title: Dist. 6, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 166 -->

### ARTICULUS III.

*De ordine et de praelatione post casum.*

Consequenter tertio loco quaeritur, qualiter daemones sint post lapsum ordinati. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum sit inter eos ordinum distinctio. Secundo, utrum inter malos angelos sit praelatio.

<!-- page 167 -->

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum in daemonibus sit distinctio ordinum.*

Quaeritur ergo, utrum inter eos sit distinctio ordinum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Apostolus ad Ephesios ultimo[^1] vocat eos *principatus et potestates,* et alii Sancti nominibus aliorum ordinum: ergo videtur, quod si tenuerunt nomen et non frustra, quod aliquo modo tenuerunt rem, et ita, quod ordines sint distincti in eis.

2. Item, a natura sua sunt conditi distincti et perfecti et ordinati; sed Dionysius[^2] dicit, «quod habent sibi naturaliter data integerrima»: ergo adhuc manet inter eos ordo.

3. Item, nihil *in universo* est inordinatum, quamvis sit inordinatum *in se,* quia foedari non potest[^3]: ergo daemones suo modo sunt ordinati, ut Angeli: ergo et inter eos est ordo.

4. Item, *natura* Angelorum, quantum erat de se, habilis erat ad ordines, et *gratia* adveniens perfecisset ordines, quia data eis fuisset secundum naturalium strenuitatem[^4]: ergo cum similiter per maiorem naturalium strenuitatem fuerit ordo et maioritas in culpa, videtur, quod similiter per culpam non auferatur ordo, sed magis perficiatur.

CONTRA: 1. Hugo de sancto Victore[^5]: «Omnes in eandem malitiam consenserunt et unum ordinem perversae societatis effecerunt»: ergo non est inter eos ordinum distinctio.

2. Item, «malum est corruptio modi, speciei et ordinis[^6]»; sed per peccatum facti sunt mali, ergo inordinati: ergo non est inter eos ordo, cum omnes sint mali.

3. Item, maior est deordinatio in culpa sive per culpam quam in poena — nam poena reducit culpam ad ordinem aliquem — sed in suppliciis non est ordo naturae: ergo nec in existentibus in peccatis. *Probatio minoris:* Iob decimo[^7]: *Ubi nullus ordo, sed sempiternus horror inhabitat;* loquitur de loco poenarum.

4. Item, quanto melior est natura, tanto maior est in ea culpa[^8]: ergo quanto aliquis superior per naturam, tanto inferior per culpam, quia maior culpa facit peiorem: ergo culpa pervertit totum ordinem naturae et aufert omnino ordinem gratiae: ergo nullus ordo est inter eos.

CONCLUSIO.

*Post lapsum inter daemones remanet ordinum distinctio, sed imperfecta et perversa.*

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod de Angelis est loqui quantum ad statum triplicem, scilicet *gloriae* et *naturae institutae* et *lapsae.* Quantum ad statum *gloriae* est in eis ponere ordinum distinctionem *perfectam;* quantum ad statum *naturae*[^9], ordinum distinctionem, sed *imperfectam;* quantum ad statum *culpae,* ordinum distinctionem, sed *imperfectam* et *perversam:* *imperfectam,* propter privationem gratiae, quae habilitatem naturae perficit; *perversam,* propter praesentiam culpae, quae, quamvis substantiam naturalium non corrumpat, tamen foedat et deordinat. Et illud manifestum est, si attendatur[^10].

Nam illi qui meliora habuerunt naturalia, illi gravius peccaverunt et peccant, tum propter hoc quod ardentius appetierunt, tum quia magis ingrati fuerunt, tum etiam quia modo acrius vexant. Ratione nobilitatis naturae praecellunt in ordine naturae, et praecellunt in magnitudine culpae, et quantum ad hoc deteriores sunt, et ideo inferiores esse debent[^11].

Concedo ergo, quod inter daemones est ordo secundum praecellentiam naturalium, sed tamen perversus adiunctione culparum. Concedo igitur rationes probantes, quod in eis sit aliquis ordo, licet tenuis, ut visum est.

Ad illud tamen quod ultimo obiicitur, quod culpa consonat naturae; dicendum, quod illa consonantia magis est *discordantia* quam *consonantia.* Nam magnitudo culpae facit in veritate *minus,* quanto *maior* est; et ita in magna natura non servat dignitatem ordinis, immo magis pervertit, quia *magnificari* in culpa est *deteriorari*[^12] in natura bene condita sive instituta. — Quod enim Dionysius dicit, quod habent data integerrima; verum est quantum ad *substantiam,* non quantum ad *habilitatem* ad operationem determinatam.

Quae vero ad oppositum opponuntur concedenda sunt, eo quod verum concludunt, scilicet quod non est in eis ordo perfectus, immo magis perversus. Et sic patent omnia.

<!-- page 168 -->

SCHOLION.

I. Circa utramque huius articuli quaestionem antiqui doctores satis consentiunt. — Attendendum est, quod in quaest. 2. solut. 3. 4. illa *praelatio* negatur quoad *ius* et restringitur ad praelationem *de facto,* et quidem usquedum durat status ministerii; de quo plura vide infra d. 9. q. 6. Quod autem negatur, dictam praelationem esse de *iure,* intelligendum est ex parte *voluntatis* daemonum iniustae et indignae, non ex parte eorum *naturae* et divinae ordinationis.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 37. m. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4; S. 1. q. 109. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 9. a. 6; S. p. II. tr. 6. q. 26. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3, d. 9. q. 3. dub. lat. 2. 3. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Biel, II. Sent. d. 9. q. 1. ante finem.

---

english:
<!-- page 166 -->

### ARTICLE III.

*Of the order and of the precedence after the fall.*

It is consequently asked in the third place, in what manner the demons are ordered after the fall. And concerning this two [things] are asked. First it is asked, whether there is among them a distinction of orders. Secondly, whether there is precedence among the evil angels.

<!-- page 167 -->

### QUESTION I.

*Whether there is a distinction of orders among the demons.*

It is asked, therefore, whether there is among them a distinction of orders. And that [there is] so, it seems [thus].

1. The Apostle, to the Ephesians, last [chapter][^1], calls them *principalities and powers,* and the other Saints [call them] by the names of the other orders: therefore it seems that, if they kept the name and not in vain, then in some manner they kept the thing, and thus that the orders are distinct in them.

2. Likewise, from their own nature they were created distinct and perfect and ordered; but Dionysius[^2] says «that they have the things given them by nature most intact»: therefore there still remains an order among them.

3. Likewise, nothing *in the universe* is disordered, although it may be disordered *in itself,* because it cannot be befouled[^3]: therefore the demons in their own manner are ordered, like the Angels: therefore there is an order among them too.

4. Likewise, the *nature* of the Angels, as far as it was of itself, was apt for the orders, and *grace* coming would have perfected the orders, because it would have been given to them according to the vigor of [their] natural [endowments][^4]: therefore since likewise by the greater vigor of natural [endowments] there was order and greatness in fault, it seems that likewise by fault the order is not taken away, but rather perfected.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. Hugh of Saint Victor[^5]: «All consented to the same malice and made one order of a perverse fellowship»: therefore there is not among them a distinction of orders.

2. Likewise, «evil is the corruption of mode, species, and order[^6]»; but by sin they became evil, therefore disordered: therefore there is not an order among them, since all are evil.

3. Likewise, the disordering is greater in fault, or through fault, than in punishment — for punishment reduces fault to some order — but in punishments there is not an order of nature: therefore neither in [things] existing in sins. *Proof of the minor:* Job, tenth [chapter][^7]: *Where there is no order, but everlasting horror dwells;* he speaks of the place of punishments.

4. Likewise, the better the nature, the greater the fault [is] in it[^8]: therefore the higher anyone [is] by nature, the lower [he is] by fault, because a greater fault makes [one] worse: therefore fault perverts the whole order of nature and takes away altogether the order of grace: therefore there is no order among them.

CONCLUSION.

*After the fall there remains among the demons a distinction of orders, but imperfect and perverse.*

I RESPOND: It must be said that one must speak of the Angels as regards a threefold state, namely of *glory* and of *nature instituted* and *fallen.* As regards the state of *glory* one must posit in them a *perfect* distinction of orders; as regards the state of *nature*[^9], a distinction of orders, but *imperfect;* as regards the state of *fault,* a distinction of orders, but *imperfect* and *perverse:* *imperfect,* on account of the privation of grace, which perfects the aptitude of nature; *perverse,* on account of the presence of fault, which, although it does not corrupt the substance of the natural [endowments], yet befouls and disorders [them]. And that is manifest, if it be attended to[^10].

For those who had the better natural [endowments], those sinned and sin the more grievously, both because they desired the more ardently, and because they were the more ungrateful, and also because they now harass the more sharply. By reason of the nobility of nature they excel in the order of nature, and they excel in the greatness of fault, and as regards this they are the worse, and therefore ought to be the lower[^11].

I concede, therefore, that there is among the demons an order according to the preeminence of natural [endowments], but yet perverse by the adjoining of faults. I concede therefore the reasons proving that there is among them some order, though slight, as has been seen.

To that, however, which is objected last, that fault is consonant with nature; it must be said that that consonance is rather a *discordance* than a *consonance.* For the greatness of fault makes [it] in truth *less,* the *greater* it is; and thus in a great nature it does not preserve the dignity of order, but rather perverts [it], because to be *magnified* in fault is to be *worsened*[^12] in a nature well constituted or instituted. — For what Dionysius says, that they have the things given [them] most intact; is true as regards *substance,* not as regards *aptitude* for a determinate operation.

But those [things] which are objected to the contrary are to be conceded, because they conclude truly, namely that there is not in them a perfect order, but rather a perverse one. And thus all [things] are clear.

<!-- page 168 -->

SCHOLION.

I. On both questions of this article the ancient doctors sufficiently agree. — It is to be attended to, that in question 2, solutions 3 and 4, that *precedence* is denied as regards *right* and is restricted to precedence *in fact,* and indeed as long as the state of ministry lasts; on which see more below, d. 9, q. 6. But that which is denied, that the said precedence is by *right,* is to be understood on the part of the *will* of the demons, which is unjust and unworthy, not on the part of their *nature* and the divine ordination.

II. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 37, m. 3. — St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 4; *Summa* 1, q. 109, a. 1, 2. — Bl. Albert, II *Sentences* d. 9, a. 6; *Summa* p. II, tr. 6, q. 26, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 3, d. 9, q. 3, dub. lat. 2, 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4. — Biel, II *Sentences* d. 9, q. 1, before the end.

la: Vers. 12. — In fine argumenti multi codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *distincti*; codd. F K legunt *et ita videtur, quod ordines sint inter eos.*

en: Verse 12. — At the end of the argument many codices with edition 1 omit *distincti*; codices F K read *et ita videtur, quod ordines sint inter eos* (and thus it seems that the orders are among them).

la: De Div. Nom. c. 4. § 23. Vide supra pag. 122, nota 8. — Pro probatione *maioris* citari solet Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 15. (c. 1.): *Natura enim causa ordinis est omnibus.*

en: *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 23. See above, p. 122, note 8. — For the proof of the *major* [premise] there is wont to be cited Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 15 (c. 1): *For nature is the cause of order to all things.*

la: Sicut ostensum est I. Sent. d. 44. a. 1. q. 3; d. 46. q. 6; d. 47. q. 3.

en: As was shown, I *Sentences* d. 44, a. 1, q. 3; d. 46, q. 6; d. 47, q. 3.

la: Cfr. infra d. 9. q. 2. seq., ubi hoc specialiter probatur. — Vat. paulo inferius post *per maiorem* addit *vel minorem* et subinde ante *maioritas* praemittit *minoritas sive.*

en: Cf. below, d. 9, q. 2 f., where this is specially proved. — The Vatican edition a little below, after *per maiorem*, adds *vel minorem*, and thereupon before *maioritas* prefixes *minoritas sive.*

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. V. c. 30. Cfr. supra pag. 150, nota 3.

en: *On the Sacraments*, bk. I, p. V, c. 30. Cf. above, p. 150, note 3.

en: Augustine, *On the Nature of the Good against the Manichees*, c. 4.

la: Vers. 22.

en: Verse 22.

la: Vide supra pag. 161, nota 4.

en: See above, p. 161, note 4.

la: Supple cum codd. I aa *institutae.*

en: Supply, with codices I aa, *institutae* (instituted).

la: Cod. aa melius sic prosequitur: *natura illorum. Qui meliora habuerunt naturalia gravius peccaverunt* etc.

en: Codex aa continues thus, better: *natura illorum. Qui meliora habuerunt naturalia gravius peccaverunt* etc. (their nature. Those who had the better natural [endowments] sinned the more grievously, etc.).

la: Plures codd. cum ed. 1 *deberent*, Vat. *debuerunt.*

en: Several codices with edition 1 [read] *deberent* (ought [imperf.]), the Vatican edition *debuerunt* (ought [perf.]).

la: Codd. T Y *deordinari.* Paulo inferius non pauci codd. omittunt *data*, pro quo Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. substituit *naturalia.*

en: Codices T Y [read] *deordinari* (to be disordered). A little below, not a few codices omit *data*, for which the Vatican edition with one or another codex substitutes *naturalia.*

translators_notes:
- This chunk is ARTICULUS III, QUAESTIO I of the Commentary on Distinction VI: *Whether there is a distinction of orders among the demons.* The short `ARTICULUS III.` opener + title *De ordine et de praelatione post casum* + the 2-question sub-divisio (Primo, utrum sit inter eos ordinum distinctio; Secundo, utrum inter malos angelos sit praelatio) is folded in per the Vol II convention. 4 *videtur* (quod sic: the order-names kept not in vain / Dionysius *data integerrima* / nothing in the universe is disordered / nature + grace would have perfected orders) + 4 *Contra* (Hugh: one order of perverse fellowship / *malum est corruptio modi, speciei et ordinis* / disordering greater in fault, Iob 10 *ubi nullus ordo* / the better the nature the greater the fault) + *Conclusio* (blockquote) + *Respondeo* (the threefold state — *gloriae/naturae institutae/lapsae* — with perfect/imperfect/imperfect-and-perverse order respectively; the *Ratio*, *Epilogus*, and the *Ad fundamentum* replies) + editorial **SCHOLION I–II** (which covers *both* art. III questions). Spans printed pp.166–168 (= PDF 188–190): the ART III opener is lower on p.166, QUAESTIO I is wholly p.167, the SCHOLION is on p.168.
- **NEW CHUNK — session-38 re-chunk fix.** The session-34 decade-batch rechunk mapped d.6 as 7 chunks and lost ARTICULUS III (see the committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2` Notes). This chunk (raw 12211–12317) and `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q2` (raw 12318–12397) were created to split ARTICULUS III out of the old over-long a2-q2 skeleton. d.6 is 9 chunks.
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 12211–12317) over the 450 dpi pp.166–168 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 167-169 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 167` / `168`; p.166 crops cached from the a2-q2 build), read **Left column top→bottom then Right column**, body bands then footer bands. The *videtur*/*Contra* prose is fairly clean in OCR but two-column-bled; the CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO (the *triplex status*) + the p.167 footer are cascade-shattered and authoritative from the crops. OCR header garbles (`ARTIGULUS 111`, `QU.^ESTIO I.`, `Ulrum ?■» daemonibwi sil diiiiiiclio ordinum`) corrected against the crops.
- **Incoming a2-q2→a3-q1 boundary — RECEIVED CLEAN, no backfill.** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2`'s Notes documented that it owns the whole p.166 footer (notes ¹–⁹) and that the ARTICULUS III opener + sub-divisio carries no footnote markers. Verified on the crops: the ART III opener (centered, lower p.166) has no superscripts; this quaestio's apparatus begins on p.167 at *Ephesios ultimo*¹. `d6-a2-q2` not modified.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (p.167, renumber 1–12).** Left-column ¹ *Vers. 12. — … omittunt distincti …* (Eph. ult., *ultimo*¹, vid. 1) → [^1]; ² *De Div. Nom. c. 4. § 23. … Aristot., VIII. Phys. …* (*Dionysius*², vid. 2) → [^2]; ³ *Sicut ostensum est I. Sent. d. 44. …* (*potest*³, vid. 3) → [^3]; ⁴ *Cfr. infra d. 9. q. 2. seq. … Vat. … vel minorem …* (*strenuitatem*⁴, vid. 4) → [^4]. Right-column ⁵ *Libr. I. de Sacram. p. V. c. 30. …* (Hugh, *Victore*⁵, contra 1) → [^5]; ⁶ *August., de Natura boni contra Manich. c. 4.* (*ordinis*⁶, contra 2) → [^6]; ⁷ *Vers. 22.* (Iob 10, *decimo*⁷, contra 3) → [^7]; ⁸ *Vide supra pag. 161, nota 4.* (*culpa*⁸, contra 4) → [^8]; ⁹ *Supple cum codd. I aa institutae.* (Respondeo *naturae*⁹) → [^9]; ¹⁰ *Cod. aa melius sic prosequitur …* (Respondeo *si attendatur*¹⁰) → [^10]; ¹¹ *Plures codd. cum ed. 1 deberent, Vat. debuerunt.* (Ratio *inferiores esse debent*¹¹) → [^11]; ¹² *Codd. T Y deordinari. … omittunt data …* (Ad-fund-4 *deteriorari*¹²) → [^12]. The Respondeo's *Quod enim Dionysius dicit, quod habent data integerrima* carries **no** superscript (the OCR/cascade `^^` there is an artifact + the marginal gloss *Ad fundamentum 2.* bleeding in — verified on a high-zoom crop): p.167 has exactly 12 footer notes matching 12 body markers.
- **No scholion apparatus.** The editorial SCHOLION I–II — I = the *praelatio negatur quoad ius / restringitur ad de facto* clarification + the d. 9, q. 6 cross-ref; II = the doctrinal literature list (Alex. Hal./S. Thom./Albert/Petr. a Tar./Aegid./Durand./Dionys. Carth./Biel) — carries no numbered Quaracchi footnotes; translated in full, no `[^N]`. It explicitly covers *both* art. III questions ("Circa utramque huius articuli quaestionem …"), so `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q2` will have no scholion of its own (the sibling-scholion convention).
- **Outgoing a3-q1→a3-q2 boundary — CLEAN, no split.** The SCHOLION I–II is editorial with no numbered apparatus; SCHOLION I is on p.168 left-column, SCHOLION II on p.168 right-column, and QUAESTIO II (*Utrum inter angelos malos sit praelatio*, raw 12318 = next chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q2`) opens at the **foot of p.168 left-column** and continues. Since this quaestio's last numbered apparatus is p.167 note 12 and its p.168 content (the scholion) carries no apparatus, the whole p.168 footer is a3-q2's. No backfill either direction (the no-apparatus-scholion-tail clean-boundary pattern, as d6-a1-q1→a1-q2).
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 12 superscripts + the p.167 footer + the no-apparatus ART III opener (p.166) and SCHOLION I–II (p.168) verified on the crops; the *Quod enim Dionysius dicit* no-superscript point resolved on `p167-R-dionys2-zoom.png`.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 6, Art. 3, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 168 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

*Utrum inter angelos malos sit praelatio.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum inter angelos malos sit praelatio. Et quod sit ibi *de facto,* ostenditur.

1. Iob penultimo[^1]: *Non est potestas super terram, quae possit ei comparari.* Et iterum: *Ipse est rex super omnes filios superbiae;* sed daemones sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc.

2. Item, Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^2]: *Ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius.* Vocat minores daemones *angelos diaboli:* ergo cum angelus diaboli nullus dicatur quantum ad naturae conditionem, dicitur ergo quantum ad ministerii subiectionem: ergo etc.

Item, quod *de iure* unus praesit alii, videtur. 3. «Servitus enim introducta est inter homines, ut dicit Ambrosius[^3], merito peccati»; sed nullum peccatum adeo meretur servitutem, sicut peccatum ambitionis et superbiae: cum ergo daemones maxime illo peccaverunt, inter eos maxime debet esse servitus et dominium, et ita praelatio.

4. Item, habens liberi arbitrii voluntatem secundum legem potest se facere servum sempiternum, sicut dicitur Exodi vigesimo primo[^4]; sed daemones, liberae voluntatis entes, lucifero se voluntarie subiecerunt, dum eius superbiae consenserunt: ergo facti sunt servi.

SED CONTRA: Quod ibi non sit praelatio *de facto,* videtur.

1. *Inter superbos semper iurgia sunt,* sicut dicitur Proverbiorum decimo tertio[^5]. Ergo cum ipsi sint valde superbi, videtur, quod refugiant omne dominium: ergo aut non est ibi praelatio, aut si est, nullius stabilitatis est.

2. Item, si est ibi, aut ergo natura, aut violentia, aut electione voluntaria. Non natura, quia natura etiam post culpam et in poenis eadem manebit; sed tamen post iudicium cessabit omnis praelatio, ut dicit Magister[^6]. Si *violentia:* ergo quilibet, qui potest, subiugat sibi alium; sed hoc non est sine quadam colluctatione et pugna: ergo videtur, quod continue sit inter daemones rixa et discordia; quod manifeste falsum est, quia miro modo concordes sunt ad pervertendos homines, quod non esset, si inter se bellarent. Igitur non est nisi *electione* voluntatis; sed hoc est falsum, quia superbi sunt: ergo etc.

Item, videtur, quod non sit ibi *de iure.* 3. Si enim servitus et dominium introducta sunt propter peccatum, ita quod servitus est poena peccati[^7], ergo magis deberet servitute deprimi qui magis peccavit; sed lucifer magis peccavit: ergo omnibus deberet esse subiectus. Sed nulla est praelatio, in qua unus subiicitur multis: ergo etc.

4. Item, licet homo teneatur hominis imperio obedire, cui subiugatus est et subditus factus, sicut dicit Scriptura[^8]: *Servi obedite per omnia dominis;* tamen quando praecipit contra Deum, non tenetur nec debet; et si semper praeciperet contra Deum, nunquam deberet subiici nec obedire: ergo si nunquam posset aliquid praecipere nisi contra Deum, nullo modo posset nec deberet ei de iure subesse. Si ergo diabolus contra Deum praecipit in omni eo quod mandat, nec aliter potest praecipere, patet etc.

CONCLUSIO.

*Praelatio de facto est inter daemones, usquedum cessabit status ministerii.*

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod sicut dicit Magister in littera, praelatio est inter daemones; et alii imperant, alii obediunt, sicut tangit Magister in littera[^9]. <!-- page 169 -->Et hoc satis videtur probabile, tum quia *filii tenebrarum* quodammodo imitari conantur, licet falso et imperfecte, *filios lucis;* unde, sicut vident Angelos ordinate officia sua exsequi secundum imperia sapientiorum et maiorum, similiter ipsi faciunt maleficia; tum etiam quia *filii tenebrarum* prudentissimi sunt *in generatione sua*[^10]. Et quia habent colluctationem adversus genus humanum, et regnum eorum et exercitus, si esset divisus et sine capite, non posset stare: ideo, sicut homines proeliantes in exercitu, quantumcumque sint praesumtuosi, tamen propter odium inimicorum libenter subiacent duci imperanti et habent multos proximos[^11] et unum principalem ducem; sic credendum est esse in daemonibus. — Concedendum est ergo, quod inter daemones est praelatio.

1. Et patet responsio ad illud quod primo obiicitur de superbia, quia malitia et invidia, quam non potest superbus exercere sine adiutore, facit eum libenter alii subiici propter appetitum triumphi[^12].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quomodo sit ibi praelatio; dicendum, quod non est electione nec violentia, sed credo, quod natura et divina institutione. A sua enim conditione data est eis vis ministrativa, et potentior uni quam alii; et Deus ordinavit, ut minus potentes et sapientes magis potentibus et sapientibus subessent in ministrando. Et Hugo[^13] dicit, quod «id in malo ministerium exercent, quod perficiendum ex conditione acceperunt». Et ita sibi invicem praesunt, sicut praeessent, si essent boni; et cum cessabit status ministerii, cessabit status praelationis; et sic patet, quod *de facto* est praelatio.

3. 4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, *utrum de iure;* dicendum, quod nulla omnino est praelatio de iure, quia, cum ipsi daemones subiectis nihil praecipiant nisi contra ius, eo quod ruperunt ius et dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum[^14], ideo nulla manet ibi iuris obligatio, sed solum malevolens confoederatio. Nec est simile de homine, qui iuste potest praecipere servo; et ideo non valent rationes ad hoc inductae[^15].

---

english:
<!-- page 168 -->

### QUESTION II.

*Whether there is precedence among the evil angels.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether there is precedence among the evil angels. And that there is *in fact,* it is shown.

1. Job, second-to-last [chapter][^1]: *There is no power upon earth that can be compared with him.* And again: *He is king over all the children of pride;* but the demons are of this kind: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Matthew, twenty-fifth [chapter][^2]: *Go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.* He calls the lesser demons *the angels of the devil:* therefore since no one is called an angel of the devil as regards the condition of nature, it is said therefore as regards the subjection of ministry: therefore etc.

Likewise, that *by right* one is set over another, it seems [so]. 3. «For servitude was introduced among men, as Ambrose says[^3], by the merit of sin»; but no sin so merits servitude as the sin of ambition and pride: since therefore the demons sinned most of all by that [sin], among them most of all there ought to be servitude and dominion, and thus precedence.

4. Likewise, one having the will of free choice can according to law make himself a perpetual slave, as is said in Exodus, twenty-first [chapter][^4]; but the demons, being of free will, voluntarily subjected themselves to Lucifer, when they consented to his pride: therefore they became slaves.

BUT ON THE CONTRARY: That there is not there a precedence *in fact,* it seems [so].

1. *Among the proud there are always quarrels,* as is said in Proverbs, thirteenth [chapter][^5]. Therefore since they are very proud, it seems that they flee from all dominion: therefore either there is not there a precedence, or if there is, it is of no stability.

2. Likewise, if there is [precedence] there, then either [by] nature, or [by] violence, or by voluntary choice. Not [by] nature, because nature even after fault and in punishments will remain the same; but yet after the judgment all precedence will cease, as the Master says[^6]. If [by] *violence:* then anyone who can, subjugates another to himself; but this is not without a certain struggle and fight: therefore it seems that there is continually among the demons strife and discord; which is manifestly false, because they are wondrously concordant in perverting men, which would not be, if they warred among themselves. Therefore it is only by *choice* of the will; but this is false, because they are proud: therefore etc.

Likewise, it seems that there is not there [precedence] *by right.* 3. For if servitude and dominion were introduced on account of sin, so that servitude is the punishment of sin[^7], then he who sinned more ought rather to be pressed down by servitude; but Lucifer sinned more: therefore he ought to be subject to all. But there is no precedence in which one is subjected to many: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, although a man is bound to obey the command of a man to whom he has been subjugated and made subject, as Scripture says[^8]: *Servants, obey in all things your masters;* yet when he commands against God, he is not bound nor ought [to obey]; and if he were always to command against God, he would never be bound to be subject or to obey: therefore if he could never command anything except against God, in no way could he nor ought he by right to be subject to him. If, therefore, the devil commands against God in everything that he orders, nor can he command otherwise, it is clear etc.

CONCLUSION.

*Precedence in fact exists among the demons, until the state of ministry shall cease.*

I RESPOND: It must be said that, as the Master says in the text, there is precedence among the demons; and some command, others obey, as the Master touches upon in the text[^9]. <!-- page 169 -->And this seems probable enough, both because the *children of darkness* in a manner strive to imitate, though falsely and imperfectly, the *children of light;* whence, just as they see the Angels orderly carry out their offices according to the commands of the wiser and greater, similarly they themselves do their maleficent works; and also because the *children of darkness* are most prudent *in their generation*[^10]. And because they have a struggle against the human race, and their kingdom and army, if it were divided and without a head, could not stand: therefore, just as men fighting in an army, however presumptuous they are, yet on account of hatred of the enemies willingly submit to a commanding leader and have many neighbors[^11] and one principal leader; so it is to be believed [it is] among the demons. — It is to be conceded, therefore, that among the demons there is precedence.

1. And the response is clear to that which is objected first concerning pride, because the malice and envy which the proud one cannot exercise without a helper makes him willingly subject himself to another for the desire of triumph[^12].

2. To that which is objected, in what manner there is precedence there; it must be said that it is not by choice nor by violence, but I believe [it is] by nature and by divine institution. For from their condition the ministrative power was given to them, and [it is] more powerful in one than in another; and God ordained that the less powerful and wise should be subject to the more powerful and wise in ministering. And Hugh[^13] says that «they exercise in evil that ministry which they received [as something] to be brought to completion in good from [their] condition». And thus they are set over one another, just as they would be set over [them], if they were good; and when the state of ministry shall cease, the state of precedence will cease; and thus it is clear that *in fact* there is precedence.

3. 4. To that which is asked, *whether by right;* it must be said that there is no precedence at all by right, because, since the demons themselves command their subjects nothing except against right, in that they broke right and dissipated the everlasting covenant[^14], therefore no obligation of right remains there, but only a malevolent confederation. Nor is it like [the case] of a man who can justly command a slave; and therefore the reasons brought forward for this are not valid[^15].

la: Vers. 24: Non est super terram potestas, quae comparetur ei. — Sequens textus est ibid. v. 23.

en: Verse 24: *There is no power upon earth that may be compared with him.* — The following text is ibid., v. 23.

la: Vers. 41: Discedite a me, maledicti etc.

en: Verse 41: *Depart from me, ye cursed* etc.

la: Libr. II. de Abraham, c. 11. n. 79: Servitus peccato contrahitur.

en: *On Abraham*, bk. II, c. 11, n. 79: Servitude is contracted by sin.

la: Vers. 3. seq. — Mox Vat. *liberae potestatis existentes* pro *liberae voluntatis entes.*

en: Verse 3 f. — Presently the Vatican edition [reads] *liberae potestatis existentes* (being of free power) for *liberae voluntatis entes* (being of free will).

la: Vers. 10.

en: Verse 10.

la: Hic c. 4. Cfr. infra d. 9. q. 6. — Ultima prop. huius arg. *Igitur non est* etc. desideratur in fere omnibus codd. et edd. 1, 2, pro qua edd. 3, 4 substituunt: *Restat igitur, quod est ibi praelatio electione voluntatis.*

en: Here, c. 4. Cf. below, d. 9, q. 6. — The last proposition of this argument, *Igitur non est* etc., is wanting in almost all the codices and editions 1, 2, for which editions 3, 4 substitute: *Restat igitur, quod est ibi praelatio electione voluntatis* (It remains, therefore, that precedence is there by choice of the will).

la: Ut dicit Ambros., paulo superius fundam. 3. iam allegatus. Col. 3, 22.

en: As Ambrose says, already alleged a little above, fundamentum 3. Colossians 3, 22.

en: Colossians 3, 22.

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here, c. 4.

la: Alluditur ad Luc. 16, 8, et in seqq. ad Eph. 6, 12, Matth. 12, 25. seq. — Cod. bb *quia filii tenebrarum sapientiores sunt in generatione sua filiis lucis.*

en: Allusion is made to Luke 16, 8, and in what follows to Ephesians 6, 12, Matthew 12, 25 f. — Codex bb [reads] *quia filii tenebrarum sapientiores sunt in generatione sua filiis lucis* (because the children of darkness are wiser in their generation than the children of light).

la: Codd. K (T a secunda manu) *praelatos*, Vat. *proprios.*

en: Codices K (T by a second hand) [read] *praelatos* (those set over [them]), the Vatican edition *proprios* (their own).

la: Vat., addita post *subiici* particula *tum*, hic subiungit *tum propter odium inimici*, quae lectio insinuatur in aliquibus codd., qui primo loco particulam *tum* ponunt, pro qua codd. C R S cum ed. 2 substituunt *tamen.*

en: The Vatican edition, after *subiici* having added the particle *tum*, here subjoins *tum propter odium inimici* (then on account of hatred of the enemy), which reading is suggested in some codices, which put the particle *tum* in the first place, for which codices C R S with edition 2 substitute *tamen.*

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. V. c. 30: Idem nunc quisque in malo ministerium ex perversitate exercet, quod ad bonum perficiendum ex conditione accepit.

en: *On the Sacraments*, bk. I, p. V, c. 30: Each one now exercises in evil, out of perversity, the same ministry which he received from [his] condition for the bringing of good to completion.

la: Isai., 24, 5: Mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt etc.

en: Isaiah 24, 5: *They have changed the right, they have dissipated* etc.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is ARTICULUS III, QUAESTIO II of the Commentary on Distinction VI: *Whether there is precedence among the evil angels.* 4 *Fundamenta* (quod sit *de facto* / *de iure*: Iob 41 *rex super filios superbiae* / Matth. 25 *angelos diaboli* = subjection of ministry / Ambrose: servitude by merit of sin, and pride merits it most / Exod. 21 the self-made perpetual slave) + 4 *Sed contra* (Prov. 13 *inter superbos iurgia* / the nature-violence-choice trilemma / Lucifer sinned most so should be subject / the obey-against-God argument) + *Conclusio* (blockquote) + *Respondeo* (with the Master: precedence in fact among demons — the *filii tenebrarum* imitate the *filii lucis*, the army-needs-a-head *Ratio*) + the *Solutio* (Ad 1 the proud need a helper; Ad 2 by nature & divine institution, the ministrative power, citing Hugh; Ad 3.4 no precedence *by right* — they broke right) — **no scholion** (sibling-covered). Spans printed pp.168–169 (= PDF 190–191): the quaestio opens at the foot of p.168 left-column (below the committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q1`'s SCHOLION I) and continues through p.168 right-column and p.169.
- **NEW CHUNK — session-38 re-chunk fix.** Created (with `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q1`) by splitting ARTICULUS III out of the over-long old `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2` skeleton, which the session-34 decade-rechunk had wrongly made span 12139–12397 (it lost ARTICULUS III). d.6 is 9 chunks. See the committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2` Notes for the full re-chunk rationale.
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 12318–12397) over the 450 dpi pp.168–169 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 167-169 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 168` / `169`), read **Left column top→bottom then Right column**, body bands then footer bands. The *Fundamenta*/*Sed contra* prose is fairly clean in OCR but two-column-bled; the CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO/Solutio + both page-footers are cascade-shattered and authoritative from the crops. OCR header garbles (`QU.\EST10 II.`, `Utrum inler an.elos malos sit praehUio`) corrected against the crops.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). Quaracchi p.169 footer note 6 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) refers the reader back to the editorial SCHOLION I–II of the preceding chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q1`, which explicitly covers *both* questions of Article III (*Circa utramque huius articuli quaestionem …*). Read on the crop, not assumed. The marginal glosses (`Fundamentum quoad factum et ius.`, `Ad oppositum quoad factum et ius.`, `Conclusio.`, `Ratio.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Solandum.`) are trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Incoming a3-q1→a3-q2 boundary — RECEIVED CLEAN, no backfill.** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q1`'s Notes documented that its editorial SCHOLION I–II (p.168) carries no numbered apparatus and that the whole p.168 footer is this chunk's. Verified on the crops: SCHOLION I (p.168 L-col) + SCHOLION II (p.168 R-col) carry no superscripts; this quaestio opens at the foot of p.168 L-col and owns the entire p.168 footer (9 notes) plus p.169 L-col notes ¹–⁶. `d6-a3-q1` not modified.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (renumber 1–15).** p.168 (9 notes): ¹ *Vers. 24: Non est super terram potestas …* (Iob 41, *penultimo*¹, Fund. 1) → [^1]; ² *Vers. 41: Discedite a me …* (Matth. 25, *quinto*², Fund. 2) → [^2]; ³ *Libr. II. de Abraham, c. 11. n. 79 …* (Ambrose, *Ambrosius*³, Fund. 3) → [^3]; ⁴ *Vers. 3. seq. — Mox Vat. …* (Exod. 21, *primo*⁴, Fund. 4) → [^4]; ⁵ *Vers. 10.* (Prov. 13, *tertio*⁵, contra 1) → [^5]; ⁶ *Hic c. 4. Cfr. infra d. 9. q. 6. — Ultima prop. …* (*Magister*⁶, contra 2) → [^6]; ⁷ *Ut dicit Ambros., paulo superius fundam. 3. …* (*peccati*⁷, contra 3) → [^7]; ⁸ *Col. 3, 22.* (*Scriptura*⁸, contra 4) → [^8]; ⁹ *Hic c. 4.* (Respondeo *littera*⁹) → [^9]. p.169 left-column (this chunk's portion, 6 notes): ¹ *Alluditur ad Luc. 16, 8 … Cod. bb …* (Ratio *in generatione sua*¹⁰) → [^10]; ² *Codd. K … praelatos, Vat. proprios.* (Ratio *proximos*¹¹) → [^11]; ³ *Vat., addita post subiici particula tum …* (Sol 1 *appetitum triumphi*¹²) → [^12]; ⁴ *Libr. I. de Sacram. p. V. c. 30 …* (Sol 2 *Hugo*¹³) → [^13]; ⁵ *Isai., 24, 5 …* (Sol 3.4 *foedus sempiternum*¹⁴) → [^14]; ⁶ *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (Sol 3.4 *rationes ad hoc inductae*¹⁵) → [^15].
- **Outgoing a3-q2→d6-dubia boundary — DISCOVERED SPLIT at p.169.** This quaestio's Ratio/Solutio ends at *non valent rationes ad hoc inductae*¹⁵ (p.169 L-col footer note ⁶); the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` + `DUB. I.` (raw 12398 = next chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-dubia`) opens lower on p.169 L-column and continues into the R-column, so DUB I/II's *videtur* body begins on p.169. The p.169 footer therefore **splits by body anchor**: the left-column notes ¹–⁶ (this chunk's [^10]–[^15]) anchor this quaestio's Ratio/Solutio; the right-column notes ⁷ (`Scil. verbis ad nostram probationem.`), ⁸ (`Gregorii, libr. I. c. 4.`), ⁹ (`Cfr. August., III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 14 …`), ¹⁰ (`Supple: solis.`), ¹¹ (`Vide supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. …`) anchor DUB I/II's body. **`bon-sent-II-d6-dubia` build: start its p.169 apparatus at footer note ⁷, no backfill into a3-q2.**
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 15 superscripts + the p.168 footer (notes ¹–⁹) + the p.169 L-column footer (notes ¹–⁶) + the by-anchor a3-q2/dubia split + the no-superscript SCHOLION (a3-q1's) verified on the crops.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 6, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

source_text:
<!-- page 169 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

#### DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Eos cadentes caliginosi aeris habitaculum suscepisse... ad nostram probationem:* ergo videtur ex hoc, quod ultimo[^1] dicitur, quod debeant habitare in terra, cum ad nostrum exercitium sint deputati. — Item, in Dialogo[^2] legitur, quod quaedam comedit lactucam et statim obsessa est a daemonio; et ibidem ratio redditur, quia diabolus erat in lactuca, quam momordit: ergo videtur, quod sint in terra.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod divina clementia et providentia locum sequestratum providit daemonibus, ne nimis acriter nos tentarent, nec tamen nimis a nobis longinquum, ut possent nos exercitare. Unde quod habitent in caliginoso aere, hoc divinae *sententiae* est; quod vero ad nos veniant, hoc *permissionis* est. Unde cum triplex sit aeris interstitium, si quaeratur, in qua parte sint; probabile videtur, quod sint in medio, ubi est turbulentia et vexatio et varietas impressionum; et hinc est, quod frequenter commovent ventos et pluvias[^3].

#### DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In isto aere caliginoso, qui eis carcer est.* Videtur enim, quod nullo modo sit carcer, quia discurrunt quo volunt. — Et iterum, spirituales sunt, ergo nec prohibentur nec detinentur corpore. — Item, ventus non potest commovere nec conturbare radium[^4], ergo multo fortius nec spiritum. — Item, cum non habeant visum corporalem, videtur, quod nullus locus sit eis caliginosus, nec puniri videntur tenebris corporalibus.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod sicut ex quadam congruitate caelum empyreum est Angelis sanctis locus conveniens et aptus, tum ex luce tum ex spatiositate, ita ut recte possit dici *palatium,* attestans claritati et tranquillitati et amplitudini caritatis[^5]; sic, per oppositum, aer iste caliginosus carcer est, quia parvus et arctus et obscurus, non obscuritate, quae obscuret, vel arctitudine, quae angustet, sed potius, quae attestatur mentis arctitudini et frigori iniquitatis et commotioni affectionum. Et ideo recte *carcer* dicitur. Et sicut alio modo <!-- page 170 -->locus corporalis locat spiritus, alio modo corpora; ita etiam alio et alio modo incarcerat. Et sic patent obiecta.

#### DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *dabitur ei potestas a Deo tentandi homines, quam modo non habet. Contra:* Iob quadragesimo primo[^6]: *Non est potestas super terram, quae possit ei comparari;* ergo si vires eius excedunt nostras, potius videtur, quod Deus deberet nobis augere *posse* quam daemonibus; aut videtur iniuste agere et inaequaliter, dum exponit debilem forti et fortificat fortem contra debilem.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod potestas illa, de qua loquitur Iob, est potestas virtutis naturalis, non est potestas tentandi. Nam potestas tentandi debilis est, nisi fortificetur per consensum tentati. «Debilis enim est hostis, qui non vincit nisi volentem[^7]». Quia tamen propter nostram concupiscentiam et ignorantiam multipliciter nos decipit et allicit, ideo fortis est et adeo, quod pauci essent, qui non vincerentur, nisi Deus eius astutiam et fallaciam restringeret, quam in fine iusto iudicio permittet dilatari[^8]. Et ideo potestatem tentandi dicitur dare, non conferendo novam potentiam, sed sinendo ipsum operari secundum istam potentiam et astutiam, quam iam habet.

#### DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *non est fas illi spiritui, qui victus est, impugnare aliquem. Contra:* probabiliter creditur, quod diabolus magnus, qui tentavit Adam, tentavit Christum et omnimode est victus: ergo videtur, quod nunquam amodo tentet; quod est contra textum Apocalypsis[^9]. — Item, si hoc est verum, ergo videtur exercitus daemonum adeo diminutus in fine, quod tentare non possit; hoc autem falsum est, cum fortius tentet in fine[^10].

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod circa hoc difficile est veritatem determinare. Quod enim fiat imminutio in illo exercitu daemonum, non videtur improbabile, cum ita videamus contingere secundum legem belli, ut qui superatur amoveatur a bello; *quantum* tamen et *quando,* difficile est determinare; unde quidquid dicat Origenes[^11], melius est dubitare, quam super hoc aliquid definire.

---

english:
<!-- page 169 -->

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

#### DOUBT I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning that which he says: *That those falling took up the dwelling-place of the murky air... for our probation:* therefore it seems from this, which is said last[^1], that they ought to dwell on the earth, since they are appointed for our exercising. — Likewise, in the *Dialogue*[^2] it is read that a certain woman ate lettuce and was at once possessed by a demon; and there a reason is given, that the devil was in the lettuce which she bit: therefore it seems that they are on the earth.

I RESPOND: It must be said that the divine clemency and providence provided a secluded place for the demons, that they might not tempt us too sharply, yet not too far from us, that they might be able to exercise us. Hence that they dwell in the murky air, this is of the divine *decree;* but that they come to us, this is of [divine] *permission.* Hence, since the interstice of the air is threefold, if it be asked in what part they are; it seems probable that they are in the middle, where there is turbulence and disturbance and variety of impressions; and hence it is that they frequently stir up winds and rains[^3].

#### DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *In this murky air, which is a prison for them.* For it seems that it is in no way a prison, because they run about wherever they will. — And again, they are spiritual, therefore they are neither hindered nor detained by a body. — Likewise, the wind cannot move nor disturb a ray [of light][^4], therefore much less a spirit. — Likewise, since they do not have bodily sight, it seems that no place is murky for them, nor do they seem to be punished by bodily darkness.

I RESPOND: It must be said that, just as by a certain fittingness the empyrean heaven is for the holy Angels a suitable and apt place, both from [its] light and from [its] spaciousness, so that it can rightly be called a *palace,* attesting to the brightness and tranquility and amplitude of charity[^5]; so, conversely, this murky air is a prison, because [it is] small and narrow and dark, not by a darkness which darkens, or a narrowness which constrains, but rather [one] which attests to the straitness of mind and the cold of iniquity and the agitation of the affections. And therefore it is rightly called a *prison.* And just as in one manner a corporeal place locates spirits, in another bodies; so also in one and another manner it imprisons. And thus the objections are clear.

#### DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says, that *power will be given to him by God of tempting men, which he does not now have. On the contrary:* Job, forty-first [chapter][^6]: *There is no power upon earth that can be compared with him;* therefore if his powers exceed ours, it rather seems that God ought to increase the *ability* for us rather than for the demons; or he seems to act unjustly and unequally, while he exposes the weak to the strong and strengthens the strong against the weak.

I RESPOND: It must be said that that power, of which Job speaks, is the power of natural strength, [it] is not the power of tempting. For the power of tempting is weak, unless it be strengthened by the consent of the one tempted. «For the enemy is weak, who does not conquer except the willing[^7]». Yet because, on account of our concupiscence and ignorance, he deceives and allures us in many ways, therefore he is strong, and so much so that few there would be who would not be conquered, unless God restrained his cunning and deceit, which at the end, by a just judgment, he will permit to be enlarged[^8]. And therefore he is said to give the power of tempting, not by conferring a new potency, but by allowing him to operate according to that potency and astuteness which he already has.

#### DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says, that *it is not permitted to that spirit which has been conquered to assail anyone. On the contrary:* it is probably believed that the great devil, who tempted Adam, tempted Christ and was in every way conquered: therefore it seems that he never henceforth tempts; which is against the text of the Apocalypse[^9]. — Likewise, if this is true, then the army of demons seems so diminished at the end that it cannot tempt; but this is false, since he tempts the more strongly at the end[^10].

I RESPOND: It must be said that concerning this it is difficult to determine the truth. For that there should be a diminution in that army of demons does not seem improbable, since we thus see it happen according to the law of war, that he who is overcome is removed from the war; *how much,* however, and *when,* it is difficult to determine; whence, whatever Origen[^11] may say, it is better to doubt than to define anything about this.

la: Scil. verbis *ad nostram probationem.*

en: Namely by the words *ad nostram probationem* (for our probation).

la: Gregorii, libr. I. c. 4.

en: Of Gregory['s *Dialogues*], book I, c. 4.

la: Cfr. August., III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 14, ubi docet, Angelos ante transgressionem suam fortasse fuisse in superiore parte aeris, at post peccatum in mediam partem aeris detrusos esse et ibi tempestates pluviamque facere. — Idem dubium solvitur ab Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 100. m. 6. a. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; Aegid. R., hic dub. litt. 2. et 3. His locis etiam seq. dubium solutum invenitur.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the letter* III, c. 10, n. 14, where he teaches that the Angels before their transgression were perhaps in the higher part of the air, but after [their] sin were thrust down into the middle part of the air and there make storms and rain. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 100, m. 6, a. 2; Bl. Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; Giles of Rome, here dub. lit. 2 and 3. In these places also the following doubt is found resolved.

la: Supple: solis.

en: Supply: of the sun.

la: Vide supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo superius post *spatiositate* cod. cc et ed. 1 subnectunt *tum ex tranquillitate.*

en: See above, d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — A little above, after *spatiositate*, codex cc and edition 1 subjoin *tum ex tranquillitate* (then from [its] tranquility).

la: Vers. 24.

en: Verse 24.

la: Gregor., V. Moral. c. 22. n. 43: *Antiquus hostis, sic contra consentientes fortis est, ita contra resistentes debilis.* Cod. bb *non potest vincere* pro *non vincit.*

en: Gregory, *Morals* V, c. 22, n. 43: *The ancient enemy, [just] as he is strong against those consenting, so [he is] weak against those resisting.* Codex bb [reads] *non potest vincere* (cannot conquer) for *non vincit* (does not conquer).

la: Cfr. Matth. 24, 22. seqq. — Vide de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 101. m. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 8; Aegid. R., dub. litt. 6.

en: Cf. Matthew 24, 22 ff. — See concerning this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 101, m. 5; Bl. Albert, here a. 8; Giles of Rome, dub. lit. 6.

en: Ch. 20, 3. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6.

la: Matth. 24, 22. seqq.

en: Matthew 24, 22 ff.

en: Of whose words there is treatment in this doubt. Cf. the text of the Master, c. 7. — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 5.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI of Distinction VI, DUB I–IV — **it closes Distinction 6.** DUB I (whether the demons ought to dwell on the earth, given the *ad nostram probationem* clause and the Gregory-*Dialogues* lettuce story — resolved: they dwell in the middle interstice of the murky air by divine decree, coming to us by permission). DUB II (whether the murky air is truly a *prison* for them, given that they run about freely — resolved by the *palatium/carcer* contrast). DUB III (whether God *gives* the devil power of tempting — resolved: not a new potency, but the permitting of his existing astuteness). DUB IV (whether a conquered spirit may no longer assail anyone — resolved: difficult to determine; better to doubt than define, *quidquid dicat Origenes*). Spans printed pp.169–170 (= PDF 191–192): DUB I + DUB II open on p.169 (DUB I wholly p.169 L-col; DUB II p.169 R-col → its RESPONDEO tail on p.170 L-col); DUB III + DUB IV are on p.170.
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 12398–12469) over the 450 dpi pp.169–170 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 169-171 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 169` / `170`), read **Left column top→bottom then Right column**, body bands then footer bands. The DUBIA *videtur*/RESPONDEO is cascade-shattered and authoritative from the crops; the OCR header garbles (`DuB. U.`, `DuB. III.`, `DuB. IV.`) and the loci (Iob 41, Apoc 20) corrected against the crops.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a dubia chunk has no scholion. The marginal glosses on the crops are trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Incoming a3-q2→d6-dubia boundary — RECEIVED SPLIT at p.169, no backfill.** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q2`'s Notes documented the p.169 footer split: a3-q2's Ratio/Solutio anchored p.169 **left-column** footer notes ¹–⁶ (its [^10]–[^15]); the DUBIA opens lower on p.169 and DUB I/II anchor p.169 **right-column** footer notes ⁷–¹¹. This chunk takes p.169 footer notes ⁷ (`Scil. verbis ad nostram probationem.`), ⁸ (`Gregorii, libr. I. c. 4.`), ⁹ (`Cfr. August., III. de Gen. ad lit. …`), ¹⁰ (`Supple: solis.`), ¹¹ (`Vide supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. …`) → [^1]–[^5]. `d6-a3-q2` not modified.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (renumber 1–11).** p.169 right-column (DUB I/II): ⁷ → [^1] (DUB I *ultimo*⁷); ⁸ → [^2] (DUB I *in Dialogo*⁸); ⁹ → [^3] (DUB I *ventos et pluvias*⁹); ¹⁰ → [^4] (DUB II *radium*¹⁰); ¹¹ → [^5] (DUB II *caritatis*¹¹). p.170 (DUB III/IV): ¹ *Vers. 24.* (Iob 41, DUB III *primo*¹) → [^6]; ² *Gregor., V. Moral. c. 22. n. 43 …* (DUB III *volentem*²) → [^7]; ³ *Cfr. Matth. 24, 22. seqq. — Vide … Alex. Hal. … Aegid. R., dub. litt. 6.* (DUB III *dilatari*³) → [^8]; ⁴ *Cap. 20, 3. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.* (Apoc. 20, DUB IV *Apocalypsis*⁴) → [^9]; ⁵ *Matth. 24, 22. seqq.* (DUB IV *in fine*⁵) → [^10]; ⁶ *De cuius verbis in hoc dubio agitur. Cfr. lit. Magistri, c. 7. — Solvunt idem dubium B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5.* (DUB IV *Origenes*⁶) → [^11]. **Note ⁶ → [^11] is an L→R footer runover:** the left-column part (`De cuius verbis in hoc dubio agitur. Cfr. lit. Magist…`) continues at the head of the right-column footer (`…ri, c. 7. — Solvunt idem dubium B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5.`); combined into [^11].
- **Outgoing d6-dubia→d7 boundary — CROSS-DISTINCTION SPLIT at p.170 (documented for the future d.7 work).** This chunk's DUB III/IV anchor p.170 footer notes ¹–⁶ ([^6]–[^11]). DISTINCTIO VII (raw 12470) opens on p.170 (the centered `DISTINCTIO VII.` + `Pars I.` + Lombard Cap. I/II littera, beginning lower on p.170 L-column and continuing R-column). The separately-headed **`NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM`** block on the p.170 right-column footer — ¹ `Dist. V. c. 1. Cfr. de hoc cap. Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 2. c. 4.`; ² `Vat. cum cod. D et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 omittit haec ultima verba: nec bene illud volunt.`; ³ `Epist. 21. ad Damas. n. 40 …` — anchors the DISTINCTIO VII Lombard littera body and is the **next distinction's `bon-sent-II-d7-littera`** apparatus (the classic Vol II cross-distinction pattern, as d5-dubia→d6-littera and d3-p2-dubia→d4-littera). **The future d7-littera build starts its p.170 apparatus at that `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block; no backfill into d6-dubia, and d6-dubia must not double-count it.**
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 11 superscripts + the received p.169 right-column split (notes ⁷–¹¹) + the p.170 footer (notes ¹–⁶, incl. the note-⁶ L→R runover) + the cross-distinction `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` split verified on the crops.


title: Dist. 7

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

title_alt: Distinction 7. The text of the Master of the Sentences (Parts I and II).

source_text:
<!-- page 170 -->

### Distinctio VII.

### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *Utrum boni Angeli possint peccare, vel mali recte vivere.*

Supra[^1] dictum est, quod Angeli, qui perstiterunt, per gratiam confirmati sunt, et qui ceciderunt, a gratia Dei deserti sunt. Et boni quidem in tantum confirmati sunt per gratiam, quod peccare nequeunt; mali vero per malitiam adeo sunt obstinati, quod bonam voluntatem habere sive bene velle non valent, etsi bonum sit quod aliquando volunt. Volunt enim aliquando aliquid fieri, quod Deus vult fieri, et utique illud bonum est et iustum fieri, nec tamen bona voluntate illud volunt, nec bene illud volunt[^2].

### Cap. II. *Quod cum utrique habeant liberum arbitrium, non tamen ad utrumque flecti possunt.*

Sed cum nec boni peccare possint, nec mali bene velle vel bene operari, videtur, quod iam non habeant liberum arbitrium, quia in utramque partem flecti non possunt, cum liberum arbitrium ad utrumque se habeat. Unde Hieronymus[^3] in tractatu de prodigo filio dicit: «Solus Deus est, in quem peccatum cadere non potest; cetera, cum sint liberi arbitrii, in utramque partem flecti possunt». — Hic videtur dicere, quod omnis creatura in libero arbitrio constituta flecti potest ad bonum et ad malum. Quod si est, ergo et boni <!-- page 171 -->Angeli et mali ad utrumque flecti possunt: ergo et boni possunt fieri mali, et mali boni. — Ad quod dicimus, quia boni tanta gratia confirmati sunt, ut nequeant fieri mali, et mali in malitia adeo obdurati sunt, ut non valeant fieri boni; et tamen utrique habent liberum arbitrium, quia non aliqua cogente necessitate, sed propria ac spontanea voluntate, per gratiam quidem adiuti, bonum eligunt et malum respuunt; et mali similiter spontanea voluntate, a gratia destituti, bonum vitant et malum sequuntur; et habent mali liberum arbitrium, sed depressum atque corruptum, quod surgere ad bonum non valent[^4].

### Cap. III. *Quod boni post confirmationem liberius habent arbitrium quam ante.*

Boni vero arbitrium habent multo liberius post confirmationem quam ante. Ut enim Augustinus tradit in Enchiridio[^5]: «Non ideo carent libero arbitrio, quia male velle non possunt; multo quippe liberius est arbitrium, quod non potest servire peccato. Neque culpanda est voluntas, aut voluntas non est, aut libera dicenda non est, qua beati esse sic volunt, ut esse miseri non solum nolint, sed nec prorsus velle possint». Non possunt itaque boni Angeli velle malum, vel velle esse miseri; neque hoc habent ex naturae, sed ex gratiae beneficio. Ante gratiae namque confirmationem potuerunt peccare Angeli, et quidam etiam peccaverunt et daemones facti sunt. Unde Augustinus in libro contra Maximinum[^6]: «Creaturarum natura caelestium mori potuit, quia peccare potuit. Nam et Angeli peccaverunt et daemones facti sunt, quorum diabolus est princeps, et qui non peccaverunt peccare potuerunt; et cuicumque creaturae rationali praestatur, ut peccare non possit, non est hoc naturae propriae, sed Dei gratiae. Ideoque solus Deus est, qui non gratia cuiusquam, sed natura sua nec potuit nec potest nec poterit peccare». — Ecce hic insinuatur, quod Angeli ante confirmationem peccare potuerunt, sed post confirmationem non possunt. Et quod potuerunt, fuit eis ex libero arbitrio, quod est eis naturale; quod vero modo non possunt peccare, non est eis ex natura, id est libero arbitrio, sed ex gratia, ex qua gratia etiam est, ut ipsum liberum arbitrium iam non possit servire peccato.

### Cap. IV. *Quod non possunt ex natura peccare, sicut ante.*

Non ergo post confirmationem Angeli de natura, sicut ante, peccare potuerunt, non quod liberum arbitrium eorum debilitatum sit per gratiam, sed ita potius confirmatum, ut iam per illud non possit bonus Angelus peccare; quod utique non est ex ipso[^7] libero arbitrio, sed ex gratia Dei. Quod ergo Hieronymus ait: «Cetera, cum sint liberi arbitrii, possunt flecti in utramque partem», accipi oportet secundum statum, in quo creata sunt. Talis enim et homo et Angelus creatus est, qui ad utrumque flecti poterat; sed postea boni Angeli per gratiam ita sunt confirmati, ut peccare non possint; et mali ita in vitio obdurati, ut bene vivere nequeant. Similiter etiam illud Isidori[^8] intelligendum est: «Angeli mutabiles natura, immutabiles sunt gratia», quia ex natura in primordio suae conditionis mutari potuerunt ad bonum, sive ad malum; sed post per gratiam ita bono addicti sunt, ut inde mutari nequeant. Ad hoc enim repugnat gratia, non natura.

### Pars II.

### Cap. V. *Quibus modis mali angeli noscant veritatem temporalium rerum.*

Et licet mali angeli ita per malitiam sint obdurati, vivaci tamen sensu non penitus sunt privati. Nam, ut tradit Isidorus[^9], triplici acumine scientiae vigent daemones, scilicet subtilitate naturae, experientia temporum, revelatione superiorum[^10] spirituum. De hoc etiam Augustinus[^11] ait: «Spiritus mali quaedam vera de temporalibus rebus noscere permittuntur, partim subtilitate sensus, partim experientia temporum, callidiores propter tam magnam longitudinem vitae, partim a sanctis Angelis, quod ipsi ab omnipotenti Deo discunt, iussu eius sibi revelantibus. Aliquando autem iidem nefandi spiritus et quae ipsi facturi[^12] sunt, velut divinando, praedicunt».

### Cap. VI. *Quod magicae artes virtute et scientia diaboli valent, quae est eis a Deo.*

Quorum scientia atque virtute etiam magicae artes exercentur; quibus tamen tam scientia quam potestas a Deo data est vel ad fallendum fallaces, vel ad monendum fideles, vel ad exercendam probandamque iustorum patientiam. Unde Augustinus in libro tertio de Trinitate[^13]: «Video, inquit, infirmae cogitationi <!-- page 172 -->quid possit occurrere; cur scilicet ista miracula etiam magicis artibus fiant. Nam et magi Pharaonis serpentes fecerunt et alia. Sed illud est amplius admirandum, quomodo magorum potentia, quae serpentes facere potuit, ubi ad muscas minutissimas, scilicet cinifes, ventum est, omnino defecit; qua tertia plaga Aegyptus caedebatur. Ibi certe defecerunt magi dicentes: *Digitus Dei est hic.* Unde datur intelligi, ne ipsos quidem transgressores angelos et aereas potestates, in imam istam caliginem tanquam in sui generis carcerem ab illius sublimis aethereae puritatis habitatione detrusos, per quos magicae artes possunt quidquid possunt, aliquid[^14] valere, nisi data desuper potestate. Datur autem vel ad fallendum fallaces, sicut in Aegyptios — et in ipsos etiam magos data est, ut in eorum spirituum operatione viderentur admirandi, a quibus fiebant damnandi — vel ad monendum fideles, ne tale aliquid facere pro magno desiderent, propter quod etiam nobis in Scriptura sunt prodita; vel ad exercendam, probandam manifestandamque iustorum patientiam».

### Cap. VII. *Quod malis angelis non servit ad nutum materia visibilium rerum.*

«Nec putandum est, istis transgressoribus angelis ad nutum servire hanc visibilium rerum materiam, sed Deo potius, a quo haec potestas datur, quantum incommutabilis iudicat[^15]».

### Cap. VIII. *Quod non sunt creatores, licet per eos magi ranas et alia fecerint; sicut nec boni, etsi per eorum ministerium fiant creaturae.*

«Nec sane *creatores* illi *mali* angeli dicendi sunt, quia per illos magi ranas et serpentes fecerunt; non enim ipsi eas creaverunt. Omnium quippe rerum, quae corporaliter visibiliterque nascuntur, occulta quaedam semina in corporeis mundi huius elementis latent, quae Deus originaliter eis indidit. Ipse ergo creator est omnium rerum, qui creator est invisibilium seminum; quia quaecumque nascendo ad oculos nostros exeunt, ex occultis seminibus accipiunt progrediendi hic primordia et incrementa debitae magnitudinis distinctionesque formarum ab originalibus, ut ita dicam, regulis sumunt. Sicut ergo nec parentes dicimus creatores hominum, nec agricolas creatores frugum, quamvis, eorum extrinsecus adhibitis motibus, ista[^16] creanda Dei virtus interius operetur; ita non solum malos, sed nec bonos Angelos fas est putare creatores; sed pro subtilitate sui sensus et corporis semina istarum rerum nobis occultiora noverunt et ea per congruas temperationes elementorum latenter spargunt, atque ita et gignendarum rerum et accelerandorum incrementorum praebent occasiones. Sed nec *boni* haec, nisi quantum Deus iubet, nec *mali* haec iniuste faciunt, nisi quantum iuste ipse permittit. Nam iniqui malitia voluntatem suam habet iniustam; potestatem autem non nisi iuste accipit, sive ad suam poenam, sive ad aliorum, vel poenam malorum, vel laudem bonorum[^17]».

### Cap. IX. *Quod solus Deus sic operatur creationem rerum, sicut iustificationem mentis.*

«Sicut ergo mentem nostram iustificando formare non potest nisi Deus, praedicare autem extrinsecus Evangelium etiam homines possunt, non solum boni per veritatem, sed etiam mali per occasionem; ita creationem rerum visibilium Deus interius operatur. Exteriores autem operationes atque contemperationes sive occasiones ab Angelis tam bonis quam malis, vel etiam ab hominibus adhibentur[^18]». «Sed haec ab hominibus tanto difficilius adhibentur, quantum desunt sensuum subtilitates et corporum mobilitates in membris terrenis et pigris. Unde qualibuscumque Angelis vicinas causas ab elementis contrahere quanto facilius est, tanto mirabiliores in huiusmodi operibus eorum existunt celeritates. Sed non est creator, nisi qui principaliter ista format; nec quisquam hoc potest nisi unus creator Deus[^19]». «Aliud est enim ex intimo ac summo causarum cardine condere ac ministrare creaturam, quod facit solus creator Deus; aliud autem pro distributis ab illo viribus et facultatibus aliquam operationem forinsecus admovere, ut tunc vel tunc, sic vel sic exeat quod creatur. Ista quippe originaliter et primordialiter in quadam textura elementorum cuncta iam creata sunt, sed acceptis opportunitatibus prodeunt[^20]».

### Cap. X. *Quod angeli mali multa possunt per naturae vigorem, quae non possunt propter Dei prohibitionem.*

Illud quoque sciendum est, quod angeli mali *quaedam* possunt per naturae subtilitatem, quae tamen non possunt propter Dei, vel bonorum Angelorum prohibitionem, id est, quia non permittuntur illa facere a Deo, vel ab Angelis bonis. Possent utique fecisse cinifes qui ranas serpentesque fecerunt. *Quaedam* vero non possunt facere, etiamsi permittuntur ab Angelis superioribus, quia non permittit Deus. Unde Augustinus in libro tertio de Trinitate[^21]: «Ex ineffabili potentatu Dei fit, ut quod possent mali angeli, si permitterentur, ideo non possunt, quia non permittuntur. <!-- page 173 -->Neque enim occurrit alia ratio, cur non potuerunt facere cinifes qui ranas serpentesque fecerunt, nisi quia maior aderat dominatio prohibentis Dei per Spiritum sanctum; quod etiam magi confessi sunt dicentes: *Digitus Dei est hic.* Quid autem per naturam possint, nec tamen possint propter prohibitionem, et quid per ipsius naturae suae conditionem facere non sinantur, homini explorare difficile est, immo impossibile». «Novimus, hominem posse ambulare, et neque hoc posse, si non permittatur; volare autem non posse, etiamsi permittatur. Sic et illi angeli quaedam possunt facere, si permittantur ab Angelis potentioribus ex imperio Dei; quaedam vero non possunt, etiamsi ab eis permittantur, quia ille non permittit, a quo illis est talis naturae modus, qui etiam per Angelos suos illa plerumque non permittit, quae concessit, ut possint».

---

english:
<!-- page 170 -->

### Distinction VII.

### Part I.

### Chap. I. *Whether the good Angels are able to sin, or the evil ones to live rightly.*

It was said above[^1] that the Angels who stood fast were confirmed by grace, and those who fell were forsaken by the grace of God. And the good are indeed so far confirmed by grace that they cannot sin; the evil, however, are so obstinate through malice that they cannot have a good will or will well, even though what they sometimes will is good. For they sometimes will that something be done which God wills to be done, and that thing is assuredly good and just to be done, yet they do not will it with a good will, nor do they will it well[^2].

### Chap. II. *That, although each has free choice, they cannot nevertheless be bent toward either side.*

But since neither can the good sin, nor the evil will well or act well, it seems that they no longer have free choice, because they cannot be bent toward either side, whereas free choice is disposed toward both. Hence Jerome[^3], in the treatise on the prodigal son, says: «God alone is the one into whom sin cannot fall; the rest, since they are of free choice, can be bent toward either side». — Here he seems to say that every creature established in free choice can be bent toward good and toward evil. And if that is so, then both the good <!-- page 171 -->Angels and the evil can be bent toward either side: therefore the good too can become evil, and the evil good. — To which we say that the good are confirmed by such great grace that they cannot become evil, and the evil are so hardened in malice that they cannot become good; and yet each has free choice, because not by any compelling necessity, but by their own and spontaneous will — aided indeed by grace — they choose good and reject evil; and the evil likewise by spontaneous will, deprived of grace, shun good and follow evil; and the evil have free choice, but depressed and corrupted, so that they cannot rise to the good[^4].

### Chap. III. *That the good, after confirmation, have a freer choice than before.*

The good, however, have a much freer choice after confirmation than before. For as Augustine teaches in the *Enchiridion*[^5]: «They do not therefore lack free choice because they cannot will evil; for that choice is much freer which cannot serve sin. Nor is that will to be blamed, nor is it not a will, nor is it to be called not free, by which they so will to be blessed that they not only do not wish to be wretched, but cannot at all so wish». And so the good Angels cannot will evil, nor will to be wretched; nor do they have this from nature, but from the benefit of grace. For before the confirmation of grace the Angels were able to sin, and some even did sin and became demons. Hence Augustine in the book *Against Maximinus*[^6]: «The nature of the heavenly creatures could die, because it could sin. For the Angels also sinned and became demons, of whom the devil is the prince, and those who did not sin were able to sin; and to whatever rational creature it is granted that it cannot sin, this is not of its own nature, but of the grace of God. Therefore God alone is the one who, not by anyone's grace but by his own nature, neither could nor can nor will be able to sin». — Behold, here it is intimated that the Angels before confirmation were able to sin, but after confirmation they cannot. And that they were able was theirs from free choice, which is natural to them; but that they now cannot sin is not theirs from nature, that is from free choice, but from grace — by which grace it also comes about that free choice itself can no longer serve sin.

### Chap. IV. *That they cannot sin from nature, as before.*

Therefore the Angels, after confirmation, were not able to sin from nature as before — not because their free choice was weakened by grace, but rather so confirmed that through it a good Angel can no longer sin; which assuredly is not from free choice itself[^7], but from the grace of God. And so what Jerome says, «The rest, since they are of free choice, can be bent in either direction», ought to be taken according to the state in which they were created. For both man and Angel were created such that they could be bent toward either side; but afterward the good Angels were so confirmed by grace that they cannot sin, and the evil so hardened in vice that they cannot live well. Likewise also that saying of Isidore[^8] is to be understood: «The Angels are mutable by nature, immutable by grace», because by nature, in the beginning of their condition, they could be changed toward good or toward evil; but afterward by grace they were so devoted to the good that they cannot be changed from it. For grace, not nature, is opposed to this.

### Part II.

### Chap. V. *By what means the evil angels know the truth of temporal things.*

And although the evil angels are so hardened through malice, they are nevertheless not wholly deprived of a lively perception. For, as Isidore[^9] teaches, the demons are vigorous with a threefold keenness of knowledge, namely by subtlety of nature, by experience of the ages, and by revelation of the higher[^10] spirits. Of this Augustine[^11] also says: «The evil spirits are permitted to know certain true things concerning temporal matters, partly by subtlety of perception, partly by experience of the ages — being more cunning because of the great length of [their] life — partly from the holy Angels, what they themselves learn from almighty God, he revealing it to them at his command. Sometimes, however, those same execrable spirits foretell, as by divining, even the things which they themselves[^12] are going to do».

### Chap. VI. *That the magic arts have force by the virtue and knowledge of the devil, which is theirs from God.*

By whose knowledge and virtue even the magic arts are practiced; to whom, nevertheless, both the knowledge and the power has been given by God, either to deceive the deceitful, or to admonish the faithful, or to exercise and prove the patience of the just. Hence Augustine in the third book *On the Trinity*[^13]: «I see, he says, what can occur to a weak understanding — <!-- page 172 -->namely, why these miracles are wrought even by magic arts. For the magicians of Pharaoh too made serpents and other things. But this is the more to be wondered at: how the power of the magicians, which could make serpents, when it came to the tiniest flies, namely the gnats, wholly failed; by which third plague Egypt was being struck. There certainly the magicians failed, saying: *This is the finger of God.* Hence it is given to understand that not even those transgressor angels and the aerial powers — thrust down into this lowest murk as into a prison of their own kind, from the dwelling of that sublime ethereal purity, [those] through whom the magic arts can do whatever they can — avail anything[^14] unless power be given from above. And it is given either to deceive the deceitful, as upon the Egyptians — and it was given even upon the magicians themselves, that in the working of their spirits they might appear admirable, by whom they were [made] to be damned — or to admonish the faithful, lest they desire to do any such thing as something great, on account of which these things have also been handed down to us in Scripture; or to exercise, to prove, and to make manifest the patience of the just».

### Chap. VII. *That the matter of visible things does not serve the evil angels at their beck.*

«Nor is it to be thought that this matter of visible things serves these transgressor angels at their beck, but rather God, by whom this power is given, as far as he, the immutable one, judges[^15]».

### Chap. VIII. *That they are not creators, although through them the magicians made frogs and other things; just as neither are the good [creators], even if through their ministry creatures come to be.*

«Nor truly are those *evil* angels to be called *creators* because through them the magicians made frogs and serpents; for they did not themselves create them. For of all things which are born corporeally and visibly, certain hidden seeds lie concealed in the corporeal elements of this world, which God implanted in them at the origin. He therefore is the creator of all things, who is the creator of the invisible seeds; since whatever things, in being born, come forth to our eyes, take from the hidden seeds their beginnings of advancing here and their increments of due magnitude, and draw the distinctions of their forms from the original rules, so to speak. Just as therefore we do not call parents the creators of men, nor farmers the creators of crops — although, by their externally applied motions, the power of God inwardly works these things[^16] to be created — so it is not lawful to suppose not only the evil but even the good Angels to be creators; but by the subtlety of their perception and of their body they know the seeds of these things, more hidden from us, and scatter them secretly through fitting temperings of the elements, and thus afford occasions both for the begetting of things and for the hastening of their increments. But neither do the *good* [do] these things except in so far as God commands, nor do the *evil* do them unjustly except in so far as he himself justly permits. For the iniquitous one's malice has its own will unjust; but the power it does not receive except justly, whether for its own punishment, or for that of others, either the punishment of the evil or the praise of the good[^17]».

### Chap. IX. *That God alone so works the creation of things, as [he works] the justification of the mind.*

«As therefore our mind cannot be formed by justification except by God — whereas to preach the Gospel outwardly even men can do, not only the good through truth, but also the evil through occasion — so the creation of visible things God works inwardly. But the outward operations and temperings or occasions are applied by Angels, both good and evil, or even by men[^18]». «But these are applied by men so much the more difficultly, the more the subtleties of the senses and the mobilities of the bodies are lacking in earthly and sluggish members. Hence the swifter it is for Angels of whatever kind to draw the proximate causes from the elements, the more wonderful are the speeds that arise in their operations of this sort. But there is no creator save he who principally forms these things; nor can anyone do this save the one creator God[^19]». «For it is one thing to found and minister a creature from the innermost and highest hinge of causes — which the creator God alone does — and another to apply some outward operation, by the powers and faculties distributed by him, that what is created may come forth then or then, thus or thus. For these things, originally and primordially, have all been created already in a certain weaving of the elements, but come forth when the opportunities are received[^20]».

### Chap. X. *That the evil angels can do many things by the vigor of nature, which they cannot do because of God's prohibition.*

It is also to be known that the evil angels can do *certain* things by the subtlety of nature, which nevertheless they cannot do because of the prohibition of God or of the good Angels — that is, because they are not permitted to do those things by God or by the good Angels. Those who made frogs and serpents could indeed have made gnats. *Certain* things, however, they cannot do, even if they are permitted by the higher Angels, because God does not permit it. Hence Augustine in the third book *On the Trinity*[^21]: «By the ineffable power of God it comes about that what the evil angels could do, if they were permitted, they therefore cannot do, because they are not permitted. <!-- page 173 -->For no other reason occurs why those who made frogs and serpents could not make gnats, except that a greater dominion of the prohibiting God was present, through the Holy Spirit; which the magicians too confessed, saying: *This is the finger of God.* But what they can do by nature, and yet cannot do because of the prohibition, and what by the very condition of their nature they are not allowed to do, it is difficult — nay, impossible — for man to explore». «We know that a man can walk, and cannot even do this if he be not permitted; but cannot fly, even if he be permitted. So also those angels can do certain things, if they be permitted by the more powerful Angels at God's command; but certain things they cannot do, even if they be permitted by them, because he does not permit, by whom there is for them such a mode of nature — [he] who also through his Angels does not for the most part permit those things which he granted [they] should be able [to do]».

---

la: Dist. V. c. 1. Cfr. de hoc cap. Hugo, *Sum. Sent.* tr. 2. c. 4.

en: Distinction V, c. 1. Cf. on this chapter Hugh [of St. Victor], *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 2, c. 4.

la: Vat. cum cod. D et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 omittit haec ultima verba: *nec bene illud volunt.*

en: The Vatican edition, with codex D and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, omits these last words: *nor do they will it well.*

la: Epist. 21. ad Damas. n. 40, in quo loco pro *cadere non potest* originale *non cadit*, et in fine *possunt suam flectere voluntatem* pro *flecti possunt.* Cfr. infra d. XXV. c. 3. 4.

en: *Letter* 21, to Damasus, n. 40, in which place for *cannot fall* the original [reads] *does not fall*, and at the end *can bend their own will* for *can be bent.* Cf. below, Distinction XXV, c. 3, 4.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. et cod. B *valet.*

en: The Vatican edition, with a few editions and codex B, [reads] *avails* [valet, sing.].

la: Cap. 5. n. 105, n. 28, in quo textu pro *qua beati* Vat. cum paucis edd. *quia beati.* — Paulo inferius pro *ex naturae* eadem Vat. cum aliquibus edd. *ex natura.*

en: Chap. 5, n. 105, n. 28, in which text for *by which [they are] blessed* the Vatican edition, with a few editions, [reads] *because [they are] blessed.* — A little below, for *of nature* the same Vatican edition, with some editions, [reads] *from nature.*

la: Lib. II. c. 12. n. 2. — In fine aliqua verba textus omissa sunt.

en: Book II, c. 12, n. 2. — At the end some words of the text have been omitted.

la: Auctoritate codd. ACD nec non edd. 1, 8 inseruimus *ipso.*

en: On the authority of codices ACD and also of editions 1, 8, we have inserted *itself* [ipso].

la: *Sent.* (de Sum. Bono) I. c. 10. n. 2. — Paulo ante pro *in vitio* codd. ABCD cum edd. 1, 8 *vitio.*

en: *Sentences* (on the Highest Good) I, c. 10, n. 2. — A little before, for *in vice* codices ABCD with editions 1, 8 [read] *by vice.*

la: Loc. cit. n. 17.

en: Loc. cit., n. 17.

la: Ita ed. 1 et originale; in aliis *supernorum.* Pro *spirituum* originale *potestatum.*

en: Thus edition 1 and the original; in others *of the supernal [spirits].* For *of the spirits* the original [reads] *of the powers.*

la: Libr. II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 37, nonnullis omissis et interpositis.

en: Book II, *On Genesis according to the letter*, c. 17, n. 37, with several things omitted and interposed.

la: Vat. cum aliquibus edd. *facturi*, omissa voce *ipsi.*

en: The Vatican edition, with some editions, [reads] *going to do* [facturi], the word *they themselves* [ipsi] being omitted.

la: Cap. 7. n. 12. Locus s. Scripturae, qui deinde respicitur, est Exod. 7, 8.

en: Chap. 7, n. 12. The passage of sacred Scripture which is then referred to is Exod. 7, 8.

la: Vat., refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 8, incongrue praefigit *non autem.* Mox pro *operatione* Vat. sola *seductione*, et subinde cum edd. 6, 8 verbo *damnandi* praemittit *a Dei veritate.*

en: The Vatican edition, the codices and editions 1, 8 disagreeing, incongruously prefixes *but not.* Soon, for *working* the Vatican edition alone [reads] *seduction*, and thereupon, with editions 6, 8, prefixes to the word *to be damned* [the phrase] *by the truth of God.*

la: August., loc. cit. c. 8. n. 13.

en: Augustine, loc. cit., c. 8, n. 13.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. voci *ista* praefigit *ad*, et paulo post sola Vat. *si* pro *sed*, *subtilitate* pro *subtilitate* [?].

en: The Vatican edition, with a few editions, prefixes *ad* to the word *ista*, and a little after, the Vatican edition alone [reads] *si* for *sed*, and *subtilitate* for *subtilitate* [?]. *(The terminal orthographic variant pair in this note is indistinct at 450 dpi — parked for the d.10 polish-blocker.)*

la: Hoc totum cap. mutuatum est ex August., loc. cit., pluribus omissis et mutilis.

en: This whole chapter is borrowed from Augustine, loc. cit., with many things omitted and abridged.

la: Ibid. n. 14, nonnullis omissis. — In Vat. sola desiderantur verba: *atque contemperationes sive occasiones.*

en: Ibid., n. 14, with several things omitted. — In the Vatican edition alone the words *and the temperings or occasions* are wanting.

la: Ibid. c. 9. n. 17 et n. 16, multis mutatis et omissis.

en: Ibid., c. 9, n. 17 and n. 16, with many things changed and omitted.

la: Ibid. n. 16. — In hoc cap. plura correximus ex codd. simul cum originali.

en: Ibid., n. 16. — In this chapter we have corrected several things from the codices together with the original.

la: Cap. 9. n. 18. In hoc textu ed. August. exhibet *Digitus Dei est hoc* (secund. Septuag.).

en: Chap. 9, n. 18. In this text the edition of Augustine exhibits *This is the finger of God* [*hoc*] (according to the Septuagint). ---

translators_notes:
- This chunk is Lombard's text (the *littera*) for Distinction VII, Cap. I–X, covering both Parts. **Pars I (Cap. I–IV):** whether the good Angels can sin or the evil live rightly (Cap. I); that, although each has free choice, they cannot be bent toward either side (Cap. II); that the good after confirmation have a freer choice than before (Cap. III); that they cannot sin from nature as before (Cap. IV). **Pars II (Cap. V–X):** by what means the evil angels know temporal truth (Cap. V); that the magic arts have force by the devil's God-given knowledge and power (Cap. VI); that visible matter does not serve the evil angels at their beck (Cap. VII); that they are not creators though magicians made frogs through them (Cap. VIII); that God alone works the creation of things as he works the justification of the mind (Cap. IX); that the evil angels can do much by nature's vigor which they cannot do because of God's prohibition (Cap. X). One continuous Lombard text spanning printed pp. 170–173 (= PDF 192–195), two-column-by-chapter (Cap. I/II, III/IV, V/VI, VII/VIII, IX/X side by side); the COMMENTARIUS Pars I begins lower on p.173 (next chunk `bon-sent-II-d7-p1-divisio`).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Lombard's prose is in the IA djvu OCR (raw 12470–12655) but two-column-bled, and parts of the Cap. III/IV and Cap. V right-column run are cascade-displaced; transcribed from the OCR base and fully re-set against the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 170-173 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 170`/`171`/`172`/`173`), read L column top→bottom then R column, body then footer, per page.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a littera chunk has no scholion. The marginal editorial glosses on the crops (*Hieronymus.*, *Difficultas.*, *Solutio.*, *Augustinus.*, *Explicatur locus Hieronymi et Isidori.*, *Dubium 1*, *Isidorus et Augustinus.*, *Dubium 2*, *Dubium 3*, *Dubium 4*, *Dubium 5*) are trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Cross-chunk footer — INCOMING (clean cross-distinction split at p.170, no backfill).** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-dubia`'s own Notes document the p.170 split: d6-dubia owns p.170's **main-stream** footer notes ¹–⁶ (its [^6]–[^11]: ¹ *Vers. 24.* … ⁶ *De cuius verbis in hoc dubio agitur. Cfr. lit. Magistri, c. 7. — Solvunt idem dubium…*), and the separately-headed **`NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM`** block on the p.170 right-column footer is **this littera's** apparatus. Verified by lemma match on the p.170-R-2 crop: the NOTAE block has exactly 3 notes — ¹ `Dist. V. c. 1. Cfr. de hoc cap. Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 2. c. 4.` (anchors Cap. I *Supra*¹) → [^1]; ² `Vat. cum cod. D et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 omittit haec ultima verba: nec bene illud volunt.` (anchors Cap. I *nec bene illud volunt*²) → [^2]; ³ `Epist. 21. ad Damas. n. 40 …` (anchors Cap. II *Unde Hieronymus*³, the *de prodigo filio* citation) → [^3]. The R-column-footer runover `c. 7. — Solvunt idem dubium B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5.` *above* the NOTAE header is the tail of d6-dubia's main-stream note ⁶ (its [^11]) — NOT this littera's. `d6-dubia` not modified; no backfill.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–21):**
  - **p.170** `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` ¹ ² ³ → [^1] (Cap. I *Supra*), [^2] (Cap. I *nec bene illud volunt*), [^3] (Cap. II *Hieronymus*).
  - **p.171** single stream, 10 notes: L-col ¹ *valet* → [^4] (Cap. II *non valent*); ² *Enchiridio* → [^5] (Cap. III *in Enchiridio*); ³ *contra Maximinum* → [^6] (Cap. III *contra Maximinum*); ⁴ *ipso* → [^7] (Cap. IV *non est ex ipso*); ⁵ *Sent. de Sum. Bono* → [^8] (Cap. IV *illud Isidori*). R-col ⁶ *Loc. cit. n. 17* → [^9] (Cap. V *tradit Isidorus*); ⁷ *supernorum/potestatum* → [^10] (Cap. V *superiorum spirituum*); ⁸ *II de Gen. ad lit.* → [^11] (Cap. V *Augustinus ait*); ⁹ *facturi* → [^12] (Cap. V *quae ipsi facturi sunt*); ¹⁰ *Cap. 7 n. 12 / Exod. 7,8* → [^13] (Cap. VI *de Trinitate*).
  - **p.172** 8 notes: L-col ¹ *Vat. non autem…* → [^14] (Cap. VI *aliquid valere*); ² *August. c. 8 n. 13* → [^15] (Cap. VII *incommutabilis iudicat*); ³ *Vat. voci ista praefigit ad…* → [^16] (Cap. VIII *ista creanda*); ⁴ *Hoc totum cap. mutuatum…* → [^17] (Cap. VIII *laudem bonorum*, the whole-chapter source note). R-col ⁵ *Ibid. n. 14* → [^18] (Cap. IX *adhibentur*); ⁶ *Ibid. c. 9 n. 17 et 16* → [^19] (Cap. IX *unus creator Deus*); ⁷ *Ibid. n. 16* → [^20] (Cap. IX *prodeunt*); ⁸ *Cap. 9 n. 18 / Digitus Dei est hoc* → [^21] (Cap. X *de Trinitate*).
  - **p.173** carries no littera footer: Cap. X's Augustine-quote tail (raw 12646–12653) has no superscript marker (the Cap. X *de Trinitate* citation was already noted on p.172 → [^21]); the COMMENTARIUS Pars I begins lower on p.173 and its footer is the following `bon-sent-II-d7-p1-divisio`'s apparatus.
- **Page-break placement.** Two-column-by-chapter Lombard layout; page breaks set at the running-head boundaries in chapter-reading order: `<!-- page 171 -->` mid-Cap. II (after *ergo et boni* / before *Angeli et mali ad utrumque*); `<!-- page 172 -->` mid-Cap. VI (after *infirmae cogitationi* / before *quid possit occurrere*); `<!-- page 173 -->` mid-Cap. X (after *quia non permittuntur.* / before *Neque enim occurrit alia ratio*).
- **One `[?]` flag, parked for the d.10 polish-blocker.** p.172 footer note 3 → [^16]: the terminal orthographic variant pair (`subtilitate` pro `subtilitate`) is indistinct at 450 dpi (an orthographic, not lexical, variant; the lexical content of the note — Vat. prefixes *ad* to *ista*, and reads *si* for *sed* — is secure). Resolve at 600 dpi in the d.1–d.10 polish-blocker. All other 20 superscripts + the three page-footers + the p.170 cross-distinction `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` split verified on the crops.
- **Outgoing boundary (note for the d7-p1-divisio build).** This littera ends mid-p.173 at Cap. X's close (*…quae concessit, ut possint».*, raw 12653); the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII. Pars I.` opens immediately below on p.173 (raw 12656 — next chunk `bon-sent-II-d7-p1-divisio`). p.173's footer apparatus (if any) is the divisio's, not this littera's — resolve at that build, no backfill here.


title: Dist. 7, Part 1, Divisio Textus

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

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 7, Part I — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 173 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII.
### Pars I.

*De confirmatione et obstinatione Angelorum.*

**Supra dictum est, quod Angeli etc.**

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de aversione et conversione. In hac parte agit de confirmatione et obstinatione. Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima agit de confirmatione et obstinatione. Secundo vero de consequentibus ad haec, ibi: *Et licet mali angeli* etc. Prima pars habet quatuor particulas. In prima ostendit, quod alii Angeli post conversionem et aversionem sunt per gloriam[^1] confirmati, et alii per malitiam obstinati. In secunda quaerit, utrum habeant libertatem arbitrii, et opponit ad hoc, ibi *Sed cum nec boni peccare possint* etc. Tertio determinat, ibi: *Ad quod dicimus, quod boni tanta gratia.* In quarta et ultima explanat quandam auctoritatem inductam, ibi: *Quod ergo Hieronymus ait* etc. Et ita hic duo determinantur. Primo, qualiter mali in malitia sunt obstinati, et boni in gratia confirmati. Secundo, quomodo confirmatio et obstinatio stet cum libertate arbitrii.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa duo incidit hic quaestio. Primum est de obstinationis malignitate quantum ad malos. Secundum est de liberi arbitrii immutabilitate quantum ad bonos et malos. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum in daemonum voluntate sit possibilis rectificatio. Secundo, utrum sit in eis malae voluntatis continuatio. Tertio, utrum sit in eis malae voluntatis intensio.

---

english:
<!-- page 173 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VII.
### Part I.

*Of the confirmation and obstinacy of the Angels.*

**"It was said above that the Angels" etc.**

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of aversion and conversion. In this part he treats of confirmation and obstinacy. And this part is divided into two. In the first he treats of confirmation and obstinacy. Secondly, of the things consequent to these, there: *And although the evil angels* etc. The first part has four particles. In the first he shows that some Angels, after conversion and aversion, are confirmed through glory[^1], and others made obstinate through malice. In the second he asks whether they have liberty of choice, and raises an objection to this, there: *But since neither can the good sin* etc. Thirdly he determines [it], there: *To which we say, that the good [are confirmed] by such great grace.* In the fourth and last he explains a certain authority adduced, there: *And so what Jerome says* etc. And thus two things are here determined. First, in what manner the evil are obstinate in malice, and the good confirmed in grace. Secondly, how confirmation and obstinacy stand together with liberty of choice.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, the inquiry here falls under two heads. The first is concerning the malignity of obstinacy as regards the evil. The second is concerning the immutability of free choice as regards both the good and the evil. Concerning the first, three things are asked. First it is asked whether in the will of the demons a rectification is possible. Secondly, whether there is in them a continuation of the evil will. Thirdly, whether there is in them an intensification of the evil will.

---

la: Cod. Y *gratiam*, quod respondet verbis Magistri, hic c. 1. Vat. paulo superius *per conversionem* pro *post conversionem.*

en: Codex Y [reads] *gratiam* [grace], which corresponds to the words of the Master, here c. 1. The Vatican edition, a little above, [reads] *through conversion* for *after conversion.* ---

translators_notes:
- This chunk is the *Divisio textus* and *Tractatio quaestionum* of the COMMENTARIUS on Distinction VII, **Pars I** (Bonaventure's commentary on Lombard's text *De confirmatione et obstinatione Angelorum*). The DIVISIO maps Lombard's d.7 into two parts (this Pars I = confirmation/obstinacy; the second, *Et licet mali angeli* etc., = the matter of Pars II), the first part into four particles. The TRACTATIO declares **two articles** ("circa duo incidit"): Art I — the malignity of obstinacy as regards the evil; Art II — the immutability of free choice as regards both good and evil. Wholly on printed p.173 (= PDF 195); the COMMENTARIUS opens lower on p.173, below Lombard's Cap. X (preceding chunk `bon-sent-II-d7-littera`).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Transcribed from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 12656–12684) and re-set against the 450 dpi p.173 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 173 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 173`), read L column top→bottom then R column, body then footer. The DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO are two-column; reflowed L-then-R.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a divisio chunk has no scholion.
- **Chunking convention (Vol II).** The short `ARTICULUS I.` opener + title (*De obstinationis malignitate quoad malos spiritus.*) + `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 12685–12690) folds into the following `bon-sent-II-d7-p1-a1-q1` (locked Vol II convention — no standalone article-divisio chunk). This divisio ends at the TRACTATIO's close (raw 12684); `line_end` 12684.
- **Cross-chunk footer — INCOMING (clean, no backfill).** The committed `bon-sent-II-d7-littera`'s Notes document that its Cap. X Augustine-quote tail on p.173 (raw 12646–12653) carries **no** footer marker (the Cap. X *de Trinitate* citation was noted on p.172 → its [^21]). So all of p.173's footer apparatus is this COMMENTARIUS's; `d7-littera` not modified, no backfill. Verified on the p.173-L-2 crop: p.173's footer is the single separately-headed **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`** stream.
- **Cross-chunk footer — OUTGOING divisio→a1-q1 split at p.173 (documented for the d7-p1-a1-q1 build).** The p.173 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` stream: note **¹** `Cod. Y gratiam, quod respondet verbis Magistri, hic c. 1. Vat. paulo superius per conversionem pro post conversionem.` anchors this divisio's DIVISIO TEXTUS *per gloriam*¹ → **[^1]** (Cod. Y reads *gratiam* for *gloriam*, matching Lombard's littera *per gratiam*; Vat. a little above reads *per conversionem* for *post conversionem*). Notes **²** `Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 4.` (→ QUAESTIO I videtur 1, *Damascenus*²), **³** `Cap. 3. n. 32: Angeli ergo atque homines, pro eo quod rationales facti sunt…` (an L→R footer runover; → QUAESTIO I videtur 2, *Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum*³), **⁴** `In codd. 1 Q bene additur boni.` (→ QUAESTIO I videtur 3, *Angeli*⁴ *statim*) and following are **`bon-sent-II-d7-p1-a1-q1`'s** apparatus. **The d7-p1-a1-q1 build starts its p.173 apparatus at `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` note ², no backfill into this divisio.**
- **Apparatus crosswalk:** p.173 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` ¹ → [^1] (DIVISIO TEXTUS *per gloriam*); ² ³ ⁴ … deferred to `bon-sent-II-d7-p1-a1-q1`.
- **No `[?]` flags.** The single superscript and the p.173 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` note ¹ verified on the 450 dpi crops; the divisio→a1-q1 split confirmed by lemma (note ² *Libr. II. de Fide orthod.* = the Damascene of QUAESTIO I videtur 1, not a divisio anchor).