title: Dist. 34, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 749 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum dona Spiritus sancti maneant in Beatis.*

Tertio quaeritur de donorum evacuatione, et est quaestio, utrum dona maneant in Beatis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Ambrosii, quam Magister ponit in littera[^1], ibi: « Civitas Dei, illa Ierusalem caelestis, non meatu alicuius fluvii terrestris abluitur, sed ex fonte vitae procedens Spiritus sanctus in illis caelestibus spiritibus redundantibus videtur influere, pleno septem virtutum spiritualium fervens meatu »; et post exponit, quod intelligit de donis Spiritus sancti.

2. Item, Christus fuit perfectissimus comprehensor; et tamen in ipso fuerunt omnia septem dona, secundum quod scribitur Isaiae undecimo[^2]: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius stare possint in quolibet alio Beato.

3. Item, perfectiores sunt habitus donorum quam habitus virtutum cardinalium; sed habitus cardinalium manebunt in patria, sicut ostensum fuit supra[^3]: ergo et dona.

4. Item, timor est donum intimum inter omnia: sed timor in patria manebit, secundum quod dicitur in Psalmo[^4]: *Timor Domini sanctus permanet in saeculum saeculi*: ergo videtur, quod omnia alia dona maneant, per locum a minori.

**Sed contra:**

1. Habitus donorum ordinantur ad sanandum symptomata, sicut dictum est supra[^5]; sed
<!-- page 750 -->
in patria nulla erit infirmitas: ergo nulla erit donorum necessitas nec utilitas. Si igitur ibi manerent, videtur, quod essent frustra.

2. Item, dona, ut dictum est prius[^6], sunt ad actus medios; sed in patria omnes actus nostri erunt perfecti et ultimati: non erunt igitur in patria habitus donorum, sed potius transibunt in habitus beatitudinum.

3. Item, specialiter ostenditur de dono *intellectus*: si enim per donum intellectus cognoscitur Deus *in* creaturis et *per* creaturas[^7]; cum in patria cognoscatur Deus in sua essentia, videtur, quod donum intellectus non maneat in illa beatitudine summa.

4. Item, obiicitur de dono *consilii*, quia donum consilii est dubitantis et conferentis[^8]: si ergo in patria non erit defectus dubitationis nec decursus collationis, ergo videtur, quod donum *consilii* ibi non habeat reperiri.

5. Item, donum *fortitudinis* expedit nos ad pericula sustinenda[^9]; sed in illa beatitudine non erunt pericula: ergo etc.

6. Item, obiicitur de dono *scientiae*: quia scientia docet « conversari *in medio nationis pravae et perversae* », secundum quod habetur in distinctione sequenti[^10]; sed in patria non erit natio prava et perversa, cum qua sit conversandum: ergo non videtur, quod ibi manere debeat scientiae donum.

7. Item, donum *pietatis* est ad compatiendum proximo[^11]; sed in patria propter summam impassibilitatem nulla poterit esse compassio: aut ergo non erit ibi *pietas*, aut nulla erit illius doni utilitas.

8. Item, donum *timoris* est ad retrahendum a malo[^12]; in patria autem nulla poterit esse ad malum obliquatio: ergo videtur, quod omnino fiat ibi *timoris* evacuatio.

### Conclusio.

> Dona Spiritus sancti manebunt in patria, sed cum actibus excellentioribus, quam sunt in via.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio, sicut dicit Ambrosius et Magister[^13], dona manebunt in patria, verumtamen secundum nobiliores et excellentiores usus et actus, quam sint in via, sicut prius[^14] dictum fuit de cardinalibus virtutibus.

Et *si tu quaeras*, quae sit horum habituum necessitas, cum ad perfectam beatitudinem sufficiat Deum videre et amare et tenere perfecte; attendendum est ad hoc, quod multo maioris abundantiae est perfectio gloriae quam perfectio gratiae; perfectio autem gratiae ratione suae dignitatis et eminentiae tribuit homini omnes habitus facientes ad integritatem iustitiae secundum comparationem variam ad actus et obiecta, et secundum status et opportunitates, quae reperiuntur in statu viae: multo igitur fortius gloria, quae reddit animum per omnia deiformem et bonis omnibus abundantem et in nullo deficientem, habitus perfectos[^15] in anima exigit reperiri secundum omnem ipsius comparationem. Et propterea *virtutes* et *dona* et *beatitudines* quantum ad omnes habitus, qui sunt in statu viae et non habent quid essentiale repugnans perfectioni gloriae, in ipsa gloria perficiuntur et consummantur; et quia omnia *dona* sunt huiusmodi, sicut patet, quia omnia fuerunt in Christo, in quo fuit perfectae beatitudinis plenitudo: hinc est, quod rationabiliter dicitur et communiter tenetur, quod dona in patria non evacuabuntur, sed perfectius remanebunt. — Unde rationes, quae hoc ostendunt, concedendae sunt.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod dona sunt ad sanandum; dicendum, quod perfectae medicinae usus est non tantum in restituendo sanitatem, sed etiam in praeservando et continuando[^16]. Unde dona in statu *innocentiae* fuissent ad sanitatem praeservandam, in statu vero *naturae lapsae* sunt ad sanitatem reparandam, in statu vero *gloriae* erunt ad sanitatem continuandam perpetuo. Licet enim in illo statu non sit aegritudinis curatio, est tamen in illo sempiternae salutis continuatio.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dona sunt ad actus medios, et omnes actus gloriae erunt perfecti; dicendum, quod sicut in statu viae quoddam genus operis dignitate et actu alterum antecellit, sic erit et in statu *gloriae*; sicut etiam possumus videre in membris eiusdem corporis. Unde sicut membra eiusdem corporis omnia perfecta erunt, et tamen unum membrum quodammodo excellentius altero iudicabitur, sicut oculus excellentior pede: sic etiam intelligendum est in patria, quod actus virtutum, donorum et beatitudinum ibidem omnes perficientur; et tamen nihil prohibebit, quod[^17] quantum ad genus
<!-- page 751 -->
operis quidam actus priores, et quidam medii, et quidam ultimi dicantur. Si enim ad omnes bonas operationes et laudabiles animae illi statui convenientes erimus expediti; quid mirum, si in tanta varietate actuum et operum quantum ad genus operis potest unus actus alteri anteponi?

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de dono *intellectus*, dicendum, quod quamvis in statu *viae* donum intellectus fiat per decursum et quandam inquisitionem; in patria tamen erit per simplicem aspectum, ubi Deus in omnibus creaturis videbitur manifeste. Unde, sicut dicit Philosophus[^18], « si essemus supra lunam, non quaereremus, propter quid eclipsaretur, quia videremus simplici aspectu interpositionem terrae »; sic, immo multo excellentius, in proposito intelligendum est.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de dono *consilii*, dicendum, quod in consilio duo sunt, videlicet quaedam partium ponderata discussio, et excellens et stabilis melioris et dignioris *partis electio*; et primum est imperfectionis et tolletur, secundum vero perfectionis et manebit. Primum enim non est de essentia consilii-doni, sed secundum[^19].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de dono *fortitudinis*, quod in patria non manebit, quia nulla sunt ibi pericula sustinenda; dicendum, quod sicut dictum est[^20] de *virtute fortitudinis*, ita de *fortitudine-dono* intelligendum est, quod excellentior eius usus erit in patria. Donum enim fortitudinis disponet ad hoc, quod homo fortiter Deo adhaereat et inseparabiliter, et hoc non tantum secundum sufficientiam, sed etiam secundum excellentiam; et ideo non superfluit in patria.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de dono *scientiae*, dicendum, quod conversari in medio nationis pravae et perversae, hoc est eius, prout est in statu *viae*. In patria vero eius usus erit ad sciendum et discernendum, quomodo et qualiter unusquisque debeat ad alterum se habere, non ad malos, qui erunt extra illam supernam civitatem, sed ad bonos, qui in illa civitate superna per omnia concordabunt[^21].

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de dono *pietatis*, dicendum, quod ad donum pietatis non solummodo spectat compati patienti, sed etiam affectum quendam benignitatis et dulcedinis habere ad omnem hominem, in quo conspicit imaginem Dei; hoc autem non tantum spectat ad statum *viae*, verum etiam ad statum *patriae*, et secundum illum actum manebit, non quantum ad alterum.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur de *timore*, quod non retrahet ibi a malo; dicendum, quod usus timoris non erit ibi quantum ad *mali cautelam*, sed potius quantum ad *summi ardui reverentiam*, ita quod ab illa summa Maiestate faciet resilire in propriam parvitatem. Hoc autem melius manifestabitur, quando infra[^22] quaeretur de dono timoris specialiter; nunc autem tantum sufficiat dixisse de evacuatione donorum in generali.

Possent autem de istis sex problemata formari, ut primo quaereretur de evacuatione doni intellectus, deinde de evacuatione doni consilii, et sic de singulis donis. Melius est tamen de his simul quaerere, propter hoc quod unam generalem habent solutionem; et in distinctione[^23] problematum magis est attendenda solutionis utilitas, quam ratiocinationum verbositas augenda[^24].

---

english:
<!-- page 749 -->

### Question III. *Whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit remain in the Blessed.*

Third, the question is raised concerning the doing-away of the gifts, and the question is whether the gifts remain in the Blessed. And that they do, it seems:

1. By the authority of Ambrose, which the Master sets down in the text[^1], in this place: « The City of God, that heavenly Jerusalem, is washed not by the channel of any earthly river, but the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the fount of life, seems to flow into those heavenly and overflowing spirits, fervent with the full channel of the seven spiritual virtues »; and afterward he expounds that he understands this of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, Christ was the most perfect comprehensor; and yet in him there were all seven gifts, according to what is written in Isaiah, chapter eleven[^2]: therefore it seems that much more strongly can they stand in any other Blessed.

3. Likewise, the habits of the gifts are more perfect than the habits of the cardinal virtues; but the habits of the cardinal virtues will remain in the fatherland, as was shown above[^3]: therefore so too the gifts.

4. Likewise, fear is the most inward gift among all; but fear will remain in the fatherland, according to what is said in the Psalm[^4]: *The holy fear of the Lord remains for ever and ever*: therefore it seems that all the other gifts remain, by an argument from the lesser.

**On the contrary:**

1. The habits of the gifts are ordered to healing the symptoms [of sin], as was said above[^5]; but
<!-- page 750 -->
in the fatherland there will be no infirmity: therefore there will be no necessity nor usefulness of the gifts. If, then, they were to remain there, it seems that they would be in vain.

2. Likewise, the gifts, as was said before[^6], are for intermediate acts; but in the fatherland all our acts will be perfect and final: therefore there will not be in the fatherland the habits of the gifts, but rather they will pass over into the habits of the beatitudes.

3. Likewise, this is shown specially concerning the gift of *understanding*: for if through the gift of understanding God is known *in* creatures and *through* creatures[^7]; since in the fatherland God is known in his essence, it seems that the gift of understanding does not remain in that highest beatitude.

4. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning the gift of *counsel*, since the gift of counsel belongs to one doubting and deliberating[^8]: if, then, in the fatherland there will be no defect of doubting nor course of deliberating, it seems that the gift of *counsel* is not to be found there.

5. Likewise, the gift of *fortitude* equips us to endure dangers[^9]; but in that beatitude there will be no dangers: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning the gift of *knowledge*: for knowledge teaches us to « live *in the midst of a depraved and perverse nation* », according to what is had in the following distinction[^10]; but in the fatherland there will be no depraved and perverse nation with which one must live: therefore it does not seem that the gift of knowledge ought to remain there.

7. Likewise, the gift of *piety* is for having compassion on one's neighbor[^11]; but in the fatherland, on account of the highest impassibility, there can be no compassion: therefore either there will not be *piety* there, or there will be no usefulness of that gift.

8. Likewise, the gift of *fear* is for drawing back from evil[^12]; but in the fatherland there can be no turning aside to evil: therefore it seems that there will come about in that place an utter doing-away of *fear*.

### Conclusion.

> The gifts of the Holy Spirit will remain in the fatherland, but with more excellent acts than they have in the way.

**I respond:** It must be said that, without doubt, as Ambrose and the Master say[^13], the gifts will remain in the fatherland, yet according to nobler and more excellent uses and acts than they have in the way, as was said before[^14] concerning the cardinal virtues.

And *if you ask* what is the necessity of these habits, since for perfect beatitude it suffices to see and love and hold God perfectly; one must attend to this, that the perfection of glory is of much greater abundance than the perfection of grace; but the perfection of grace, by reason of its dignity and eminence, bestows on a human being all the habits making for the integrity of justice according to varied comparison to acts and objects, and according to the states and occasions which are found in the state of the way: much more strongly, then, does glory, which renders the soul wholly deiform and abounding in all goods and deficient in nothing, require perfect habits[^15] to be found in the soul according to its every comparison. And therefore the *virtues* and *gifts* and *beatitudes*, as regards all the habits which are in the state of the way and have nothing essential repugnant to the perfection of glory, are perfected and consummated in glory itself; and since all the *gifts* are of this kind, as is plain, because they were all in Christ, in whom was the fullness of perfect beatitude: hence it is that it is reasonably said and commonly held that the gifts will not be done away in the fatherland, but will remain more perfectly. — Hence the reasons which show this are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected first to the contrary, that the gifts are for healing; it must be said that the use of a perfect medicine consists not only in restoring health, but also in preserving and continuing it[^16]. Hence the gifts would, in the state of *innocence*, have been for preserving health; in the state of *fallen nature* they are for repairing health; in the state of *glory* they will be for continuing health perpetually. For although in that state there is no curing of sickness, yet there is in it a continuation of everlasting salvation.

2. To that which is objected, that the gifts are for intermediate acts, and all the acts of glory will be perfect; it must be said that just as in the state of the way one kind of work surpasses another in dignity and act, so it will be also in the state of *glory*; as we can also see in the members of one and the same body. Hence just as the members of one and the same body will all be perfect, and yet one member will be judged in a certain way more excellent than another, as the eye is more excellent than the foot: so too it is to be understood in the fatherland, that the acts of the virtues, of the gifts, and of the beatitudes will all there be perfected; and yet nothing will prevent that[^17], as regards the kind of
<!-- page 751 -->
work, some acts be called prior, and some intermediate, and some last. For if we shall be equipped for all the good and praiseworthy operations of the soul befitting that state; what wonder if, amid so great a variety of acts and works, as regards the kind of work one act can be set before another?

3. To that which is objected concerning the gift of *understanding*, it must be said that although in the state of the *way* the gift of understanding comes about through a discursive course and a certain inquiry; in the fatherland, however, it will be through a simple gaze, where God will be seen manifestly in all creatures. Hence, as the Philosopher says[^18], « if we were above the moon, we should not ask why it was eclipsed, because we should see by a simple gaze the interposition of the earth »; so, indeed much more excellently, is it to be understood in the matter proposed.

4. To that which is objected concerning the gift of *counsel*, it must be said that in counsel there are two things, namely a certain weighed discussion of the alternatives, and an excellent and stable *choice of the better and worthier part*; and the first belongs to imperfection and will be taken away, but the second belongs to perfection and will remain. For the first is not of the essence of the gift of counsel, but the second[^19].

5. To that which is objected concerning the gift of *fortitude*, that it will not remain in the fatherland because there are no dangers to be endured there; it must be said that just as was said[^20] concerning the *virtue of fortitude*, so is it to be understood of the *gift of fortitude*, namely that its use will be more excellent in the fatherland. For the gift of fortitude will dispose [a person] to this, that one cleave to God bravely and inseparably, and this not only according to sufficiency, but also according to excellence; and therefore it is not superfluous in the fatherland.

6. To that which is objected concerning the gift of *knowledge*, it must be said that to live in the midst of a depraved and perverse nation is of it [the gift] as it is in the state of the *way*. But in the fatherland its use will be for knowing and discerning how and in what manner each one ought to bear himself toward another, not toward the wicked, who will be outside that supernal city, but toward the good, who in that supernal city will be in all things in concord[^21].

7. To that which is objected concerning the gift of *piety*, it must be said that to the gift of piety it belongs not only to have compassion on one suffering, but also to have a certain affection of kindness and sweetness toward every human being in whom one beholds the image of God; and this belongs not only to the state of the *way*, but also to the state of the *fatherland*, and according to that act it will remain, though not according to the other.

8. To that which is objected concerning *fear*, that it will not there draw back from evil; it must be said that the use of fear will not be there as regards *caution against evil*, but rather as regards *reverence for the highest height*, such that it will make [a person] recoil from that highest Majesty into one's own littleness. But this will be better made manifest when, below[^22], the question is raised concerning the gift of fear specially; for now let it suffice only to have spoken of the doing-away of the gifts in general.

Now from these six [gifts] problems could be formed, so that first the question would be raised concerning the doing-away of the gift of understanding, then concerning the doing-away of the gift of counsel, and so of the individual gifts. It is better, however, to inquire about these together, because they have one general solution; and in the distinguishing[^23] of problems the usefulness of the solution is more to be attended to than the wordiness of reasonings is to be increased[^24].

---

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2 [of Lombard's text].

la: Vers. 2. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — In hac arg. pro *potius* nonnulli codd. A K N *possunt*.

en: Verse 2. Cf. here Lombard's text, c. 3. — In this argument, for *potius* several codices, A K N, read *possunt*.

la: Dist. 33. q. 6. — Maior probata est supra n. 1. q. 3. — Post *sed habitus* codd. A U adiiciunt *virtutum*.

en: Distinction 33, q. 6. — The major was proved above in n. 1, q. 3. — After *sed habitus* codices A U add *virtutum*.

la: Psalm. 18, 10. — Pro *permanet* edd. et nonnulli codd. cum Vulgata *permanens*. — Cfr. infra p. II, huius dist. q. 3. — De loco *a minori* vide tom. I. pag. 833, nota 5.

en: Psalm 18, 10. — For *permanet* the editions and several codices, with the Vulgate, read *permanens*. — Cf. below p. II of this distinction, q. 3. — On the argument *from the lesser* see tom. I, p. 833, note 5.

la: Art. 1. q. 1. — In fine arg. post *quod essent* cod. A subdit *ibi*.

en: Article 1, q. 1. — At the end of the argument, after *quod essent*, codex A subjoins *ibi*.

en: Article 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XXXV. c. 2, et ibid. Comment. q. 3.

en: Cf. below Lombard's text, d. XXXV, c. 2, and there the Commentary, q. 3.

la: Secundum Damascenum; vide infra d. 35. q. 1. arg. 2. ad oppos. — Pro *obiicitur* cod. U *ostenditur*. Mox pro *dubitationis* codd. U Z *dubietatis*, et pro *decursus* codd. I L R S aa *defectus*, edd. *discursus* (cfr. supra pag. 686, nota 2.).

en: According to the Damascene; see below d. 35, q. 1, arg. 2 ad oppositum. — For *obiicitur* codex U reads *ostenditur*. Then for *dubitationis* codices U Z read *dubietatis*, and for *decursus* codices I L R S aa read *defectus*, the editions *discursus* (cf. above p. 686, note 2.).

la: Cfr. infra d. 33. q. 5.

en: Cf. below [recte: above] d. 33, q. 5.

la: Lit. Magistri, c. I. Cfr. ibid. Comment. q. 2. Respicitur Phil. 2, 15.

en: Lombard's text, c. I. Cf. there the Commentary, q. 2. The reference is to Philippians 2, 15.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 35. q. 6. — Mox pro *poterit* cod. K *debet*.

en: As is shown below d. 35, q. 6. — Then for *poterit* codex K reads *debet*.

la: Prov. 15, 27: *Per timorem autem Domini declinat omnis a malo.*

en: Proverbs 15, 27: *And by the fear of the Lord everyone turns aside from evil.*

la: Hic c. 2. et 3, ubi etiam Ambrosii verba habentur.

en: Here, c. 2 and 3, where also the words of Ambrose are had.

la: Dist. 33. q. 6. — Mox pro *Et si tu quaeras* [edd. *dicas*] cod. O *Et si quis quaerat*. Paulo inferius pro *perfectio autem* cod. K *cum ergo perfectio*.

en: Distinction 33, q. 6. — Then for *Et si tu quaeras* [editions *dicas*] codex O reads *Et si quis quaerat*. A little below, for *perfectio autem* codex K reads *cum ergo perfectio*.

la: Codd. H U V Y Z aa bb *perfectionis*. Inferius pro *quid essentiale* cod. K *esse essentiale*.

en: Codices H U V Y Z aa bb read *perfectionis*. Below, for *quid essentiale* codex K reads *esse essentiale*.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 7. n. 10: *Duo sunt officia medicinae, unum quo sanatur infirmitas, alterum quo sanitas custoditur.* — De proposit. seq. cfr. II. Sent. d. 29. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Post pauca pro *reparandam* cod. K *recuperandam*.

en: Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 7, n. 10: *There are two offices of medicine, one by which infirmity is healed, the other by which health is guarded.* — On the following matter cf. II Sent. d. 29, a. 3, q. 1 seq. — A little after, for *reparandam* codex K reads *recuperandam*.

la: Codd. X Y *quin*. Paulo ante pro *perficientur* plures codd. *perficiuntur*, edd. *perficiantur*. Circa finem solut. pro *et operum* codd. A K *et operationum*, et subinde pariter pro *operis* cod. X *operationis*; demum pro *anteponi* cod. A *praeponi*.

en: Codices X Y read *quin*. A little before, for *perficientur* several codices read *perficiuntur*, the editions *perficiantur*. Toward the end of the solution, for *et operum* codices A K read *et operationum*, and likewise thereafter for *operis* codex X reads *operationis*; finally for *anteponi* codex A reads *praeponi*.

la: Libr. I. Poster. c. 24. (c. 31.), ubi ad demonstrandum, quod sensui non conveniat scientia proprie dicta, ait: « Quoniam si esset sentire triangulum, quod duobus rectis haberet aequales angulos, quaereremus utique demonstrationem... Sentire enim necesse est *singulariter*, scientia autem est in cognoscendo *universaliter*. Unde etsi super lunam essemus et videremus obiectam terram, non utique sciremus causam defectus; sentiremus enim, quoniam deficeret [in hoc particulari] casu, sed non propter quid omnino [universaliter]; non enim universalis [notitia] sensus » etc. Loquitur ergo Aristoteles de cognitione *universali*, s. 1: ventura autem de cognitione *particulari*. Cfr. supra pag. 742, nota 5. — Inferius pro *excellentius* cod. U *fortius*.

en: Posterior Analytics I, c. 24 (c. 31), where, to demonstrate that knowledge properly so called does not befit sense, [Aristotle] says: « For if it were to sense a triangle that it had angles equal to two right angles, we should still seek a demonstration... For to sense is necessarily *singular*, but knowledge is in knowing *universally*. Hence even if we were above the moon and saw the earth set before us, we should still not know the cause of the eclipse; for we should sense that it was failing [in this particular] case, but not on account of what universally; for the knowledge of sense is not universal » etc. Therefore Aristotle is speaking of *universal* cognition; but the coming [text speaks] of *particular* cognition. Cf. above p. 742, note 5. — Below, for *excellentius* codex U reads *fortius*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 35. q. 1. ad 2.

en: Cf. below d. 35, q. 1, ad 2.

la: Dist. 33. q. 6. Cfr. ibid. lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Distinction 33, q. 6. Cf. there Lombard's text, c. 3.

la: Edd. *concordabuntur*.

en: The editions read *concordabuntur*.

la: Part. II. huius dist. a. 2. q. 3. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 8.

en: Part II of this distinction, a. 2, q. 3. Cf. here Lombard's text, c. 3 and 8.

la: Cod. A *definitione*, Vat. *determinatione*, quae etiam in fine solut. cum aliquibus codd. (plures codd. hic sunt dubiae lectionis) pro *augenda* substituit *augmentanda*.

en: Codex A reads *definitione*, the Vatican edition *determinatione*, which also at the end of the solution, with some codices (several codices here are of doubtful reading), substitutes *augmentanda* for *augenda*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance / rename.** This chunk was RENAMED via `git mv` from `bon-sent-III-d34-p1-a1-q3-dup2.md` (commit history preserved). The auto-chunker mislabeled DISTINCTIO XXXIV, PARS I, ARTICULUS II's three questions as a duplicate `a1-q1/q2/q3-dup2` triple; they are in fact **a2-q1/q2/q3** (*De donis in comparatione ad se invicem*). This is **ARTICULUS II QUAESTIO III** = the third member of the ART. II TRACTATIO (*Primo de donorum numero et distinctione; Secundo de ordine et combinatione; **Tertio de evacuatione sive duratione***). **Alignment PASS 1:1**: TRACTATIO Tertio (*evacuatio/duratio*) = QUAESTIO III opener *Tertio quaeritur de donorum evacuatione, et est quaestio, utrum dona maneant in Beatis*; title from the QUAESTIO III header *Utrum dona Spiritus sancti maneant in Beatis*. **CLOSES PARS I ARTICULUS II** (and the last quaestio of p. I before `d34-p1-dubia`).

**Latin source.** Re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`tools/colcrop.py vol3 749|750|751`, Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion) cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 52040–52172. Read L-column top→bottom then R-column for each page; body bands then footer bands.

**Page-split map (printed pp. 749–751; PDF 771–773; offset pdf = printed + 22; running-head TEXT trusted over OCR'd digits):**
- **p.749** (R-column lower, beneath q2's scholion §II): QUAESTIO III header + *Fundamenta* args 1–4 (pro) + *Sed contra* arg 1 opener.
- **p.750**: *Sed contra* args 1(tail)–8 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo + Ad 1 + Ad 2 opener.
- **p.751** (L+R, running head `DIST. XXXIV. P. I. DUBIA.`): Ad 2(tail) + Ad 3–8 + closing *Possent autem… verbositas augenda*. The `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header (raw 52173) immediately follows → `d34-p1-dubia`.

**Apparatus (24-entry NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart, renumbered continuous):**
- **p.749 nn.3–7 → [^1]–[^5]** — **PICKED UP** from d34-p1-a2-q2's forwarded footer hand-off (q2 kept p.749 nn.1–2; q3 claims nn.3–7, anchoring `littera¹`, Isaiae `undecimo²`, `supra⁵`, `Psalmo⁶`, `supra⁷` in q3's args). q2 independently carried its own *lit. Magistri c. 5* clause on the shared page; not re-claimed here.
- **p.750 nn.1–12 → [^6]–[^17]** (own band; [^6]=Art.1 q.1 for arg 2 *prius*; [^16]=Augustine *Duo sunt officia medicinae*).
- **p.751 nn.1–7 → [^18]–[^24]** ([^18]=Aristotle *Post. Anal.* I; [^19]=*infra d.35 q.1 ad 2*; [^24]=*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* = the scholion redirect). p.751 nn.8–10 belong to the following `d34-p1-dubia` (Dub. I), NOT claimed.

Marker pairing 24/24 clean (Latin and English bodies).

**Scholion disposition — `has_scholion: false` → REDIRECT to q2's scholion §II.** q3's range (raw 52040–52172) carries **no `SCHOLION.` header**; instead p.751 n.7 (`[^24]`) reads *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* As the q2→q3 hand-off predicted, d34-p1-a2-q2's OWN scholion §II (*Circa seq. (3.) quaestionem…*) previews exactly q3's matter (the gifts remaining in the Beati; S. Thom. hic q. 1. a. 3 / Durand. hic q. 3 dispute), so q3 redirects there rather than printing its own.

**Footer hand-offs:**
- **PICKED UP:** p.749 footer nn.3–7 from d34-p1-a2-q2 (→ [^1]–[^5]).
- **FORWARDED to d34-p1-dubia:** NOTHING of the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM family. q3 closes clean on p.751 R-column at *…verbositas augenda*; the DUBIA opens a fresh band (p.751 nn.8–10 already anchor Dub. I's `quare⁸`/`sexagesimo sexto⁹`, plus its own p.752 band).

**`[?]` flags:** NONE. All three pages legible at 450 dpi.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 34, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 753 -->

### Articulus I. *De timore informi sive servili.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum timor servilis sit donum Spiritus sancti divinitus datum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur de timore servili per comparationem ad eius principium, utrum scilicet sit donum Spiritus sancti divinitus datum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per Glossam super illud ad Romanos octavo[^1]: *Non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore;* ibi Glossa: «Cave, ne ex eo quod ait spiritum servitutis et spiritum adoptionis, diversum intelligas spiritum, cum sit unus atque idem Spiritus»: si ergo spiritus adoptionis est donum Spiritus sancti, ex hac Glossa videtur necessario posse concludi, quod ab eodem sit timor servilis.

<!-- page 754 -->

2. *Item*, Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera: «Bonus est timor servilis et utilis, per quem fit paulatim consuetudo iustitiae»; sed *omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum est desursum:* ergo timor servilis desursum descendit.

3. *Item*, hoc ipsum videtur probari auctoritate veteris Testamenti, quia, sicut dicitur Ecclesiastici primo: *Radix sapientiae est timere Deum;* et Proverbiorum decimo quinto: *In timore Domini declinat omnis a malo;* et Isaiae vigesimo sexto: *A timore tuo, Domine, concepimus et parturivimus spiritum salutis:* si ergo timor servilis est initium sapientiae et facit declinare a malo et bonum concipere, et hoc totum non est nisi a dono Dei; videtur ergo, quod timor servilis sit donum Spiritus sancti.

4. *Item*, non solum a Deo est gratia *cooperans,* sed etiam gratia voluntatem *praeparans:* ergo non solummodo a Deo erit timor ille qui regit hominem in statu iustitiae, sed etiam qui praeparat ad illum statum: cum ergo timor servilis sit huiusmodi, videtur, quod timor servilis sit donum Spiritus sancti.

5. *Item*, plus est timere Deum quam credere — multi enim credunt, qui non timent — sed fides, qua quis credit, etiam in statu peccati datur homini desursum: ergo et donum, per quod timet. Sed timor servilis est huiusmodi: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:**

1. Omne donum Spiritus sancti potest stare cum Spiritu sancto, quia Spiritus sanctus non repugnat suis donis; sed quando Spiritus sanctus infunditur, tunc timor servilis expellitur, sicut dicit Augustinus, et habetur in littera: ergo timor servilis non est donum Spiritus sancti.

2. *Item*, omne donum Spiritus sancti habet exemplar correspondens in Deo: sed timor servilis non habet exemplar correspondens in Deo, nec in quantum timor nec in quantum servilis — in Deo enim nullus est pavor, nulla est servitus — ergo etc.

3. *Item*, omne donum Spiritus sancti datur ad habilitandum animam ad aliquid arduum et excellens; sed timor potius consistit in depressione quam in aliqua erectione, et potius est ex virtutis indigentia quam ex sufficientia: videtur ergo, quod timor servilis non sit donum Spiritus sancti.

4. *Item*, sicut contingit Deum timere propter poenas, quas infligit; sic etiam contingit amare propter beneficia, quae nobis tribuit etiam in statu peccati; sed amor ille, qui est propter temporalia, non ponitur inter Spiritus sancti dona: ergo nec timor servilis, qui principaliter habet oculum ad poenam.

5. *Item*, sicut aliquis dimittit transgredi mandata Dei propter timorem poenarum aeternarum, sic latro dimittit transgredi edictum regis propter timorem furcarum; sed timor, quo latro timet furari, ne suspendatur, non ponitur esse donum Spiritus sancti: ergo similiter videtur de illo timore, quo quis timet peccare, ne aeternaliter puniatur, immo videtur multo fortiori ratione, quia, si malum facilius timetur, maius malum multo facilius timetur. Cum ergo maius malum sint poenae aeternae quam temporales; si non egemus dono ad timendum poenas temporales, multo magis videtur, quod non indigeamus ad timendum poenas aeternas.

*[In solo cod. S hic adiiciuntur sequentes 9 argumenta ad oppositum, quorum solutiones infra in fine quaestionis apponuntur:]*

6. *Item*, dicit Gregorius, quod dona dantur in adiutorium potentiarum animae contra defectus ex peccato contractos; sed timor non dicit adiutorium potentiam aliquam roborans, sed potius defectum et desperationem adiutorii: ergo etc. Minor patet per illud Sapientiae decimo septimo: *Nihil... est timor nisi praesumptionis adiutorium, proditio cogitationis auxiliorum;* sensus enim huius definitionis secundum expositores est, quod timor adiuvat praesumere mala, id est suspicari incommoda, et prodit, id est subtrahit vel deficit, secundum quod traditor dicitur proditor cogitationis de auxilio.

7. *Item*, ad quod sufficit natura non solum humana, sed quaecumque, non indiget dono; sed omnis natura naturaliter timet poenas, quas sibi suspicatur inferendas, et fugit eas, quantum potest: ergo non indiget homo hoc dono. — Quodsi dicat, quod indiget dono ad credendum poenas aeternas, quas non videt nec experitur; contra hoc est, quod istud non pertinet ad timorem, sed ad fidem.

8. *Item*, super illud Psalmi: *In te, Domine, speravi* etc.; Glossa: «Spes a Deo est et donum Dei; quod autem times, est a te ipso»; sed quod homo a se habet non reputatur inter dona Dei nec completa nec incompleta, prout modo loquimur: ergo timor non est donum.

9. *Item*, omnia dona fuerunt in Christo; timor servilis non: ergo etc.

10. *Item*, dona sunt bona maxima; non timor servilis.

11. *Item*, quod tollit a bono rationem boni, non est donum Dei: hoc facit timor, quia, etsi bonum est quod facit quis tali timore, non tamen bene facit, ut dicitur in littera.

12. *Item*, Dionysius: «Optimi est optima adducere»; et Iacobi primo: *Omne datum optimum* etc.; sed talis timor non est optimus.

13. *Item*, Damascenus: Timor est desiderium secundum systolen, id est contractionem et depressionem, movens; dona autem Dei exigunt et extendunt animam: ergo non est donum.

14. *Item*, si dicat, quod est donum incompletum; contra: incompletum, cum accedit ad completum, fit pars completi et de eius substantia; timor servilis non, immo recedit, veniente caritate: ergo non est etc.

<!-- page 755 -->

### Conclusio.

> Timor servilis est donum Spiritus sancti, licet imperfectum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio timor servilis est donum Spiritus sancti. — Et ratio huius est: quoniam, sicut donum Dei est nosse sive credere poenas futuras[^2], pro eo quod est ibi quaedam cordis illuminatio et directio; sic donum Dei est illas poenas aeternas refugere et timere, pro eo quod ex tali dono est quaedam cordis emollitio, et fluxus concupiscentialis restrictio, et in hoc quaedam rectificatio. Quod enim ibi sit *emollitio,* satis innuit Isaias[^3] propheta, cum dicit: *Indurasti cor nostrum, ut non timeremus te.* Quod ibi sit *fluxus concupiscentialis restrictio,* innuit Propheta in Psalmo, cum dicit: *Confige timore tuo carnes meas;* quod quidem non solum fit timore casto, sed etiam servili, quo timentur aeterna supplicia, et timentur divina iudicia. Et propter illorum timorem cessat homo a peccatorum perpetratione, licet non omnino cesset a voluntate, sicut dicit Glossa[^4]; quod totum est ex divino munere. — Ideo concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae.

1. *Ad illud* ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod timor servilis non manet cum Spiritu sancto; dicendum, quod dona Spiritus sancti sunt in multiplici differentia. Quoddam namque donum est a Spiritu sancto, sed non cum Spiritu sancto, quia praeparat ad Spiritum sanctum; et tale donum est timor servilis secundum quod huiusmodi. Quoddam autem est donum, quod est a Spiritu sancto et semper cum Spiritu sancto, quia per ipsum consecratur habitaculum Spiritui sancto, sicut est donum caritatis. Quoddam vero est donum, quod est a Spiritu sancto et aliquando cum Spiritu sancto, aliquando sine Spiritu sancto, sicut donum, quod est ad Spiritus sancti manifestationem, et est ordinatum non solum ad propriam utilitatem, sed etiam ad alienam, sicut donum prophetiae et donum scientiae, quae aliquando in bonis, aliquando in malis reperiri habent. — Cum ergo dicitur, quod donum Spiritus sancti compatitur se cum Spiritu sancto; dicendum, quod illud habet instantiam in eo dono, quod ordinatur ad habitationem Spiritui sancto praeparandam. — Posset etiam aliter dici, quod timor servilis, etsi in quantum servilis est, non possit stare cum Spiritu sancto propter annexam imperfectionem, quae dicit repugnantiam ad statum gratiae; tamen quantum ad *aliquid sui* nihil prohibet ipsum cum Spiritu sancto stare, sicut infra[^5] melius manifestabitur; et quantum ad hoc est donum eius.

2. *Ad illud* quod obiicitur, quod omne donum Spiritus sancti habet exemplar correspondens in Deo; dicendum, quod si illud *specialiter* intelligatur quantum ad omnem eius proprietatem, sic non est verum; sed si *generaliter* intelligatur, utpote quod dicatur illud habere exemplar in Deo, quod habet aliquid *correspondens* sibi vel secundum se, vel secundum suum genus: sic veritatem habere potest. Et hoc modo timor potest habere exemplar in Deo, quia qui timet elongatur a malo et stat intra fines proprios, ita quod supra se non erigitur. Utrumque autem istorum contingit reperire in Deo, quia Deus a malo maxime elongatur et nullo modo supra se ipsum erigitur: ideo, dum per timorem Deo subiicimur, eidem assimilamur; et talis assimilatio sufficit ad hoc, quod timor habeat sufficientem rationem doni.

3. *Ad illud* quod obiicitur, quod omne donum Spiritus sancti datur ad habilitandum animam ad aliquod arduum et excellens; dicendum, quod sicut inordinate amare est magnae lasciviae, sed ordinate amare est magnae virtutis et excellentiae; sic inordinate timere est segnitiei et ignaviae, ordinate vero timere magnae est excellentiae[^6]. Qui enim Deum veraciter timet nihil terrenum et caducum timet, immo ex ipso timore Dei ipsis timoribus supereffertur. Ideo, licet actus timoris videatur pertinere ad quandam defectibilitatem, secundum veritatem tamen pertinet ad excellentiam et nobilitatem; et quia in timore servili incipit homo Deum ipsum timere, hinc est, quod donum Spiritus sancti est, licet imperfectum.

<!-- page 756 -->

4. *Ad illud* quod obiicitur, quod sicut contingit Deum timere propter poenas, ita et amare propter beneficia; dicendum, quod sicut[^7] beneficia quaedam sunt praesentia, quaedam futura, quaedam, quae videntur, quaedam, quae exspectantur; sic etiam et poenae. Et si quis timeat Deum solummodo propter poenas praesentes, quas iam expertus est, hoc non habet necessario ex dono; sed cum timet propter supplicia futura, quae credit infligenda esse omnibus qui contemnunt divinam iustitiam: sic et in amore[^9] intelligendum est, quod amor aeternorum bonorum etiam donum Dei est; amor vero praesentium potest esse ex ipso naturali affectu. Et ideo ex hoc non potest concludi, quod timor servilis non sit donum, quia timore servili non timentur tantum temporalia supplicia, sed etiam aeterna, sicut tactum est supra.

5. *Ad illud* quod obiicitur de latrone, qui timet furari propter suspendium; dicendum, quod non est simile, sicut iam tactum est, quia naturali cognitione et aestimatione latro cognoscit illud supplicium[^8][^10] et reformidat; non sic autem est de supplicio infernali, immo oportet, quod iuvetur per fidem; et amplius, quod cor quodam modo mollificetur, ut exhorreat illa supplicia ad fidei instinctum. Propterea ratio illa non valet, quia non est simile hinc et inde[^11].

*[Solutiones argumentorum cod. S, quae supra (pag. 754, nota 8) in eodem relato adiunguntur:]*

*Ad sextum:* quod loquitur ibi de timore desperationis; et iste non est timor servilis, quia per eum non vitatur peccatum, sed in omne peccatum inciditur, secundum illud Ieremiae decimo octavo: *Desperavimus; post cogitationes enim... ibimus, et unusquisque pravitatem cordis sui mali faciemus.*

*Ad septimum [lege octavum],* sicut patet ibi in Glossa, loquitur ibi de timore naturali, scilicet mortis.

*Ad septimum,* quod licet natura fugiat poenas infligendas, non tamen voluntas semper fugit delectationes, per quas venitur ad poenas; tum quia ad utrumque est et domina sui eligit quod vult; tum quia succumbit delectationibus non victa, sed allecta et absorpta; tum quia non sic ita immediate colligatur delectatio et poena ei debita, quin speret utrumque, scilicet habere delectationem et effugere huiusmodi poenam per poenitentiam, vel alio modo.

*Nonum et decimum* probant, quod non est donum completum.

*Ad undecimum,* non tollit ab eo rationem boni, sed boni meritorii, hoc est, etsi bonum, non tamen bene.

*Ad duodecimum,* Deus, in quantum in ipso est, semper dat optima, sed quando non recipimus ex toto, dat secundum partem, quantum volumus capere, ut nullus sit expers donorum eius.

*Ad decimum tertium,* patet ex solutione tertii.

*Ad decimum quartum,* substantia incompleti, secundum quam est materiale vel dispositionis ad completum, manet in completo, sed non sub ratione incompleti nec sub dispositione oppositi. Quidquid igitur est in timore servili, propter quod dicitur donum Dei, ut fides et fuga poenae aeternae, manet cum caritate, sed eius servilitas et imperfectio non. Exemplum: embryo sub ratione embryonis non manet, non fides informis sub ratione informis sub formata.

english:
### Article I. *On unformed or servile fear.*
### Question I. *Whether servile fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit divinely given.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and inquiry is made about servile fear in comparison to its principle, namely whether it is a gift of the Holy Spirit divinely given. And that it is, seems [to be the case]:

1. *First*, by the Gloss on that text to the Romans, chapter eight[^1]: *You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear;* there the Gloss says: «Beware, lest from the fact that it speaks of the spirit of bondage and the spirit of adoption, you understand a diverse Spirit, since it is one and the same Spirit»: if therefore the spirit of adoption is a gift of the Holy Spirit, from this Gloss it seems it can necessarily be concluded that servile fear is from the same [Spirit].

2. *Likewise*, Augustine says, and it is contained in the [Master's] text: «Servile fear is good and useful, through which little by little the habit of justice comes about»; but *every best gift and every perfect gift is from above:* therefore servile fear descends from above.

3. *Likewise*, this same thing seems to be proved by the authority of the Old Testament, because, as is said in Ecclesiasticus chapter one: *The root of wisdom is to fear God;* and Proverbs chapter fifteen: *In the fear of the Lord everyone turns away from evil;* and Isaiah chapter twenty-six: *From thy fear, O Lord, we have conceived and brought forth the spirit of salvation:* if therefore servile fear is the beginning of wisdom and makes one turn away from evil and conceive good, and all this is only from a gift of God; it seems therefore that servile fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

4. *Likewise*, not only is *cooperating* grace from God, but also the grace *preparing* the will: therefore not only from God will be that fear which governs man in the state of justice, but also that which prepares for that state: since therefore servile fear is of this kind, it seems that servile fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

5. *Likewise*, it is more to fear God than to believe — for many believe who do not fear — but the faith by which one believes is given to man from above even in the state of sin: therefore also the gift by which he fears. But servile fear is of this kind: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Every gift of the Holy Spirit can stand together with the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is not at variance with his own gifts; but when the Holy Spirit is infused, then servile fear is expelled, as Augustine says, and it is contained in the [Master's] text: therefore servile fear is not a gift of the Holy Spirit.

2. *Likewise*, every gift of the Holy Spirit has a corresponding exemplar in God: but servile fear has no corresponding exemplar in God, neither insofar as it is fear nor insofar as it is servile — for in God there is no dread, no servitude — therefore etc.

3. *Likewise*, every gift of the Holy Spirit is given to dispose the soul to something arduous and excellent; but fear consists rather in a lowering than in any raising up, and is rather from a lack of virtue than from sufficiency: it seems therefore that servile fear is not a gift of the Holy Spirit.

4. *Likewise*, just as it happens that one fears God on account of the punishments which he inflicts, so also it happens that one loves [God] on account of the benefits which he bestows on us even in the state of sin; but that love which is on account of temporal things is not placed among the gifts of the Holy Spirit: therefore neither is servile fear, which principally has its eye on punishment.

5. *Likewise*, just as someone refrains from transgressing the commandments of God on account of the fear of eternal punishments, so the thief refrains from transgressing the king's edict on account of the fear of the gallows; but the fear by which the thief fears to steal, lest he be hanged, is not held to be a gift of the Holy Spirit: therefore it seems likewise concerning that fear by which one fears to sin, lest he be eternally punished — indeed it seems so with much stronger reason, because, if a lesser evil is feared easily, a greater evil is feared much more easily. Since therefore eternal punishments are a greater evil than temporal ones; if we have no need of a gift for fearing temporal punishments, much more it seems that we do not need one for fearing eternal punishments.

*[In codex S alone the following nine arguments to the contrary are here added, whose solutions are supplied below at the end of the question:]*

6. *Likewise*, Gregory says that the gifts are given as an aid to the powers of the soul against the defects contracted from sin; but fear does not denote an aid strengthening some power, but rather a defect and despair of aid: therefore etc. The minor is clear from that text of Wisdom chapter seventeen: *Fear is nothing... but a betrayal of the succours which reason offers* [lit. an aid of presumption, a betrayal of the thought of helps]; for the sense of this definition according to the expositors is that fear "aids" one to presume evils, that is, to suspect troubles, and "betrays," that is, withdraws or fails, in the sense in which a traitor is called a betrayer of the counsel concerning aid.

7. *Likewise*, that for which nature suffices — not only human nature, but any nature — needs no gift; but every nature naturally fears the punishments which it suspects will be inflicted upon it, and flees them as much as it can: therefore man does not need this gift. — But if one should say that he needs a gift for believing in eternal punishments, which he does not see nor experience; against this is that that pertains not to fear but to faith.

8. *Likewise*, on that text of the Psalm: *In thee, O Lord, have I hoped* etc.; the Gloss says: «Hope is from God and a gift of God; but what you fear is from yourself»; but what man has from himself is not reckoned among the gifts of God, neither complete nor incomplete, in the way we are now speaking: therefore fear is not a gift.

9. *Likewise*, all the gifts were in Christ; servile fear was not: therefore etc.

10. *Likewise*, the gifts are the greatest goods; servile fear is not.

11. *Likewise*, that which takes away from a good the character of good is not a gift of God: this fear does, because, although what one does by such fear is good, nevertheless he does not do it well, as is said in the [Master's] text.

12. *Likewise*, Dionysius says: «It belongs to the best to bring about the best»; and James chapter one: *Every best gift* etc.; but such fear is not best.

13. *Likewise*, Damascene says: Fear is a desire moving according to a *systole,* that is, a contraction and lowering; but the gifts of God demand and stretch out the soul: therefore it is not a gift.

14. *Likewise*, if one should say that it is an incomplete gift; on the contrary: the incomplete, when it approaches the complete, becomes a part of the complete and of its substance; servile fear does not, but rather recedes when charity comes: therefore it is not etc.

### Conclusion.

> Servile fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit, though an imperfect one.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt servile fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit. — And the reason for this is: that just as it is a gift of God to know or to believe in future punishments[^2], inasmuch as there is therein a certain illumination and direction of the heart; so it is a gift of God to flee and fear those eternal punishments, inasmuch as from such a gift there is a certain softening of the heart, and a restriction of the flux of concupiscence, and in this a certain rectification. That there is a *softening* therein, Isaiah[^3] the prophet sufficiently intimates when he says: *Thou hast hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee.* That there is therein a *restriction of the flux of concupiscence,* the Prophet intimates in the Psalm when he says: *Pierce thou my flesh with thy fear;* which indeed comes about not only through chaste fear, but also through servile fear, by which eternal torments are feared, and the divine judgments are feared. And on account of the fear of those things man ceases from the perpetration of sins, though he does not entirely cease from the will [to sin], as the Gloss says[^4]; all of which is from the divine gift. — Therefore the reasons brought forward for this side are to be granted.

1. *To that* which is first objected to the contrary, that servile fear does not remain with the Holy Spirit; it must be said that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are of manifold difference. For a certain gift is *from* the Holy Spirit, but not *with* the Holy Spirit, because it prepares for the Holy Spirit; and such a gift is servile fear as such. But a certain other is a gift which is from the Holy Spirit and always with the Holy Spirit, because through it the dwelling-place is consecrated to the Holy Spirit, as is the gift of charity. And a certain other is a gift which is from the Holy Spirit and sometimes with the Holy Spirit, sometimes without the Holy Spirit, as the gift which is for the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and is ordered not only to one's own utility but also to another's, as the gift of prophecy and the gift of knowledge, which may be found at times in the good, at times in the wicked. — When therefore it is said that a gift of the Holy Spirit is compatible with the Holy Spirit; it must be said that this finds its counter-instance in that gift which is ordered to preparing the dwelling for the Holy Spirit. — It could also be said otherwise, that servile fear, although insofar as it is servile it cannot stand with the Holy Spirit on account of the imperfection annexed to it, which denotes a repugnance to the state of grace; nevertheless as to *something of itself* nothing prevents it from standing with the Holy Spirit, as will be made clearer below[^5]; and as to this it is a gift of his.

2. *To that* which is objected, that every gift of the Holy Spirit has a corresponding exemplar in God; it must be said that if this be understood *specially,* as to its every property, thus it is not true; but if it be understood *generally,* namely that that is said to have an exemplar in God which has something *corresponding* to it either in itself or according to its genus: thus it can hold true. And in this way fear can have an exemplar in God, because he who fears is removed from evil and stands within his own bounds, so that he does not raise himself above himself. But both of these are found in God, because God is most removed from evil and in no way raises himself above himself: therefore, while through fear we subject ourselves to God, we are assimilated to him; and such an assimilation suffices for fear to have a sufficient character of a gift.

3. *To that* which is objected, that every gift of the Holy Spirit is given to dispose the soul to something arduous and excellent; it must be said that just as to love inordinately is a mark of great wantonness, but to love ordinately is a mark of great virtue and excellence; so to fear inordinately is a mark of sloth and cowardice, but to fear ordinately is a mark of great excellence[^6]. For he who truly fears God fears nothing earthly and perishable, but rather from the very fear of God is borne up above those fears. Therefore, although the act of fear may seem to pertain to a certain defectibility, in truth nevertheless it pertains to excellence and nobility; and because in servile fear man begins to fear God himself, hence it is that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, though an imperfect one.

4. *To that* which is objected, that just as it happens that one fears God on account of punishments, so also one loves [God] on account of benefits; it must be said that just as[^7] certain benefits are present, certain future, certain that are seen, certain that are awaited; so also are punishments. And if anyone should fear God only on account of present punishments which he has already experienced, this he does not have necessarily from a gift; but when he fears on account of future torments, which he believes are to be inflicted on all who despise the divine justice: so too in love[^9] it must be understood that the love of eternal goods is also a gift of God; but the love of present things can be from the natural affection itself. And therefore from this it cannot be concluded that servile fear is not a gift, because by servile fear not only temporal torments are feared, but also eternal ones, as has been touched on above.

5. *To that* which is objected concerning the thief, who fears to steal on account of hanging; it must be said that it is not similar, as has already been touched on, because by natural cognition and estimation the thief knows that punishment[^8][^10] and dreads it; but it is not so concerning infernal punishment, but rather it is necessary that one be aided by faith; and further, that the heart be in some way softened, so that it may shrink from those torments at the instinct of faith. Therefore that argument is not valid, because there is no likeness on the one side and the other.[^11]

*[The solutions of the arguments of codex S, which are added above (p. 754, note 8) in the same place where it is reported:]*

*To the sixth:* that it there speaks of the fear of despair; and that is not servile fear, because through it sin is not avoided, but one falls into every sin, according to that text of Jeremiah chapter eighteen: *We have despaired; for after our own thoughts we will go, and we will do every one [the wickedness] of his evil heart.*

*To the seventh [read: the eighth],* as is clear there in the Gloss, it there speaks of natural fear, namely of death.

*To the seventh,* that although nature flees punishments that are to be inflicted, nevertheless the will does not always flee the pleasures through which one comes to punishments; both because it is mistress of both and chooses what it wills; both because it succumbs to pleasures not conquered but allured and absorbed; both because pleasure and the punishment due to it are not so immediately bound together that it does not hope for both, namely to have the pleasure and to escape such punishment through penance or in some other way.

*The ninth and tenth* prove that it is not a complete gift.

*To the eleventh,* it does not take away from it the character of good, but of meritorious good, that is, although it is good, nevertheless it is not done well.

*To the twelfth,* God, as far as it lies in himself, always gives the best, but when we do not receive in full, he gives in part, as much as we are willing to take, so that no one is without share of his gifts.

*To the thirteenth,* it is clear from the solution of the third.

*To the fourteenth,* the substance of the incomplete, according to which it is material or of a disposition toward the complete, remains in the complete, but not under the character of the incomplete nor under the disposition of the opposite. Whatever therefore is in servile fear, on account of which it is called a gift of God — such as faith and the flight from eternal punishment — remains with charity, but its servility and imperfection do not. Example: the embryo does not remain under the character of embryo, nor unformed faith under the character of unformed under [faith now] formed.

la: Vers. 15. — De Glossa, quae apud Petr. Lombard. integra, apud Strabum autem et Lyranum ex parte tantum habetur; vide August., II. Qq. in Pentateuch. q. 55. — Superius post *timor scilicet* edd. repetunt *timor servilis.*

en: Verse 15. — Concerning the Gloss, which is found complete in Peter Lombard, but only in part in Strabo and Lyra; see Augustine, *Questions on the Pentateuch* II, q. 55. — Above, after *timor scilicet,* the editions repeat *timor servilis.*

la: Cod. U *aeternus.* Paulo inferius post *sic: donum Dei est* codd. A U subdunt *nosse,* et dein pro *refugere* substituunt *fugere.*

en: Codex U reads *aeternus.* A little below, after *sic: donum Dei est,* codices A and U add *nosse,* and then for *refugere* substitute *fugere.*

la: Cap. 63, 17. — Locus Psalmi est Ps. 118, 120.

en: Chapter 63, 17. — The passage of the Psalm is Ps. 118 [119], 120.

la: Verba Glossae *ordinariae,* delibatae ex August., Enarrat. in Ps. 118, 120. serm. 25. n. 7. haec sunt: «Timor namque iste, qui non amatur iustitia, sed timetur poena, servilis est, quia carnalis est; et ideo non crucifigit carnem. Vivit enim peccandi voluntas, quae tunc apparet in opere, quando speratur impunitas. Cum vero poena creditur secutura, latenter vivit tamen. Mallet enim licere, et dolet non licere, quod lex vetat; quia non spiritualiter delectatur eius bono, sed carnaliter malum metuit quod minatur». Et paulo ante (n. 6.) Augustinus dicit: *Cognita itaque Dei gratia, quae sola liberat a praevaricatione, quae legis cognitione committitur, orando dicit: Confige clavis a timore tuo carnes meas.* — Pro *et timetur divina iudicia* edd. *et timetur divina iustitia.*

en: The words of the *Ordinary* Gloss, drawn from Augustine, *Enarration on Ps. 118 [119], 120,* sermon 25, n. 7, are these: «For this fear, in which justice is not loved but punishment is feared, is servile, because it is carnal; and therefore it does not crucify the flesh. For the will to sin lives, which then appears in the deed, when impunity is hoped for. But when punishment is believed to be about to follow, it still lives in secret. For he would prefer that it were lawful, and grieves that what the law forbids is not lawful; because he is not spiritually delighted in its good, but carnally fears the evil which it threatens». And a little before (n. 6) Augustine says: *Having therefore come to know the grace of God, which alone frees from the transgression which is committed through the knowledge of the law, he says in prayer: Pierce thou my flesh with the nails of thy fear.* — For *et timetur divina iudicia* the editions read *et timetur divina iustitia.*

la: Quaest. 3.

en: Question 3.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 36, a. 3. q. 2. — Aliquanto superius pro *quod si* multi codd. incongrue *quod etsi.* Paulo inferius pro *non erigitur* cod. A *non erigutur.*

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 36, a. 3, q. 2. — Somewhat above, for *quod si* many codices incongruously [read] *quod etsi.* A little below, for *non erigitur* codex A [reads] *non erigutur.*

la: Vide Aristot., III. Ethic. c. 7. — In fine solut. pro *licet* nonnulli codd. et Vat. *sed.*

en: See Aristotle, *Ethics* III, c. 7. — At the end of the solution, for *licet* some codices and the Vatican edition [read] *sed.*

la: In multis codd. deest *sicut,* in codd. U V etiam *beneficia.* Inferius pro *contemnunt* codd. U Z *despiciunt.*

en: In many codices *sicut* is lacking; in codices U and V also *beneficia.* Below, for *contemnunt* codices U and Z [read] *despiciunt.*

la: Cfr. August., de sancta Virginitate c. 38. n. 39.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Holy Virginity* c. 38, n. 39.

la: Codd. U X Z *suspendium.* Paulo inferius pro *iuvetur* edd. *timeat.* De timore latronis cfr. August., Serm. 169. [alias serm. 15. de verbis Apostoli] c. 6. n. 8.

en: Codices U, X, Z read *suspendium.* A little below, for *iuvetur* the editions [read] *timeat.* On the fear of the thief cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 169 [otherwise sermon 15, on the words of the Apostle], c. 6, n. 8.

la: Hic cod. S adiungit solutiones ad arg. supra (pag. 754, nota 8.) in eodem relato. — Ad sextum: quod loquitur ibi de timore desperationis; et iste non est timor servilis, quia per eum non vitatur peccatum, sed in omne peccatum inciditur, secundum illud Ieremiae decimo octavo [12.]: *Desperavimus; post cogitationes enim... ibimus, et unusquisque pravitatem cordis sui mali faciemus.*

en: Here codex S adds the solutions to the arguments reported above (p. 754, note 8) in the same place. — To the sixth: that it there speaks of the fear of despair; and that is not servile fear, because through it sin is not avoided, but one falls into every sin, according to that text of Jeremiah chapter eighteen [12]: *We have despaired; for after our own thoughts we will go, and we will do every one the wickedness of his evil heart.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Concilium Trid. (Sess. VI. c. 6.) docet, *dispositionem* ad iustificationem esse talem timorem, quo peccatores «a divinae iustitiae timore, quo *utiliter* concutiuntur, ad considerandam Dei misericordiam se convertendo, in *spem* eriguntur; fidentes, Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore, illumque tanquam omnis iustitiae fontem diligere incipiunt, ac propterea moventur adversus peccata per odium aliquod et detestationem... dum *proponunt...* inchoare novam vitam et servare divina mandata». Insuper (ibid. can. 8.) decernit: «Si quis dixerit, gehennae metum, per quem ad misericordiam Dei de peccatis dolendo confugimus, vel a peccato abstinemus, peccatum esse, aut peccatores peiores facere; a. s.». — Ad rem faciunt plures a S. Sede proscriptae propositiones; ut inter damnatas ab Alexandro VIII. (7. Dec. 1690) prop. 14: «Timor gehennae non est supernaturalis»; inter Quesnellianas prop. 61: «Timor nisi manum cohibet, cor autem tamdiu peccato addicitur, quamdiu ab amore iustitiae non ducitur»; nec non prop. 62: «Qui a malo non abstinet nisi timore poenae, illud committit in corde suo et iam est reus coram Deo» (cfr. propp. 63-66, et Synodi Pistoriens. prop. 25.). Hanc perpetuam Ecclesiae doctrinam Scholastici probaverunt et posteriorum adversariorum obiectiones plene dissipaverunt. De hac quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. II. II. q. 19. a. 4. — B. Albert., de hac et duobus seqq. qq. hic a. 8. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 2. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et duobus seqq. qq. hic q. 3.

**II.** In seq. (2.) quaestione solvenda S. Thom. aliique communiter consentiunt S. Bonaventurae in omnibus, praesertim in hoc, quod licet *servilitas* in se sit mala, tamen *actus* timoris servilis potest esse bonus, quia servilitas timoris habitui *accidit* ex imperfectione subiecti, nec oportet, quod omne quod *accidit* alicui habitui, semper manifestetur in quolibet eiusdem actu. De hac (2.) quaestione praeter citatos: S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.

**III.** Ad 3. quaestionem posteriores Scholastici communiter cum Ss. Thoma et Bonav. respondent, quod timor servilis, superveniente gratia, manet quidem, sed sine servilitate, quae duo complectitur, ut explicatur in corp. Cum autem timor servilis sit «alia differentia timoris quam timor initialis» (hic in corp.), sive cum secundum substantiam differat a timore casto et etiam initiali, ut docet S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. II. II. q. 19. a. 5.); quidam, ut refert Petr. a Tar., dixerunt, quod iste timor, adveniente caritate, maneat tantum secundum *genus,* non secundum *speciem.* Tamen cum nostro auctore S. Thom. (S. II. II. q. 19. a. 6.) docet: «Timor, in quantum servilis, non manet cum caritate; sed *substantia* timoris servilis cum caritate manere potest, sicut amor sui manere potest cum caritate». Aliud enim est specie differre ab amore initiali, aliud non posse cum ipso manere in sua specie. — Plura vide infra a. 2. q. 3, ubi agitur de evacuatione doni timoris, adveniente statu gloriae. De hac (3.) quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. loc. cit. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. 6) teaches that the *disposition* to justification is such a fear, by which sinners, «turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are *usefully* shaken, to the consideration of God's mercy, are raised up into *hope;* trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake, they begin to love him as the fountain of all justice, and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation... while they *purpose...* to begin a new life and to keep the divine commandments». Moreover (ibid., can. 8) it decrees: «If anyone shall say that the fear of hell, by which we flee to the mercy of God grieving over our sins, or abstain from sin, is a sin, or makes sinners worse: let him be anathema». — To the point belong several propositions proscribed by the Holy See; as among those condemned by Alexander VIII (7 Dec. 1690), prop. 14: «The fear of hell is not supernatural»; among the Quesnellian propositions, prop. 61: «Fear does nothing but restrain the hand, while the heart remains addicted to sin so long as it is not led by the love of justice»; and likewise prop. 62: «He who abstains from evil only through fear of punishment commits it in his heart and is already guilty before God» (cf. propp. 63–66, and prop. 25 of the Synod of Pistoia). This perpetual doctrine of the Church the Scholastics established, and they fully dissipated the objections of later adversaries. On this question: St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 1; Summa II.II, q. 19, a. 4. — Bl. Albert, on this and the two following questions, here a. 8, 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 1. — Richard of Middleton, on this and the following question, here a. 2, q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the two following questions, here q. 3.

**II.** In solving the following (2nd) question St. Thomas and the others commonly agree with St. Bonaventure in all things, especially in this, that although *servility* is in itself evil, nevertheless the *act* of servile fear can be good, because the servility of fear is *accidental* to the habit from the imperfection of the subject, nor is it necessary that everything which is *accidental* to some habit should always be manifested in every act of the same. On this (2nd) question, besides those cited: St. Thomas, here loc. cit., sub-question 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., sub-question 2.

**III.** To the 3rd question the later Scholastics commonly respond, with Sts. Thomas and Bonaventure, that servile fear, when grace supervenes, indeed remains, but without servility — which two things [the answer] embraces, as is explained in the body. But since servile fear is «a different difference of fear from initial fear» (here in the body), or since it differs according to substance from chaste fear and even from initial fear, as St. Thomas teaches (here q. 2, a. 3, sub-question 1, 2; Summa II.II, q. 19, a. 5); some, as Peter of Tarentaise reports, said that this fear, when charity comes, remains only according to *genus,* not according to *species.* Nevertheless, with our author, [Thomas] teaches (Summa II.II, q. 19, a. 6): «Fear, insofar as it is servile, does not remain with charity; but the *substance* of servile fear can remain with charity, just as self-love can remain with charity». For it is one thing to differ in species from initial love, and another not to be able to remain with it in its own species. — See more below, a. 2, q. 3, where the abolition of the gift of fear is treated, when the state of glory comes. On this (3rd) question: St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 3; Summa loc. cit. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p75{3,4,5,6}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, PDF pp. 775–778 = printed 753–756, offset +22), per the Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion. Running-head text (`DIST. XXXIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`) was trusted over OCR'd verso page-digits, which are mangled (`734`→754, `733`→753). Raw OCR span 52311–52539 used as the base for clean running prose (the *Fundamenta* / *Sed contra* arguments and the small-type cod.-S argument block) and for footnote-marker spacing; the Respondeo, replies, scholion, and all footer bands were re-set from the bands. Opener-alignment **PASS 1:1**: TRACTATIO *Primum* (*de timore servili per comparationem ad suum principium*) = QUAESTIO I (*Utrum timor servilis sit donum Spiritus sancti divinitus datum*); the title matches the opener (*Circa primum sic proceditur... per comparationem ad eius principium*) and the d34-p2-divisio hand-off.

**Page-split map (per-page footnote restart, renumbered continuous).** 11-entry NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM:
- **p.753 R-col** n.5 → `[^1]` — the **PICKED-UP hand-off** from d34-p2-divisio (Rom. 8,15 Glossa; anchors arg 1 *Romanos octavo⁵*). p.753 n.4 (*In Vat. desunt verba fuit timor...*) belongs to the divisio (its `[^4]`), NOT re-claimed.
- **p.754** — no footnote band (pure argument continuation, args 2–14 + Sed contra).
- **p.755 L-col** (small-type band) nn.1–3 → `[^2]`–`[^4]` — anchor the Respondeo markers *futuras¹* / *Isaias²* / *Glossa³*. `[^4]` carries the long Ordinary-Gloss quotation verbatim.
- **p.755 R-col** (Respondeo/replies band) nn.4–7 → `[^5]`–`[^8]` — `[^5]`=*Quaest. 3* (anchors Ad-1 *infra⁴ melius manifestabitur*); `[^6]`=I Sent. d.36 + *quod si* variant; `[^7]`=Aristot. *Ethic.* III (anchors Ad-4 *sicut⁷*); `[^8]`=*suspendium* variant (anchors Ad-5 *supplicium⁸*).
- **p.756** nn.1–3 → `[^9]`–`[^11]` — `[^9]`=Augustine *de Virginitate* (anchors Ad-4 *amore¹*); `[^10]`=*suspendium* codd. + Augustine Serm.169 (anchors Ad-5 *supplicium²*); `[^11]`=*hinc et inde³* note carrying the cod.-S extra-solutions opener (Jerem. 18 *Desperavimus*).

Marker pairing **11/11 clean** (every `[^N]:` def has a matching anchor in both Latin and English bodies).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true` — q1 carries an **OWN article-master SCHOLION §I–III** (p.756, both columns, body-then-scholion LAST): **§I** = Trent Sess. VI c.6 + can.8 + Alexander VIII / Quesnel / Pistoia condemned propositions on servile fear, with the q1 dossier (S.Thom. q.2 a.2 quaestiunc.1; B.Albert; Petr. a Tar.; Richard. a Med.; Durand.; Dionys. Carth.). **§II FORWARDS to q2** (*In seq. (2.) quaestione...* — the *servilitas*-mala-but-*actus*-bonus point + q2 dossier). **§III FORWARDS to q3** (*Ad 3. quaestionem...* — servile fear remaining without servility when grace supervenes; *Plura vide infra a. 2. q. 3* + q3 dossier). So **a1-q2 and a1-q3 are expected to carry NO own scholion — REDIRECT to this §II / §III respectively** (same pattern as p.I a1-q1's §III/§IV → q2/q3).

**Footer hand-offs.** PICKED UP: p.753 n.5 from d34-p2-divisio (= `[^1]`). FORWARDED to **d34-p2-a1-q2**: NOTHING of the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM family — q1 closes clean on p.756 R-col (scholion §III tail at *...hic a. 2. q. 3.*); the QUAESTIO II band opens fresh on p.757 (running head `DIST. XXXIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`, raw 52540). The scholion §II forwarded to q2 is a redirect target (q2 likely `has_scholion: false`).

**`[?]` flags.** NONE — all four pages legible at 450 dpi; the OCR-garbled Respondeo / cod.-S small-type block were fully re-set from the bands.

**J4 Class B — orphaned apparatus repair (2026-07-17).** `[^9]`, `[^10]`, `[^11]` had definitions in `## Apparatus` but no `[^N]` anchor in either body (the "11/11 clean" claim in the page-split map above was stale/incorrect). Re-verified against the 450 dpi p.756 column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p756-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) and placed by content match to the printed page-local footer (which restarts 1–3 on p.756):
- **`[^9]`** (Cfr. August., *de sancta Virginitate* c.38 n.39) — printed superscript ¹ sits on *amore* in Ad-4 (Latin: "sic et in amore¹ intelligendum est"; mirrored in English at "so too in love¹"). Placed.
- **`[^10]`** (Codd. UXZ *suspendium*; De timore latronis cfr. August. Serm. 169) — printed superscript ² sits on *supplicium* in Ad-5 ("latro cognoscit illud supplicium² et reformidat"; mirrored at "the thief knows that punishment²"). Placed **adjacent to the pre-existing `[^8]` marker at the same word** (`supplicium[^8][^10]`) — `[^8]`'s definition text ("In multis codd. deest *sicut* ... in codd. U V etiam *beneficia*... pro *contemnunt* ... *despiciunt*") does not match this location at all; its content variants (*sicut*, *beneficia*, *contemnunt*) belong to Ad-4, not Ad-5. `[^8]` appears to be a **pre-existing mis-anchored marker from earlier work**, outside this J4 Class-B pass's scope (it is not one of the three orphaned defs assigned). Left untouched per instructions; flagging here for a future targeted pass.
- **`[^11]`** (Hic cod. S adiungit solutiones ad arg. supra pag.754 nota 8...) — printed superscript ³ sits at the very end of Ad-5, on *et inde* ("non est simile hinc et inde³."; mirrored at "there is no likeness on the one side and the other."). Placed.

All three confirmed unambiguously by printed-page content match (TRAP 1/TRAP 2 observed: page-local footer restarts at 1 on p.756, not global numbering; content of each def, not position, drove placement). No Latin/English wording changed — markers only.

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