title: Pars 4, Cap. 7

source_text:
<!-- page 247 -->

### Capitulum VII. *De perfectione meriti in effectu.*

De plenitudine autem *meriti* Christi hoc tenendum est, quod in Christo Domino fuit omnis meriti perfectio et plenitudo: primo, quantum ad *eum qui merebatur*, quia non tantum erat homo, verum etiam Deus. — Secundo, quantum ad *tempus*, in quo merebatur, quia ab instanti conceptionis usque ad horam mortis. — Tertio, quantum ad id, *per quod* merebatur, quia per perfectissimum habitum caritatis et perfectissimum exercitium virtutis in orando, in agendo et in patiendo. — Quarto, quantum ad *eum cui merebatur*, quia non tantum *sibi*, verum etiam *nobis*, immo omnibus iustis. — Quinto, quantum ad id *quod merebatur nobis*, quia non tantum gloriam, verum etiam gratiam et veniam, non tantum gloriam spiritus, sed etiam stolam carnis et apertionem ianuae caelestis[^p247-6]. — Sexto, quantum ad *id quod merebatur sibi*, quia, licet non mereretur glorificationem mentis, quam iam habebat; merebatur tamen glorificationem corporis et accelerationem resurrectionis et clarificationem sui nominis et dignitatem iudiciariae potestatis. — Septimo, quantum ad *modum*, quo merebatur. Cum enim tripliciter dicatur aliquis mereri: vel de indebito faciendo debitum, vel de debito faciendo magis debitum, vel de debito uno modo faciendo debitum alio modo[^p247-7]; omnibus his modis meruit *nobis*, tertio tantum modo meruit *sibi*, faciente hoc plenitudine gratiae Spiritus sancti, per quam Christus simul erat beatus et in statu merendi, ita quod super eius meritum omnia merita nostra habent fundari[^p247-8].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum in principio reparativo, Christo scilicet Domino nostro, necessario fuerit plenitudo gratiae et sapientiae, quae sunt nobis origo recte et sancte vivendi; necesse est, quod in Christo fuerit plenitudo et perfectio omnis meriti secundum omnem modum plenitudinis. Quia enim in Christo fuit plenitudo *gratiae unionis*[^p248-1], per quam erat Deus ab instanti conceptionis, habens gloriam comprehensionis et motum liberi arbitrii; hinc est, quod necessario fuit in Christo perfectio meriti et quantum ad excellentissimam *dignitatem merentis* et quantum ad celerrimam *opportunitatem temporis*.

<!-- page 248 -->

Rursus, quia fuit in eo plenitudo *gratiae singularis personae*, per quam habuit firmissimam caritatem et omnes virtutes perfectas quantum ad habitus et exercitia; necesse fuit, quod in eo esset plenitudo meriti quantum ad id, *per quod* contingit mereri, cuiusmodi est radix caritatis et actus multiplicis nobilitatis[^p248-2].

Amplius, quia fuit in eo plenitudo *gratiae capitis*, per quam plenissimam habuit influentiam in membra sua; hinc est, quod plenitudinem habuit meriti non tantum respectu *sui*, sed etiam respectu *nostri*, quibus, sicut omnia spiritualia, quae habemus, influit ratione Deitatis, sic meruit ratione assumtae humanitatis, sive sint bona status praesentis, sive aeternae felicitatis.

Postremo, quia tantorum charismatum plenitudo necessario ponebat in Christo summam et perfectam felicitatem secundum sui partem superiorem, licet dispensative propter nos esset in statu viae; hinc est, quod perfectionem habuit meriti, quantum ad id quod meruit *sibi*, quia non[^p248-3] gloriam et beatitudinem animae concreatam, quae naturaliter in ipso omne meritum anteibat, sed solum illa, cum quibus status viae stare non poterat, sicut stolam carnis cum glorificatione suae excellentissimae dignitatis.

Hinc est etiam, quod perfectionem habuit meriti quantum ad *modum* merendi. Quia enim in ipso ab instanti conceptionis fuit perfectissima plenitudo, statim omnia meruit, quae potuit mereri respectu sui; ac per hoc de debito uno modo facere potuit debitum alio modo; de indebito autem debitum, vel de debito magis debitum facere non potuit *sibi*; quia nullo modo potuit in sanctitate proficere, cum a principio esset sanctissimus. Fecit tamen hoc *nobis*, qui merito ipsius *iustificamur per gratiam*[^p248-4], proficimus in iustitia et per aeternam gloriam coronamur.

Ac per hoc in merito Christi radicata sunt omnia merita nostra; sive satisfactoria poenae, sive meritoria vitae aeternae, quia nec ab offensa summi boni digni sumus absolvi, nec immensitatem aeterni praemii, quae Deus est, digni sumus lucrari nisi per meritum hominis-Dei, cui dicere possumus et debemus: *Omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis, Domine*[^p248-5]. Ipse, inquam, est Dominus, cui Propheta dicit: *Dixi Domino: Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges.*

---

english:
### Chapter VII. *On the perfection of merit in its effect.*

Concerning the fullness of Christ's *merit*, however, this is to be held: that in Christ the Lord there was every perfection and fullness of merit: first, as regards *him who merited*, since he was not only man, but also God. — Second, as regards the *time* in which he merited, since it was from the instant of his conception up to the hour of his death. — Third, as regards that *through which* he merited, since it was through a most perfect habit of charity and a most perfect exercise of virtue in praying, in acting and in suffering. — Fourth, as regards *him for whom he merited*, since he merited not only *for himself*, but also *for us*, indeed for all the just. — Fifth, as regards that *which he merited for us*, since it was not only glory, but also grace and pardon, not only the glory of the spirit, but also the stole of the flesh and the opening of the heavenly gate[^p247-6]. — Sixth, as regards *that which he merited for himself*, since, although he did not merit the glorification of the mind, which he already had, he nevertheless merited the glorification of the body and the hastening of the resurrection and the making famous of his name and the dignity of judiciary power. — Seventh, as regards the *mode* in which he merited. For since one is said to merit in three ways: either by making what is undue due, or by making what is due more due, or by making what is due in one mode due in another mode[^p247-7]; by all these modes he merited *for us*, by the third mode only he merited *for himself*, the fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit bringing this about, through which Christ was at once blessed and in the state of meriting, so that upon his merit all our merits have to be founded[^p247-8].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since, seeing that in the reparative principle, namely Christ our Lord, there necessarily was the fullness of grace and of wisdom, which are for us the origin of living rightly and holily, it is necessary that in Christ there was the fullness and perfection of all merit according to every mode of fullness. For since in Christ there was the fullness of the *grace of union*[^p248-1], through which he was God from the instant of his conception, having the glory of comprehension and the motion of free choice; hence it is that necessarily there was in Christ the perfection of merit both as regards the most excellent *dignity of the one meriting* and as regards the most swift *opportuneness of the time*.

Again, since there was in him the fullness of the *grace of the singular person*, through which he had a most firm charity and all the virtues perfect as regards both habits and exercises; it was necessary that in him there be the fullness of merit as regards that *through which* it comes about that one merits, of which sort are the root of charity and an act of manifold nobility[^p248-2].

Further, since there was in him the fullness of the *grace of the head*, through which he had a most full influence into his members; hence it is that he had the fullness of merit not only in respect of *himself*, but also in respect of *us*, into whom, just as he pours all the spiritual things which we have by reason of the Deity, so he merited by reason of the assumed humanity, whether they be goods of the present state or of eternal happiness.

Lastly, since the fullness of such great charisms necessarily placed in Christ the highest and perfect happiness according to his superior part, although by dispensation, for our sake, he was in the state of the way; hence it is that he had the perfection of merit as regards that which he merited *for himself*, since he did not[^p248-3] merit the glory and beatitude concreated with his soul, which naturally went before every merit in him, but only those things with which the state of the way could not stand, such as the stole of the flesh together with the glorification of his most excellent dignity.

Hence it is also that he had the perfection of merit as regards the *mode* of meriting. For since in him from the instant of his conception there was a most perfect fullness, he at once merited all the things which he could merit in respect of himself; and through this he could make, of what was due in one mode, something due in another mode; but of what was undue something due, or of what was due something more due, he could not make *for himself*; since in no way could he advance in holiness, seeing that from the beginning he was most holy. He did this, however, *for us*, who by his merit *are justified through grace*[^p248-4], advance in justice and are crowned with eternal glory.

And through this all our merits are rooted in the merit of Christ; whether they be satisfactory for punishment or meritorious of eternal life, since we are neither worthy to be absolved from the offense against the highest good, nor worthy to gain the immensity of the eternal reward, which is God, except through the merit of the God-man, to whom we can and ought to say: *All our works thou hast wrought in us, O Lord*[^p248-5]. He, I say, is the Lord to whom the Prophet says: *I said to the Lord: Thou art my God, for thou hast no need of my goods.*

---

la: F H L *ianuae regni caelestis*.

en: F H L have *ianuae regni caelestis* [the gate of the heavenly kingdom].

la: Pro explicando hoc triplici modo D affert exemplum de homine, cui vita aeterna debetur vel propter gratiam de novo susceptam (quae, licet ad ipsam sese disposuerit, tamen ipsi non debebatur), vel gratiae cooperando, vel non solum operando, sed etiam patiendo.

en: For the explaining of this threefold mode D brings forward the example of a man to whom eternal life is due either on account of grace newly received (which, although he disposed himself toward it, was nevertheless not owed to him), or by cooperating with grace, or by not only acting but also suffering.

la: De hoc cap. vide III. Sent. d. 18. per totam et d. 17. a. 2. q. 1, ubi de *oratione* Christi.

en: On this chapter see III *Sent.*, d. 18, throughout, and d. 17, a. 2, q. 1, where he treats of Christ's *prayer*.

la: Cfr. supra c. 5, ubi etiam de gratia *singularis personae* et *capitis*.

en: Cf. above, ch. 5, where he also treats of the grace *of the singular person* and *of the head*.

la: Ita communiter codd. et 2, aliae edd. *virtutis*, A Q *nobilitatis et [Q vel] virtutis*, H *nobilitatis virtutis*. Hieron., Epist. 148. (alias 14.) n. 21: Summa apud Deum nobilitas, clarum esse virtutibus [Cfr. I. Cor. 1, 26. seqq.]. — Pro *radix* U *habitus*.

en: So the codices commonly, and edition 2; other editions have *virtutis*, A Q *nobilitatis et [Q vel] virtutis*, H *nobilitatis virtutis*. Jerome, Epist. 148 (alias 14), n. 21: The highest nobility in God's sight is to be renowned for virtues [Cf. I Cor. 1, 26 ff.]. — For *radix* U has *habitus*.

la: Ed. 1 addit *meruit*. Mox pro *gloriam* B K *gratiam*. Subinde plures codd. et 2 *corporis* pro *carnis* et B C I L M O Q *clarificatione* pro *glorificatione*.

en: Edition 1 adds *meruit*. Shortly after, for *gloriam* B K have *gratiam*. Thereupon several codices and edition 2 have *corporis* for *carnis*, and B C I L M O Q *clarificatione* for *glorificatione*.

la: Rom. 3, 24: Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. — Pro *in iustitia* L U V *per iustitiam*.

en: Romans 3, 24: Being justified freely by his grace. — For *in iustitia* L U V have *per iustitiam*.

la: Isai. 26, 12: Domine, dabis pacem nobis; omnia enim opera nostra operatus es nobis. — Seq. locus est Ps. 15, 2. — Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 3. seq. et IV. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 1.

en: Isaiah 26, 12: Lord, thou wilt give us peace; for all our works thou hast wrought in us. — The following passage is Ps. 15, 2. — Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 20, q. 3 f., and IV *Sent.*, d. 15, p. I, q. 1. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 247–248, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A CHAPTER HEADING.** `Cap. VII. / De perfectione meriti in effectu.` stands **part-way down p. 247's RIGHT column**, immediately below Cap. VI's last line (`…ad reparationem humani generis faciendam.`), exactly where `bon-brev-p4-c6` fixed it, so there was **no incoming body-text seam to reconstruct**. Cap. VII fills the rest of p. 247's right column to `…plenitudo et perfectio omnis meriti secundum omnem`, breaks across the leaf at a **WORD boundary that strands an adjective from its noun** (`secundum omnem` / `modum plenitudinis`) into the head of **p. 248's LEFT column**, fills that whole column to `…sive satisfactoria poenae, sive meri-`, crosses p. 248's gutter **MID-WORD** (`meri-` / `toria vitae aeternae`), and closes **part-way down p. 248's RIGHT column** at `…quoniam bonorum meorum non eges.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. VIII. / De passione Christi quantum ad statum patientis.` heading standing immediately below it in the same right column** — p. 248 was extracted and banded for that purpose, and the heading, its display subtitle and the first two paragraphs of Cap. VIII were all read on the band. **Cap. VII touches no left column on p. 247 and no right column on p. 248 except its own last eight lines.**

**★★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS AGAIN A FALSE WITNESS — BUT NOT IN THE DIRECTION THE HAND-OFF PREDICTED, AND THE RAW IS WHAT WAS WRONG.** The incoming hand-off warned that p. 248's running head reads `BREVILOQUII PARS IV. C. VI`, one capitulum BEHIND a page that opens inside Cap. VII. **On the band the head reads `BREVILOQUII PARS IV. C. VIII.`** — the raw dropped two strokes of the numeral. So the head is one unit **AHEAD** (the p. 241 shape), not behind, and the standing rule survives unchanged in its useful form: **the head can confirm that a unit reaches a page and can never show that one does not, and it cannot fix which capitulum you are in.** ★ The correction matters for a second reason: **the OCR damage was in the RUNNING HEAD, which is exactly the class of line the raw shatters most freely.** A running-head claim taken from the raw is two errors deep — the witness is unreliable *and* the transcription of it is unreliable.

**★ AN ELEVENTH BREAK SHAPE, AND A TWELFTH: `omnem` / `modum` AT THE LEAF, `meri-` / `toria` AT THE GUTTER.** The p. 247/248 leaf break falls between `omnem` and `modum` — a clean word boundary that leaves the tail `…secundum omnem` **holding an adjective with no noun**, the mirror of Cap. VI's stranded preposition one leaf earlier. p. 248's gutter then breaks **mid-word** inside `meritoria`. Against the standing catalogue this capitulum adds a stranded-adjective leaf break and repeats the mid-word gutter crossing, and it changes nothing: **the shape of a break carries no information about whether the unit continues.** The `Cap. VIII.` heading is what settles it.

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE NEAREST PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY BELOW THE BREAK — sixth consecutive occurrence, and again with the new page's anchor ABOVE the marker.** The p. 247/248 break falls inside the *Ratio autem* paragraph, which runs from p. 247's right column across the leaf and closes on p. 248 at `…opportunitatem temporis.` The nearest paragraph boundary **below** the break is therefore that paragraph's end, and `<!-- page 248 -->` sits there — with **p. 248's note 1 anchoring ABOVE the marker** (`gratiae unionis¹`). Do not move the marker up. **The page-qualified labels absorb it; the true break position is recorded here.**

**Gutters.** **p. 247 = 1209**, carried from `bon-brev-p4-c6`'s fourteen-window re-profiling and **re-confirmed visually here on freshly cut bands**: at 1209 the right column is captured whole, `Cap. VII.` is centred in it, and all three of this chunk's p. 247 anchors and both footer blocks read cleanly. **p. 248 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH, with no constant, and it is the first page in Pars IV whose default measurement was BOTH unflagged AND below the soundness threshold.** `colcrop.py vol5 248` returned **`split_x=1391, low-ink run 54 px`** — unflagged (the tool only flags under 15 px) but **54 px, four to ten pixels below the 58–64 px band that has marked every sound measurement on this volume**, so it was re-profiled. Sixteen row windows: 45–92 % **1391/54** · 50–85 % **1390/57** · 50–92 % **1390/57** · 55–80 % **1390/57** · 60–90 % **1388/60** · 45–80 % **1391/54** · 35–75 % **1392/55** · 15–85 % **1395/47** · 20–80 % **1395/47** · 30–70 % **1396/57** · 40–65 % **1395/61** · 20–60 % **1398/54** · 15–45 % **1400/58** · 10–45 % **1400/58** · 12–40 % **1401/60** · **25–55 % 1300/251 — an outright FAILURE**, the widest bogus run yet seen on this volume and a reminder that a run far ABOVE the sound band is as suspect as one below it. **Spread across the fifteen usable windows: 13 px (1388–1401) — the loosest measurement in Pars IV, against p. 247's 2 px.** ★ **The cause was found by reading the ink profile column by column rather than by moving the window:** the true blank gutter runs **x = 1365–1418** (54 columns of zero or near-zero ink), but a **narrow ink island stands at x = 1385–1394, inside it** — ~90 rows of ink in a ten-pixel-wide strip, scattered down the page in fifteen small groups rather than concentrated in the low body rows. It is not the pp. 240/244 failure (a marginal gloss sitting low in the gutter) and moving the window up does not clear it; it splits the blank run in two and makes every window's answer depend on which half it lands in. **The midpoint of the full blank band, 1365–1418, is 1391.5 — so the default's 1391 is right, and it is right by arithmetic rather than by luck.** Adopted and confirmed visually on all six bands: the left column is captured whole in L, the right column whole in R, `Cap. VIII.` centred in the right band, and both footer blocks cut clear of each other. Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361 · 1186 · 1367 · 1201 · 1345 · 1209 · **1391**. **★ p. 248's 1391 is 24 px above the highest even-page value seen so far (p. 244's 1367) and 60 px above the lowest (p. 236's 1331). The even cluster now spans 1331–1391 across nine leaves. Parity is not a constant, it is not even a narrow band, and it must not be used to sanity-check a measurement.**

**Apparatus (8 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 247 nn. 6–8** and **p. 248 nn. 1–5**. Every anchor was read on the band at 450 dpi and **re-derived from scratch**; none was adopted from the hand-off, from raw anchor glyphs, or from which footer block holds a note.
- p. 247 n. **6** on `apertionem ianuae caelestis`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, closing the *Quinto* member of the sevenfold division. (Hand-off verified POSITION and COLUMN; both hold.)
- p. 247 n. **7** on `faciendo debitum alio modo`⁷ — **RIGHT** column, closing the threefold division of *mereri* inside the *Septimo* member. (Hand-off verified POSITION and COLUMN; both hold.)
- p. 247 n. **8** on `omnia merita nostra habent fundari`⁸ — **RIGHT** column, on the last words of the thesis paragraph. (Hand-off verified POSITION and COLUMN; both hold.)
- p. 248 n. **1** on `plenitudo gratiae unionis`¹ — **LEFT** column, second line of the page, **above the `<!-- page 248 -->` marker**.
- p. 248 n. **2** on `actus multiplicis nobilitatis`² — **left** column, on the last words of the *Rursus* paragraph.
- p. 248 n. **3** on `quia non`³ — **left** column, inside the *Postremo* paragraph, **between `non` and `gloriam`**, which is what the entry (`Ed. 1 addit meruit`) requires: the note marks the place where edition 1 supplies the elided verb.
- p. 248 n. **4** on `iustificamur per gratiam`⁴ — **left** column, inside the *Hinc est etiam* paragraph's closing period.
- p. 248 n. **5** on `Omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis, Domine`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, on the Isaiah quotation, five lines below the top of the column.

**★★ THE MOST COMPLETE HAND-OFF IN THE PARS HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR — THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS HAPPENED.** `bon-brev-p4-c6` forwarded p. 247 nn. 6–8 with **POSITION and COLUMN verified for all three**, and all six claims are confirmed here on freshly cut bands. It also forwarded the three entries' text for orientation and flagged n. 8's `d. 18.` / `d. 17.` / `q. 1` and n. 6's `H` as unsettled; **all four of those readings confirm as forwarded** (see below). **The running score: forwarded OWNERSHIP has now held six times in six; forwarded DETAIL has failed twice in six** (p. 242 n. 4's column, p. 246 n. 8's `q. 4.`) **and both failures came from hand-offs that said the detail was unverified.** The pattern is now sharp enough to state: **a hand-off that names which claims it checked has been reliable on those claims; a hand-off that forwards detail without saying so has not.** ★ It does not follow that verification can be skipped — the one structural claim this hand-off got wrong was the p. 248 running head, which it took from the raw rather than from a band.

**★ p. 248 IS A SPLIT-BY-CAPITULUM PAGE WHOSE ANCHOR SPLIT AND BLOCK SPLIT DIVERGE BY A WHOLE NOTE, IN THE DIRECTION THAT LOOKS LIKE A RUNOVER AND IS ONE.** p. 248's register is **eight** numbered notes. Its anchors divide **4 / 4** across the gutter (nn. 1–4 in the left column, nn. 5–8 in the right — n. 5's anchor is the first thing in the right column's body). Its footer blocks divide **4½ / 3½**: the left block carries nn. 1–4 **and the opening of n. 5**, and the right block opens with **n. 5's unnumbered continuation** before running nn. 6–8. And the Cap. VII / Cap. VIII boundary falls **between nn. 5 and 6**, matching the block split but not the anchor split. So on this page **the anchor line, the block line and the capitulum line are three different lines**, and the note they disagree about is the one that runs over. Adding to the catalogue: overrun (pp. 220, 221, 226, 233, 239) · underrun (pp. 234, 237) · coincidence (pp. 231, 232, 235, 240, 246, 247) · split-inside-a-note (pp. 236, 238, 240, 243, 244, **248**) · both at once (p. 239) · split by PARS (p. 241) · split by CAPITULUM (pp. 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, **248**) · anchor/block mismatch of one note (p. 243) · of two notes with the block break BELOW the anchor break (p. 244) · of two notes with the block break ABOVE the anchor break (p. 245) · a page whose footer opens unnumbered yet whose anchors and blocks still coincide (p. 247) · **a page whose block split falls INSIDE the note whose anchor stands first in the second column, so that the same note supplies both the left block's last line and the right block's first (p. 248)**.

**★ NEITHER p. 247 NOR p. 248 CARRIES THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE OR A QUIRE SIGNATURE.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` last fell on p. 241; pp. 242–248 carry neither. **p. 247's register is eight entries (fed to `KNOWN_TOTALS` by `p4-c6` and now closed by this chunk) and p. 248's is eight** — the latter band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`. The unnumbered continuation heading p. 248's right block is p. 248 n. 5's own tail and is **not** a separate entry.

**Runover findings — ONE POSITIVE CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES, ONE NEGATIVE CLOSED FROM THE SIDE IT WAS OWED ON, ONE FORWARDED.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 247 → p. 248 — **NEGATIVE**, and CLOSED HERE FROM THE p. 248 SIDE, as owed.* `p4-c6` established that p. 247's right block ends **complete** at n. 8 (`…a. 2. q. 1, ubi de oratione Christi.`) and left the p. 248 side open because n. 8 is a Cap. VII note. p. 248's left footer block was read **from its first character at high zoom** and opens **NUMBERED**: `¹ Cfr. supra c. 5, ubi etiam de gratia singularis personae et capitis.` The test is closed negative from both sides and is logged as a negative on this chunk's ledger line.
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 248 — **POSITIVE**, run from both sides here.* p. 248's left block breaks off **inside n. 5**, mid-sentence and mid-quotation, at `Isai. 26, 12: Domine, dabis pacem nobis; omnia enim` — a **word boundary inside a scriptural quotation**, with the tail `omnia enim` governing nothing. p. 248's right block opens **UNNUMBERED**: `opera nostra operatus es nobis. — Seq. locus est Ps. 15, 2. — Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 3. seq. et IV. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 1.` — then `⁶ De his tribus agitur in hoc et 2 seqq. capp.` The join is verified three ways: the grammar completes and so does the Vulgate verse (Isai. 26, 12 is *Domine, dabis pacem nobis; omnia enim opera nostra operatus es nobis*, and the halves meet exactly at `enim` / `opera`); the continuation's `Seq. locus` refers forward to the Psalm quoted **two sentences after n. 5's anchor** in the body; and no numeral stands anywhere in the continuation. Rendered joined under the p. 248 n. 5 label. **Logged as `p.248 n.5:gutter` on this chunk's ledger line.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 248 → p. 249 — **NEGATIVE from the p. 248 side**, and left open for `bon-brev-p4-c8`.* p. 248's right block ends **complete** at n. 8 (`…mortalitatem transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem) proferuntur.`). **n. 8 is a Cap. VIII note and is not owned here, so this test is NOT logged on this chunk's line** — it belongs to `p4-c8`, which must close it from the p. 249 side.
- *The p. 247 gutter-crossing test and the p. 246 → p. 247 page-crossing test were both closed by `p4-c6` (negative and positive respectively) and are not re-logged here.*

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; both registers re-read under direct high-factor zoom, and every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **★ p. 248's register is unusually digit-dense — five scriptural or Sentences references in five entries — and the raw got three of them wrong.**
- **★★ `Isai. 26, 12` (p. 248 n. 5) — A DIGIT FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `20`.** The band prints `26` with the round bowl and the open upper terminal of a `6`; the raw's `0` is a flattened sort. **The verse settles it independently: Isaiah 26, 12 is *Domine, dabis pacem nobis; omnia enim opera nostra operatus es nobis* — the note's own quotation, word for word, and the body's anchor. Isaiah 20 is the oracle against Egypt and Ethiopia and quotes nothing of the kind.**
- **★★ `Rom. 3, 24` (p. 248 n. 4) — A SECOND DIGIT FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `21`.** The band's second glyph shows the crossbar and the open triangular counter of a true `4`, against the flagged `1` standing three characters away in the same line. **And the quotation checks itself: Romans 3, 24 is *iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius*, quoted in the note and matching the anchor's italic *iustificamur per gratiam* exactly. Romans 3, 21 is *nunc autem sine lege iustitia Dei manifestata est*.**
- **★★ `IV. Sent. d. 15.` (p. 248 n. 5's continuation) — A THIRD DIGIT FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `d. 13.`, AND THE `3`/`5` CLASS RATHER THAN THE `1`/`4` CLASS.** At maximum zoom the glyph carries a **flat top bar over a single lower bowl** — a `5`. A `3` in this face has **two stacked bowls and no bar**, as `q. 3.` prints four words earlier on the same line for direct comparison. **Sense corroborates decisively: IV *Sent.* d. 15 is the distinction *de satisfactione*, and the anchor's own sentence divides our merits into *satisfactoria poenae* and *meritoria vitae aeternae*.** Both roman numerals in the entry (`III.`, `IV.`) and `d. 20.`, `q. 3.`, `p. I.`, `q. 1.` read clean, the last being the flagged `1`.
- **`Ps. 15, 2` (p. 248 n. 5's continuation) — the flagged `1` again, and sense-confirmed.** Psalm 15, 2 (Vulgate) is *Dixi Domino: Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges* — precisely the sentence the body quotes two lines below the anchor, which is what `Seq. locus est` asserts. The raw's `Ps. lo, 2` is a destroyed pair.
- **★★ `H nobilitatis virtutis` (p. 248 n. 2) — TWO UPRIGHTS, AND THE STROKE COUNT IS WHAT DECIDES IT; THE RAW READ `U`.** At maximum zoom the siglum is **two full-height uprights with slab serifs top and bottom**, the crossbar reduced to a nub on the inner face of the left stem — the crossbar-less `H` p. 246 printed four times. It is emphatically **not** a `U`, which in this face carries a continuous curved bowl and no second stem. The entry's grammar (`aliae edd. *virtutis*, A Q *…*, H *…*`) requires a witness in the position, and **rule (a) applies in its permissive direction: one upright is never `H`, but two uprights may be.** Compare `Hieron.` at the end of the same line, whose `H` carries a full crossbar — **the sixth and seventh instances in three pages of this plate setting `H` both ways within a single register.**
- **`Epist. 148. (alias 14.) n. 21` (p. 248 n. 2) — three numerals, two of them in the flagged class, settled by contrast on one line.** `148` sets a flagged `1`, a true `4` (crossbar, open counter) and an `8`; `(alias 14.)` repeats the same pair touching, exactly the p. 246 n. 8 contrast; `21` is a `2` followed by the flagged `1`. Jerome's Epist. 148, alias 14, *ad Celantiam*, is the letter whose sentence the note quotes.
- **`I. Cor. 1, 26. seqq.` (p. 248 n. 2) — a roman `I.` and a flagged `1` in five characters, and the pair distinguishes itself.** The book numeral is a single upright with symmetric slab serifs top and bottom; the chapter numeral three characters later carries the angled top flag, the closed stem and no lower serif. **Sense settles it beyond doubt: I Cor. 1, 26 is *non multi nobiles*, the locus classicus on nobility, which is the note's whole subject.**
- **★ `B C I L M O Q` (p. 248 n. 3) — A SINGLE UPRIGHT BETWEEN `C` AND `L`, SO IT IS `I`, AND THE RUN'S ALPHABETICAL ORDER CONFIRMS IT.** The raw gives `D C I L M 0 Q`, corrupting the first siglum and flattening the `O` to a zero. On the band the first is a clear `B` and the sixth a clear `O`; **the third is one upright, which rule (a) forbids from being `H`, and alphabetical position between `C` and `L` admits both `H` and `I`, so the stroke count decides — `I`.** `B K` in the same entry and `L U V` in n. 4 read clean and alphabetical; `U` and `V` both being witnesses in this apparatus is what makes n. 2's `U habitus` safe to read as a `U` while n. 2's `H` is not.
- **`d. 18.` / `d. 17.` / `a. 2. q. 1` (p. 247 n. 8) — the forwarded readings CONFIRM, all three flagged uprights re-derived.** Each `1` shows the angled top flag and closed stem, contrasted on the same line against the true `2` and against `d. 20.`'s `0`. **Sense corroborates both distinctions: III *Sent.* d. 18 is the distinction on Christ's merit — the subject of this whole chapter, which is what `De hoc cap. vide` asserts — and III *Sent.* d. 17, a. 2, q. 1 is where Bonaventure treats Christ's prayer, which the note names in its own words (`ubi de oratione Christi`).**
- **`F H L` (p. 247 n. 6) — the forwarded reading CONFIRMS, and here the `H` DOES carry its crossbar.** Two uprights joined by a full-width bar, standing between `F` and `L` in a three-letter alphabetical run whose grammar (`F H L *ianuae regni caelestis*`) requires witnesses. **Set beside p. 248 n. 2's crossbar-less `H` on the facing page, this is the cleanest single demonstration in Pars IV that the crossbar carries no information and the position in the run does.**
- **`D` (p. 247 n. 7) and `Ed. 1` (p. 248 n. 3) read clean.** `Ed. 1` is an edition numeral standing beside `Ed.`, unambiguous in the way `excepta 2` was on p. 246.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ A BODY / APPARATUS DIVERGENCE INSIDE ONE VERSE, PRESERVED ON BOTH SIDES.** The body quotes Isaiah 26, 12 as *Omnia opera nostra operatus es **in** nobis, Domine*; p. 248 n. 5 quotes the same verse, four lines below, as *omnia enim opera nostra operatus es nobis* — **without the preposition, and in the Vulgate's word order rather than Bonaventure's.** Both are set as printed and neither is corrected toward the other. This is exactly the case the standing rule covers: **do not harmonise a body/apparatus divergence**, and do not "restore" the Vulgate over Bonaventure's citation.
- **★ `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` carries the COLON — TENTH consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–VII). p. 237's full stop remains the one-off. Here the formula is followed by `quia, cum … necesse est, quod …`, a *cum/necesse est* period rather than the *sicut/sic* correlative Cap. VI used.
- **★★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION TAKES A SIXTH DISTINCT DISTRIBUTION IN SIX ADJACENT CAPITULA — AND IT IS NOT WHAT THE HAND-OFF PREDICTED.** In Cap. VII ` — ` stands **six times, all six inside the opening thesis paragraph**, before `Secundo`, `Tertio`, `Quarto`, `Quinto`, `Sexto` and `Septimo`. **The first member, `primo`, is NOT dash-marked** — it follows the colon of `omnis meriti perfectio et plenitudo:` directly. So the sevenfold division carries **six** dashes, not seven, and the count differs from the member count. The dash then stands **nowhere else in the chapter**: the *Ratio* paragraph and all five paragraphs on p. 248 (`Rursus`, `Amplius`, `Postremo`, `Hinc est etiam`, `Ac per hoc`) open bare. Against Cap. VI — six dashes in one paragraph marking **every** member of a fivefold division — Cap. VII concentrates its dashes in the same way but **leaves its first member unmarked**, which is Cap. V's habit rather than Cap. VI's. **Transcribed, never regularised, and never counted from the number of members.**
- **`merita nostra;` — a battered semicolon, rendered whole.** The point above the comma is present but light on the plate; the sense (`sive … sive …` follows) and the setting's spacing both give a semicolon. Recorded here rather than flagged, per the battered-sort rule.
- **`hominis-Dei` is hyphenated as printed**, and `Deus`, `Christus`, `Domino`, `Spiritus sancti`, `Propheta`, `Deitatis` are capitalised as printed; the English follows.
- **The italics are selective and were set exactly as printed.** *meriti* is italic in the opening period while `plenitudine`, `Christi` and the second `omnis meriti` are roman; the seven members' tags are italic (*eum qui merebatur*, *tempus*, *per quod*, *eum cui merebatur*, *quod merebatur nobis*, *id quod merebatur sibi*, *modum*) but the `quantum ad` before each is roman; *sibi* and *nobis* are italic in the fourth member and again in the seventh, but the same words are ROMAN in `meruit sibi` inside the *Postremo* paragraph on p. 248 and roman in `respectu sui` — **the plate italicises them where they answer a member of the division and not where they merely refer**; the threefold statement of *mereri* (`vel de indebito faciendo debitum…`) is entirely ROMAN although it is as much a division as the italic members above it; `stolam carnis`, `gloriam spiritus`, `apertionem ianuae caelestis` are roman; on p. 248 *gratiae unionis*, *dignitatem merentis*, *opportunitatem temporis*, *gratiae singularis personae*, *per quod*, *gratiae capitis*, *sui*, *nostri*, *sibi*, *modum*, *nobis*, *iustificamur per gratiam* are italic while `radix caritatis`, `actus multiplicis nobilitatis`, `ratione Deitatis`, `ratione assumtae humanitatis`, `status viae`, `stolam carnis` are roman; and both scriptural quotations in the closing paragraph are italic entire.
- **★ p. 248's REGISTER SETS QUOTED SCRIPTURE ROMAN**, in nn. 4 and 5 (`Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius`; `Domine, dabis pacem nobis…`) and likewise the Jerome quotation in n. 2 (`Summa apud Deum nobilitas, clarum esse virtutibus`). This agrees with p. 246 and disagrees with p. 245, whose register set it italic. **p. 247's register quotes nothing and settles nothing.** Each page is uniform with itself; the chunk's apparatus is not regularised to one pattern.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The **SEVENFOLD** division of the perfection of Christ's merit, stated in order in the thesis paragraph — *eum qui merebatur* · *tempus in quo merebatur* · *id per quod merebatur* · *eum cui merebatur* · *id quod merebatur nobis* · *id quod merebatur sibi* · *modum quo merebatur* — and then taken up again in the *Ratio*, **but not one member to one paragraph and not in the same grouping**: the *Ratio*'s six paragraphs answer members **1 and 2 together** (the *grace of union*, giving both the *dignitas merentis* and the *opportunitas temporis*), then **3**, then **4 and 5 together** (the *grace of the head*, giving merit *respectu sui* and *respectu nostri*), then **6**, then **7** — which is exactly what the marginal glosses record (`Pro thesi 1. et 2.` · `Pro thesi 3.` · `Pro thesi 4. et 5.` · `Pro thesi 6.` · `Pro thesi 7.`). **A sevenfold division answered in five movements: the correspondence is not one-to-one and must not be made so.** Within it: the **threefold** way of meriting (*de indebito faciendo debitum* / *de debito faciendo magis debitum* / *de debito uno modo faciendo debitum alio modo*), with the explicit note that Christ merited *nobis* by all three and *sibi* by the third only; the **threefold** grace that grounds the merit (*gratia unionis* / *gratia singularis personae* / *gratia capitis*), each opening its own paragraph; the **twofold** object of what he merited for us (*gloria* / *gratia et venia*, then *gloria spiritus* / *stola carnis et apertio ianuae*); the **fourfold** content of what he merited for himself (*glorificatio corporis* · *acceleratio resurrectionis* · *clarificatio sui nominis* · *dignitas iudiciariae potestatis*), against the one thing he did not merit (*glorificatio mentis, quam iam habebat*); the **twofold** exercise of the virtues (*quantum ad habitus et exercitia*); the **twofold** goods poured into the members (*bona status praesentis* / *aeternae felicitatis*); and the closing **twofold** division of our own merits (*satisfactoria poenae* / *meritoria vitae aeternae*), which the gloss marks `Corollarium.`

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 247 R — "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Thesis 4." · "Thesis 5." · "Thesis 6." · "Thesis 7." · "Ratio." · "Pro thesi 1. et 2." p. 248 L — "Pro thesi 3." · "Pro thesi 4. et 5." · "Pro thesi 6." · "Pro thesi 7." · "Corollarium." **p. 248 R carries NO gloss beside Cap. VII's last eight lines** — the series stops at `Corollarium.` and does not resume until Cap. VIII's `Thesis 1.` further down the same right column, verified by cropping the outer margin strip beside those lines. Fourteen glosses across eight paragraphs. **★ A SEVENTH DISTINCT GLOSS FORM, AND IT RESTORES THE NUMBERED APPARATUS Cap. VI HAD JUST THROWN AWAY.** Where Cap. VI ran a single unnumbered `Thesis generalis.` / `Pro thesi generali.` pair plus two ordinal series, Cap. VII sets a **full numbered `Thesis 1.`–`Thesis 7.` against `Pro thesi 1. et 2.`–`Pro thesi 7.`**, with `Ratio.` between them and `Corollarium.` at the end — the Cap. V apparatus at larger scale. **★★ AND THE ANSWERING SERIES IS DELIBERATELY NOT PARALLEL: seven `Thesis` glosses are answered by FIVE `Pro thesi` glosses, two of which are compound (`1. et 2.`, `4. et 5.`).** This is the editors reading the structure correctly, not an inconsistency — but it means **the gloss count cannot be used to check the member count in either direction.** Cap. VI's rebuild and Cap. VII's rebuild both happen on p. 247's right column, three lines apart; the whole of Cap. VII's answering series then falls on p. 248. **A capitulum's gloss form still cannot be inferred from its neighbour's, in either direction.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Three readings could have carried one — `Isai. 26, 12` against the raw's `20`, `Rom. 3, 24` against the raw's `21`, and `IV. Sent. d. 15.` against the raw's `13` — and each is settled positively on the band, twice by a same-line glyph contrast and three times by the cited text checking itself against the anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag.

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.**
- **p. 247, right column, Cap. VII's portion — VERY GOOD, the best body run in Pars IV after p. 246's left column, and the `Cap. VII.` heading prints CLEAN.** `Dc perfectione mcrili in elfectiL` garbles the subtitle's last word badly but `Cap. VII.` itself is undamaged. Across the chapter's forty-odd lines here: `merili`, `fiiit`, `inciti`, `ct`, `cuni qui`, `mcrchatur`, `vcrum etiain`, `quanlum`, `rcbatiir`, `conccptionis`, `\i\,per quod` (**a numeral spliced into the text and a lost space at once**), `perfcctissimum`, `exercifium`, `mcrehalur`, `vcruin ctiam`, `nohis`, `imiiio`, `mcrchalur nohis`, `gloriain`, `scd eliam`, `aperlionem`, `licct non mcreretur glorifieatio-nem`, `accclcrationem rcsurrectio-nis`, `modum,tbesui` (**the gloss fused to the body and a lost space**), `mcrcbatur`, `aiiquis`, `inodo facicndo`, `inodo'`, `meruit sihi`, `quani`, `bcatus ct`, `in stati merendi` (**`statu` destroyed**), `mcritum`, `intelligenfiam hacc`, `Raiio` (gloss), `Pro ihesi i.` (gloss, numeral destroyed), `neccsse`. **About thirty-eight garbles in forty-five printed lines — under one per line — with two lost spaces, one gloss fused into a body line and no dropped clause.** The three right-margin glosses that survive intact (`Thesis 2.`–`Thesis 7.`) are shattered elsewhere in the run.
- **p. 247 footer, right block, nn. 6–8 (the three owned here) — EXCELLENT, the cleanest register in Pars IV.** `°  F H L ianuae regni caclestis.` (only the `ae` ligature garbled and the numeral flattened to a degree sign); `Pro cxplicando`, `allcit` for `affert`, `excmpluni`, `no\o` for `novo`, `susccptam`, `disposucril`, `lamcn`, `graliae`, `vcl`, `scd`; `d. 18. per tolam cl d. 17.`, `q. I ,` (numeral flattened to a roman — **flattened in the right direction again**), `Chrisli`. **Fourteen garbles in eleven printed lines, every one single-letter, and every digit either correct or flattened rather than mis-shaped.** ★ This is the exact opposite of p. 246's footer, whose four entries carried a damaged siglum run and a destroyed numeral apiece. **Two facing registers, one leaf, and the grade differs by two full steps.**
- **p. 248, left column — GOOD, a clear step below p. 247's right column across the leaf, and the seventh consecutive leaf on which two facing columns differ by a grade or more.** `plonituilinis`, `Ciiristo`, `ali` for `ab`, `arbitrii.;` (**a spurious period before the semicolon**), `merili`, `quanlum`, `dignitalcm`, `celerrimam`, `pleiiitudo graliae`, `rro ihcsi 3.` (gloss), `liabuit`, `oumes virtules`, `iiuod`, `.\m[)lius`, `Pm ihesi i.` (gloss, **numeral destroyed and the second line `et 5.` lost outright**), `pitisj`, `pienissimam`, `niembra`, `plenitndinem liabuit`, `taritum rcspectu`, `res|)ectu`, `ipiac babe-mus`, `DeitiUis`, `assumtae bumanitatis`, `1'ostremo`, `charisinatum`, `Pro Diesi 6.` (gloss), `ludo`, `sunimam`, `perfectnm`, `superiorem`, `dispensativc`, `essct`, `statn viae`, `binc`, `(iuantum ad itl`, `non ^ gloriam` (the anchor standing where the numeral should), `i[)S()`, `cuni quijjus`, `slare`, `esl etiam`, `habuil`, `rro uicsi 7.` (gloss), `i[)so`, `[ilenitudo`, `qnae`, `res|)ectu`, `debi-tum`, `qma.` (**a lost letter and a spurious period**), `Fecit tamcn`, `gratiam *`, `coronamur`, `.\c [jer lioc`, `coroiiarium.` (gloss), `merita nostraj` (**the semicolon read as a `j` and fused to the word**). **Fifty-four garbles in forty-eight printed lines — well over one per line — with two spurious periods, one destroyed punctuation mark fused to a word, and FIVE of the five marginal glosses damaged, one of them losing an entire second line.** No lost interior spaces in this run, which is a first for Pars IV's weaker columns.
- **p. 248, right column, Cap. VII's closing eight lines — GOOD, and a step UP from its own left column within the same page, the same within-page pattern p. 247 showed.** `aeteriiae`, `bdiii` for `boni` (**the worst token in the run**), `immensitatem` clean, `cst`, `[ler`, `delie-mus`, `Domine'`, `I[)se`, `I'ro[iheta`, `es tu,` clean. **Ten garbles in eight printed lines, dense per line but all single-letter, and both scriptural quotations survive legibly.** The `C.\p. VIII.` heading is damaged in the raw (`Cap.` shattered) while its subtitle prints nearly clean (`Dc passione Christi quantum ad slatum paticntis.`) — **the eighth chapter heading in Pars IV and the third to be damaged, against five clean. There is still no predicting it. Set every heading from the band.**
- **p. 248 footer — FAIR in the left block, GOOD in the right, and the left block is where three of this chunk's five digit fixes live.** Left: `lla comniuniler`, `ctld.` for `edd.`, `virtiitis`, `m-biJitatis` (**`nobilitatis` destroyed across a line break**), `[Q x>el]` (**the editorial bracket's contents mangled**), `U nobilitatis viriiiiis` (**the siglum misread as `U` and `virtutis` destroyed**), `Epist. 148. (alias 14.) n. 21` clean, `nobilit;is` , `da-riim`, `I. Cor. 1, 26. scqq.` clean, `V Imbitiis` (**the siglum misread as `V` and `habitus` destroyed — the same entry's two sigla damaged in two different directions**); `Ed. I addit`, `Siib-inde`, `D C I L M 0 Q` (**first siglum wrong, `O` flattened to a zero**), `clari/icatione`, `ijtorifimtione` (**destroyed**); `Rom. 3, 21` (**digit wrong**), `pcr graliam`, `iiistilia L U V` clean; `Isai. 20, 12` (**digit wrong**), `cnim`. Right: `opcra nostra operatus es nobis` clean, `Se([. locus`, `Ps. lo, 2.` (**destroyed pair**), `d. 20. q. 3. scq.`, `IV. Sent. d. 13.` (**digit wrong**), `q. I.` flattened. **Three wrong digits and four wrong sigla in five entries, all in the block this chunk owns — the densest apparatus corruption in Pars IV, and the reason every one of them was settled on the band and cross-checked against the cited text.**


site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 4, Cap. 8

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 248 -->

### Capitulum VIII. *De passione Christi quantum ad statum patientis.*

Postquam circa Verbum incarnatum considerata est unio naturarum, considerata nihilominus plenitudo charismatum, deinde consideranda est *tolerantia passionum*; circa quam considerandus est *status patientis*, *modus patiendi* et *exitus passionis*[^p248-6].

De *statu patientis* haec tenenda sunt, scilicet quod Christus assumsit non tantum humanam naturam, sed etiam *defectus* circa naturam. Assumsit enim poenalitates *corporales*, ut famem, sitim et lassitudinem; assumsit etiam *spirituales*, ut tristitiam, gemitum et timorem; nec tamen *omnes corporales* assumsit, sicut sunt defectus aegritudinum multiformium. nec *omnes spirituales*, sicut sunt ignorantia et rebelliones carnis ad spiritum; nec *qualitercumque*, quia sic necessitatem patiendi suscepit, ut nihil pati posset *invite*, nec secundum voluntatem *Deitatis* nec secundum voluntatem *rationis*, licet passio fuerit contra voluntatem *sensualitatis et carnis*, sicut exprimit oratio Salvatoris, quae dicit: *Non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu vis*[^p248-7].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum principium reparativum in reconciliando necessario habeat mediatoris officium; ideo necesse est, quod habeat convenientiam cum utroque extremorum non solum quantum ad *naturam*, verum etiam quantum ad *ea quae sunt circa naturam*. Quoniam ergo Deus est iustus et beatus, impassibilis et immortalis; homo vero lapsus est peccator et miser, passibilis et mortalis: necesse fuit, mediatorem *Dei et hominum*[^p248-8], ut hominem posset reducere ad Deum, cum Deo communicare in iustitia et beatitudine, cum homine vero in passibilitate et mortalitate; ut sic, habendo « mortalitatem transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem », hominem reduceret de praesenti miseria ad vitam beatam; sicut econtra angelus malus, habendo immortalitatem cum miseria et iniustitia, fuit mediator faciens cadere in culpam et miseriam per suggestionem suam. Quoniam ergo Christus mediator debuit habere innocentiam et beatitudinem fruitionis cum mortalitate et passibilitate; hinc est, quod simul debuit esse *viator* et *comprehensor*. — De omni enim statu aliquid habuit in se, secundum quod dicitur[^p249-1] assumsisse de statu *innocentiae* peccati immunitatem, de statu *naturae lapsae* mortalitatem, de statu vero *gloriae* beatitudinem fruitionis perfectae.

<!-- page 249 -->

Rursus, quoniam poenalitates vitiosae, sicut sunt illa quatuor propter peccatum originale inflicta, scilicet ignorantia, infirmitas, malitia et concupiscentia[^p249-2], stare non possunt cum perfectissima innocentia; hinc est, quod has nec assumere debuit nec assumsit. — Quia vero poenae, quae sunt *exercitativae* virtutis perfectae et *testificativae* humanitatis verae, non simulatae, potissime illae sunt, quae respiciunt naturam in communi, sicut fames et sitis in absentia alimenti, tristitia et timor in praesentia nocumenti; hinc est, quod illas debuit assumere et assumsit.

Postremo, quia nullus innocens debet invitus aliquam poenam sustinere[^p249-3], quia hoc esset contra ordinem divinae iustitiae; nullus etiam mortalis vult mori et pati secundum *appetitum naturae*, quae naturaliter refugit mortem: hinc est, quod Christus habere debuit huiusmodi poenalitates, sic tamen, ut nihil posset pati *invite secundum rationem*, non solum propter beatitudinem et Deitatem omnipotentem sibi unitam, per quam poterat repellere omnia; sed etiam propter perfectissimam innocentiam, quae[^p249-4] secundum ordinem naturalis iustitiae nihil permittitur pati invite; sic etiam pateretur, ut tamen hoc esset *contra naturalem inclinationem* et appetitum naturae, qui est in sensualitate et carne. — Et hinc est, quod Christus, orans secundum rationem, voluntatem *carnis* exprimebat, qua passionem refugiebat, cum dicebat: *Transeat a me calix iste*[^p249-5]; voluntatem tamen *rationis* voluntati Patris conformabat et appetitui carnis praeponebat, cum dicebat: *Non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat*. — Et sic una voluntas non erat alteri contraria: quia « secundum voluntatem *divinam* quod iustum erat voluit, secundum voluntatem *rationis* iustitiae consensit, sed secundum *voluntatem carnis* poenam recusavit, sed tamen iustitiam non accusavit. Et sic unaquaeque voluntas quod suum erat operabatur et quod ad se pertinebat sequebatur: voluntas *divina* iustitiam, voluntas *rationalis* obedientiam, voluntas *carnis* naturam[^p249-6] »; ac per hoc non erat in Christo colluctatio et pugna, sed pacata ordinatio et tranquillitas ordinata.

---

english:
### Chapter VIII. *On the passion of Christ as regards the state of the sufferer.*

After the union of the natures has been considered concerning the incarnate Word, and the fullness of the charisms considered no less, next there is to be considered the *endurance of the sufferings*; and concerning this there is to be considered the *state of the sufferer*, the *mode of suffering* and the *outcome of the passion*[^p248-6].

Concerning the *state of the sufferer* these things are to be held, namely that Christ assumed not only human nature, but also the *defects* about the nature. For he assumed *bodily* penalties, such as hunger, thirst and weariness; he assumed also *spiritual* ones, such as sadness, groaning and fear; nor yet did he assume *all bodily* ones, such as are the defects of manifold sicknesses. nor *all spiritual* ones, such as are ignorance and the rebellions of the flesh against the spirit; nor *in any manner whatsoever*, since he took upon himself the necessity of suffering in such a way that he could suffer nothing *unwillingly*, neither according to the will of the *Deity* nor according to the will of *reason*, although the passion was against the will of the *sensuality and of the flesh*, as the prayer of the Saviour expresses, which says: *Not as I will, but as thou wilt*[^p248-7].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since, seeing that the reparative principle in reconciling necessarily has the office of a mediator, it is therefore necessary that it have a fittingness with both of the extremes not only as regards *nature*, but also as regards *those things which are about nature*. Since therefore God is just and blessed, impassible and immortal, while man, fallen, is a sinner and wretched, passible and mortal, it was necessary that there be a mediator *of God and of men*[^p248-8], so that he might be able to lead man back to God, having in common with God justice and beatitude, but with man passibility and mortality; so that thus, having « a passing mortality and an abiding beatitude », he might lead man back from the present misery to the blessed life; just as, on the contrary, the evil angel, having immortality together with misery and injustice, was a mediator making him fall into fault and misery through his own suggestion. Since therefore Christ the mediator had to have innocence and the beatitude of fruition together with mortality and passibility, hence it is that he had to be at once *wayfarer* and *comprehensor*. — For of every state he had something in himself, according to which he is said[^p249-1] to have assumed from the state of *innocence* immunity from sin, from the state of *fallen nature* mortality, but from the state of *glory* the beatitude of perfect fruition.

Again, since vicious penalties, such as are those four inflicted on account of original sin, namely ignorance, infirmity, malice and concupiscence[^p249-2], cannot stand together with a most perfect innocence, hence it is that these he neither had to assume nor did assume. — But since those penalties which are *exercitative* of perfect virtue and *testificative* of a true, not simulated, humanity are chiefly those which regard nature in common, such as hunger and thirst in the absence of nourishment, sadness and fear in the presence of harm, hence it is that those he had to assume and did assume.

Lastly, since no innocent person ought unwillingly to undergo any penalty[^p249-3], because this would be against the order of divine justice; and since no mortal wills to die and to suffer according to the *appetite of nature*, which naturally flees death: hence it is that Christ had to have penalties of this sort, yet in such a way that he could suffer nothing *unwillingly according to reason*, not only on account of the beatitude and the omnipotent Deity united to him, through which he was able to repel all things; but also on account of that most perfect innocence, which[^p249-4] according to the order of natural justice is permitted to suffer nothing unwillingly; so also he would suffer, yet in such a way that this was *against the natural inclination* and the appetite of nature, which is in the sensuality and the flesh. — And hence it is that Christ, praying according to reason, expressed the will of the *flesh*, by which he fled the passion, when he said: *Let this chalice pass from me*[^p249-5]; yet he conformed the will of *reason* to the will of the Father and set it before the appetite of the flesh, when he said: *Not my will, but thine be done*. — And thus the one will was not contrary to the other: since « according to the *divine* will he willed what was just, according to the will of *reason* he consented to justice, but according to the *will of the flesh* he refused the penalty, yet nevertheless did not accuse justice. And thus each will did what was its own and followed what pertained to itself: the *divine* will justice, the *rational* will obedience, the will *of the flesh* nature[^p249-6] »; and through this there was in Christ no wrestling and struggle, but a peaceful ordering and an ordered tranquillity.

---

la: De his tribus agitur in hoc et 2 seqq. capp. — Superius post *considerandus est* B H addunt *primo*, et post *status patientis* cum pluribus aliis codd., exceptis tamen E M P S, prosequuntur *secundo modus patiendi*, *tertio exitus passionis*.

en: These three are treated in this and the 2 following chapters. — Above, after *considerandus est*, B H add *primo*, and after *status patientis*, together with several other codices, though with E M P S excepted, they continue *secundo modus patiendi*, *tertio exitus passionis*.

la: Matth. 26, 39. Vulgata et 1 omittunt *vis*. — De hoc cap. cfr. III. Sent. d. 15-18. — Superius vocibus *ut nihil* edd. cum aliquot codd. interserunt *tamen*.

en: Matthew 26, 39. The Vulgate and edition 1 omit *vis*. — On this chapter cf. III *Sent.*, dd. 15–18. — Above, at the words *ut nihil*, the editions together with some codices insert *tamen*.

la: Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5. — Vide III. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 2, in cuius fine allegatur pro hac expositione August., IX. de Civ. Dei, c. 15, ex quo etiam hic quaedam verbotenus (v. g. *mortalitatem transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem*) proferuntur.

en: Epistle I Timothy 2, 5. — See III *Sent.*, d. 19, a. 2, q. 2, at the end of which Augustine, *On the City of God* IX, c. 15, is adduced in favour of this exposition, from which also certain things are here brought forward word for word (e.g. *mortalitatem transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem*).

la: A Boethio, de Una Persona et duabus naturis, c. 8. Vide III. Sent. d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 16. a. 1. q. 3. ad 2. — Supra pro *enim* B M P aliique *etiam*, A Q *ergo*.

en: From Boethius, *On the One Person and the Two Natures*, c. 8. See III *Sent.*, d. 12, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4, and d. 16, a. 1, q. 3, ad 2. — Above, for *enim* B M P and others have *etiam*, A Q *ergo*.

la: Vide supra pag. 234, nota 4. in fine. — Pro *originale* Vat. *mortale*.

en: See above, p. 234, note 4, at the end. — For *originale* the Vatican edition has *mortale*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 228, nota 7. — Inferius pro *quae* edd. cum nonnullis codd. *quia*.

en: Cf. above, p. 228, note 7. — Below, for *quae* the editions together with some codices have *quia*.

la: Edd., excepta 2, *qua*. Inferius pro *ut tamen* (G K omittunt *tamen*) edd., excepta 1, *ut etiam*.

en: The editions, edition 2 excepted, have *qua*. Below, for *ut tamen* (G K omit *tamen*) the editions, edition 1 excepted, have *ut etiam*.

la: Matth. 26, 39. — Seq. locus habetur ibid. non iisdem verbis, quae sumta sunt ex Luc. 22, 42.

en: Matthew 26, 39. — The following passage is found in the same place, though not in the same words, which are taken from Luke 22, 42.

la: Hugo a S. Vict. in Libello de Quatuor Voluntat. in Christo. In textu originali plura interseruntur. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 48. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et III. Sent. d. 17. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, in the *Little Book on the Four Wills in Christ*. In the original text several things are interposed. Cf. I *Sent.*, d. 48, a. 2, q. 2, in the body, and III *Sent.*, d. 17, a. 1, q. 3, in the body. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 248–249, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A CHAPTER HEADING.** `Cap. VIII. / De passione Christi quantum ad statum patientis.` stands **part-way down p. 248's RIGHT column**, immediately below Cap. VII's last line (`…quoniam bonorum meorum non eges.`), exactly where `bon-brev-p4-c7` fixed it, so there was **no incoming body-text seam to reconstruct**. Cap. VIII fills the rest of p. 248's right column to `…cum Deo communicare in iustitia`, breaks across the leaf at a **word boundary that leaves a prepositional phrase incomplete** (`in iustitia` / `et beatitudine`) into the head of **p. 249's LEFT column**, fills that whole column to `…cum dicebat: Non mea vo-`, crosses p. 249's gutter **MID-WORD** (`vo-` / `luntas, sed tua fiat`), and closes **part-way down p. 249's RIGHT column** at `…sed pacata ordinatio et tranquillitas ordinata.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. IX. / De passione Christi quantum ad modum patiendi.` heading standing immediately below it in the same right column** — p. 249 was extracted and banded for that purpose, and the heading, its display subtitle and the first two paragraphs of Cap. IX were all read on the band. **Cap. VIII touches no left column on p. 248 and only the top third of p. 249's right column.**

**★★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS AGAIN ONE UNIT AHEAD, AND IT WAS AGAIN READ ONLY FROM A BAND.** p. 248's head reads `BREVILOQUII PARS IV. C. VIII.` on a page that opens inside Cap. VII (already corrected by `p4-c7`); **p. 249's head reads `PARS IV. C. IX.` on a page whose first two thirds are still Cap. VIII** — one capitulum AHEAD, the p. 241 and p. 248 shape, and the third consecutive leaf on which the head runs ahead. **The "behind" direction still has no attestation anywhere in Pars IV.** No claim in this chunk rests on the head; the `Cap. IX.` heading in the body is what closed the span.

**★ A THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH BREAK SHAPE: `in iustitia` / `et beatitudine` AT THE LEAF, `vo-` / `luntas` AT THE GUTTER.** The p. 248/249 leaf break falls between `iustitia` and `et`, a clean word boundary that leaves the tail `…cum Deo communicare in iustitia` **grammatically complete and semantically truncated** — the correlative `cum homine vero in passibilitate et mortalitate` is on the next leaf. p. 249's gutter then breaks **mid-word** inside `voluntas`, and does so **inside a scriptural quotation** (`Non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat`) — the second time in three leaves that a break has fallen inside a quoted verse, after p. 248 n. 5's `omnia enim` / `opera nostra`. **The shape of a break still carries no information about whether the unit continues.**

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE NEAREST PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY BELOW THE BREAK — SEVENTH CONSECUTIVE OCCURRENCE, AND AGAIN WITH THE NEW PAGE'S ANCHOR ABOVE THE MARKER.** The p. 248/249 break falls inside the *Ratio autem* paragraph, which runs from p. 248's right column across the leaf and closes on p. 249 at `…beatitudinem fruitionis perfectae.` The nearest paragraph boundary **below** the break is therefore that paragraph's end, and `<!-- page 249 -->` sits there — with **p. 249's note 1 anchoring ABOVE the marker** (`secundum quod dicitur¹`). Do not move the marker up. **The page-qualified labels absorb it; the true break position is recorded here.**

**Gutters.** **p. 248 = 1391**, carried from `bon-brev-p4-c7`'s ink-profile settlement and **re-confirmed visually here on the existing bands**: at 1391 the right column is captured whole and `Cap. VIII.`, its subtitle and all three of this chunk's p. 248 anchors read cleanly. **p. 249 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH, with no constant, and it reproduced p. 248's failure mode exactly.** `colcrop.py vol5 249` returned **`split_x=1182, low-ink run 55 px`** — unflagged, but **55 px, three to nine pixels below the 58–64 px band that marks a sound measurement on this volume**, so it was re-profiled over sixteen row windows: 45–92 % **1182/55** · 50–85 % **1181/58** · 50–92 % **1181/57** · 55–80 % **1182/59** · 60–90 % **1181/57** · 45–80 % **1183/57** · 35–75 % **1183/58** · 15–85 % **1183/55** · 20–80 % **1183/57** · 30–70 % **1183/58** · 40–65 % **1184/59** · 20–60 % **1185/62** · 25–55 % **1185/62** · 15–45 % **1197/83** · 10–45 % **1197/83** · 12–40 % **1197/83**. **The twelve body-row windows agree within 4 px (1181–1185); the three windows that reach into the page's upper third all jump to 1197 on an 83 px run — a run far ABOVE the sound band, and therefore a failure of the same species as p. 248's 251 px window, not a rival measurement.** ★ **The settling method was the one `p4-c7` earned: print the per-column ink profile rather than move the window again.** Over the body rows the true blank gutter runs **x = 1155–1209** (55 columns of zero ink), and a **narrow ink island stands INSIDE it at x = 1176–1187** — a strip peaking at 367 rows of ink at x = 1184 with zero on both sides of it. It splits the blank run in two exactly as p. 248's island did. **The midpoint of the full blank band 1155–1209 is 1182, so the default is right by arithmetic.** Adopted and confirmed visually on all six bands: the left column whole in L, the right column whole in R, `Cap. IX.` centred in the right band, and both footer blocks cut clear of each other. **★★ THIS IS THE SECOND ATTESTATION OF THE INSIDE-THE-GUTTER OBSTRUCTION, ON CONSECUTIVE LEAVES AND ON OPPOSITE PARITIES — it is a recurring layout feature of this quire, not a one-off.** Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361 · 1186 · 1367 · 1201 · 1345 · 1209 · 1391 · **1182**. **★ p. 249's 1182 is 4 px BELOW the lowest odd value previously measured (p. 243's 1186), while p. 248's 1391 was 24 px above the highest even one: the two ends of the series moved apart on one leaf. Parity is spent; measure every page.**

**Apparatus (9 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 248 nn. 6–8** and **p. 249 nn. 1–6**. Every anchor was read on the band at 450 dpi and **re-derived from scratch**; none was adopted from the hand-off, from raw anchor glyphs, or from which footer block holds a note.
- p. 248 n. **6** on `exitus passionis`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, on the last words of Cap. VIII's opening *Postquam* paragraph. (Hand-off verified POSITION and COLUMN; both hold.)
- p. 248 n. **7** on `sed sicut tu vis`⁷ — **RIGHT** column, on the last words of the thesis paragraph, closing the Matthew quotation. (Hand-off verified COLUMN only and derived the position by inference; **the inference was correct** and is confirmed here on the band.)
- p. 248 n. **8** on `mediatorem Dei et hominum`⁸ — **RIGHT** column, inside the *Ratio autem* paragraph, on the italic I Timothy tag. (Hand-off verified POSITION and COLUMN; both hold.)
- p. 249 n. **1** on `secundum quod dicitur`¹ — **LEFT** column, in the *Corollarium* sentence, **above the `<!-- page 249 -->` marker**, and standing BEFORE `assumsisse` rather than at the end of the clause: the note names Boethius as the source of the *dicitur*, so the anchor marks the verb, not the doctrine.
- p. 249 n. **2** on `malitia et concupiscentia`² — **left** column, closing the enumeration of the four wounds.
- p. 249 n. **3** on `aliquam poenam sustinere`³ — **left** column, on the opening premise of the *Postremo* paragraph.
- p. 249 n. **4** on `perfectissimam innocentiam, quae`⁴ — **left** column, **between `quae` and `secundum`**, which is what the entry requires: it records that the editions read `qua` for `quae` at exactly that word.
- p. 249 n. **5** on `Transeat a me calix iste`⁵ — **left** column, on the Matthew quotation inside the *De oratione Christi* stretch.
- p. 249 n. **6** on `voluntas carnis naturam`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, on the last words of the Hugh of St. Victor quotation, immediately before its closing guillemet, three lines above the end of the capitulum.

**★ THE HAND-OFF HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR, INCLUDING THE ONE CLAIM IT DECLINED TO VERIFY.** `bon-brev-p4-c7` forwarded p. 248 nn. 6–8 with ownership and column verified for all three, position verified for nn. 6 and 8, and n. 7's position **derived by inference and explicitly flagged as underived**. All three ownerships, all three columns and all three positions confirm here on the bands — the inference about n. 7 (`the Matth. 26, 39 quotation closes the thesis paragraph, so the anchor is on sed sicut tu vis`) was sound. **Running score: forwarded OWNERSHIP has now held seven times in seven; forwarded DETAIL has failed twice in seven, and both failures came from hand-offs that said the detail was unverified.** ★ The pattern holds, and this chunk sharpens it in one direction only: **a hand-off that says which claims it checked AND says how it reached the ones it did not check has now been reliable on both kinds.** It remains no licence to skip re-derivation — the four digits and one siglum this hand-off flagged as unsettled were all settled here from the plate, and one of them (`Vulgata et 1`) required a glyph comparison the hand-off could not have made.

**★ p. 249 IS A SPLIT-BY-CAPITULUM PAGE WHOSE ANCHOR SPLIT AND BLOCK SPLIT DIVERGE BY A WHOLE NOTE — THE SAME SHAPE AS p. 248, ON THE FACING LEAF.** p. 249's register is **eight** numbered notes. Its anchors divide **5 / 3** across the gutter (nn. 1–5 in the left column, nn. 6–8 in the right). Its footer blocks divide **5½ / 2½**: the left block carries nn. 1–5 **and the opening of n. 6**, and the right block opens with **n. 6's unnumbered continuation** before running nn. 7–8. And the Cap. VIII / Cap. IX boundary falls **between nn. 6 and 7**, matching neither split. So on this page too **the anchor line, the block line and the capitulum line are three different lines**, and again the note they disagree about is the one that runs over — but here the capitulum line sits one note BELOW the block line, where on p. 248 it coincided with it. Adding to the catalogue: overrun (pp. 220, 221, 226, 233, 239) · underrun (pp. 234, 237) · coincidence (pp. 231, 232, 235, 240, 246, 247) · split-inside-a-note (pp. 236, 238, 240, 243, 244, 248, **249**) · both at once (p. 239) · split by PARS (p. 241) · split by CAPITULUM (pp. 242–248, **249**) · anchor/block mismatch of one note (p. 243) · of two notes with the block break BELOW the anchor break (p. 244) · of two notes with the block break ABOVE the anchor break (p. 245) · a page whose footer opens unnumbered yet whose anchors and blocks still coincide (p. 247) · a page whose block split falls INSIDE the note whose anchor stands first in the second column (p. 248) · **a page whose block split falls inside a note whose anchor is ALREADY in the second column, so that the runover crosses the gutter in the same direction the anchor did (p. 249)**.

**★★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE RETURNS ON p. 249, AND SO DOES A QUIRE SIGNATURE — NEITHER IS AN ENTRY.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` stands at the foot of p. 249's **left** footer block, immediately below n. 6's broken-off line, and the quire signature **`32`** stands at the foot of the **right** block below n. 8. `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` last fell on p. 241 and pp. 242–248 carried neither; **p. 249 carries both at once, which no page in Pars IV has done before.** ★ Its position here is a live trap: it sits between a note that breaks off mid-word and the continuation of that same note on the other side of the gutter, so a reader tracking the runover meets the signature exactly where the missing text ought to be. **p. 248's register is eight entries (closed here) and p. 249's is eight** — the latter band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`. The unnumbered continuation heading p. 249's right block is p. 249 n. 6's own tail and is **not** a separate entry.

**Runover findings — ONE NEGATIVE CLOSED FROM THE SIDE IT WAS OWED ON, ONE POSITIVE CLOSED FROM BOTH SIDES, ONE FORWARDED.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 248 → p. 249 — **NEGATIVE**, and CLOSED HERE FROM THE p. 249 SIDE, as owed.* `p4-c7` established that p. 248's right block ends **complete** at n. 8 (`…mortalitatem transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem) proferuntur.`) and left the p. 249 side open because n. 8 is a Cap. VIII note owned here. p. 249's left footer block was read **from its first character at high zoom** and opens **NUMBERED**: `¹ A Boethio, de Una Persona et duabus naturis, c. 8.` The test is closed negative from both sides and is logged as a negative on this chunk's ledger line.
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 249 — **POSITIVE**, run from both sides here, and MID-WORD.* p. 249's left block breaks off **inside n. 6**, at `Hugo a S. Vict. in Libello de Quatuor Voluntat. in Chri-` — a **hyphenated mid-word break**, with the printer's signature standing immediately below the broken line. p. 249's right block opens **UNNUMBERED**: `sto. In textu originali plura interseruntur. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 48. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et III. Sent. d. 17. a. 4. q. 3. in corp.` — then `⁷ Isai. 53, 12: Cum sceleratis reputatus est.` The join is verified four ways: the hyphen and the word `Christo` complete each other with no other candidate; the grammar completes; the continuation's `In textu originali` refers to the Hugh treatise the broken half names; and no numeral stands anywhere in the continuation. Rendered joined under the p. 249 n. 6 label. **Logged as `p.249 n.6:gutter` on this chunk's ledger line.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 249 → p. 250 — **NEGATIVE from the p. 249 side**, and left open for `bon-brev-p4-c9`.* p. 249's right block ends **complete** at n. 8 (`…Inferius post et informat Vat., 1 et 3 addunt hominem.`). **n. 8 is a Cap. IX note and is not owned here, so this test is NOT logged on this chunk's line** — it belongs to `p4-c9`, which must close it from the p. 250 side.
- *The p. 248 gutter-crossing test (positive, inside p. 248 n. 5) and the p. 247 → p. 248 page-crossing test (negative) were both closed and logged by `p4-c7` and are not re-logged here.*

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; both registers re-read under direct high-factor zoom, and every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **★ Every one of the five readings the hand-off flagged as unsettled CONFIRMS as forwarded — the first time in Pars IV that a whole flagged set has survived re-derivation unchanged. Nothing here is a fix against the hand-off; three are fixes against the raw.**
- **★★ `B H addunt primo` (p. 248 n. 6) — TWO UPRIGHTS, NO CROSSBAR, AND ALL THREE RULES AGREE.** At maximum zoom the siglum is **two full-height uprights with slab serifs top and bottom and no bar between them** — the crossbar-less `H` p. 246 printed four times and p. 248 n. 2 printed once. **(a) Two uprights may be `H`** (the rule forbids only ONE upright from being one); **(b) alphabetical position after `B` admits it**; **(c) the entry's grammar — `post considerandus est <witnesses> addunt primo` — requires a witness, and `II` is not a witness anywhere in this apparatus.** The raw gives `B II`. Compare `E M P S` four words later in the same entry, which reads clean and alphabetical.
- **★★ `Vulgata et 1 omittunt vis` (p. 248 n. 7) — A SINGLE UPRIGHT, AND IT IS THE EDITION NUMERAL `1`, NOT THE CODEX `I`.** This is the tightest instance of the `1`/`I` split yet met, because both readings are grammatically admissible: `I` is a genuine codex siglum in this apparatus (p. 248 n. 3 sets `B C I L M O Q`) and `1` a genuine edition numeral (p. 248 n. 3 sets `Ed. 1`). **The glyph decides it: an angled top flag rising to the right off a closed stem, matched exactly by the two `1`s in `d. 15-18` two lines below and unlike the symmetric slab-serifed `I` of `III.` on the same line.** Sense corroborates: p. 249 n. 4 cites `edd., excepta 1` and `excepta 2` on the facing page, so edition 1 is a live witness in this stretch, and `Vulgata et 1` pairs two printed texts. The raw gives `I`.
- **★★ `III. Sent. d. 15-18` (p. 248 n. 7) — THE `3`/`5` AND `1`/`4` CLASSES IN ONE FIVE-CHARACTER SPAN, AND A FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `1I)-I8`.** At maximum zoom `15` shows the flagged `1` (angled flag, no lower serif) followed by a glyph with a **flat top bar over a single lower bowl** — a `5`, not the two stacked bowls of a `3`; `18` repeats the same `1` against a true `8`. **Sense settles it decisively: III *Sent.* dd. 15–18 are precisely the distinctions on the defects Christ assumed (d. 15), which defects (d. 16), his wills and his prayer (d. 17) and his merit (d. 18) — the whole subject of this capitulum, which is what `De hoc cap. cfr.` asserts.**
- **`Matth. 26, 39` (p. 248 n. 7 and again p. 249 n. 5) — the same citation twice on facing pages, each read independently and each clean.** `26` shows the round bowl and open upper terminal of a `6`; `39` a `3` with two stacked bowls against a `9`. **Sense: Matthew 26, 39 is *Pater mi, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste: verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu vis* — it supplies BOTH of the body's Gethsemane quotations, the one anchored on p. 248 and the one anchored on p. 249, which is exactly why the editors cite it twice.**
- **`d. 19. a. 2. q. 2` and `IX. de Civ. Dei, c. 15` (p. 248 n. 8) — the flagged `1` three times and the `3`/`5` contrast once, all settled by same-line contrast.** `19`'s `1` carries the angled flag against the true `9`; `c. 15`'s second glyph carries the flat top bar of a `5`, contrasted against the `3` in `III.`… — read as roman there, but the arabic `3` in `Isai. 53` on p. 249's right block gives the direct comparison. `IX.` is roman throughout, its `I` symmetric-serifed beside the numeral `1`s. **Sense: *De Civitate Dei* IX, c. 15 is Augustine's chapter on the mediator, and it contains the phrase the note quotes verbatim (*mortalitatem transeuntem, beatitudinem permanentem*), which is also what the body sets in guillemets.**
- **`c. 8`, `d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 16. a. 1. q. 3. ad 2.` (p. 249 n. 1) — eight numerals in one line, three of them the flagged `1`, and the line is its own contrast set.** Each `1` shows the angled flag and closed stem; `4` shows the crossbar and open triangular counter; `2`, `3`, `6`, `8` read clean. **Sense: Boethius, *Contra Eutychen et Nestorium* (cited by the editors under its alternative title *de Una Persona et duabus naturis*), c. 8, is where the three states — innocence, fallen nature, glory — are distinguished, which is the sentence the anchor stands in.**
- **`pag. 234, nota 4` (p. 249 n. 2) and `pag. 228, nota 7` (p. 249 n. 3) — two internal back-references, both clean and both sense-checked.** p. 234 falls in Pars III, where the four wounds of original sin are treated — and the anchor's own clause enumerates those four wounds. p. 228 falls in Pars II. `234` and `228` each set a `2` twice for direct comparison.
- **`Luc. 22, 42` (p. 249 n. 5) — clean, and self-confirming.** Luke 22, 42 is *verumtamen non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat* — word for word the sentence the body quotes immediately after the anchor, which is exactly what `Seq. locus habetur ibid. non iisdem verbis, quae sumta sunt ex Luc.` asserts.
- **`I. Sent. d. 48. a. 2. q. 2.` and `III. Sent. d. 17. a. 1. q. 3.` (p. 249 n. 6's continuation) — roman book numerals against arabic citation numerals in the same line, twice.** Both `I.` and `III.` set symmetric slab serifs. **Sense: I *Sent.* d. 48 is *de conformitate voluntatis humanae ad divinam* — the doctrine of the anchor's whole sentence — and III *Sent.* d. 17 is on Christ's two wills, which the Hugh quotation is about.**
  **★★ CORRECTED 2026-07-31 — this note previously read `a. 4.` and claimed the digit verified. It is `a. 1.`** Re-read at 450 dpi and 8× against the `4` of `d. 48.` standing on the line above: the disputed glyph is a **single upright with an angled flag and a closed stem, carrying no crossbar and no triangular counter** — a `1` by this file's own discriminator, and nothing like the unmistakably crossbarred `4` of `48`. **Sense agrees independently:** Vol III d. 17 has only **two** articles (*De voluntate Christi*, 3 qq.; *De oratione Christi*), so `a. 4` cannot exist, and `a. 1. q. 3` is *De illarum voluntatum concordia vel controversia* — precisely the concord-of-wills doctrine the Hugh quotation is about. **How it was missed: the original check verified the GLYPHS and sense-checked *d. 17*, but never asked whether the target exists.** It was caught by the citation index (`tools/build-citations.py`), which resolves every locus against the corpus and reported this one as the only dangling reference in a 148-chunk pilot. **Reading a digit correctly is not the same as reading it rightly.**
- **`B M P` / `A Q` (p. 249 n. 1) and `G K` (p. 249 n. 4) read clean and alphabetical; `Vat.` (p. 249 n. 2) and `Edd.` (p. 249 n. 4) are unambiguous.** No single upright stands in any of these runs, so rule (a) is not exercised on p. 249.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ A FULL STOP WHERE THE SENSE ASKS FOR A SEMICOLON, AND LOWERCASE AFTER IT — PRESERVED.** In the thesis paragraph the plate sets `…defectus aegritudinum multiformium. nec omnes spirituales, sicut sunt ignorantia…` — a **period**, followed by a **lowercase `nec`**, in the middle of a `nec tamen … nec … nec …` series whose other two members are pointed with semicolons. The point is unambiguous on the band at maximum zoom (a full round point on the baseline, not a comma's tail), and the `n` is unambiguously lowercase. **This is odd pointing, not a battered sort, and it is set as printed and flagged here rather than regularised to a semicolon.** The English mirrors it with a period and a lowercase `nor`. It is the second such divergence in three leaves, after p. 248's `merita nostra;`, and the two are opposite cases: that one was a battered sort rendered whole, this one is a sound sort in a place the sense would not choose. **Do not collapse the two rules.**
- **★ `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` carries the COLON — ELEVENTH consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–VIII). p. 237's full stop remains the one-off. Here the formula is followed by `quia, cum … ideo necesse est, quod …`, a *cum/ideo* period — the first time in Pars IV that `ideo` itself carries the apodosis of the *Ratio*, where capp. VI and VII used `necesse est` bare.
- **★★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION TAKES A SEVENTH DISTINCT DISTRIBUTION IN SEVEN ADJACENT CAPITULA, AND IT IS THE FIRST TO PUT NONE AT ALL IN THE THESIS PARAGRAPH.** Cap. VIII's opening *Postquam* paragraph and its threefold division (*status patientis* / *modus patiendi* / *exitus passionis*) carry **no dash whatsoever** — the division is marked by italics and commas alone. The thesis paragraph likewise carries none, though it states a threefold `nec tamen … nec … nec …`. The four dashes in the chapter all fall in the *Ratio*: one before `De omni enim statu` (p. 248 R / p. 249 L), one before `Quia vero poenae`, one before `Et hinc est, quod Christus, orans`, and one before `Et sic una voluntas`. **Against Cap. VI (six dashes, all in the opening paragraph, marking every member) and Cap. VII (six dashes, all in the opening paragraph, marking members 2–7), Cap. VIII inverts the habit entirely: bare opening, dashed *Ratio*.** Transcribed, never regularised, and never counted from the number of members.
- **★ THE GUILLEMETS MARK TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF QUOTATION AND ARE SET EXACTLY AS PRINTED.** `« mortalitatem transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem »` in the *Ratio* is a four-word phrase lifted from Augustine (p. 248 n. 8 says so); `« secundum voluntatem divinam … voluntas carnis naturam »` in the closing paragraph is a **six-line block quotation from Hugh of St. Victor** whose opening guillemet stands after `quia` and whose closing guillemet stands after the note-6 anchor, before the semicolon. Both are Quaracchi's own marks and both are preserved; the English keeps them.
- **The italics are selective and were set exactly as printed.** In the opening paragraph *tolerantia passionum*, *status patientis*, *modus patiendi* and *exitus passionis* are italic while `Verbum incarnatum`, `unio naturarum` and `plenitudo charismatum` are roman — **the division's members are italic and the preceding chapters' subjects are not.** In the thesis paragraph *statu patientis*, *defectus*, *corporales*, *spirituales*, *omnes corporales*, *omnes spirituales*, *qualitercumque*, *invite*, *Deitatis*, *rationis*, *sensualitatis et carnis* are italic and the Matthew quotation is italic entire, while `humanam naturam`, `poenalitates`, `famem, sitim et lassitudinem`, `tristitiam, gemitum et timorem`, `aegritudinum multiformium`, `ignorantia et rebelliones carnis` are roman. In the *Ratio*, *naturam*, *ea quae sunt circa naturam*, *viator*, *comprehensor*, *innocentiae*, *naturae lapsae*, *gloriae* are italic; on p. 249 *exercitativae*, *testificativae*, *appetitum naturae*, *invite secundum rationem*, *contra naturalem inclinationem*, *carnis*, *rationis* are italic, both Gethsemane quotations are italic entire, and inside the Hugh quotation *divinam*, *rationis*, *voluntatem carnis*, *divina*, *rationalis*, *carnis* are italic while `voluntas`, `iustitiam`, `obedientiam`, `naturam` are roman — **the plate italicises the differentia of each will and leaves the noun and its object roman.** `ignorantia, infirmitas, malitia et concupiscentia` is roman entire although it is as much an enumeration as the italic members above it. **The plate's italic is not a rule that may be completed.**
- **`Deus`, `Christus`, `Deo`, `Deitatem`, `Patris`, `Salvatoris`, `Verbum` are capitalised as printed**, and `angelus malus` is not; the English follows.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The **THREEFOLD** division that governs the last three capitula of Pars IV — *status patientis* · *modus patiendi* · *exitus passionis* — stated once in the opening paragraph and confirmed by p. 248 n. 6 (`De his tribus agitur in hoc et 2 seqq. capp.`). Within the thesis: the **twofold** object of the assumption (*humana natura* / *defectus circa naturam*); the **twofold** kind of penalty assumed (*corporales* — hunger, thirst, weariness / *spirituales* — sadness, groaning, fear), each a **threefold** list; the **threefold** restriction on the assumption (`nec omnes corporales` · `nec omnes spirituales` · `nec qualitercumque`); and inside the third restriction the **twofold** will according to which nothing could be suffered unwillingly (*Deitatis* / *rationis*), set against the one will the passion did contradict (*sensualitatis et carnis*). In the *Ratio*: the **twofold** fittingness the mediator must have with each extreme (`quantum ad naturam` / `quantum ad ea quae sunt circa naturam`); the **twofold** pair of attributes he shares with each (with God *iustitia et beatitudo*, with man *passibilitas et mortalitas*), answered by the **corollary** that he was at once *viator* and *comprehensor*; the **threefold** state from each of which he took something (*innocentiae* peccati immunitas · *naturae lapsae* mortalitas · *gloriae* beatitudo fruitionis perfectae); the **fourfold** wound of original sin (*ignorantia, infirmitas, malitia, concupiscentia*), which he neither had to assume nor assumed; the **twofold** character of the penalties he did assume (*exercitativae virtutis* / *testificativae humanitatis verae*); and finally the **threefold** will, each with its own proper object (*divina* — iustitia · *rationalis* — obedientia · *carnis* — natura), which is the Hugh quotation and the chapter's closing corollary. **★ The threefold state and the threefold will are NOT the same three and must not be aligned: the first is a division of what Christ took, the second of what in him willed.**

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 248 R — "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Ratio." · "Pro thesi 1." p. 249 L — "Corollarium." · "Pro thesi 2." · "Pro thesi 3." · "De oratione Christi." p. 249 R — "Corollarium." Ten glosses across six paragraphs. **★★ AN EIGHTH DISTINCT GLOSS FORM, AND THE FIRST IN PARS IV TO SET TWO `Corollarium.` GLOSSES IN ONE CAPITULUM AND TO INTERPOLATE A TOPICAL GLOSS INTO A NUMBERED SERIES.** Where Cap. VII ran `Thesis 1.`–`Thesis 7.` against five `Pro thesi` glosses and closed with a single `Corollarium.`, Cap. VIII runs a **three-member numbered series answered one-for-one** (`Thesis 1.`–`Thesis 3.` / `Pro thesi 1.`–`Pro thesi 3.`) — the only strictly parallel pair in Pars IV — but then **breaks the series twice**: `Corollarium.` stands *inside* the answer to thesis 1, beside `viator et comprehensor.`, before `Pro thesi 2.` has been reached; and `De oratione Christi.`, a **topical gloss with no number and no counterpart**, stands inside the answer to thesis 3. A second `Corollarium.` then closes the chapter beside `Et sic una voluntas non erat alteri contraria`. **So a one-to-one numbered series can still carry unnumbered interruptions, and a `Corollarium.` need not be terminal — Cap. VII's was, and the first of Cap. VIII's is not.** The whole of the `Thesis` series falls on p. 248's right column and the whole of the `Pro thesi` series on p. 249, split across its gutter. **Never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's, in either direction.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Five readings could have carried one — `B H` against the raw's `B II`, `Vulgata et 1` against the raw's `I`, `d. 15-18` against the raw's `1I)-I8`, and the `1`/`I` pairs in p. 249 nn. 1 and 6 — and each is settled positively on the band, by stroke count or by a same-line glyph contrast, and corroborated by the cited text checking itself against the anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag. The one genuine oddity in the body (`multiformium. nec`) is a plate reading preserved as printed, not an ambiguity.

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.** The bodies were re-set line-by-line from the bands; the raw was consulted only as a cross-check and is graded here for the next chunk's benefit.
- **p. 248, right column, Cap. VIII's portion — GOOD, and holding the grade `p4-c7` recorded for the same column's Cap. VII lines.** `plciii-tudo`, `tolerunlia`, `e.r.itus pa.ssionis`, `Dc statu paticntis`, `Cliristus`, `poenahtates`, `etiani`, `tiinorem`, `poral.es` (**a spurious period inside a word, the p. 248 `arbitrii.;` failure again**), `snnt`, `spirituales` shattered to `.spirituales`, `rebeliiones`, `qualilercumque`, `qiiia`, `ncccssitatem [latiendi`, `niiiil [lati [losset inuitc` (**four `p`→`[` substitutions in one line**), `hmntatcm Dcitatis`, `.sctisuali-tatis et cariiis`, `.sicut tu vis`, `re(;onci-liando`, `sokuTi`, `7iaturam` (**a numeral spliced into a word**), `ca quae .sunt`, `iiomo`, `niiser`, `ct hominum`, `communicarc`. **About thirty garbles in thirty printed lines — one per line — with one spurious interior period, one spliced numeral and no dropped clause.** The `Cap. VIII.` heading is shattered in the raw (`C.\p. VIII.`) while its subtitle prints nearly clean — recorded by `p4-c7` and confirmed. **The four right-margin glosses print as `Thesis i.`, `Thcsis -i.`, `Thesis .).`, `nM».` and `p™ ihcsi i.` — ALL FIVE damaged and every numeral destroyed.**
- **p. 248 footer, right block, nn. 6–8 (the three owned here) — FAIR, a clear step below the LEFT block's neighbours on p. 247 and two steps below p. 247's right register.** `Do liis tribus`, `tioc`, `Superitis`, `B II` (**siglum wrong — the crossbar-less `H` read as two I's**), `slnlus paticntis`, `exccptis lamen EMPS` (**interior spaces lost across a siglum run**), `sequiintur`, `seciindo modus patimdi`, `pa.isionis`; `Vulgata et I omittunt` (**edition numeral read as a codex siglum**), `Dc lioc cap.`, `cfi'.`, `d. 1I)-I8.` (**destroyed outright**), `vtniliil` (**`ut nihil` fused and destroyed**), `cdd.`, `intcrserunt`; `Epist. L Tim.` (**roman `I.` read as `L`**), `IIL SenU` (**two errors in three characters**), `allcgatur`, `liac cxpositione`, `de Ci^ .` (**`Civ.` destroyed**), `ctiam liic quacdam vcrbotenus`, `mortti-litatem transeiintem et beiititiidincm penn/mentem`, `profcruntiir`. **Roughly twenty-five garbles in eleven printed lines, including ONE destroyed citation, TWO wrong sigla or numerals of the flagged class, one lost interior space and two roman numerals mangled into letters.** ★ Against p. 247's right register — fourteen single-letter garbles in eleven lines with every digit right — **this is two full grades lower on the facing page's facing block, and it is the register this chunk had to own.**
- **p. 249, left column — GOOD, and a step ABOVE p. 248's right column across the leaf, reversing the direction the last seven leaves ran.** `ot l)i';ititii(linc` (**the first line of the page destroyed almost entirely**), `cuni iKimino vcro in |i;issiljilit;il(!`, `morLi,lit;ile`, `h;iljciiilo`, `mortalit;itcin`, `pcrni;iiienlcm`, `homiiicm`, `prncsenti miseri;i ad vit;iiii Lic;it;iin`, `m;diis`, `hatendo`, `immorUditatem`, `fiiit uiediator laciciis c;i-dcrc`, `cnlpam`, `suggcstioncni`, `crgo`, `dchuit lialicrc`, `Iwatiludiiiem fruitionis ciiiii`, `passihiliUitc`, `liinc cst`, `simul- dchuit` (**a spurious hyphen**), `coro\hmm.` (gloss, destroyed), `compiv/wiimr` (**`comprehensor` destroyed**), `Dc oiniii ciiim st;ilii ali-quid`, `dicitiir`, `innocmliau`, `immnnitatcm`, `nalurae lapsae mortiditatcni`, `statii vcro`, `bcatitudiiiem`, `perfeetac`, `pocnalitatcs vitiosac`, `iiia, quatuor` (**`illa` destroyed and a spurious comma**), `licct`, `nvditia`, `liinc est`, `assumcre`, `poenac`, `siint`, `tostificativac liumanitalis`, `potissimc`, `qiiae`, `n;itur;uTi`, `ftmies`, `alimcnti`, `rpiia nullus innoccns dcbet`, `poenani`, `lioc csset conlra`, `eti;im`, `appelitum nalurae, quac`, `turalilcr`, `liabcrc debuit Imiusmodi ixienalitatcs, sictamcn` (**`ixienalitates` destroyed and a lost interior space**), `iihil possct`, `ralionem`, `soluiii`, `omnipotenlem`, `unit;im`, `naturilis`, `p;iti invitc`, `boc`, `naiuralem`, `appctitum n;itii-rae`, `oui cst iu`, `VA liinc est` (**`Et` destroyed**), `sccundum`, `qiia`, `refugicbat`, `calixiste` (**lost interior space**), `volunt;ilein t;imen ralionis`, `appeti^tui` (**a spurious caret**), `crirnis`. **Well over eighty garbles in forty-eight printed lines — nearly two per line by token count — but almost all are the `a`→`;` and `u`→`ii` classes, and no clause is dropped. Three lost interior spaces, one spurious hyphen, one spurious comma, one spurious caret. Both marginal glosses in the run are damaged and one is destroyed.** ★ **The tell is that the raw's error DENSITY is high while its error SEVERITY is low here — the opposite of p. 248's right footer, where a handful of errors each destroyed a citation. Density and severity are independent axes and the grade must name both.**
- **p. 249, right column, Cap. VIII's closing eleven lines — GOOD.** `l,unlas , .led lua fiat`, `F.l .sic una volunt;is noii eral`, `coroii.uinm.` (gloss, destroyed), `altcri`, `qui;i`, `voliinl;itcm divi-nam`, `qiiod iustum crat`, `volunt;item`, `iustiti;ie`, `secuiidura volunla-teni carnis poeiiam`, `iistitiam non accus;ivit`, `Kt sic unaquaeque volunUis (iiiod suum`, `crat`, `adse` (**lost interior space**), `.scipiclKitiir` (**`sequebatur` destroyed**), `volunlas`, `volunt;is rational.is` (**spurious interior period**), `obc-dicntiam`, `natur;im`, `lioc`, `11011 erat` (**`non` set as digits**), `colluctatio ct |)ugna, scd pacata`. **Roughly twenty-five garbles in eleven printed lines, one word destroyed, one lost space, one spurious period, and `non` rendered as `11011`.** The `Cap. IX.` heading and its subtitle print **CLEAN** in the raw (`Cap. IX.` / `De pa.mone Chrisli fiuantum ad modum patiendi.` — the heading undamaged, the subtitle garbled) — **the ninth chapter heading in Pars IV and the sixth to print clean, against three damaged. Still no pattern. Set every heading from the band.**
- **p. 249 footer — GOOD in both blocks, and markedly better than p. 248's right block one leaf back.** Left: `A Boetliio`, `dnabus naturis`, `c. 8. Vide` clean, `d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 16. a. 1. q. 3. ad 2.` **every digit correct**, `Snpra pro enim B M P aliiqiie etiam, A Q ergo.` clean but for one ligature; `pag. 234, nola 4. in fine` clean, `Vat. mortale` clean; `pag. 228, nola 7.` clean, `Infcrius`, `cdd.`, `< um nonnullis codd. quia`; `Edd., excepta 2, qua.` clean, `Infcrins`, `(G K omit-tunt tamen)` clean, `excepta 1, ut etiam` clean; `Matlli. 26, 39.` clean, `ibid. non iisdcm \erbis`, `sumta sunt ex Luc. 22, 42.` clean; `Hugo a S. Vict. in Libello de Quatuor Volnntat. in Chri-` clean but for one letter. Right: `sto. In textu originali plura interserunfur.`, `Cfr. I. Sent. d. 48. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et III. Sent. d. 17. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.` — **⚠ this line's "every digit correct" verdict was WRONG and is withdrawn (2026-07-31): the raw's `a. 4` was carried through, and the plate reads `a. 1`** (see the corrected entry above). **Roughly a dozen single-letter garbles across fourteen printed lines, and — with that one exception — no wrong digit or siglum in either block.** ★ Every digit was nonetheless re-derived from the plate; the raw's agreement is corroboration, never evidence. **★★ AND THE EXCEPTION IS THE LESSON: this register was graded the cleanest in Pars IV, and the one wrong digit in it sat inside the sentence declaring it clean. A block-level "clean" verdict is a summary, and per this file's own rule the summary is the least reliable line in any `## Notes`.**

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