title: Pars 6, Cap. 12

title_alt:
De integritate ordinis
On the integrity of order

source_text:
<!-- page 277 -->

### Capitulum XII. *De integritate ordinis.*

De Sacramento *ordinis* haec in summa tenenda sunt, quod « ordo est signaculum quoddam, quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato[^p277-7] ». — Licet autem
<!-- page 278 -->
ordo sit *unum* de septem Sacramentis, septiformis tamen est ordinis gradus. Primus est in *ostiariis*, secundus in *lectoribus*, tertius in *exorcistis*, quartus in *acolythis*, quintus in *subdiaconis*, sextus in *diaconis*, septimus in *presbyteris*. His autem quasi per modum cuiusdam praeparatorii supponitur *clericalis tonsura* et etiam *psalmistatus*; per modum autem complementi superponitur *episcopatus*, *patriarchatus* et etiam *papatus*; a quibus manant ordines et dispensari debent sub debitis signis, tam ex parte visus quam ex parte auditus, solemnitate debita nihilominus observata quantum ad *tempus*, *locum*, *officium* et *personam*.

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum scilicet incarnatum, quia ut Deus et homo Sacramentorum medicamenta ad salutem hominum instituit *ordinate*, *discrete* et *potestative* secundum exigentiam suae bonitatis, sapientiae et virtutis; hinc est, quod ipsa medicamenta Sacramentorum commisit hominibus dispensanda non qualitercumque, sed eo modo, quo exigebat *ordo*, *discretio* et *potestas*. Oportuit ergo, aliquas personas ad huiusmodi officium exsequendum distingui et segregari, quibus ordinario iure potestas huiusmodi committeretur. — Et quia huiusmodi discretio non debuit fieri nisi per signa sacra, cuiusmodi sunt Sacramenta; hinc est, quod debuit esse aliquod Sacramentum, quod esset sacrum signaculum *ordinativum*, *distinctivum* et *potestativum* ad Sacramenta cetera dispensanda modo *distinctivo*, *potestativo* et *ordinativo*. Et ideo ordo definitur « signaculum quoddam, in quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato »; ita quod simul in eius notificatione clauduntur tria praedicta, ex quibus colligi possunt in summa, quae ad integritatem ordinis exiguntur.

Primum igitur, quoniam ordo est signaculum *distinctivum* et sequestrativum ab omni populo, ut quis divino cultui sit totaliter mancipatus; ideo ordines praecedit *distinctio* quaedam in *tonsura* et *corona*, per quam intelligitur *resecatio* temporalium appetituum et mentis elevatio ad aeterna, ut totus ostendatur clericus deputatus esse ad divinum cultum; et ideo dicit in susceptione coronae: *Dominus pars hereditatis meae*[^p278-1] etc. — Et quia talis debet esse instructus in divinis laudibus, quae maxime consistunt in Psalmis; ideo *psalmistatus* tanquam praeambulus ceteros ordines antecedit, quem tamen largo modo Isidorus inter ordines numeravit.

Secundo vero, quia ordo est signaculum *ordinativum* et in se ipso etiam ordinatum; et ordo consistit in graduum disparitate et distinctione completa, secundum quod exigit septiformis gratia, ad cuius dispensationem Sacramentum ordinis principaliter ordinatur: hinc est, quod septem sunt ordines gradatim ordinati usque ad sacerdotium, in quo *status* est ordinum; quia ipsius est consecrare Sacramentum corporis Christi, in quo est plenitudo omnium gratiarum; unde alii sex sunt tanquam subministrativi et quasi gradus quidam, per quos ascenditur ad thronum Salomonis[^p278-2]; qui et sex sunt propter numeri perfectionem, quia senarius est primus numerus perfectus, et propter hoc, quod sic exigit perfectio et sufficientia officii ministrandi. Nam oportet, aliquos ministrare quasi a remotiori, aliquos a propinquiori et aliquos a proximo, ut nihil desit in ministerio ordinato. Et quia quodlibet horum ministeriorum geminatur secundum actum purgandi et illuminandi[^p278-3]; hinc est, quod sex sunt ordines ministeriales et septimus omnium perfectissimus, in quo altaris conficitur Sacramentum, qui consummatur in ordine uno tanquam in termino ultimo et completo.

Postremo, quia ordo est signaculum *potestativum* non tantum respectu aliorum Sacramentorum dispensandorum, verum etiam respectu sui; et potestas super potestatem est potestas *excellens*: ideo sibi non tantum competit *potestas simplex*, cuiusmodi est in ordine simplici, verum etiam *eminentia potestatis*, cuiusmodi est in his quorum est ordines ordinarie dispensare[^p278-4]. Et quia excellentia, quanto magis descendit, tanto magis dilatatur et quanto magis ascendit, tanto magis unitur: hinc est, quod plures sunt episcopi, pauciores archiepiscopi, paucissimi patriarchae et unus pater patrum, qui *Papa* merito appellatur, tanquam unus, primus et summus pater spiritualis omnium patrum, immo omnium fidelium et hierarcha praecipuus, sponsus unicus, caput indivisum, Pontifex summus, Christi vicarius, fons, origo et regula cunctorum principatuum ecclesiasticorum; a quo tanquam a summo derivatur ordinata potestas usque ad infima Ecclesiae membra, secundum quod exigit praecellens dignitas in ecclesiastica hierarchia[^p278-5].

Et quia haec dignitas praecipue manet in ordine, ideo hoc Sacramentum non debet dispensari nisi cum magna discretione et solemnitate, ac per hoc non *a quolibet* nec *cuilibet* nec in *quolibet loco* nec quo-
<!-- page 279 -->
*libet tempore*; sed personis *litteratis*, *honestis* et a cunctis *irregularitatibus alienis*, *ieiuno stomacho*, *loco sacro*, *tempore Missae* et *temporibus* ab ecclesiastico iure *statutis* debent huiusmodi ordines dispensari, et hoc ab *episcopis*, quibus propter sui eminentiam reservatur dispensatio ordinum, confirmatio per impositionem manuum, consecratio monialium et abbatum et dedicatio ecclesiarum[^p279-1]; quae propter sui celebritatem non debent dispensari nisi ab his qui habent praeeminentiam potestatis.

---

english:
### Chapter XII. *On the integrity of order.*

Concerning the Sacrament of *order* these things must be held in summary: that « order is a certain sign, by which spiritual power is handed over to the ordained[^p277-7] ». — But although
<!-- page 278 -->
order is *one* of the seven Sacraments, nevertheless the grade of order is sevenfold. The first is in *doorkeepers*, the second in *lectors*, the third in *exorcists*, the fourth in *acolytes*, the fifth in *subdeacons*, the sixth in *deacons*, the seventh in *presbyters*. But under these, as by way of a certain preparatory, there is placed the *clerical tonsure* and also the *psalmistatus*; while by way of a complement there is placed above them the *episcopate*, the *patriarchate* and also the *papacy*; from which orders flow forth and ought to be dispensed under due signs, both on the side of sight and on the side of hearing, the due solemnity being none the less observed as regards *time*, *place*, *office* and *person*.

Now the reason for the understanding of the aforesaid is this: since our reparative principle, the Word namely incarnate, since as God and man he instituted the medicines of the Sacraments for the salvation of men *in an ordered way*, *discreetly* and *potestatively* according to the exigency of his goodness, wisdom and power; hence it is that he committed those very medicines of the Sacraments to men to be dispensed, not in whatever way, but in that way which *order*, *discretion* and *power* required. It was fitting therefore that certain persons should be distinguished and set apart for carrying out an office of this kind, to whom by ordinary right a power of this kind should be committed. — And because a discretion of this kind ought not to be made save through sacred signs, of which kind the Sacraments are; hence it is that there ought to be some Sacrament which should be a sacred sign *ordinative*, *distinctive* and *potestative* for dispensing the other Sacraments in a *distinctive*, *potestative* and *ordinative* mode. And therefore order is defined as « a certain sign, in which spiritual power is handed over to the ordained »; so that at once in its notification the three aforesaid things are enclosed, from which there can be gathered in summary the things which are required for the integrity of order.

First then, since order is a sign *distinctive* and sequestrative from all the people, that one may be totally made over to the divine worship; therefore there precedes the orders a certain *distinction* in the *tonsure* and the *crown*, through which is understood the *cutting away* of temporal appetites and the elevation of the mind to eternal things, so that the cleric may be shown to be wholly deputed to the divine worship; and therefore he says in the reception of the crown: *The Lord is the portion of my inheritance*[^p278-1] etc. — And because such a one ought to be instructed in the divine praises, which consist chiefly in the Psalms; therefore the *psalmistatus*, as a forerunner, goes before the other orders — which nevertheless Isidore in a broad manner numbered among the orders.

Secondly, however, since order is a sign *ordinative* and in its very self also ordered; and order consists in a disparity of grades and in a complete distinction, according to what the sevenfold grace requires, to the dispensing of which the Sacrament of order is principally ordained: hence it is that there are seven orders ordered by grades up to the priesthood, in which is the *state* of the orders; because it belongs to it to consecrate the Sacrament of the body of Christ, in which is the fullness of all graces; whence the other six are as it were subministrative and as certain grades, through which one ascends to the throne of Solomon[^p278-2]; and they are six on account of the perfection of the number, because the senary is the first perfect number, and on account of this, that the perfection and sufficiency of the office of ministering thus requires it. For it is fitting that some should minister as it were from a more remote place, some from a nearer, and some from the nearest, so that nothing be lacking in the ordered ministry. And because each of these ministries is doubled according to the act of purging and of illuminating[^p278-3]; hence it is that there are six ministerial orders and a seventh most perfect of all, in which the Sacrament of the altar is confected, which is consummated in one order as in the last and complete term.

Lastly, since order is a sign *potestative* not only in respect of the other Sacraments to be dispensed, but also in respect of itself; and power over power is an *excelling* power: therefore there belongs to it not only a *simple power*, of which kind it is in a simple order, but also an *eminence of power*, of which kind it is in those whose office it is to dispense the orders in the ordinary way[^p278-4]. And because excellence, the more it descends, so much the more is it dilated, and the more it ascends, so much the more is it united: hence it is that bishops are more, archbishops fewer, patriarchs fewest, and there is one father of fathers, who is deservedly called *Pope*, as the one, first and supreme spiritual father of all fathers, nay of all the faithful, and the chief hierarch, the sole spouse, the undivided head, the supreme Pontiff, the vicar of Christ, the fount, origin and rule of all ecclesiastical principalities; from whom as from the supreme there is derived an ordered power down to the lowest members of the Church, according to what the pre-excelling dignity in the ecclesiastical hierarchy requires[^p278-5].

And because this dignity remains chiefly in order, therefore this Sacrament ought not to be dispensed save with great discretion and solemnity, and through this not *by anyone whatsoever* nor *to anyone whatsoever* nor in *any place whatsoever* nor at
<!-- page 279 -->
*any time whatsoever*; but to persons *lettered*, *honourable* and *free from all irregularities*, with *a fasting stomach*, *in a sacred place*, *at the time of Mass* and *at the times* appointed by ecclesiastical *law*, ought orders of this kind to be dispensed, and this by *bishops*, to whom on account of their eminence there is reserved the dispensing of orders, confirmation through the imposition of hands, the consecration of nuns and of abbots, and the dedication of churches[^p279-1]; which things, on account of their solemn celebrity, ought not to be dispensed save by those who have the pre-eminence of power.

---

la: Ut dicit Magister Sententiarum, IV. Sent. d. XXIV. c. 13. Ibid. in capp. praecedentibus et subsequentibus insinuantur quae hic subnectuntur. — De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 24. et 25. — P hic et infra *ordinando*. Inferius post *episcopatus* F bene addit *archiepiscopatus* (cfr. infra explicationem), et post *quam* plures codd. subiungunt *etiam*.

en: As the Master of the Sentences says, IV *Sent.* d. XXIV, c. 13. In the same place, in the preceding and the subsequent chapters, the things which are here appended are intimated. — On this chapter cf. IV *Sent.* d. 24 and 25. — P here and below reads *ordinando*. Below, after *episcopatus*, F rightly adds *archiepiscopatus* (cf. the explanation below); and after *quam* several codices subjoin *etiam*.

la: Psalm. 15, 5. — Sententia Isidori invenitur in VII. Etymolog. c. 12. n. 3; II. de Offic. ecclesiast. c. 12. et eius Epist. ad Ludifredum. Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 631, nota 1. — Inferius pro *praeambulans* cum pluribus codd. substituimus *praeambulus*.

en: Psalm 15:5. — Isidore's opinion is found in *Etymologies* VII, c. 12, n. 3; *On the Ecclesiastical Offices* II, c. 12, and his *Letter to Ludifredus*. Cf. tom. IV, p. 631, note 1. — Below, for *praeambulans* we have substituted, with several codices, *praeambulus*.

la: Libr. III. Reg. 10, 18. seqq., ubi dicitur, quod thronus, quem fecit Salomon, habebat sex gradus etc. — De perfectione numeri senarii cfr. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion. — Plures codd. *ad gradum Salomonis*. Superius voci *principaliter* plures codd. praefigunt *specialiter et*. Inferius pro *a proximo* non pauci codd. et 2 *de proximo*.

en: *Third Book of Kings* 10:18 and following, where it is said that the throne which Solomon made had six steps etc. — On the perfection of the senary number cf. I *Sent.* d. 2, q. 4, scholion. — Several codices read *ad gradum Salomonis*. Above, before the word *principaliter*, several codices prefix *specialiter et*. Below, for *a proximo* not a few codices and edition 2 read *de proximo*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 225, nota 6. et pag. 195, nota 7. — H P et 1 addunt *et perficiendi*. Inferius pro *termino* B I K O T U *fine*.

en: Cf. above, p. 225, note 6, and p. 195, note 7. — H, P and edition 1 add *et perficiendi*. Below, for *termino*, B, I, K, O, T, U read *fine*.

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd., exceptis tamen I L M O P Q, *ordinare et dispensare*.

en: The Vatican edition, with several codices, except however I, L, M, O, P, Q, reads *ordinare et dispensare*.

en: Cf. above, *Questions on Evangelical Perfection*, q. 4, a. 3.

la: Vide tom. IV. pag. 643, nota 1. Cfr. tamen Benedict. XIV. *epist. prima ad Abbat. Campidon.* (in appendice tom. IV. eius Bullarii), ubi docet, administrationem confirmationis et consecrationem ecclesiarum fieri posse a simplici sacerdote, delegato tamen a solo summo Pontifice. Vide supra c. 5.

en: See tom. IV, p. 643, note 1. Cf. however Benedict XIV, *first letter to the Abbot of Kempten* (in the appendix to tom. IV of his *Bullarium*), where he teaches that the administration of confirmation and the consecration of churches can be done by a simple priest, delegated however by the supreme Pontiff alone. See above, c. 5. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 277–279, THREE LEAVES, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** `CAP. XII.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De integritate ordinis.` stands centred in p. 277's **RIGHT** column about **78 %** down the leaf, immediately below Cap. XI's closing `…in his quae ad fines illos habent finaliter ordinari.` — where `bon-brev-p6-c11` said it stood, and re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted. **The title is taken from THIS heading, never from the volume index**, whose Pars VI titles are OCR-garbled throughout the block. Cap. XII occupies the lower **22 %** of p. 277's right column, crossing to p. 278 **MID-SENTENCE** (p. 277's right column ends `— Licet autem` and p. 278's left column opens `ordo sit unum de septem Sacramentis`, stranding the concessive conjunction from its own subject and verb); fills the whole of p. 278, both columns, crossing that leaf's gutter **MID-WORD inside a paragraph opening** (`Secundo vero, quia ordo est signaculum ordi-` is p. 278's right column head, its predecessor `modo Isidorus inter ordines numeravit.` closing the left column complete — so the leaf's own gutter is crossed at a clean paragraph break in the BODY while its footer register straddles); crosses to p. 279 **MID-WORD** (`nec quo-` / `libet tempore`, splitting `quolibet`); and closes about **43 %** down p. 279's **LEFT** column at `…nisi ab his qui habent praeeminentiam potestatis.`

**★★ THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `CAP. XIII.` HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE — AND THE INDEX'S HYPOTHESIS HELD, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE INDEX BEING EVIDENCE.** `CAP. XIII.` with the ONE-line subtitle `De integritate matrimonii.` stands centred in p. 279's **LEFT** column, with Cap. XIII's opening beneath it in the same column (`De Sacramento *matrimonii* hoc in summa tenendum est, quod « matrimonium est coniunctio legitima maris et feminae, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens ² ». Haec autem coniunctio non solum fuit post peccatum…`, beside a fresh `Thesis 1.` gloss). The volume index put Cap. XIII's opening on p. 279 and thereby implied — by skipping p. 278 in its XII → XIII jump — that Cap. XII runs three leaves. **That implication turns out to be right, and it was used for nothing**: both ends were set from the plate, exactly as the fourth caution requires, because this same index had already been caught under-reporting Cap. IX's span by a whole leaf in this very pars. The running head was likewise used for nothing: **p. 277's reads `PARS VI. C. XII.` while the whole left column and 78 % of the right are still Cap. XI; p. 278's reads `BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. XII.`, which for once is true of the whole leaf; and p. 279's reads `PARS VI. C. XIII.` while 43 % of its left column is still Cap. XII** — **the tenth and eleventh consecutive leaves on which the running head misleads, with one accidental hit between them.** No inference was drawn from white space at any column foot; p. 279's left column carries blank paper below Cap. XIII's own text and p. 278's left column foot carries blank paper above the footer rule, and neither is a boundary. Nor was any inference drawn from the shape of a crossing: **this chunk's two body crossings are BOTH mid-word or mid-clause (`Licet autem` / `ordo sit`, and `quo-` / `libet tempore`), where p. 275 → p. 276 fell at a complete paragraph and p. 276 → p. 277 fell mid-phrase, and not one of the four told anyone anything.**

**Gutters — one re-derived from the hand-off, two settled fresh with no constant. ★ Three consecutive leaves and three different diagnostic pictures.**
- **p. 277 = 1247, RE-DERIVED rather than re-used.** `colcrop.py vol5 277` with no constant returns **1245 on a 56 px run** — below the 58–64 px trust band and therefore suspect, exactly as `p6-c11` found. Thirteen row windows reproduce `p6-c11`'s measurement window for window (10–30 % → 1257/62 · 15–35 % → 1255/60 · 20–40 % → 1254/58 · 25–45 % → 1254/58 · 30–50 % → 1252/59 · 35–55 % → 1251/60 · 40–60 % → 1250/63 · 45–65 % → 1248/62 · 50–70 % → 1248/62 · 55–75 % → 1247/61 · 60–80 % → 1245/60 · 70–89 % → 1243/61, with the same single 80 px blow-out at 65–85 % discarded), and the ink profile over rows 45–92 % again puts the zero band at **x = 1221–1273** with the printed column rule inside it at **x = 1240–1252 peaking 596 rows**, band midpoint **1247**, rule centre 1246. **The monotonic 1257 → 1243 drift is the leaf's skew, not disagreement; 1247 confirmed and adopted.**
- **★ p. 278 = 1351, SETTLED FRESH ON A LEAF NEVER BEFORE CROPPED — the default is quietly pinched, and the windows are the tightest in this quire.** `colcrop.py vol5 278` returns **1350 on a 56 px run**, below the trust band and therefore not usable on its own showing. Thirteen row windows: 10–30 % → 1345/60 · 15–35 % → 1346/62 · 20–40 % → 1346/62 · 25–45 % → 1348/63 · 30–50 % → 1348/61 · 35–55 % → 1348/61 · 40–60 % → 1348/61 · 45–65 % → 1348/61 · 50–70 % → 1349/63 · 55–75 % → 1349/62 · 60–80 % → 1349/62 · 65–85 % → 1349/62 · 70–89 % → 1352/59. **No blow-out, no fork, a total spread of 7 px and every run inside 59–63 px** — the shape the frozen rule calls trustworthy. Step 3 says why the default was pinched and where the truth is: over rows 45–92 % the zero band runs **x = 1323–1380** (a noise floor of 2 rows, against 248 rows at x = 1313 and 396 at x = 1384) with Quaracchi's printed column rule inside it as an ink island at **x = 1348–1355, peaking 1062 rows** — the heaviest inking of the rule met in this quire — band midpoint **1351.5** and rule centre **1351.5**. **The rule sits dead square in the band and is simply inked hard, which truncates the zero run to 56 px without moving the centre at all: a narrow run diagnostic of heavy inking, not of a narrow gutter, precisely as the frozen rule now predicts. 1351 adopted**, 1 px from the rejected default, and the bands cut there read clean edge to edge in both columns.
- **★★ p. 279 = 1191, SETTLED FRESH — and this leaf is the OPPOSITE case: the rule sits OFF CENTRE, so the windows drift while the band does not.** `colcrop.py vol5 279` returns **1191 on a 51 px run**, again below the trust band. Twelve surviving row windows, with **one blow-out discarded** (15–35 % → 1151 on a **138 px** run — the same species of nonsense as p. 248's 251 px, far ABOVE the sound band): 10–30 % → 1188/63 · 20–40 % → 1192/59 · 25–45 % → 1194/62 · 30–50 % → 1195/61 · 35–55 % → 1195/60 · 40–60 % → 1196/62 · 45–65 % → 1197/63 · 50–70 % → 1197/64 · 55–75 % → 1197/64 · 60–80 % → 1197/63 · 65–85 % → 1191/51 · 70–89 % → 1190/52. Step 3 resolves it: over rows 45–92 % the zero band runs **x = 1166–1216** (noise floor 1–3 rows) with the column rule inside it as an ink island at **x = 1189–1199, peaking 747 rows** — **band midpoint 1191, rule centre 1194, so the rule stands 3 px right of centre and pinches the run asymmetrically** (23 px of clear paper to its left, 17 px to its right). Per the frozen instruction the **body-band midpoint decides: 1191 adopted**, and the windows that read 1195–1197 are reading the rule, not the gutter. **Fourteen consecutive leaves now measure 1150 · 1422 · 1163 · 1370 · 1186 · 1373 · 1202 · 1326 · 1164 · 1403 · 1145 · 1392 · 1247 · 1351 · 1191 — parity predicts nothing, proximity predicts nothing, and the run width remains the only confidence signal.**

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All seven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands** (6 bands at 2.6× for the body read, then 14 bands at 4.6× for the digit and siglum work); the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 277's total of 6 → 7 was established by `bon-brev-p6-c11` and was already in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; p. 278's total of 5 and p. 279's total of 7 are established here and entered**, with p. 279's nn. 2–7 forwarded as legitimate PENDINGs.

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL. EVERY PARTICULAR OF ITS PER-NOTE DATA HELD — BUT IT WAS INCOMPLETE IN ONE RESPECT IT DID NOT CLAIM TO COVER, AND THAT IS THE CORRECTION.** `bon-brev-p6-c11` forwarded p. 277's n. 7 with its verification level stated exactly: block position, verbatim text, anchor column (RIGHT) and anchor word all read off the bands, with `c. 13.` explicitly flagged as an unverified lone `1`/`3` pair. All of that is confirmed here. **What the hand-off did not say — because p. 278 had never been cropped — is that n. 7 DOES NOT END on p. 277.** Its entry breaks off at `— De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 24.` at the foot of p. 277's right block and continues, unnumbered, at the head of p. 278's left block with `et 25. — P hic et infra *ordinando*…`. The forwarded text was therefore the head of the note, not the note; it is rendered joined above. **This is a completion of the hand-off, not a contradiction of it**, and it is exactly why the p. 277 → p. 278 page-crossing test was left to this chunk. Verification level of every note as established **here**:
- **p. 277 n. 7** — POSITION, COLUMN, ANCHOR WORD, OWNERSHIP and DIGITS all verified here against the hand-off, and the note's **EXTENT** established for the first time. Anchors on `quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato ⁷ ».` in the **RIGHT** column, closing Cap. XII's *Thesis 1*. Footer entry **last** in p. 277's right block, breaking off mid-citation, with blank paper beneath it.
- **p. 278 nn. 1–5** — all first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: n. 1 anchors on `*Dominus pars hereditatis meae* ¹ etc.` in the **LEFT** column, inside *Pro thesi 2*; n. 2 on `ascenditur ad thronum Salomonis ²;` in the **RIGHT**; n. 3 on `actum purgandi et illuminandi ³;` in the **RIGHT**; n. 4 on `ordines ordinarie dispensare ⁴.` in the **RIGHT**; n. 5 on `in ecclesiastica hierarchia ⁵.` in the **RIGHT**, closing the *Papatus* period. **All five are Cap. XII's; the leaf is wholly inside this capitulum.**
- **p. 279 n. 1** — first-read here and owned here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP verified: it anchors on `et dedicatio ecclesiarum ¹;` in the **LEFT** column, in Cap. XII's closing period. Footer entry **first** in p. 279's left block, opening NUMBERED.
- **p. 279 nn. 2–7** — read here and **NOT owned here.** n. 2 anchors on `individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens ² ».` in Cap. XIII's *Thesis 1*, in the **LEFT** column below the `CAP. XIII.` heading; nn. 3–7 follow in Cap. XIII. All six are forwarded to `bon-brev-p6-c13` (details below).

**★ p. 277's SPLIT MAP — the leaf is now fully consumed.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 — no straddle. Right footer block: nn. 5, 6, 7, opening NUMBERED, n. 7 breaking off incomplete at the foot. **Anchors:** nn. 1–4 in the LEFT column, nn. 5–7 in the RIGHT. **Total 7.** nn. 1–6 are Cap. XI's (`p6-c11`'s), n. 7 is mine — as `p6-c11` established; block (4/3), column (4/3) and capitulum (6/1) fell as its per-note list said, and re-reading the register here changed nothing except the extent of n. 7.

**★★ p. 278's SPLIT MAP — A TENTH DISTINCT ARRANGEMENT, AND THE FIRST IN PARS VI WHOSE LEFT BLOCK OPENS WITH AN INHERITED CONTINUATION.** Left footer block: **p. 277 n. 7's unnumbered continuation**, then nn. 1, 2 — n. 2 straddling the gutter, breaking off at `etc. — De perfectione` with the genitive `numeri senarii` stranded on the other side. Right footer block: n. 2's unnumbered continuation, then nn. 3, 4, 5. **Anchors:** n. 1 in the LEFT column, nn. 2–5 in the RIGHT. **p. 278's TOTAL IS 5, established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; all five are Cap. XII's.** So on this leaf the block split (2½/3½ counting the inherited head) and the anchor split (1/4) fall in different places yet again, and there is no capitulum split at all — **block, column and capitulum structure remain three independent things.**

**★★ p. 279's SPLIT MAP — ANOTHER STRADDLE, AND THE CAPITULUM BREAK SITS ONE NOTE BELOW THE COLUMN BREAK AND FOUR ABOVE THE BLOCK BREAK.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3 — n. 3 straddling the gutter, breaking off at `(praeter impedimentum *aetatis*, quod includitur secundum` with the participial clause unfinished. Right footer block: n. 3's unnumbered continuation (the two closing lines of the impediment verses, `Si parochi et duplicis desit praesentia testis, / Raptave sit mulier nec parti reddita tutae.`), then nn. 4, 5, 6, 7. **Anchors:** n. 1 in the **LEFT** column (mine, in Cap. XII); nn. 2 and 3 also in the **LEFT** column but below the `CAP. XIII.` heading, and nn. 4–7 in the **RIGHT**. **p. 279's TOTAL IS 7, established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; **n. 1 is Cap. XII's (mine) and nn. 2–7 are Cap. XIII's and are forwarded.** ★ **This is an eleventh distinct arrangement in seventeen leaves of Pars VI.** Nothing about pp. 277 or 278 predicted it. **Read anchors, only anchors.**

**★ SIGLA — THREE RUNS, ALL ON p. 278, AND EVERY ONE OF THEM TURNS ON THE ONE-UPRIGHT RULE.**
1. **`P` and `F` (p. 277 n. 7's p. 278 continuation)** — two unambiguous sorts, no uprights in question. The raw prints both correctly.
2. **★ `H P et 1` (p. 278 n. 3)** — the first sort carries **two uprights**, so by the one-upright rule it can be a crossbar-less `H`, and the run's ascending order (`? P`) admits it; a single upright would have had to be `I`, and `I P` would also ascend, so **order does not decide this one — stroke count does**, and at 4.6× the sort is plainly two uprights with a faint crossbar. The raw prints `II P`, which is the same typeface fact seen from the other side and is not independent evidence. **The `1` immediately following is the EDITION siglum, an arabic sort, standing in the same clause as the codex sigla without being one** — the exact `1` / `I` collision the frozen rule names, and here they are three words apart.
3. **`B I K O T U` (p. 278 n. 3, second clause) and `I L M O P Q` (p. 278 n. 4)** — in both runs the sort in question is a **single** upright and is therefore `I`, never `H`; and in both, alphabetical order confirms it (`B ? K O T U` admits only a letter between B and K; `? L M O P Q` admits only one before L, and the run's own `L` and `M` fix the ascent). The raw corrupts `O` to `0` in both runs, as it chronically does, and was not relied on. ★ **A single note here carries two different siglum sets one clause apart (`H P et 1` … `B I K O T U`), which the raw flattens into one line — the p. 228 n. 3 shape, met again.**

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). ★ **The `1`/`4` class dominates these three leaves almost completely — seven of the nine decisions — with no `3`/`5` decision at all except the one the hand-off flagged. Do not calibrate on it.**
- **★ p. 277 n. 7's `IV. Sent. d. XXIV. c. 13.` — the hand-off's flagged `1`/`3` pair, SETTLED DECISIVELY AND DISCHARGED, and it is settled from Vol IV's own text rather than from the glyph.** `bon-sent-IV-d24-p1-littera` sets out Lombard's chapter division of d. XXIV verbatim, and its **Cap. XIII is *Quid appelletur ordo*** — whose text reads `Si autem quaeritur, quid sit quod hic vocatur *ordo*; sane dici potest, signaculum quoddam esse, id est sacrum quoddam, quo spiritualis *potestas* traditur ordinato et *officium*` ✓ — **which is the very definition Bonaventure quotes in this capitulum's opening thesis, word for word.** Nothing else in d. XXIV could be meant, and no other chapter number can be. **Decisive.** The note's own continuation corroborates it twice more: `in capp. praecedentibus` are Lombard's capp. I–XII (the seven grades, `De ostiariis` through `De presbyteris`, plus `Quare septem sint` and `De corona et tonsura`) and `capp. subsequentibus` are XIV–XIX (`De episcopo`, `De pontifice`, `De quadripartito ordine episcoporum`) — **exactly the two halves of Bonaventure's own sevenfold list and his *episcopatus / patriarchatus / papatus* superstructure.** The flag the hand-off raised is discharged, not carried.
- **★ p. 277 n. 7's `IV. Sent. d. 24. et 25.` — the `et 25.` was invisible until p. 278 was cropped, and it is what confirms the pair.** `bon-sent-IV-d24-*` is order itself (tonsure and corona, order as a Sacrament, the character, the *psalmistatus*, whether the orders are seven, whether the episcopate is an order) and `bon-sent-IV-d25-*` is the minister and the recipient of order (whether only a bishop can ordain, the heretical and the simoniac bishop, sex, reason, integrity and freedom in the recipient) ✓. **The two together are precisely this capitulum's two halves**, and `d. 23.` (settled by `p6-c11` as extreme unction) bounds them from below.
- **★ p. 278 n. 1's `Psalm. 15, 5` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by the body it anchors.** The leading sort is the flagged serif `1`; **Psalm 15:5 is `Dominus pars hereditatis meae et calicis mei`**, which the anchored body quotes as `Dominus pars hereditatis meae` ✓. Decisive from the text itself.
- **★ p. 278 n. 1's `VII. Etymolog. c. 12. n. 3` and `II. de Offic. ecclesiast. c. 12.` — two more `1`/`4` decisions, both settled by subject.** Isidore's *Etymologies* **VII c. 12 is *De clericis*** — where the *cleros / sors / hereditas* etymology and the list `ostiarius, lector` stand, which Lombard quotes at d. XXIV c. III — and *De ecclesiasticis officiis* **II c. 12 is *De psalmistis*** ✓, which is exactly the *psalmistatus* the anchor is about. c. 42 does not exist in either work.
- **★ p. 278 n. 1's `tom. IV. pag. 631, nota 1.` — a `1`/`4` decision settled by checking the target exists AND matches.** Printed p. 631 of Tomus IV is owned by `bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a2-q1` and `-a2-q2`, and **`-a2-q2` is *Utrum psalmistatus sit ordo*** ✓ — the same Isidore question this note is annotating. `pag. 634` would land elsewhere in d. 24 with no such match.
- **★ p. 278 n. 2's `Libr. III. Reg. 10, 18. seqq.` and `I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion.` — both settled, the first by the note's own gloss, the second by reading the target.** 3 Kings 10:18–20 is Solomon's ivory throne with six steps, and the note says so in its own words (`habebat sex gradus`) ✓. **`bon-sent-I-d2-a1-q4`'s scholion is the corpus's doctrine of the perfect number** — `numerus perfectus secundum antiquos est ille, qui constat ex suis partibus aliquotis`, with the senary named in the body as `primus perfectorum` ✓ — so `q. 4.` is a true `4` and not the flagged `1`, and the raw's `q. i.` is a garble of it.
- **★ p. 278 n. 3's `pag. 225, nota 6. et pag. 195, nota 7.` — a `1`/`4` decision on the second, settled by which work stands on the page.** Both are `supra` in this tome. Printed p. 225 is a Breviloquium leaf (owned by `bon-brev-p2-c8`) ✓; printed **p. 195 falls inside the *Quaestiones disputatae de perfectione evangelica* (Tom. V pp. 117–198)**, and **n. 5 of this very register cites `Quaest. de perfectione evang. q. 4. a. 3.`** — the same work, two notes apart, on the same hierarchical subject ✓. p. 495 would fall in the *Collationes de septem donis*, which has nothing to do with purging and illuminating.
- **`Benedict. XIV.` and `tom. IV. pag. 643, nota 1.` (p. 279 n. 1)** — the roman numeral is unambiguous, and the page is checked to exist and to match: printed p. 643 of Tomus IV is owned by **`bon-sent-IV-d25-a1-q1`, *Utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare*** ✓ — precisely the episcopal reservation this anchor asserts. `Vide supra c. 5.` likewise resolves inside this work to **Pars VI Cap. V, *De Sacramentorum dispensatione*** (`bon-brev-p6-c5`) ✓, which is where the reservation of dispensing was first treated.

**★ ONE READING TRANSCRIBED AS PRINTED WITHOUT A FLAG, AND WHY IT IS NOT ONE.** p. 277 n. 7's continuation ends `et post *quam* plures codd. subiungunt *etiam*`. The lemma *quam* has no counterpart in the printed body of this capitulum. The plate is unambiguous at 4.6× and the raw independently reads `post yiiam` (its usual `qu` corruption), so **there is no question about what Quaracchi printed** — the obscurity is in what the lemma points to among the codices, which is not a transcription question and is not something a band can settle. Transcribed verbatim; no `[?]` raised, per the standing rule that a flag records an unsettled *reading*, not an unsettled *referent*.

**⚠ TWO `[?]` FLAGS TRAVEL FORWARD, NEITHER RESOLVED, NEITHER RE-FLAGGED, AND NO NEW ONE IS RAISED HERE.**
1. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c6`, whose entry carries it; `p6-c6` flagged it, `p6-c7` re-examined it and recorded **no disposition**, and `p6-c8` through `p6-c11` left it untouched). **p. 271 is off this chunk's leaves entirely, nothing read here bears on it, and it is neither resolved nor re-flagged.** It stands as `p6-c6` left it and is forwarded to `p6-c13` unchanged.
2. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 272 n. 6, `Respicitur Col. 6, 12.`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c7`, whose entry carries it; the plate confirmed by `p6-c7` and again by `p6-c8` at 4.6×, with no disposition recorded either time, and off `p6-c9`'s through `p6-c11`'s leaves). **p. 272 is off this chunk's leaves entirely and nothing read here bears on it either.** Colossians still has four chapters and the sense still requires Ephes. 6:12; **no disposition is recorded, it is neither resolved nor re-flagged as new**, and `build-citations.py`'s QA line on it remains expected behaviour, not a defect. Forwarded to `p6-c13`.
★ **A THIRD candidate was raised and DISCHARGED rather than carried: the hand-off's `c. 13.` digit-flag on p. 277 n. 7**, settled above against Lombard's own chapter division. It is not carried forward, and `p6-c10`'s `d. 23.` flag — discharged by `p6-c11` — is likewise not resurrected.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 277 right column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2."; p. 278 left column — "Thesis 3." — "Thesis 4." — "Ratio." — "Pro thesi 1." — "Triplex exigentia et modus." — "Definitio ordinis." — "Pro thesi 2." — "Signaculum distinctivum." — "Tonsura." — "Psalmistatus."; p. 278 right column — "Ordinativum." — "Septem ordines." — "Senarius." — "Potestativum." — "Pro thesi 3." — "Episcopatus." — "Papatus excellentia." — "Pro thesi 4."; p. 279 left column — **none in the Cap. XII stretch.** ★ **Twenty glosses, and an EIGHTH distinct form in eight consecutive chapters.** Cap. XII sets four theses and answers them with a bare-label `Pro thesi 1/2/3/4` series, as Cap. XI did — but where Cap. XI ran a second, numbered structural skeleton (`Ex fine dependent quatuor.` / `Primo, operatio.` …) alongside the labels, **Cap. XII replaces that skeleton with a series of bare TOPIC nouns naming the thing under discussion — `Definitio ordinis.`, `Signaculum distinctivum.`, `Tonsura.`, `Psalmistatus.`, `Ordinativum.`, `Septem ordines.`, `Senarius.`, `Potestativum.`, `Episcopatus.`, `Papatus excellentia.` — ten of them, more than the four `pro thesi` labels they interleave with**, and it closes on no summary gloss at all where Cap. XI closed on `Differentiae 7.` and a bare `Notandum.` and Cap. IX on a `Corollarium.` ★ **Note also that the `Thesis` series itself straddles the leaf: `Thesis 1.` and `Thesis 2.` stand on p. 277 and `Thesis 3.` and `Thesis 4.` on p. 278, so a chapter's gloss series is not a per-leaf object.** **Nothing was inferred from any neighbour in advance.** Glosses stand in the outer margin of each column — left of column 1, right of column 2 — and the raw's rendering (`Denoiijo or-`, `Tripicx cii- modus.`, `Pta ibesi -2.`, `signacuium dislinctivam.`, `Tonsora.`, `PMimisu- ""'`, `ordinaii-`, `sciuem or- aines.`, `scnarius.`, `poicsuu-`, `p™ "'«"  s.`, `Episcopaius.`, `''»pj'°^«»-`, `p™ ii>esi t.`) is unusable; all twenty are band reads.

**★ THE PRINTER'S SIGNATURE IS NOT DUE ON THESE LEAVES AND DOES NOT APPEAR.** p. 265 carried `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` with quire `34` and p. 273 the same line with quire `35`; the eight-leaf cadence puts the next around p. 281, which is also where Pars VII opens. **None of pp. 277, 278, 279 carries a signature line**, and their footer blocks end in blank paper — which is part of what closes the p. 278 → p. 279 page-crossing test from the upper side. **`p6-c13` should expect it on p. 280 or p. 281.**

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 277 body (the Cap. XII opening, right column) — good**, three lines reproduced almost exactly (`signaculum quoddnm`, `S[iiritualis polestas`, `Licct autcm`), and the heading shattered as usual (`C.\p. XII.`); **p. 277 footer — clean**, n. 7's head reproduced substantially right, with only the flagged digit shattered to `c. K^`. **p. 278 body — moderate in both columns and, unusually, EVEN**: the left column's damage is confined to single letters and ligatures (`acolyllds`, `psalmislatus`, `episcopalus`, `^((6-`, `tempu^`, `officiwn`, `cuiusmoch`, `distinetivum`, `Denoiijo`, `intelhgitur`, `resecatio`→`resecatio` correct, `infer` for `inter`) and the right column's at about the same rate (`onhne`, `eminenlia`, `dilaUitur`, `panciores`, `Ay^a`, `ultimu`, `tamiuam`, `iiuidam`, `sentem` for `septem`, `ecclé:` line-break artefact) — **the first leaf in this stretch whose two columns grade alike**, against p. 277's improving-across-the-gutter shape and p. 276's uniformly poor one. **p. 278 footer — clean and complete in all five entries plus the inherited continuation**, reproducing both siglum runs and all seven digit decisions correctly, which is what made the 4.6× pass a confirmation rather than a rescue. **p. 279 body (the Cap. XII tail) — poor**, with the bracket-substitution damage back at p. 276's rate in ten lines (`Ulleralin`, `iciu/io`, `sucro`, `slatatis`, `S()ensari`, `eniinentiam`, `im[)osilionem`, `abljatura` for `abbatum`, `pro[)ter`, `dis[iensari`, `[lotestatis`); **p. 279 footer — clean.** ★ **So across three leaves the body grade ran good → moderate → poor while every footer graded clean: a fifth distinct within-page/within-span pattern, and the footer outgraded the body on all three leaves, as it has on every leaf since p. 275.**

**Runover tests — FOUR RUN, THREE POSITIVE, ONE NEGATIVE; all four closed from BOTH sides.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 277 → p. 278 — **POSITIVE**, logged as `p.277 n.7:page`.* p. 277's right block ends **incomplete** at n. 7's `— De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 24.`, breaking off inside a citation that wants a further coordinate, with blank paper and no signature line beneath it; and **p. 278's left block opens UNNUMBERED** at `et 25. — P hic et infra *ordinando*.` — the continuation supplying exactly that coordinate. Closed from both sides, and the joined entry is rendered above. ★ **This is the runover the hand-off could not have seen, and it is why a page-crossing test is owed by the receiving chunk and not by the forwarding one.**
- *p. 278's own gutter — **POSITIVE**, logged as `p.278 n.2:gutter`.* The left block's last entry, n. 2, breaks off at `…habebat sex gradus etc. — De perfectione`, the noun `perfectione` stranded from its genitive; and **p. 278's right block opens UNNUMBERED** at `numeri senarii cfr. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion.` Closed from both sides. ★ **Note that the leaf's BODY crosses this same gutter at a clean paragraph break (`…Isidorus inter ordines numeravit.` / `Secundo vero, quia ordo est signaculum ordi-`) while its FOOTER straddles — the two are unrelated, as they have been throughout this pars.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 278 → p. 279 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 278's right block ends **complete** at n. 5's `Cfr. supra Quaest. de perfectione evang. q. 4. a. 3.`, with blank paper beneath it to the foot of the column, and **p. 279's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Vide tom. IV. pag. 643, nota 1.` Nothing logged.
- *p. 279's own gutter — **POSITIVE**, logged as `p.279 n.3:gutter`.* The left block's last entry, n. 3, breaks off at `…(praeter impedimentum *aetatis*, quod includitur secundum`, the relative clause unfinished; and **p. 279's right block opens UNNUMBERED** with the two closing lines of the impediment verses. Closed from both sides. ★ **The straddling note is Cap. XIII's, not mine — but the LEAF's gutter test is run and logged by the chunk that first reaches the leaf, exactly as `p6-c10` logged `p.276 n.3:gutter` while p. 276's n. 6 was Cap. XI's. `bon-brev-p6-c13` MUST NOT re-log it.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* **p. 277's own gutter test and the p. 276 → p. 277 page-crossing test (both `p6-c11`, both NEGATIVE)**; `p.276 n.3:gutter` (`p6-c10`, POSITIVE) and the p. 275 → p. 276 test (`p6-c10`, NEGATIVE); `p.274 n.5:gutter`, `p.275 n.4:gutter`, the p. 273 → p. 274 test and the p. 274 → p. 275 test (all four `p6-c9`); `p.273 n.5:gutter` and the p. 272 → p. 273 test (both `p6-c8`); `p.272 n.5:gutter` and the p. 271 → p. 272 test (both `p6-c7`); `p.270 n.4:gutter`, the p. 270 → p. 271 test and p. 271's own gutter test (all three `p6-c6`); `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 test (both `p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s through `p6-c11`'s own do-not-re-log lists. **The p. 279 → p. 280 page-crossing test is NOT run or logged here** — p. 279's foot is wholly Cap. XIII's register, and it belongs to `bon-brev-p6-c13` on the same rule by which `p6-c11` left the p. 277 → p. 278 test to this chunk. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c13`.** pp. 277 and 278 are **fully consumed** — p. 277's seven notes are now all owned (nn. 1–6 by `p6-c11`, n. 7 here, joined across the page break), and all five of p. 278's are owned here. **p. 279's register was band-read IN FULL and its total of 7 is entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; this chunk owns n. 1 only, and **nn. 2–7 anchor in Cap. XIII and are `p6-c13`'s.** Stated with verification levels, claiming nothing more: **the BLOCK positions, the VERBATIM TEXT and the ANCHOR COLUMNS of all six were read off the bands; the anchor WORD was read for n. 2 only**, the remaining five having been located to their column and block but not to their anchor word.
- n. **2** (anchor word verified: `individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens ² ».`, closing Cap. XIII's *Thesis 1*, **LEFT** column) `Secundum Iustinian., Institut. imper. lib. I. tit. 9. de Patria potestate. Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 684, nota 4. — Distinctio finis coniugii, scil. in officium et in remedium, est ex August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 7. n. 12. — Subinde respicitur Eph. 5, 22. seqq. (ubi de coniunctione Christi et Ecclesiae).`
- n. **3** (**LEFT** column; straddles the gutter — see above) `August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 7. n. 12. De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 26-42. — Impedimentis post Tridentinum (praeter impedimentum aetatis, quod includitur secundum` … continuing in the right block with the two closing lines of the impediment verses `Si parochi et duplicis desit praesentia testis, / Raptave sit mulier nec parti reddita tutae.`
- n. **4** (**RIGHT** column) `Eccli. 1, 5: Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis.`
- n. **5** (**RIGHT** column) `Partis I. c. 1; II. c. 9. seq. et p. III. c. 1.`
- n. **6** (**RIGHT** column) `Sive, ut supra Prolog. § 3. et p. IV. c. 3. dicitur, ecclesiasticae sive humanae, quae ibid. distinguitur a divina et angelica. — D G H et 1 supercaelestis (!). Post pauca pro coniunctionem Christi substituimus ex M T coniunctionem Dei.`
- n. **7** (**RIGHT** column) `Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.`
★ **NO DIGIT IN ANY OF THESE SIX IS VERIFIED HERE**, notwithstanding that all were read off 4.6× bands: `IV. Sent. d. 26-42`, `d. 26. a. 2. q. 2.`, `d. 31. a. 2. q. 1.`, `tom. IV. pag. 684, nota 4.`, `Eccli. 1, 5`, `Eph. 5, 22`, `IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 7. n. 12`, `lib. I. tit. 9`, `Partis I. c. 1; II. c. 9. seq. et p. III. c. 1.` and `Prolog. § 3. et p. IV. c. 3.` are all to be re-derived, several of them sitting in the `1`/`4` class. **n. 6's `D G H et 1` is a siglum run with a two-upright sort AND the edition siglum `1` in the same clause** — the p. 278 n. 3 shape exactly — and its `(!)` is Quaracchi's own mark, not a transcription artefact. **A hand-off is a claim to re-derive, never a fact to adopt**; and check the narrative summary above against the per-note list it sits beside, never the reverse. `bon-brev-p6-c13` owns p. 279 from n. 2 onward, **must NOT re-log p. 279's own gutter test (logged POSITIVE here as `p.279 n.3:gutter`), nor the p. 278 → p. 279 test (NEGATIVE here), nor p. 278's own gutter test (POSITIVE here as `p.278 n.2:gutter`), nor the p. 277 → p. 278 test (POSITIVE here as `p.277 n.7:page`)**, and **owes the p. 279 → p. 280 page-crossing test and p. 280's own gutter test.** Cap. XIII (`De integritate matrimonii`) opens about **50 %** down p. 279's **LEFT** column with a ONE-line subtitle and a `Thesis 1.` gloss; **Cap. XIII is the LAST capitulum of Pars VI and the pars closes at p. 280**, with `PARS SEPTIMA` due at p. 281 — **so p. 280 must be extracted and cropped fresh with no constant, and Cap. XIII's end must be set POSITIVELY from the `PARS SEPTIMA` display heading, not from white space and not from the running head.** ★ **A display heading crossing the gutter destroys the blank-column run**, so expect the p. 281 measurement to fail over the upper page and to need the body-window restriction — p. 281 is `p7-c1`'s problem, but p. 280 may carry the head of it. **Both `[?]` flags travel forward unresolved: p. 271 n. 2's `minus, aptae` and p. 272 n. 6's `Col. 6, 12`.**

**★ WHAT THE PARS-LEVEL CLOSURE CHECK WILL NEED.** Pars VI's page-span map as now established, every span fixed from headings on the plate: **c1 = 265–266 · c2 = 266–267 · c3 = 267–268 · c4 = 268–269 · c5 = 269–270 · c6 = 270–271 · c7 = 271–272 · c8 = 272–273 · c9 = 273–275 · c10 = 275–276 · c11 = 276–277 · c12 = 277–279 · c13 = 279–280 (to be established).** **Every printed page from 265 to 279 is now fully owned** — pp. 265–278's registers are complete and closed, and p. 279's total of 7 is established with n. 1 owned here and nn. 2–7 forwarded. **The only page whose register is not yet fully owned is p. 280**, which has not been imaged. The index's thirteen-capitulum count for Pars VI is therefore confirmed capitulum by capitulum from the plate for I–XII, with XIII's close the single remaining claim; **the index under-reported Cap. IX's span by a leaf and got Cap. XII's right, which is the whole of what a run of correct openings is worth.**

**Register — the order vocabulary was CONSULTED from the Vol IV settlement, not coined here, and Pars VI's own vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided.** `p6-c1`'s sacramental core, `p6-c2`'s historical-dispensation vocabulary, `p6-c3`'s seven sacrament names, `p6-c4`'s institution vocabulary, `p6-c5`'s dispensation-and-minister vocabulary, `p6-c6`'s iteration-and-character vocabulary, `p6-c7`'s *integritas* vocabulary, `p6-c8`'s confirmation-and-chrism settlement, `p6-c9`'s eucharistic settlement, `p6-c10`'s penitential settlement and `p6-c11`'s unction settlement all stand unchanged. **Vol IV chunks consulted for this chapter — d. 24, which IS order, and d. 25, which is its minister and recipient, both named by p. 277 n. 7 (*IV. Sent. d. XXIV. c. 13. … De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 24. et 25.*):** `bon-sent-IV-d24-p1-littera` (Lombard's own chapter division of d. XXIV, including **c. XIII *Quid appelletur ordo***, which supplies this capitulum's opening definition verbatim, and cc. V–XI on the seven grades), `bon-sent-IV-d24-p1-divisio`, `-p1-a1-q1` (*Utrum ordinandi debeant tonderi vel coronari*), `-p1-a1-q2` (*Utrum corona sit sacramentum*), `-p1-a1-q3`, `-p1-a2-q1` (*Utrum in Ecclesia sit ordo*), `-p1-a2-q2` (*Utrum ordo sit sacramentum*), `-p1-a2-q4` (*Utrum ordo sit unum sacramentum an plura*), `bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-divisio`, `-p2-a1-q1`/`-q2`/`-q3` (the character in the several orders), `-p2-a2-q1` (the division into sacred and non-sacred), `-p2-a2-q2` (*Utrum psalmistatus sit ordo*), `-p2-a2-q3` (*Utrum episcopatus sit ordo*), `-p2-a2-q4` (*Utrum ordines sint septem*); plus `bon-sent-IV-d25-a1-q1` (*Utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare* — the target of p. 279 n. 1) and `bon-sent-IV-d25-divisio`. **None of d. 24 or d. 25 had been consulted by any Pars VI chunk before this one; all sixteen are first-consulted here.** **Carried from that settlement, not re-decided:** *ordo* → "order" throughout (never "rank"), *ordines* → "orders", *gradus* → "grade"; ***signaculum* → "sign", following Vol IV d. 24 c. XIII's own rendering of this very definition** (`signaculum quoddam esse … quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato` → "a certain sign … by which spiritual power is handed over to the ordained"), and *ordinatus* → "the ordained"; the seven grades in Vol IV d. 24's own forms — *ostiarii* → "doorkeepers", *lectores* → "lectors", *exorcistae* → "exorcists", *acolythi* → "acolytes", *subdiaconi* → "subdeacons", *diaconi* → "deacons", ***presbyteri* → "presbyters"** (Vol IV d. 24 c. XI, *De presbyteris* → "On presbyters"), with *sacerdos* → "priest" and *sacerdotium* → "priesthood" kept distinct from it exactly as Vol IV keeps them; ***psalmistatus* LEFT UNTRANSLATED** in the body, as Vol IV leaves it, "the office of psalmist" being reserved for the discursive gloss; *tonsura* → "tonsure" and *corona* → "crown" (Vol IV d. 24 c. IV, *De corona et tonsura*); *episcopatus* → "episcopate" (Vol IV `-p2-a2-q3`), *patriarchatus* → "patriarchate", *papatus* → "papacy"; *character* untranslated (from `p6-c6`); *potestas* → "power" per the standing table, with ***potestativus* → "potestative" carried from `p6-c8`** and *ordinativus / distinctivus* → "ordinative / distinctive" formed on it; *episcopus* → "bishop" and *Pontifex* → "Pontiff" kept distinct (from `p6-c8`); *impositio manuum* → "the imposition of hands" (from `p6-c8`); *dispensatio / dispensare* → "dispensing / to dispense" and *minister / ministerium* → "minister / ministry" (from `p6-c5`); *integritas* → "integrity" (from `p6-c7`); *senarius* → "the senary" and *numerus perfectus* → "perfect number" (from `bon-sent-I-d2-a1-q4`, which p. 278 n. 2 cites). **Fixed here for the close of the per-sacrament run:** *sequestrativus* → "sequestrative", kept as a formation beside *distinctivus* rather than softened to "separating"; *resecatio* → "the cutting away"; *praeambulus* → "a forerunner" (and the note's rejected *praeambulans* accordingly "walking before"); *mancipatus* → "made over"; *subministrativus* → "subministrative"; *eminentia potestatis* → "eminence of power" against *potestas excellens* → "an excelling power" and *praecellens dignitas* → "the pre-excelling dignity", three distinct words for height kept distinct; *hierarcha* → "hierarch" beside *hierarchia* → "hierarchy"; *pater patrum* → "father of fathers"; *principatus ecclesiastici* → "ecclesiastical principalities"; *irregularitates* → "irregularities"; *celebritas* → "solemn celebrity"; *praeeminentia* → "pre-eminence"; *conficitur* → "is confected" (the eucharistic verb, kept from `p6-c9`'s register). Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved throughout, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence — the opening *thesis* period, the *Ratio* period, the *Primum igitur* period, the *Secundo vero* period, the *Postremo* period and the closing *Et quia haec dignitas* period each run as a single sentence, the last of them carrying the whole *a quolibet / cuilibet / quolibet loco / quolibet tempore* series without a break.