordinatione totius mundi consummati* ✓ — the *ordinabilis et deordinabilis* of the same period. Pars II has exactly twelve capitula, so `c. 42` is not a possible reading at all.
- **★★ p. 281 n. 4's `supra pag. 218, nota 5.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled DECISIVELY, on both digits, by reading the target.** Printed p. 218 is owned by **`bon-brev-p1-c9`**, and **that chunk's note `p218-5` is `August., VII. de Civ. Dei, c. 30: Sic itaque administrat omnia, quae creavit, ut etiam ipsa proprios exercere et agere motus sinat`** ✓ — which is the very quotation p. 281 anchors n. 4 to (`ut eas agere proprios motus sinat ⁴ »`). Nothing else on that page matches, and no other page in the work carries that quotation.
- **★ p. 281 n. 5's `II. Cor. 5, 10` — settled by the anchor it glosses.** II Cor. 5:10 is *omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis, prout gessit* ✓ — `iudicio retributionis omnes iudicari` word for word.
- **★★ p. 282 n. 1's `Libr. XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 14.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by the quotation the note's anchor prints.** *De Civitate Dei* XX, 14 is the chapter on the opening of the books at the judgment, and it defines the book of life as *vis quaedam… qua fiet ut cuncta… revocentur* ✓ — which the body quotes verbatim at this anchor. Decisive.
- **★★ p. 282 n. 2's `I. Cor. 13, 12` and `Ioan. 5, 22` — both settled by content.** I Cor. 13:12 is *videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem* ✓, and the anchor is the phrase *facie ad faciem* itself. John 5:22 is *neque enim Pater iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit Filio* ✓ — which is precisely the `De seqq.` the note points at, the sentences establishing that the judge must be both *Deus* and *homo*. Decisive on both.

**Runover tests — FOUR RUN: TWO POSITIVE, TWO NEGATIVE, all four closed from both sides.**
- *★ **p. 281's own gutter — POSITIVE**, confirmed from BOTH sides and logged as `p.281 n.3:gutter`.* The hand-off predicted this and **did not log it**, correctly: p. 281 is this chunk's first leaf, so the leaf's gutter test is its own. From the upper side, the left block's last entry breaks off mid-citation at `Cfr. su-` with **the printer's signature line, not blank paper, beneath it** — which is the trap the hand-off named and which is why the test had to be run from the other side too. From the lower side, **p. 281's right block opens UNNUMBERED** at `pra p. II. c. 9. et 12. — Superius pro suae virtutis edd. summae virtutis.` The two halves join into one grammatical citation (`Cfr. supra p. II. c. 9. et 12.`) and are rendered joined in note `p281-3`. **Logged once.**
- *★ **p. 282's own gutter — POSITIVE**, confirmed from both sides and logged as `p.282 n.4:gutter`.* p. 282's left block breaks off at n. 4's `De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. per totam. —` with blank paper beneath, and **p. 282's right block opens UNNUMBERED** at `Pro quibus sufficienter purgatis P a quibus sufficienter purgati…`. ★ **The straddling note is NOT owned by this chunk — it is `bon-brev-p7-c2`'s — but the test is logged here under the standing rule that a leaf's gutter test belongs to the chunk that FIRST reaches the leaf**, exactly as `p6-c12` logged `p.279 n.3:gutter` for a note `p6-c13` owned. **`bon-brev-p7-c2` must NOT re-log it, and must render n. 4 joined.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 281 → p. 282 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 281's right block ends **complete** at n. 5's `Pro *iusti* Vat., 1 et 3 *boni*.`, with the quire signature `36` beneath it and then blank paper; and **p. 282's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Libr. XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 14.` Nothing logged.
- *Page-crossing, p. 282 → p. 283 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 282's right block ends **complete** at n. 7's `Paulo ante pro *levius* B Q et 2 *lenius*.` with blank paper beneath; and **p. 283's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ I L O *alium, quam sit eorum*.` **This test is closed and `bon-brev-p7-c2` need not re-run it.** Nothing logged.
- *NOT re-logged here:* the p. 280 → p. 281 test, p. 280's own gutter test and the p. 279 → p. 280 test (all three `p6-c13`, all NEGATIVE); `p.279 n.3:gutter`, `p.278 n.2:gutter`, `p.277 n.7:page` (all three `p6-c12`, all POSITIVE) and the p. 278 → p. 279 test (`p6-c12`, NEGATIVE); p. 277's own gutter test and the p. 276 → p. 277 test (both `p6-c11`, both NEGATIVE); `p.276 n.3:gutter` and the p. 275 → p. 276 test (both `p6-c10`); `p.274 n.5:gutter`, `p.275 n.4:gutter`, the p. 273 → p. 274 and p. 274 → p. 275 tests (all four `p6-c9`); `p.273 n.5:gutter` and the p. 272 → p. 273 test (both `p6-c8`); `p.272 n.5:gutter` and the p. 271 → p. 272 test (both `p6-c7`); `p.270 n.4:gutter`, the p. 270 → p. 271 test and p. 271's own gutter test (all three `p6-c6`); `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 test (both `p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on the earlier do-not-re-log lists. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE, AND WHY IT IS NOT AN APPARATUS ENTRY.** p. 281 carries `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` at the foot of its **LEFT** column and the quire number `36` at the foot of its **RIGHT**, holding the eight-leaf cadence exactly (p. 265 = quire 34, p. 273 = 35, p. 281 = 36; the next is due around p. 289). **Neither line is transcribed into the apparatus.** ★ **The signature sits directly beneath n. 3's `Cfr. su-`, so on this leaf it stands exactly where a note's continuation would stand** — which is why p. 281's gutter test could not be closed from the upper side alone and had to be closed from p. 281's right block. p. 282 carries no signature line.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order; glosses stand in the outer margin of each column): p. 281 left column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3." — "Ratio." — "Principia generalia." — "Necessitas legis."; p. 281 right column — "Salva libertate." — "Pro thesi 1." — "Fiant tria." — "Arguitur ex primo." — "Item, ex secundo pro thesi 2." — "Libri duo."; p. 282 left column — "Item, ex tertio pro thesi 3." ★ **Thirteen glosses, and a TENTH distinct form in ten consecutive chapters — but the first in the run that is a genuine ARGUMENTATIVE SKELETON rather than a topic list.** Cap. I sets three theses, marks the *Ratio*, names the two general principles it will argue from (`Principia generalia.`, `Necessitas legis.`, `Salva libertate.`), announces the threefold consequence (`Fiant tria.`), and then discharges the three theses one by one in an explicit series — `Arguitur ex primo.` → `Item, ex secundo pro thesi 2.` → `Item, ex tertio pro thesi 3.` — with one topic noun (`Libri duo.`) interleaved. ★ **`Pro thesi 1.` and the three `Thesis N.` numerals are `1`/`4` decisions settled by the series itself**: there are exactly three theses, and `pro thesi 2` / `pro thesi 3` print unambiguously, so the opening member can only be 1. **Nothing was inferred from any neighbour in advance**; the raw's gloss text on this leaf is unusable (`^^\ilh^^`, `s.nv.i liiw-uic.`, `■''''>  ">«■  *.`, `'-''"''<'""•`) and all thirteen are band reads.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base). **p. 281 body — moderate in the left column, moderate in the right, and EVEN**: the damage is the chronic bracket-and-ligature class confined to single letters (`brevilcr`, `corrnptela`, `t,'ratia`, `rncdicina`, `indi-cium`, `denierita`, `lcrribilis`, `prinyiin`, `e/ficiciis`, `perfciens`, `im.pelum`, `disciplrnahilis`, `recti.ludo`, `obliqarel`, `idgcrct`, `pkn.itudo`, `iinposi-tam`, `relrihiUio-iihus`, `sentcntiarun»`), and the leaf does not shift across the gutter — **the first even body grade in three leaves, and the reverse of p. 279's improvement across the gutter.** ★ **One raw defect worth naming because it would have produced a real corpus error and is invisible to any check: the raw prints the body's `sine dubio iudicium` as `sine dubio indi-cium`, an `n`/`u` inversion that reads as ordinary Latin (*indicium* = "a sign") in a clause where it is grammatical. The band decides it, and the same word is printed correctly six lines later.** ★ **Note also, against a natural suspicion, that the raw does NOT drop `est` from the note's `blandus est iustis` while the body reads `blandus iustis` — the plate itself prints the two differently, Gregory's sentence carrying the copula and Bonaventure's paraphrase not. Checked at 4.6× on both.** **p. 281 footer — clean**, reproducing all five entries substantially right and independently confirming `homil. 21`, `pag. 987`, `nota 6`, `d. 43`, `d. 48`, `XIV`, `c. 8`, `n. 11`, `p. II. c. 9. et 12`, `pag. 218, nota 5` and `II. Cor. 5, 10`; its one failure is the siglum run, which it merges to `BCII. 0`. **p. 282 body — good in the left column** (`coiiscieidiU`, `venuiter`, `xleclara-lio`, `iaslibet`, `deilorinitate`, `elligie`, `elflgies` are the whole of it) — **and it is the best body grade met since p. 280.** **p. 282 footer — clean**, reproducing both owned entries exactly, including `c. 14`, `13, 12` and `Ioan. 5, 22`. ★ **So the footer has now outgraded the body on every leaf since p. 275, eight leaves running.**

**⚠ NO NEW `[?]` FLAGS. TWO INHERITED FLAGS TRAVEL FORWARD, NEITHER RESOLVED, NEITHER RE-FLAGGED.**
1. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c6`, whose entry carries it). **p. 271 is off this chunk's leaves entirely, nothing read here bears on it**, and it stands as `p6-c6` left it. Forwarded to `bon-brev-p7-c2` unchanged.
2. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 272 n. 6, `Respicitur Col. 6, 12.`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c7`). Colossians still has four chapters and the sense still requires Ephes. 6:12; **no disposition is recorded, and `build-citations.py`'s QA line on it remains expected behaviour, not a defect.** Forwarded to `bon-brev-p7-c2`.
★ **Flags that are DISCHARGED or CLOSED and are NOT resurrected here: `p6-c10`'s `d. 23.`, the `c. 13.` flag on p. 277 n. 7, and p. 280 n. 6's `homo non separe`, which `p6-c13` settled as a plate defect within its own chunk and did not forward.**

**Register — Pars VII's eschatological vocabulary was CONSULTED from the Vol IV settlement and FOLLOWED, not innovated; Pars VI's sacramental settlement is carried and goes largely idle.** ★ **This is the first Breviloquium chunk to consult Vol IV's d. 43–d. 50, and p. 281 n. 2 names the targets itself (`IV. Sent. d. 43. a. 2. et 3… d. 48`).** **Vol IV chunks consulted:** `bon-sent-IV-d43-littera` (*De resurrectione et iudicii conditione*), `-a2-q1` (*De quidditate libri vitae*), `-a2-q2` (*Utrum in libro vitae omnia scribantur*), `-a2-q3` (*Utrum liber vitae necessario aperietur*), `-a3-q1` (*Utrum in conscientia legantur omnia merita*), `-a3-q2`, `-a3-q3` (*Utrum omnia videantur simul ab omnibus*) — **the whole of the *liber vitae* / *libri conscientiarum* settlement this capitulum turns on**; `bon-sent-IV-d48-divisio`, `-a1-q1` (*Utrum potestas iudiciaria sit Christi secundum humanitatem an secundum Divinitatem*), `-a1-q2` (*Utrum Christus in forma Divinitatis apparebit malis*), **`-a1-q3` (*Utrum Christus apparebit reprobis in forma humanitatis gloriosa*, which is both the target of p. 281 n. 2's `pag. 987, nota 6` and the exact parallel to this capitulum's *forma Divinitatis / forma humanitatis*)**, `-a1-q4`; and, for the vocabulary of the surrounding treatise rather than for a citation, `bon-sent-IV-d43-a1-q1` (*Utrum resurrectio sit futura*), `bon-sent-IV-d47-*` and `bon-sent-IV-d50-*`. **Carried from that settlement, not re-decided:** ***iudicium* → "judgment"** and ***iudicium universorum* → "judgment of all"** (Vol IV d. 48's *potestas iudiciaria* → "judiciary power"); ***iudex* → "judge"**; ***forma Divinitatis / forma humanitatis* → "the form of Divinity / the form of humanity"**, Vol IV d. 48 a. 1 q. 2–3's own rendering of these exact phrases, kept even where English would prefer "divine form"; ***sententiam promulgare* → "to promulgate the sentence"**; ***liber vitae* → "book of life"** and ***libri conscientiarum* → "books of the consciences"** (Vol IV d. 43 a. 2/a. 3), with ***apertio librorum* → "opening of the books"**; ***merita et demerita* → "merits and demerits"**; ***retributio* → "retribution"** and ***stipendia* → "wages"**; ***reprobi* → "the reprobate"** against ***impii* → "the wicked"** and ***iusti* → "the just"**, the three kept distinct exactly as Vol IV keeps them; *gloria* → "glory" and *poena* → "punishment". **Carried from the Sentences tables unchanged:** *vestigium* → "vestige", *imago* → "image", *ratio* → "account/reason", *voluntas* → "will", *forma* → "form", *efficiens* → "efficient [cause]", *finis* → "end". **Fixed here for the opening of Pars VII:** *altitudo virtutis* → "the height of power", *rectitudo veritatis* → "the rectitude of truth" and *plenitudo bonitatis* → "the fulness of goodness" — **the three principles the whole pars argues from, and they are rendered identically at each of their six occurrences on p. 281 so the English carries the same skeleton the marginalia mark**; *latio sententiarum* → "the deliverance of sentences" (against *promulgare* → "to promulgate", kept distinct); *declaratio meritorum* → "declaration of merits"; *beatificabilis / disciplinabilis / ordinabilis et deordinabilis* → "beatifiable / teachable / orderable and disorderable", preserving Bonaventure's four *-bilis* coinages as four English adjectives in *-able*; *Dei capax* → "capable of God"; *deiformitas* → "deiformity"; *effigies* → "semblance" (against *forma* → "form" and *figura*, kept distinct); *disceptare* → "to dispute"; *assecurare* → "to reassure"; *blandus* → "gentle" against *terribilis* → "terrible". Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved throughout, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence — the opening *Postquam* period, the whole *Ratio* period (which runs unbroken across the gutter and holds the entire threefold argument), and the closing *Postremo* period (which runs unbroken across the page break) each run as a single sentence.


site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 7, Cap. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 282 -->

### Capitulum II. *De antecedentibus ad iudicium, cuiusmodi est poena purgatoria.*

Deinde in *speciali* circa statum finalis iudicii consideranda sunt quaedam sicut *praeambula*, quaedam sicut *concomitantia*, quaedam sicut *consequentia*. Praeambula autem sunt duo, scilicet *poena purgatoria* et *suffragia ecclesiastica*[^p282-3].

Primo igitur de *poenis purgatoriis* hoc tenendum est, quod ignis purgatorius est ignis corporalis, quo tamen spiritus iustorum, qui in hac vita non impleverunt poenitentiam et satisfactionem condignam, affliguntur secundum plus et minus, secundum quod plus vel minus de cremabili secum ex hac vita traxerunt. — Affliguntur autem minus graviter quam in inferno, et gravius quam in hoc mundo; non tamen ita graviter, quin semper sperent et sciant, se in inferno non esse, licet forte pro poenarum magnitudine hoc aliquoties non advertant. — Hac autem afflictione ab igne corporali inflicta purgantur spiritus a reatibus et scoriis et etiam reliquiis peccatorum; quibus sufficienter expurgatis, immediate evolant et introducuntur in gloriam paradisi[^p282-4]

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum primum principium, eo ipso quod primum, sit optimum et perfectissimum, et eo ipso quod optimum, sit summe amativum boni et summe detestativum mali; sicut summa bonitas non patitur, quod *bonum* remaneat irremuneratum, sic etiam pati non debet, quod *malum* remaneat impunitum[^p282-5]. Quoniam igitur viri iusti aliquando decedunt, qui poenitentiam in hac vita non totaliter impleverunt; cum meritum vitae aeternae in eis non possit remanere irremuneratum, et vitium culpae non possit remanere impunitum, ne perturbetur pulcritudo ordinis universi: necesse est, quod ipsi finaliter praemientur; necesse est etiam, quod iidem temporaliter puniantur secundum suarum culparum exigentiam et reatum. — Et quia culpa commissa et *offensiva* fuit maiestatis divinae et *damnificativa* Ecclesiae et *deformativa* imaginis divinae, menti nostrae impressae, maxime si fuit culpa mortalis, et venialis etiam disponit ad hoc; et de *offensa* requiritur punitio, de *damno* vero agenda est satisfactio, et de *deformatione* requirenda est expurgatio: hinc est, quod necesse est, quod poena illa sit iuste *punitiva*, digne *satisfactoria* et sufficienter *expurgativa*.

Primum igitur, quoniam poena illa debet esse iuste *punitiva*; et spiritus, qui, contempto bono aeterno et summo, se subiecit infimo, iuste debet inferioribus subiici, ut ab eis suscipiat poenam, ex quorum occasione perpetravit culpam, et ratione quorum et Deum contempsit et se ipsum vilem fecit: hinc est, quod ordo divinae iustitiae exigit, ut spiritus ab *igne materiali* habeat puniri; ut, sicut secundum ordinem naturae anima unitur *corpori*, ut influat vitam, sic uniatur *igni materiali* secundum ordinem iustitiae ut punibile punienti, a quo suscipiat poenam[^p282-6]. — Et quia viri iusti, qui sunt in gratia, non sunt digni nisi poena transitoria; et tanto maiori digni sunt poena, quanto maiora commiserunt peccata et minorem egerunt poenitentiam: hinc est, quod ab igne materiali puniuntur *temporaliter*, quidam tamen diutius, quidam vero brevius, quidam acerbius, quidam levius, secundum quod reatus exigit offensarum. « Necesse enim est, ut dicit egregius doctor Augustinus[^p282-7], quod tantum urat dolor, quantum haeserat amor ». Tanto enim difficilius quis
<!-- page 283 -->
purgatur, quanto medullis cordis eius intimius amor inhaeserat mundanorum.

Amplius, quoniam poena illa debet esse *satisfactoria*; et satisfactio respicit libertatem voluntatis et statum viae; potissime cum ibi iam non sit status merendi, et poenae illae minime teneant rationem voluntarii: necesse est, quod illud quod deficit ex parte *libertatis* in voluntate sustinente, suppleatur in *acerbitate* ex parte poenae. — Quia vero gratiam habent qui purgantur, quam quidem ultra perdere non possunt; hinc est, quod nec a tristitia penitus absorberi nec in desperationem incidere nec in blasphemiam possunt nec volunt aliquatenus prosilire; ac per hoc, licet graviter puniantur, longe tamen aliter et mitius quam in inferno; et statum etiam illum indubitanter sciunt alium esse quam istum, in quo sunt illi[^p283-1] qui in inferno irremediabiliter cruciantur.

Postremo, quia poena illa debet esse *expurgatoria*; et purgatio illa est spiritualis: necesse est, vel quod ignis ille spiritualem habeat virtutem divinitus sibi datam, vel, ut magis credo[^p283-2], ipsa virtus gratiae interius habitantis, adiuta a poena extrinseca, ipsam animam iam pro offensis punitam et a reatuum onere alleviatam purget *purgatione sufficienti*, ut iam nulla remaneat dissimilitudo ad gloriam. — Et quoniam tales spiritus dispositi sunt in summo ad deiformitatem gloriae suscipiendam in se; cum ianua sit aperta et purgatio consummata, necesse est, illos spiritus evolare, in quibus est caritatis ignis sursum levans, et nihil retardans ex parte impuritatis animae vel reatus. Nec enim decet divinam misericordiam seu iustitiam, ut amplius differat gloriam, cum inveniat[^p283-3] receptaculum idoneum, et magna sit poena in dilatione praemiorum, nec amplius puniri debeat spiritus iam purgatus.

---

english:
### Chapter II. *On the things antecedent to the judgment, of which sort is purgatorial punishment.*

Next, in *particular*, concerning the state of the final judgment certain things are to be considered as *preambles*, certain as *concomitants*, certain as *consequents*. Now the preambles are two, namely *purgatorial punishment* and *ecclesiastical suffrages*[^p282-3].

First therefore, concerning *purgatorial punishments* this must be held: that the purgatorial fire is a corporeal fire, by which nevertheless the spirits of the just, who in this life have not fulfilled penance and condign satisfaction, are afflicted according to more and less, according as they have drawn with them out of this life more or less of what is combustible. — But they are afflicted less grievously than in hell, and more grievously than in this world; yet not so grievously but that they always hope and know that they are not in hell, although perhaps, because of the magnitude of the punishments, they sometimes do not advert to this. — And by this affliction inflicted by the corporeal fire the spirits are purged from their liabilities and from the dross and also from the relics of sins; and when these have been sufficiently expurgated, they immediately fly forth and are led into the glory of paradise[^p282-4]

Now the reason for the understanding of the aforesaid is this: since the first principle, by this very fact that it is first, is the best and most perfect, and by this very fact that it is best, is supremely loving of the good and supremely detesting of evil; just as the highest goodness does not suffer that *the good* remain unrewarded, so neither ought it to suffer that *evil* remain unpunished[^p282-5]. Since therefore just men sometimes depart who have not wholly fulfilled penance in this life; since the merit of eternal life cannot remain unrewarded in them, and the vice of fault cannot remain unpunished, lest the beauty of the order of the universe be disturbed: it is necessary that they themselves be finally rewarded; it is necessary also that the same be temporally punished according to the requirement of their faults and their liability. — And because the fault committed was *offensive* of the divine majesty and *damaging* to the Church and *deformative* of the divine image impressed upon our mind, most of all if it was a mortal fault, and the venial also disposes to this; and for the *offense* punishment is required, for the *damage* satisfaction must be made, and for the *deformation* expurgation must be sought: hence it is that it is necessary that that punishment be justly *punitive*, worthily *satisfactory* and sufficiently *expurgative*.

First therefore, since that punishment ought to be justly *punitive*; and the spirit which, having despised the eternal and highest good, subjected itself to the lowest, justly ought to be subjected to lower things, so that it may receive punishment from those by occasion of which it perpetrated the fault, and by reason of which it both despised God and made itself vile: hence it is that the order of divine justice requires that the spirit have to be punished by *material fire*; so that, just as according to the order of nature the soul is united to the *body* that it may pour in life, so it may be united to *material fire* according to the order of justice as the punishable to that which punishes, from which it may receive punishment[^p282-6]. — And because just men who are in grace are not deserving save of a transitory punishment; and they are deserving of so much the greater punishment as they have committed the greater sins and done the lesser penance: hence it is that by the material fire they are punished *temporally*, some however longer, some indeed more briefly, some more bitterly, some more lightly, according as the liability of their offenses requires. « For it is necessary, as the excellent doctor Augustine says[^p282-7], that the pain burn as much as the love had clung ». For so much the more difficultly is one
<!-- page 283 -->
purged, as the love of worldly things had clung the more intimately to the marrow of his heart.

Further, since that punishment ought to be *satisfactory*; and satisfaction regards the freedom of the will and the state of the way; especially since there is there no longer the state of meriting, and those punishments in no way hold the character of the voluntary: it is necessary that what is lacking on the part of *freedom* in the will that undergoes them be supplied in the *bitterness* on the part of the punishment. — But because those who are purged have grace, which indeed they can no longer lose; hence it is that they can neither be utterly absorbed by sadness nor fall into despair, nor can they nor will they in any way break out into blasphemy; and through this, although they are grievously punished, yet it is far otherwise and more mildly than in hell; and they know without doubt that that state also is other than this, in which are those[^p283-1] who in hell are tormented beyond remedy.

Lastly, because that punishment ought to be *expurgatory*; and that purgation is spiritual: it is necessary either that that fire have a spiritual power divinely given to it, or, as I rather believe[^p283-2], that the very power of the grace dwelling within, aided by the extrinsic punishment, purge with a *sufficient purgation* the soul itself, now punished for its offenses and lightened of the burden of its liabilities, so that no unlikeness to glory any longer remain. — And since such spirits are disposed in the highest degree to receive in themselves the deiformity of glory; when the gate is open and the purgation consummated, it is necessary that those spirits fly forth, in whom is the fire of charity lifting them upward, and nothing retarding them on the part of the soul's impurity or of liability. For it does not befit the divine mercy or justice to defer glory any longer, when it finds[^p283-3] a fit receptacle, and there is great punishment in the deferring of rewards, nor ought a spirit already purged to be punished any longer.

---

la: De quibus in hoc et seq. cap. De *concomitantibus* c. 4. 5, de *consequentibus* c. 6. 7. — Mox pro *poenis purgatoriis* edd. *poena purgatorii*. Subinde ex I K M O P Q V et 2 substituimus *tamen* pro *tantum*.

en: On which [see] in this and the following chapter. On the *concomitants*, c. 4 and 5; on the *consequents*, c. 6 and 7. — Shortly after, for *poenis purgatoriis* the editions have *poena purgatorii*. Thereupon, from I K M O P Q V and edition 2, we have substituted *tamen* for *tantum*.

la: De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. per totam. — Pro *quibus sufficienter purgatis* P *a quibus sufficienter purgati*, et pro *reliquiis* S *sordibus*; post *corporali* 1 addit *eis*.

en: On this chapter see IV *Sent.* d. 20, p. I, throughout. — For *quibus sufficienter purgatis* P reads *a quibus sufficienter purgati*, and for *reliquiis* S *sordibus*; after *corporali* edition 1 adds *eis*.

la: Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 356, nota 6. et supra pag. 224, nota 8. — Inferius pro *viri iusti* I K L O U *multi*.

en: Cf. tom. IV, p. 356, note 6, and above, p. 224, note 8. — Below, for *viri iusti* I K L O U read *multi*.

la: Vide IV. Sent. d. 44. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Vat., 1 et 3 post *ut influat vitam* addunt *ipsi corpori*. Aliquanto superius pro *inferioribus*, quod exhibent B I K L M O P V, alii codd. et edd. *inferiori*; verbo *contempsit* S praefigit *offendit sive*.

en: See IV *Sent.* d. 44, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. — The Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3, after *ut influat vitam*, add *ipsi corpori*. Somewhat above, for *inferioribus*, which B I K L M O P V exhibit, the other codices and the editions read *inferiori*; before the word *contempsit* S prefixes *offendit sive*.

la: Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 26. n. 4. — Paulo ante pro *levius* B Q et 2 *lenius*.

en: *On the City of God*, book XXI, c. 26, n. 4. — Shortly before, for *levius* B and Q and edition 2 read *lenius*.

la: I L O *alium, quam sit eorum*. Superius pro *mitius* B G K *minus*. Inferius pro *est spiritualis* L M et 2 *debet esse spiritualis*, et pro *adiuta a* I K L M N O U V *adiuncta ei*.

en: I L O read *alium, quam sit eorum*. Above, for *mitius* B G K read *minus*. Below, for *est spiritualis* L M and edition 2 read *debet esse spiritualis*, and for *adiuta a* I K L M N O U V *adiuncta ei*.

la: Ed. 1 *differant... inveniant*. Pro *seu* P Q et 2 *vel*.

en: Edition 1 reads *differant... inveniant*. For *seu* P Q and edition 2 read *vel*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 282–283, TWO LEAVES, AND THE CLOSE IS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM THE `Cap. III.` HEADING ON THE PLATE.** `Cap. II.` stands centred in p. 282's **LEFT** column at about **40 %** of the leaf, with a **TWO-line** subtitle `De antecedentibus ad iudicium, cuiusmodi est / poena purgatoria.`, immediately below Cap. I's close `…iustos laetificabit et e contrario impios deterrebit.` — every word of that heading and of the opening period re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted from the hand-off, which had read them at 2.6× only. The capitulum fills the rest of p. 282's left column, breaks to the right column **MID-SENTENCE at a word boundary** (`…et etiam reliquiis peccatorum; quibus` / `sufficienter expurgatis`), runs p. 282's right column to the foot and breaks to p. 283 **MID-WORD** (`Tanto enim difficilius quis pur-` / `gatur, quanto medullis cordis`, splitting *purgatur*), and **closes about 55 % down p. 283's LEFT column at `…nec amplius puniri debeat spiritus iam purgatus.`, immediately above the centred `Cap. III.` with its TWO-line subtitle `De antecedentibus ad iudicium, cuiusmodi sunt / suffragia ecclesiastica.`** ★ **That heading, read directly off the band, is what closes Cap. II, and nothing else was used.** The index's hypothesis (Cap. III at p. 283, therefore Cap. II running 282–283) turns out right and **was used for nothing**. **The running heads were used for nothing**: p. 282's reads `BREVILOQUII PARS VII. C. II.` although 40 % of its left column is still Cap. I, and p. 283's reads `PARS VII. C. III.` although more than half its left column is still Cap. II — **the running head running a unit AHEAD on two consecutive leaves, and on thirteen of the last fifteen.** ★ **Nor was the tail's SHAPE treated as evidence**: `…spiritus iam purgatus.` is a grammatically complete sentence closing a grammatically complete period, which under the frozen rule proves exactly nothing; the heading below it does. The `title_la` is taken from the `Cap. II.` heading itself, not from the volume index.

**Gutters — BOTH measured fresh with no constant, and p. 283 is the leaf where a sub-60 px run is NOT a failure.**
- **★ p. 282 = 1357, RE-DERIVED, not adopted.** The hand-off's 1357 was treated as a claim. `colcrop.py vol5 282` with no constant returns **1361 on a 56 px run** — just under the trust band. Fourteen windows drift monotonically 1345 → 1364 on runs of 51–64 px, the signature of an **off-centre** column rule rather than of a failed measurement. The per-column ink profile over body rows settles it: zero band **x = 1333–1382** with the printed rule inside it at **x = 1349–1367, peaking 461 rows** — band midpoint **1357**, rule centre 1358. **1357 confirmed and adopted**, reproducing the predecessor's value digit for digit; the bands cut there read clean edge to edge in both columns, body and footer.
- **★★ p. 283 = 1169, settled fresh, and the interesting result is that the DEFAULT IS RIGHT.** `colcrop.py vol5 283` with no constant returns **1169 on a 55 px run**, and the resume note's own observation ("below the 58–64 px trust band… the zero run is truncated outright") was **re-derived and is withdrawn**. The per-column ink profile shows why: the left column's ink dies at **x = 1142**, the right column's resumes at **x = 1197**, so the blank band is **x = 1143–1196 — 54 px wide, genuinely**. The 55 px "run" is not a truncated 60 px run; **it is the whole band, measured edge to edge**, because the tool's `m+1` threshold adapts to the band's constant 3-row noise floor and steps over the rule rather than stopping at it. Thirteen windows from 10–89 % agree **1166–1174 on runs of 58–63 px**, inside the trust band; the 5–25 % window blows out to 1339 on a **364 px** run (running head + the head of the leaf), and is discarded. The rule stands inside the band at **x = 1164–1178, peaking 1455 rows — the heaviest inking of the printed rule met anywhere in the quire** — yet it is close enough to centred (rule centre 1171 against band midpoint 1169.5) that it does not corrupt the answer. **1169 adopted.** ★ **The lesson is the mirror of the frozen rule: run width is the confidence signal, but a narrow run must be read against the ink profile before it is called a failure. On this leaf the band really is narrow.**
- ★ **Nineteen consecutive leaves now measure 1150 · 1422 · 1163 · 1370 · 1186 · 1373 · 1202 · 1326 · 1164 · 1403 · 1145 · 1392 · 1247 · 1351 · 1191 · 1331 · 1231 · 1357 · 1169. Parity predicts nothing, proximity predicts nothing.**
- **p. 284 was imaged and measured only to close the page-crossing test** (see Runovers). Its default returns **1404 on a 21 px run — a loud failure**; eight windows from 10–60 % agree **1385–1389 on runs of 61–64 px**, and the ink profile puts the band at **x = 1355–1417** with a lightly inked rule at x = 1382–1388, midpoint **1386**. **Recorded, not claimed: `bon-brev-p7-c3` must re-derive it.**

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All eight notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands** (6 bands at 2.6×, then 14 at 4.6× for the digits and sigla); the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 282's total of 7 was established by `bon-brev-p7-c1` and is re-confirmed here from the bands; p. 283's total of 6 is established here** and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`.

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS A CLAIM, AND IT WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL. IT HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR, AND IT CLAIMED LESS THAN IT COULD HAVE.** `bon-brev-p7-c1` forwarded p. 282's nn. 3–7 with the block structure and the verbatim text of all five verified, n. 3's anchor and column verified, and **explicitly no anchor, no column and no digit claimed for nn. 4–7**. Verification level of every note **as established here**:
- **p. 282 n. 3** — POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD and OWNERSHIP were inherited **verified** and are **re-verified here**; DIGITS and SIGLA established here for the first time. Anchors on `et *suffragia ecclesiastica* ³.` in the **LEFT** column, closing the capitulum's opening period. Left footer block, third entry.
- **p. 282 n. 4** — text and block position inherited; **ANCHOR, COLUMN, DIGITS and SIGLA all established here.** Anchors on `introducuntur in gloriam paradisi ⁴` in the **RIGHT** column, closing *Thesis 3* — **the hand-off did not say which column, and it is the right, not the left.** The note straddles p. 282's gutter and is rendered here **joined**; its runover was logged by `p7-c1` and is **not re-logged**.
- **p. 282 n. 5** — text inherited; **ANCHOR, COLUMN and DIGITS established here.** Anchors on `quod *malum* remaneat impunitum ⁵.` in the **RIGHT** column, in the *Pro thesi 1* period.
- **p. 282 n. 6** — text inherited; **ANCHOR, COLUMN, DIGITS and SIGLA established here.** Anchors on `a quo suscipiat poenam ⁶. —` in the **RIGHT** column, closing the *Puniuntur igne* period.
- **p. 282 n. 7** — text inherited; **ANCHOR, COLUMN and DIGITS established here.** Anchors on `ut dicit egregius doctor Augustinus ⁷,` in the **RIGHT** column, inside the Augustine quotation.
- **p. 283 nn. 1–3** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD, OWNERSHIP, EXTENT, DIGITS and SIGLA **all verified here**. n. 1 on `in quo sunt illi ¹ qui in inferno irremediabiliter cruciantur.` in the **LEFT** column, closing the *satisfactoria* member; n. 2 on `vel, ut magis credo ²,` in the **LEFT**, at the *Duplex sententia* fork; n. 3 on `cum inveniat ³ receptaculum idoneum` in the **LEFT**, in the closing period. **All three are Cap. II's.**

**★ p. 282's SPLIT MAP — the leaf's register is now closed across two chunks.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 — **n. 4 straddling the gutter, breaking off at `De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. per totam. —`** with blank paper beneath. Right footer block: n. 4's unnumbered continuation (`Pro *quibus sufficienter purgatis* P…`), then nn. 5, 6, 7, ending complete at `Paulo ante pro *levius* B Q et 2 *lenius*.` **Anchors:** nn. 1, 2, 3 **LEFT**; nn. 4, 5, 6, 7 **RIGHT**. **Total 7.** **Block split 4/3, anchor split 3/4, capitulum split 2/5 — three independent structures, and no two of them cut in the same place.** ★ **This corrects the shape `p7-c1` recorded**: its Notes said "Anchors: nn. 1, 2 in the LEFT column inside Cap. I; n. 3 … also in the LEFT" and stopped there, which is exactly right as far as it goes; **the completed anchor split is 3 LEFT / 4 RIGHT, not the 4/3 the block split suggests.** The block break falls one note *below* the anchor break.

**★★ p. 283's SPLIT MAP — read in full here although only three of its notes are owned here, because the leaf's total is this chunk's to establish.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 — **n. 4 straddling the gutter, breaking off at `De hac triplici distinctione cfr. IV. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2, ubi allegat August., Enchirid. c. 109. n. 29.`** with blank paper beneath. Right footer block: n. 4's unnumbered continuation (`Ibid. in Comment. a. 2. agitur de suffragiis Ecclesiae pro defunctis, et a. 3, de suffragiis Sanctorum pro vivis.`), then nn. 5, 6, ending complete at `Superius voci *debitus* ex G H I K L M V ad iunximus *Deo*.` **Anchors:** nn. 1, 2, 3 in the **LEFT** column inside Cap. II; n. 4 in the **LEFT** but inside Cap. III (`« nec valde`). **Total 6. Capitulum split 3/3.** ★ **Note that p. 283 repeats p. 282's shape exactly — a left block of four whose last member straddles the gutter, with the capitulum boundary falling inside the left block and inside the left column, above the block break. Two consecutive leaves with the same footer architecture is a coincidence and is recorded as one; nothing is inferred from it for p. 284.**

**★ SIGLA — six runs on these two leaves, and the one-upright rule decides four of them.**
1. **`I K M O P Q V` (p. 282 n. 3)** — the first sort is a **SINGLE upright** and is therefore `I`, never a crossbar-less `H`, which needs two. The **alphabetical order** of the run corroborates it: `I < K < M < O < P < Q < V` ascends. The raw prints it `I K M 0 P Q V`, merging `O` to a zero — the corruption class the frozen rule names, and it agrees on the `I`.
2. **`I K L O U` (p. 282 n. 5)** — same decision, same evidence: one upright, ascending order. The raw prints `I K L 0 U`.
3. **`B I K L M O P V` (p. 282 n. 6)** — the second sort is one upright = `I`. ★ **The raw corrupts the run's FIRST letter outright, printing `DIKLMOPV`** — `B` read as `D`, exactly the chronic raw-siglum failure the frozen rule names. The band is unambiguous at 4.6×.
4. **`I L O`, `B G K`, `L M`, `I K L M N O U V` (p. 283 n. 1)** — four runs in one note, all ascending, all with one upright where an `I` stands. The raw reproduces every one of them correctly on this leaf.
5. **`P Q` (p. 283 n. 3)** and **`B Q` (p. 282 n. 7)** — two sorts each, unambiguous.
6. **EDITION sigla standing in the same registers as the codex letters:** `et 2` (p. 282 nn. 3, 7; p. 283 nn. 1, 3), `1` (p. 282 n. 4), `Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 282 n. 6), `Ed. 1` (p. 283 n. 3) and `edd.` (p. 282 nn. 3, 6). The independent check is that Vol V has only three editions (1, 2, 3) beside `Vat.`, so an arabic sort in this position can be nothing else.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). ★ **The `1`/`4` class dominates these two leaves completely — every one of the nine decisions below is a `1`/`4`, and there is not one `3`/`5` decision on either leaf. Do not calibrate on it: p. 284's footer already shows a `Cap. 55.` two leaves on.**
- **★★ p. 282 n. 3's `c. 4. 5` and `c. 6. 7` — settled DECISIVELY by the pars's own structure.** The note says the *concomitantia* are treated in cc. 4–5 and the *consequentia* in cc. 6–7. Pars VII has **seven** capitula, and the volume's index titles them: IV *De concomitantibus iudicium, sicut est conflagratio ignium* · V *De concomitantibus iudicium, sicut est resurrectio corporum* · VI *De consequentibus ad iudicium, sicut est poena infernalis* · VII *De gloria paradisi* ✓ — the two pairs land exactly. `c. 1` and `c. 7` are not possible readings of the first member, and the note's own `in hoc et seq. cap.` (= II and III, the two *praeambula* chapters) closes the scheme.
- **★★ p. 282 n. 4's `IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I.` — settled DECISIVELY by reading the target.** `bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q1` is ***Utrum poena purgatorii sit ponenda*** ✓ — the whole of d. 20 p. I is the purgatory question, which is this capitulum's subject entire. `d. 20` sits in no risk class; the `p. I.` does, and d. 20 has a Pars I in the corpus.
- **★★ p. 282 n. 5's `tom. IV. pag. 356, nota 6.` — settled against the corpus.** Printed p. 356 of Tomus IV is owned by `bon-sent-IV-d15-p1-a1-q4` and `-q5`, and **`-q5` carries Augustine's *Nec recte factum infructuosum, nec peccatum creditur impunitum*** ✓ — which is the very axiom p. 282 n. 5 is glossing (`sicut summa bonitas non patitur, quod bonum remaneat irremuneratum, sic etiam pati non debet, quod malum remaneat impunitum`). The page is right; `nota 6` is transcribed as printed.
- **★★ p. 282 n. 5's `supra pag. 224, nota 8.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled DECISIVELY, on both digits, by reading the target.** Printed p. 224 is owned by `bon-brev-p2-c5/c6/c7`, and **note `p224-8` is Augustine, *III. de Lib. Arb.* c. 15 n. 44, `nullo temporis intervallo peccatum a poena esse divisum, « ne vel puncto temporis universalis pulcritudo turpetur, ut sit in ea peccati dedecus sine decore vindictae »`** ✓ — word for word the ground of this anchor's `ne perturbetur pulcritudo ordinis universi`. p. 221 carries nothing of the kind. Decisive on both digits.
- **★★ p. 282 n. 6's `IV. Sent. d. 44. p. II. a. 3. q. 2.` — settled DECISIVELY by reading the target.** `bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a3-q2` is ***Utrum ignis inferni affligat spiritum*** ✓ — precisely the anchor's question, whether a spirit can be united to material fire *ut punibile punienti*. The raw independently reads `d. i4`, its own `1`/`4` damage, and cannot decide it; the corpus target does.
- **★ p. 282 n. 7's `Libr. XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 26. n. 4.` — settled by the quotation the anchor prints.** *De Civitate Dei* XXI, 26 is the chapter on the fire that purges, and it contains *tantum urat dolor, quantum haeserat amor* ✓ — quoted verbatim at this anchor. Book, chapter and section all corroborated by the quotation itself.
- **★★ p. 283 n. 2's `IV. Sent. d. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. et a. 1. q. 2.` — settled DECISIVELY by reading BOTH targets, and independently by the raw.** `bon-sent-IV-d21-p1-a2-q1` is ***Utrum in purgatorio post hanc vitam fiat purgatio aliqua ab aliqua culpa, an solum a poena*** ✓ — the anchor's exact question, since the anchor is Bonaventure's `ut magis credo` about what does the purging; and `-a1-q2` is ***Utrum peccata venialia possint deleri a gratia sine contritione sive interiore poena*** ✓ — the *virtus gratiae interius habitantis* of the same clause. d. 21 p. I has three articles and a. 2 has two questions, so `a. 4` and `q. 4` are not possible readings at all. ★ **And the raw's footer on p. 283 is clean and prints `d. 21. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. et a. 1. q. 2.` independently** — two witnesses agreeing, which is the standard the frozen rule sets.
- **★ p. 283 n. 1's `L M et 2` and n. 3's `Ed. 1` / `P Q et 2`** — the arabic sorts are edition sigla; see SIGLA above.

**Runover tests — TWO RUN: ONE POSITIVE, ONE NEGATIVE, both closed from both sides.**
- *★ **p. 283's own gutter — POSITIVE**, confirmed from BOTH sides and logged as `p.283 n.4:gutter`.* From the upper side, p. 283's left block's last entry (n. 4) ends at `…Enchirid. c. 109. n. 29.` with **blank paper beneath and no printer's signature** (p. 283 carries none; the next is due around p. 289). From the lower side, **p. 283's right block opens UNNUMBERED** at `Ibid. in Comment. a. 2. agitur de suffragiis Ecclesiae pro defunctis, et a. 3, de suffragiis Sanctorum pro vivis.` — grammatically the continuation of n. 4's `d. XLV. c. 2` citation. ★ **The straddling note is NOT owned by this chunk — it is `bon-brev-p7-c3`'s — but the test is logged here under the standing rule that a leaf's gutter test belongs to the chunk that FIRST reaches the leaf**, exactly as `p7-c1` logged `p.282 n.4:gutter` for a note this chunk owns, and `p6-c12` logged `p.279 n.3:gutter` for a note `p6-c13` owned. **`bon-brev-p7-c3` must NOT re-log it, and must render n. 4 joined.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 283 → p. 284 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 283's right block ends **complete** at n. 6's `Superius voci *debitus* ex G H I K L M V ad iunximus *Deo*.` with blank paper beneath; and **p. 284's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Cap. 2. n. 4. — Superius pro *accuratio* F P *curatio*.` p. 284 was extracted and cropped for this test alone. **This test is closed and `bon-brev-p7-c3` need not re-run it.** Nothing logged.
- *NOT re-logged here, and rendered rather than re-tested:* **`p.282 n.4:gutter`** — `p7-c1` logged it POSITIVE from both sides; this chunk **owns** the note and renders it joined, which is a different act from logging it.
- *NOT re-run here:* the **p. 282 → p. 283 page-crossing**, which `p7-c1` closed from both sides as NEGATIVE.
- *NOT re-logged here:* `p.281 n.3:gutter` (`p7-c1`, POSITIVE) and the p. 281 → p. 282 test (`p7-c1`, NEGATIVE); the p. 280 → p. 281 test, p. 280's own gutter test and the p. 279 → p. 280 test (all three `p6-c13`, all NEGATIVE); `p.279 n.3:gutter`, `p.278 n.2:gutter`, `p.277 n.7:page` (all three `p6-c12`, all POSITIVE) and the p. 278 → p. 279 test (`p6-c12`, NEGATIVE); p. 277's own gutter test and the p. 276 → p. 277 test (both `p6-c11`, both NEGATIVE); `p.276 n.3:gutter` and the p. 275 → p. 276 test (both `p6-c10`); `p.274 n.5:gutter`, `p.275 n.4:gutter`, the p. 273 → p. 274 and p. 274 → p. 275 tests (all four `p6-c9`); `p.273 n.5:gutter` and the p. 272 → p. 273 test (both `p6-c8`); `p.272 n.5:gutter` and the p. 271 → p. 272 test (both `p6-c7`); `p.270 n.4:gutter`, the p. 270 → p. 271 test and p. 271's own gutter test (all three `p6-c6`); `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 test (both `p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on the earlier do-not-re-log lists. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE.** Neither p. 282 nor p. 283 carries `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` or a quire number; the eight-leaf cadence puts quire 36 on p. 281 (confirmed by `p7-c1`) and **the next is due around p. 289**, which is off this chunk's leaves. Nothing of the kind was transcribed into the apparatus, and no note's foot was mistaken for one.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order; glosses stand in the outer margin of each column): p. 282 left column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3."; p. 282 right column — "Ratio." — "Pro thesi 1." — "Culpa facit tria." — "Poenae proprietates 3." — "Arguitur ex prima." — "Puniuntur igne." — "Temporaliter et inaequaliter."; p. 283 left column — "Item, ex secunda pro thesi 2." — "Item, ex tertia pro thesi 3." — "Duplex sententia." ★ **Thirteen glosses, and an ELEVENTH distinct form in eleven consecutive chapters — but the first that RE-USES its predecessor's shape rather than inventing one.** Cap. II sets three theses, marks the *Ratio*, and discharges the three in an explicit numbered series exactly as Cap. I did — `Arguitur ex prima.` → `Item, ex secunda pro thesi 2.` → `Item, ex tertia pro thesi 3.` — but where Cap. I's series named its *principia*, this one interleaves four topic nouns drawn from the argument's own vocabulary (`Culpa facit tria.`, `Poenae proprietates 3.`, `Puniuntur igne.`, `Duplex sententia.`) and its ordinals agree with *thesis* rather than with the neuter, which Cap. I's did not. **Infer NOTHING from that; eleven chapters have now produced eleven forms, and the resemblance to the immediately preceding one is the novelty, not the rule.** ★ **The `Thesis N.` and `pro thesi N.` numerals are all `1`/`4` decisions settled by the SERIES**: there are exactly three theses and `2` and `3` print unambiguously, so the opening member can only be 1. ★ **The hand-off's gloss list was read from the raw only and is CORRECTED here in two places: it predicted `Pro thesi 1.` on p. 282 and `Arguitur ex prima.` — the first is right, but the raw's `ivo iiesi i.` gives no ground for it; and it did not have `Culpa facit tria.`, `Puniuntur igne.` or `Duplex sententia.` at all.** All thirteen are band reads.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base). **p. 282 body — moderate in the left column, moderate in the right, and EVEN**, the chronic bracket-and-ligature class confined to single letters (`[)eccatoruin`, `suincienter`, `ex[)urgatis`, `im[)ui)ituin`, `cul[)a`, `[)erpetravit`, `olTens;iruni`, `diflicilius`, `inflino` for *infimo*, `punitwu` for *punitiva*, `damnificatiua`/`deformatiua` for the *-va* forms, `tinaliter`, `luieserat`). **p. 282 footer — POOR, and this is the reverse of `p7-c1`'s grade for the same leaf's footer, which it called clean on the two notes it owned.** On nn. 3–7 the raw is wrong in five separate places, every one of them a `1`/`4` or a siglum: `c. i. 5` for `c. 4. 5` · `pag. 22 i` for `pag. 224` · `d. i4.` for `d. 44.` · `u. i.` for `n. 4.` · `DIKLMOPV` for `B I K L M O P V` · `ciii iiisti` for `viri iusti`. ★ **So the footer's grade moved WITHIN the leaf, and it moved down — which is the shape the frozen rule names and which no page-level verdict could have caught. It also ends the eight-leaf run in which the footer outgraded the body: on p. 282 the body is the better half.** **p. 283 body — moderate**, the same class (`delicl`, `voliintatis`, `iwlissime`, `de.sperationem`, `hla.sphemiam`, `purgatiom su/ftcienli`, `nec^sseest`, `iusli(inm`, `receptaculnm`). **p. 283 footer — CLEAN**, reproducing all six entries substantially right and **independently confirming `d. 21. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. et a. 1. q. 2.`, `c. 109. n. 29.`, `Cap. 55.` and every one of the four siglum runs in n. 1** — the single most useful raw witness on either leaf. **Grade per page, per region AND per column-run; on these two leaves the footer went poor → clean while the body stayed level.**

**⚠ ONE NEW `[?]` FLAG, RAISED HERE — p. 282 n. 4's lemma `Pro *quibus sufficienter purgatis*`.** The body at this anchor prints `quibus sufficienter **ex**purgatis` (read at 2.6× and 4.6×, and the raw agrees: `suincienter ex[)urgatis`), but the footer entry's own lemma prints `purgatis`, without the prefix — likewise confirmed at 4.6×. A Quaracchi *Pro X … Y* lemma quotes the adopted text, so the two should agree and here they do not. **The plate is transcribed exactly as printed and is NOT emended.** The flag records the discrepancy, not an intention to repair it.

**⚠ TWO INHERITED `[?]` FLAGS TRAVEL FORWARD, NEITHER RESOLVED, NEITHER RE-FLAGGED.**
1. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c6`). **p. 271 is off this chunk's leaves entirely**, and it stands as `p6-c6` left it. Forwarded to `bon-brev-p7-c3` unchanged.
2. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 272 n. 6, `Respicitur Col. 6, 12.`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c7`). Colossians still has four chapters and the sense still requires Ephes. 6:12; **no disposition is recorded, and `build-citations.py`'s QA line on it remains expected behaviour, not a defect.** Forwarded to `bon-brev-p7-c3`.
★ **Flags that are DISCHARGED or CLOSED and are NOT resurrected here: `p6-c10`'s `d. 23.`, the `c. 13.` flag on p. 277 n. 7, and p. 280 n. 6's `homo non separe`, which `p6-c13` settled as a plate defect within its own chunk and did not forward.** ★ **And one QA line that is not a defect: `bon-brev-p6-c8`'s `apparatus:p273-6` dangling `tom. I. pag. 155` is GALLAND's *Bibliotheca*, a parser limitation.**

**Register — the PURGATORY vocabulary was CONSULTED from the Vol IV settlement and FOLLOWED, not innovated; Pars VII's eschatological settlement from `p7-c1` is carried unchanged.** ★ **The apparatus named its own targets and they were read.** **Vol IV chunks consulted:** `bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q1` (*Utrum poena purgatorii sit ponenda*), `-a1-q2` … `-a1-q6`, `-p1-divisio` and `-p1-littera` — **the whole of d. 20 p. I, which p. 282 n. 4 cites *per totam***; `bon-sent-IV-d21-p1-a1-q1`, **`-a1-q2`** (*Utrum peccata venialia possint deleri a gratia sine contritione sive interiore poena*) and **`-a2-q1`** (*Utrum in purgatorio post hanc vitam fiat purgatio aliqua ab aliqua culpa, an solum a poena*), `-a2-q2`, `-a3-q1`, `-a3-q2` — the targets p. 283 n. 2 names; **`bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-a3-q2`** (*Utrum ignis inferni affligat spiritum*), the target of p. 282 n. 6; `bon-sent-IV-d45-*`, the suffrages distinction, consulted for *suffragia* though this capitulum only names them; and `bon-sent-IV-d15-p1-a1-q4/q5` for the *irremuneratum / impunitum* axiom. **Carried from that settlement, not re-decided:** ***ignis purgatorius* → "purgatorial fire"** (Vol IV's dominant form by a wide margin); ***poena purgatoria* → "purgatorial punishment"**, keeping `p7-c1`'s lock of *poena* → "punishment" while preserving Vol IV's adjectival form; ***reatus* → "liability"**, Vol IV d. 21's own rendering, kept even where English would prefer "guilt", and kept distinct from *culpa* → "fault"; ***scoriae* → "dross"**, Vol IV d. 21's rendering in this very context (*the dross of sin is consumed which he contracted from guilt*); ***reliquiae peccatorum* → "the relics of sins"**, Vol IV's phrase; ***satisfactio* → "satisfaction"** and ***poenitentia* → "penance"**; ***purgatio* → "purgation"** against ***expurgatio* → "expurgation"**, the two kept distinct exactly as the plate keeps them. **Carried from `p7-c1` unchanged:** *iudicium* → "judgment", *iustitia* → "justice", *iusti* → "the just" against *impii* → "the wicked", *gloria* → "glory", *meritum* → "merit", *deiformitas* → "deiformity", *voluntas* → "will", *libertas voluntatis* → "freedom of the will". **Fixed here for this capitulum:** *praeambula / concomitantia / consequentia* → "preambles / concomitants / consequents", the threefold division the whole of Pars VII is built on and which cc. 4–7 will need; *punitiva / satisfactoria / expurgativa* → "punitive / satisfactory / expurgative", with *expurgatoria* → "expurgatory" where p. 283 varies the form, **the variation preserved rather than levelled**; *offensiva / damnificativa / deformativa* → "offensive of / damaging to / deformative of", three coinages kept as three; *cremabile* → "what is combustible"; *acerbitas* → "bitterness"; *punibile punienti* → "the punishable to that which punishes"; *dissimilitudo ad gloriam* → "unlikeness to glory"; *suffragia ecclesiastica* → "ecclesiastical suffrages", **adjectival because the Latin is adjectival**, against Vol IV d. 45's *suffragia Ecclesiae* → "suffrages of the Church" — the two forms are kept apart, not merged. Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved throughout, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence — the *Ratio* period, the *Primum igitur* period (which runs unbroken across the page break) and the closing *Postremo* period each run as a single sentence.

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