title: Pars 5, Cap. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 252 -->

### PARS QUINTA. *De gratia Spiritus sancti.*

### Capitulum I. *De gratia, in quantum est donum divinitus datum.*

Post tractatum de incarnatione Verbi, quod est origo et fons omnis doni gratuiti, dicenda sunt aliqua de *gratia* Spiritus sancti, quae nobis quadrupliciter consideranda occurrit. Primo, in quantum est donum divinitus datum. — Secundo, in comparatione ad liberum arbitrium. — Tertio, in comparatione ad habitus virtutum. — Quarto, in comparatione ad exercitia meritorum.

De gratia igitur, in quantum est *donum divinitus datum*, haec tenenda sunt, quod ipsa est donum, quod a Deo immediate donatur et infunditur. Etenim cum ipsa et in ipsa datur Spiritus sanctus, qui est donum *increatum*, *optimum et perfectum*, *quod descendit a Patre luminum*[^p252-2] per Verbum incarnatum, secundum quod Ioannes in Apocalypsi *fluvium splendidum ad modum* vidit *crystalli procedere de sede Dei et Agni*. — Ipsa nihilominus est donum, per quod anima perficitur et efficitur sponsa Christi, filia Patris aeterni et templum Spiritus sancti; quod nullo modo fit nisi ex dignativa condescensione et condescensiva dignatione Maiestatis aeternae per donum gratiae suae. — Ipsa denique est donum, quod animam purgat, illuminat et perficit[^p252-3]; vivificat, reformat et stabilit; elevat, assimilat et Deo iungit, ac per hoc acceptabilem facit; propter quod donum huiusmodi *gratia gratum faciens* recte dicitur et debuit appellari[^p252-4].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum primum principium *productivum* pro sua summa benevolentia fecerit spiritum rationalem capacem beatitudinis aeternae[^p252-5]; et *reparativum* principium capacitatem illam infirmatam per peccatum reparavit ad salutem; et beatitudo aeterna consistit in habendo summum bonum; et hoc est Deus et bonum excellens improportionaliter omnem humani obsequii dignitatem: nullus omnino ad illud summum bonum dignus est pervenire, cum sit omnino supra omnes limites naturae, nisi, Deo condescendente sibi, elevetur ipse supra se. Deus autem non condescendit per sui *essentiam* incommutabilem, sed per *influentiam* ab ipso manantem; nec spiritus elevatur supra se per *situm localem*, sed per *habitum deiformem*. Necesse est igitur spiritui rationali, ut dignus fiat aeternae beatitudinis, quod particeps fiat influentiae deiformis. Haec autem influentia deiformis, quia est a Deo et secundum Deum et propter Deum, ideo reddit imaginem nostrae mentis conformem beatissimae[^p252-6] Trinitati non tantum secundum *ordinem originis*, verum etiam secundum *rectitudinem electionis* et secundum *quietudinem fruitionis*. Et quoniam qui hoc habet immediate ad Deum reducitur, sicut immediate ei conformatur; ideo donum illud immediate donatur a Deo tanquam a principio influxivo; ut, sicut immediate emanat a Deo Dei *imago*, sic immediate manet ab ipso Dei *similitudo*, quae est divinae imaginis perfectio deiformis, et ideo dicitur *imago recreationis*[^p253-1].

<!-- page 253 -->

Rursus, quoniam qui fruitur Deo Deum habet; ideo cum gratia, quae sua deiformitate disponit ad Dei fruitionem, datur donum *increatum*, quod est Spiritus sanctus, quod qui habet habet et Deum[^p253-2].

Et quoniam nullus Deum habet, quin ab ipso specialius habeatur; nullus habet et habetur a Deo, quin ipsum praecipue et incomparabiliter diligat et diligatur ab ipso sicut sponsa a sponso; nullus sic diligitur, quin ad aeternam hereditatem adoptetur pro *filio*: hinc est, quod gratia gratum faciens facit animam *templum Dei, sponsam Christi* et *filiam Patris* aeterni. Et quia hoc non potest esse nisi ex summa dignatione et condescensione Dei; ideo illud non potest esse per habitum aliquem naturaliter insertum, sed solum per donum divinitus gratis infusum; quod expresse apparet, si quis ponderet, quantum est esse Dei templum, Dei filium, Deo nihilominus indissolubiliter et quasi matrimonialiter per amoris et gratiae vinculum copulatum[^p253-3].

Postremo, quia mens nostra non efficitur conformis beatissimae Trinitati secundum rectitudinem electionis nisi per *vigorem virtutis, splendorem veritatis* et *fervorem caritatis*; et *vigor virtutis* animam *purgat, stabilit* et *elevat; splendor veritatis* animam *illuminat, reformat* et Deo *assimilat; fervor caritatis* animam *perficit, vivificat* et Deo *iungit*, et ex his omnibus homo Deo *placens et acceptus* existit: hinc est, quod illa influentia deiformis dicitur habere omnes decem actus praedictos, ita tamen, quod denominatur ab ultimo sicut a completissimo. — Dicitur enim *gratia gratum faciens*, quia habentem facit Deo gratum, cum non solum gratis detur *a Deo*, verum etiam sit *secundum Deum* et *propter Deum*; cum ad hoc sit, ut per ipsam opus manans a Deo revertatur in Deum, in quo ad modum circuli intelligibilis consistit omnium spirituum rationalium complementum[^p253-4].

---

english:
### PART FIVE. *On the grace of the Holy Spirit.*

### Chapter I. *On grace, in so far as it is a gift divinely given.*

After the treatise on the incarnation of the Word, which is the origin and fount of every gratuitous gift, some things must be said about the *grace* of the Holy Spirit, which presents itself to us as to be considered in a fourfold way. First, in so far as it is a gift divinely given. — Second, in comparison with free choice. — Third, in comparison with the habits of the virtues. — Fourth, in comparison with the exercises of merits.

Concerning grace, therefore, in so far as it is a *gift divinely given*, these things are to be held: that it is a gift which is given and infused by God immediately. For indeed with it and in it is given the Holy Spirit, who is the *uncreated* gift, *the best and perfect gift*, *which descends from the Father of lights*[^p252-2] through the Word incarnate, according as John in the Apocalypse saw *a bright river after the manner* *of crystal proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb*. — It is nonetheless a gift through which the soul is perfected and is made the bride of Christ, the daughter of the eternal Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit; which comes about in no way except from the condescension that dignifies and the dignifying that condescends of the eternal Majesty, through the gift of his grace. — It is finally a gift which purges, illumines and perfects the soul[^p252-3]; gives it life, re-forms it and makes it stand fast; raises it up, makes it like to God and joins it to God, and through this makes it acceptable; on account of which a gift of this kind is rightly called, and had to be named, *grace making gracious*[^p252-4].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since, when the first *productive* principle, out of its highest benevolence, made the rational spirit capable of eternal beatitude[^p252-5]; and the *reparative* principle repaired unto salvation that capacity weakened through sin; and eternal beatitude consists in having the highest good; and this is God, a good exceeding beyond all proportion every dignity of human service: no one at all is worthy to arrive at that highest good, since it is altogether beyond all the limits of nature, unless, God condescending to him, he himself be raised above himself. But God does not condescend through his own unchangeable *essence*, but through an *influence* flowing from himself; nor is a spirit raised above itself through *local position*, but through a *deiform habit*. It is necessary therefore for the rational spirit, that it may be made worthy of eternal beatitude, that it be made a participant of the deiform influence. And this deiform influence, because it is from God and according to God and on account of God, therefore renders the image of our mind conformed to the most blessed[^p252-6] Trinity not only according to the *order of origin*, but also according to the *rectitude of choice* and according to the *quietude of enjoyment*. And since he who has this is immediately led back to God, just as he is immediately conformed to him; therefore that gift is immediately given by God as by an inflowing principle; so that, as the *image* of God immediately emanates from God, so the *likeness* of God immediately remains from him — which is the deiform perfection of the divine image, and is therefore called the *image of re-creation*[^p253-1].

Again, since he who enjoys God has God; therefore, along with grace, which by its deiformity disposes to the enjoyment of God, there is given the *uncreated* gift, which is the Holy Spirit — and whoever has this has God also[^p253-2].

And since no one has God but that he is more specially had by him; no one has and is had by God but that he loves him above all and incomparably and is loved by him as a bride by a bridegroom; no one is so loved but that he is adopted as a *son* unto the eternal inheritance: hence it is that grace making gracious makes the soul the *temple of God, the bride of Christ* and the *daughter of the* eternal *Father*. And because this cannot be except from the highest dignation and condescension of God; therefore it cannot be through any habit naturally implanted, but only through a gift divinely and gratuitously infused; which appears expressly, if one should weigh how great a thing it is to be God's temple, God's son, and joined to God nonetheless indissolubly and as it were matrimonially by the bond of love and of grace[^p253-3].

Lastly, because our mind is not made conformed to the most blessed Trinity according to the rectitude of choice except through the *vigor of virtue, the splendor of truth* and the *fervor of charity*; and the *vigor of virtue* *purges, makes fast* and *raises up* the soul; the *splendor of truth* *illumines* the soul, *re-forms* it and *makes it like* to God; the *fervor of charity* *perfects* the soul, *gives it life* and *joins it* to God, and out of all these the man comes to be *pleasing and accepted* to God: hence it is that that deiform influence is said to have all the ten foresaid acts, yet in such a way that it is named from the last as from the most complete. — For it is called *grace making gracious*, because it makes him who has it gracious to God, since it is not only given gratuitously *by God*, but is also *according to God* and *on account of God*; since it is unto this, that through it the work flowing forth from God may return into God, in which, after the manner of an intelligible circle, the completion of all rational spirits consists[^p253-4].

---

la: Iac. 1, 17. — Seq. locus est Apoc. 22, 1: Et ostendit mihi fluvium aquae vitae splendidum tanquam crystallum, procedentem de sede etc. — Inferius verba *perficitur et* desiderantur in aliquibus codd., in Vat., 1 et 3.

en: James 1, 17. — The following passage is Apocalypse 22, 1: And he showed me a river of the water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding from the throne etc. — Below, the words *perficitur et* are wanting in some codices, in the Vatican codex, and in editions 1 and 3.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 225, nota 6.

en: Cf. above, p. 225, note 6.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 1. seq. — A pluribus codd., ut B C I M, omittitur *dicitur et*.

en: Cf. II *Sent.*, d. 26, q. 1 and following. — By several codices, such as B C I M, *dicitur et* is omitted.

la: Ut ostensum est supra p. II. c. 9, et seq. propositio exposita est p. IV. c. 1. seqq. — Inferius pro *reparavit ad salutem* [2 cum pluribus codd. addit *aeternam*] C I Q U et 1 *reparaverit ad salutem*, ac subinde pro *consistit* D E I *consistat*.

en: As was shown above, part II, c. 9; and the following proposition was expounded in part IV, c. 1 and following. — Below, for *reparavit ad salutem* [edition 2, with several codices, adds *aeternam*] C I Q U and edition 1 have *reparaverit ad salutem*, and thereupon for *consistit* D E I have *consistat*.

la: I M *beatificativae*.

en: I M have *beatificativae*.

en: See II *Sent.*, d. 26, qq. 3 and 4, and I *Sent.*, d. 14, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 1. — Subinde substituimus ex pluribus codd., ut A B E M P cum 2 *specialius* pro *specialiter*; post *sicut* D F prosequuntur *sponsus a sponsa, et e converso*; et ante *hereditatem* edd. 1, 3 addunt *beatitudinis*.

en: Cf. I *Sent.*, d. 14, a. 2, q. 1. — Thereupon we have substituted, from several codices, such as A B E M P together with edition 2, *specialius* for *specialiter*; after *sicut* D F continue *sponsus a sponsa, et e converso*; and before *hereditatem* editions 1 and 3 add *beatitudinis*.

en: See II *Sent.*, d. 29, a. 1, q. 1, in the body of the article.

la: Cfr. supra p. II. c. 12. — Pro *revertatur* A *referatur*.

en: Cf. above, part II, c. 12. — For *revertatur* A has *referatur*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PARS V's CAPITULUM COUNT VERIFIED AGAINST THE VOLUME'S OWN INDEX — THE HYPOTHESIS HOLDS, WITH ONE CORRECTION TO WHAT THE INDEX CAN BE MADE TO YIELD.** Raw `doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt` L93893–93975, the block headed `Pars V. / De gmtia Spiritus sancti.` (the title's own `gratia` shattered), was read entire and closed positively at `PatB VI. / De medicinn saaameiitali. / I. De Sacramentorum origine » 265`. **Pars V has exactly TEN capitula, I–X, and Pars VI opens on printed p. 265** — so Pars V spans **pp. 252–264, thirteen printed pages**, the same order of size as Pars III (11 pp.) and Pars IV (12 pp.). The ten titles read as the resume table gives them. **The opening pages, however, divide into two blocks of very different reliability, and the resume note's caution was right on both counts.** The index's page-number column for capp. I–II is set in a *separate* line-block from its titles and cannot be aligned to them at all: the block running `231 · ib. · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · ib. · 238 · 240 · 242 · 243 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 248 · 249 · 251` carries eighteen numbers against twenty-one preceding entries, so **no arithmetic recovers Pars V capp. I–II's index pages, and none should be attempted** — Cap. I's opening is established here from the band alone (p. 252), and Cap. II's from the band alone (p. 253). From Cap. III the numbers stand beside their titles again and the resume's readings of the garbled digits are **confirmed**: `png. 2Bi` = **254** (III), **256** (IV), `2.'i7` = **257** (V), `2.58` = **258** (VI), **260** (VII), **261** (VIII), **262** (IX), **263** (X). ★ **Each of those must still be checked on its own band when its chunk is written — the index gives OPENING pages only and has under-reported a span in every pars so far.** Pars IV's count is closed and was NOT re-verified here.

**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 252–253, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A HEADING ON THE BAND.** The `PARS QUINTA. / De gratia Spiritus sancti.` full-width display heading stands **part-way down p. 252**, below Cap. X's short two-column tail; `Cap. I. / De gratia, in quantum est donum divinitus datum.` follows in the **LEFT** column, and Cap. I's text opens there at `Post tractatum de incarnatione Verbi…`. **Because the display heading is full-width and the left column then spends three further lines on `Cap. I.` and its two-line subtitle, p. 252's RIGHT column resumes HIGHER than the left column's first body line** — the right column's first line below the heading (`quod donum huiusmodi gratia gratum faciens recte`) stands level with `Cap. I.` itself. That is a page shape, not a reading order: the left column is read first throughout. Cap. I fills p. 252's left column to `…acceptabilem facit; propter`, crosses p. 252's gutter at a **WORD BOUNDARY INSIDE A CORRELATIVE PAIR** (`propter` / `quod donum huiusmodi`), fills p. 252's right column entire to `…sic immediate manet ab ipso Dei *similitudo*, quae`, breaks across the leaf on a **STRANDED RELATIVE PRONOUN GOVERNING NOTHING** (`quae` / `est divinae imaginis perfectio deiformis`), and closes about two-thirds down **p. 253's LEFT column** at `…consistit omnium spirituum rationalium complementum⁴.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. II. / De gratia, in quantum iuvat ad bonum meritorium.` heading standing immediately below it in the SAME left column**, with Cap. II's first two body lines below that. **Cap. I touches no right column on p. 253 at all.** No claim here rests on white space, on a grammatically complete tail, or on a running head.

**★★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE SIXTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF.** p. 253's head reads **`PARS V. C. II.`** on a page whose left column is Cap. I for two-thirds of its length — the same failure as pp. 241, 248, 249, 250 and 252, and the first attestation of it inside Pars V. The "behind" direction still has no attestation anywhere. Read on the band, not from the raw, which prints it `I'\RS V. C. II.`

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE NEAREST PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY BELOW THE BREAK — TENTH CONSECUTIVE OCCURRENCE.** The p. 252/253 leaf break falls inside the *Ratio autem* paragraph, which begins in p. 252's right column and closes on p. 253 at `…dicitur *imago recreationis*¹.` — so `<!-- page 253 -->` sits at that paragraph's end and **p. 253's n. 1 anchors ABOVE the marker**. The page-qualified labels absorb it; the marker was not moved to chase the anchor.

**Gutters.** **p. 252 = 1403**, carried from `bon-brev-p4-c10` and re-confirmed visually on its six bands here (the `PARS QUINTA` heading sits above the default 45–92 % body window and does not touch it). **p. 253 was extracted and auto-measured FRESH, with no constant.** `colcrop.py vol5 253` returned **`split_x=1250, low-ink run 60 px`** — unflagged, and 60 px sits squarely inside the 58–64 px band that marks a sound measurement on this volume. It was nevertheless re-profiled over **sixteen** row windows: 45–92 % **1250/60** · 50–85 % **1250/60** · 50–92 % **1250/60** · 55–80 % **1251/61** · 60–90 % **1251/61** · 45–80 % **1250/60** · 35–75 % **1247/58** · 15–85 % **1244/48** · 20–80 % **1244/48** · 30–70 % **1247/57** · 40–65 % **1247/63** · 20–60 % **1244/58** · 25–55 % **1244/59** · 15–45 % **1242/62** · 10–45 % **1241/60** · 12–40 % **1242/61**. **The six body-row windows agree at 1250–1251; the upper-page windows drift monotonically down to 1241 and two of them collapse to a 48 px run.** ★ **The per-column ink profile was printed anyway, per the standing rule, AND THE OBSTRUCTION IS THERE — FIFTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF (pp. 248, 249, 250, 251, 253; p. 252 is the leaf between and carries the display-heading failure instead).** Over the body rows the blank gutter runs **x = 1221–1281** (61 columns at 0–2 rows of ink) with a **narrow ink island standing INSIDE it at x = 1246–1254**, peaking at **159 rows at x = 1250** against 0 on either side of its shoulders. **The band's midpoint is 1251 and the island's peak is 1250 — a 1 px disagreement, so the island again sits essentially at the band's CENTRE, which is why the body windows did not fork as they did on pp. 248 and 249.** Adopted **1250** (the default and the body-window mode) and confirmed visually on all six bands. Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361 · 1186 · 1367 · 1201 · 1345 · 1209 · 1391 · 1182 · 1390 · 1160 · 1403 · **1250**. ★ **1250 falls inside neither of the old parity clusters — it is 22 px above the odd cluster's previous ceiling (1228) and 81 px below the even cluster's floor (1331), on an ODD page. Parity is not merely spent as a predictor; the clusters no longer exist. Measure every page.**

**Apparatus (9 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 252 nn. 2–6** (inherited) and **p. 253 nn. 1–4** (first-read here). Every anchor below was re-read on the band at 450 dpi under direct high-factor zoom.
- p. 252 n. **2** on `quod descendit a Patre luminum`² — **LEFT** column, closing the italic James tag inside the *Thesis 2* period.
- p. 252 n. **3** on `animam purgat, illuminat et perficit`³ — **LEFT** column, on the last word of the first triad of the *Effectus decem*.
- p. 252 n. **4** on `recte dicitur et debuit appellari`⁴ — **RIGHT** column, on the second line of the column, closing the thesis paragraph.
- p. 252 n. **5** on `capacem beatitudinis aeternae`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, in the *Ratio*'s first period.
- p. 252 n. **6** on `conformem beatissi-mae`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, mid-word across a line break, immediately before `Trinitati`, in the *Triplex conformitas* passage.
- p. 253 n. **1** on `dicitur *imago recreationis*`¹ — **LEFT** column, second line, closing the *Ratio* / *Pro thesi 1* paragraph carried over from p. 252.
- p. 253 n. **2** on `quod qui habet habet et Deum`² — **LEFT** column, closing the *Pro thesi 2* paragraph.
- p. 253 n. **3** on `per amoris et gratiae vinculum copulatum`³ — **LEFT** column, closing the *Pro thesi 3* paragraph.
- p. 253 n. **4** on `omnium spirituum rationalium complementum`⁴ — **LEFT** column, **the last word of the capitulum**, with the `Cap. II.` heading three lines below it.

**★★ THE INHERITED HAND-OFF, RE-DERIVED — ALL FIVE CLAIMS HELD, INCLUDING BOTH DECLARED INFERENCES.** `bon-brev-p4-c10` forwarded p. 252 nn. 2–6 with **the COLUMN of all five verified, the POSITION of nn. 2–4 verified, and nn. 5–6 declared INFERENCES with their constraint stated.** Re-derived here off the band with nothing adopted: **every column held, every verified position held, and BOTH inferences were right** — n. 5 does anchor on `capacem beatitudinis aeternae` and n. 6 on `beatissimae`, each exactly where the forwarding chunk reasoned it must fall. **Every digit and siglum in the five forwarded entries was also re-read from the plate rather than copied, and all five texts held verbatim**, including the two that the raw corrupts (see below). ★ This is the second hand-off in the corpus to hold in every particular after `p4-c6`'s, and **the second in which a predecessor's *declared* inference proved sound while the raw beside it did not** — which is the whole argument for saying how you reached a claim you could not check.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS.** **p. 253's register is NINE notes and only nn. 1–4 anchor in Cap. I.** **`p. 253 nn. 5–9 are forwarded to `bon-brev-p5-c2` as a PENDING**, all five anchoring in Pars V, Cap. II:
- n. **5** — `De his agitur hic et seq. cap. Sed observandum, quod in tabula supra pag. 209 secundum codd. relata ordo 2. et 3. capituli invertitur cum quadam differentia verborum.` **LEFT** footer block. Column of the ANCHOR **not** verified; **OWNERSHIP only** is certain (it glosses Cap. II's opening divisio, and Cap. II gets only two body lines in p. 253's left column before the leaf's right column takes it up). **Re-derive the position and the column.**
- n. **6** — `B C E I M T *meritum*.` **LEFT** footer block. **OWNERSHIP only** verified; the variant is on the word *meritum*, which does not occur in Cap. II's two left-column lines, **so the anchor is probably in the RIGHT column — an inference, stated as such.**
- n. **7** — `Ab August., Enchirid. c. 32. n. 9. — Seq. locus est August., Epist. 186. (alias 106.) c. 3. n. 10. Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 2, et Comment. ibid. d. 27. dub. 1, in cuius fine triplex gratiae acceptio explicatur; ibid. a. 2. per totum et d. 28. dub. 2. ostenditur, quid mereri contingat et quid non.` **RIGHT** footer block, opening it. **COLUMN of the block verified; anchor position NOT verified.**
- n. **8** — `Vide I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.; II. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. et 2. — Superius pro editionum lectione *de se non habeat esse* cum B I O P Q S substituimus *de se habeat non-esse* (1 *de se habet non-esse*, quae etiam paulo ante cum aliis edd. *pro-duxit* pro *produxerit*).` **RIGHT** block. **COLUMN of the block verified; anchor position NOT verified.**
- n. **9** — `Psalm. 15, 2: Dixi Domino: Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. — Gen. 15, 1: Ego [Deus] pro-` **RIGHT** block, **AND IT BREAKS OFF MID-WORD AT THE FOOT OF THE PAGE** (`pro-`), so **p. 253 → p. 254 is a POSITIVE page-crossing runover which `bon-brev-p5-c2` must close from the p. 254 side and log.** It is NOT logged here — p. 254 has not been imaged and the anchor is not this chunk's. **The join, when it is made, has the strongest available check: the entry is quoting Gen. 15, 1 (*Ego protector tuus sum, et merces tua magna nimis*), so the two halves must meet exactly where the Vulgate says they meet, at `pro-` / `tector`.**
- **★ Everything above is a CLAIM TO RE-DERIVE, never a fact to adopt.** Column-of-block is verified for all five; anchor position is verified for none; ownership is certain for all five.

**Runover findings — TWO NEGATIVES, BOTH OWED AND BOTH CLOSED HERE.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 252 → p. 253 — **NEGATIVE**, and CLOSED HERE FROM THE p. 253 SIDE, as owed.* `bon-brev-p4-c10` established that p. 252's right block ends **complete** at n. 6 (`I M *beatificativae*.`) with clear white paper below it, and left the p. 253 side open because p. 253 had not been imaged. p. 253's left footer block was read **from its first character at high zoom** and opens **NUMBERED**: `¹ Vide II. Sent. d. 26. q. 3. et 4. ac I. Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2.` The test is closed negative from both sides and is logged as a negative on this chunk's ledger line.
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 253 — **NEGATIVE**, closed here from both sides although only nn. 1–4 of that page are owned here* (the precedent `p4-c10` set on p. 252). p. 253's left block ends **complete** at n. 6 (`B C E I M T *meritum*.`) and its right block opens **NUMBERED**: `⁷ Ab August., Enchirid. c. 32. n. 9.` **Logged as a negative on this chunk's ledger line so that `bon-brev-p5-c2` does not re-log it.**
- *NOT re-logged here, all four closed by `p4-c10`:* p. 251's own gutter runover (`p.251 n.4:gutter`), the p. 250 → p. 251 and p. 251 → p. 252 page-crossing tests, and p. 252's own gutter test.

**★★ p. 253's THREE LINES, AND A FOURTEENTH FOOTER CONFIGURATION.** p. 253's **anchors** divide **4 / 5** across the gutter (nn. 1–4 left, nn. 5–9 right, with nn. 5–6's exact column an open question for `p5-c2` but certainly not Cap. I's). Its **blocks** divide **6 / 3** (nn. 1–6 left, nn. 7–9 right). Its **capitulum boundary** falls between nn. 4 and 5. **So the capitulum line and the anchor line coincide, and the BLOCK line stands TWO NOTES BELOW both** — the mirror of p. 245, where the block break stood two notes *above* the anchor break, and the first time in the corpus that the capitulum line has agreed with the anchor line while the block line disagreed with both. Block structure, column structure and capitulum structure are three independent things; read anchors only, and read the capitulum boundary separately. **★ Note also that p. 252 and p. 253 are consecutive leaves whose registers are split by a unit boundary in opposite proportions and by opposite mechanisms — p. 252 by PARS, 1 / 5, with the blocks coinciding at 3 / 3; p. 253 by CAPITULUM, 4 / 5, with the blocks at 6 / 3.**

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **Three raw readings are corrected here, and the two confusion classes split two to one — neither dominates, exactly as the rule requires.**
- **★★ `Iac. 1, 17.` (p. 252 n. 2) — A FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `lac. 4, 17`, AND THE `1`/`4` CLASS.** The glyph carries the angled top flag, a closed stem and no crossbar; a true `4` stands four characters away in the same entry's `22, 1` line for contrast. **Sense is decisive and independent: James 1, 17 is *omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum* — which is, word for word, the body's *donum increatum, optimum et perfectum, quod descendit a Patre luminum* at the anchor.** Likewise `Apoc. 22, 1` reads clean and checks itself: Apoc. 22, 1 is *ostendit mihi fluvium aquae vitae splendidum tanquam crystallum, procedentem de sede Dei et Agni*, which the body quotes in the very next clause.
- **★ `pag. 225, nota 6.` (p. 252 n. 3) — A FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `pa;;. 220`, AND THE `3`/`5` CLASS'S NEIGHBOUR.** The final glyph is a **flat top bar over a single lower bowl** — a `5`, its bar slightly battered at the right shoulder — and not the closed ring a `0` would give; the `2`s on either side of it supply the contrast. Rendered whole per the battered-sort rule.
- **★★ `B C I M` (p. 252 n. 4) — A FIX AGAINST THE RAW, WHICH GAVE `C C 1 M`, AND ALL THREE SIGLUM RULES AGREE.** The third glyph is **a single upright with slab serifs top and bottom**. **(a) Stroke count: one upright is NEVER `H`.** **(b) Alphabetical position: `B C I M` is alphabetical; the raw's `C C 1 M` repeats a siglum and is impossible.** **(c) Grammar: `A pluribus codd., ut <witnesses>, omittitur dicitur et` requires witnesses, and the edition-siglum `1` would not be introduced by *ut* inside a list of *codices*.** The raw made **two** errors in four characters here — `B`→`C` and `I`→`1` — and neither could be caught from the raw alone.
- **`C I Q U et 1` and `D E I` (p. 252 n. 5), `I M` (p. 252 n. 6), `A B E M P` and `D F` (p. 253 n. 2), `B C E I M T` (p. 253 n. 6, forwarded) — the same test run five more times, and all read clean.** Each sets a **single** upright in a slot where alphabetical order would admit either letter (`C I Q U`, `D E I`, `I M`, `B C E I M T`), which rule (a) settles outright as `I`. ★ **p. 252 n. 5 then supplies the corpus's cleanest `1`-vs-`I` contrast set inside eight characters: `C I Q U et 1 reparaverit` puts the slab-serifed codex `I` and the flag-topped edition `1` in one clause, and the same entry's `[2 cum pluribus codd. addit aeternam]` fixes that `1` and `2` are editions here** — so both readings were grammatically admissible and only the glyph decided, exactly as p. 252 n. 1 required in the preceding chunk.
- **`d. 14.` (p. 253 nn. 1 and 2) — the canonical `1`/`4` contrast pair, printed twice.** p. 253 n. 1's first line sets `d. 26. q. 3. et 4. ac I. Sent. d. 14.` — a two-bowled `3`, a crossbarred `4`, a roman `I`, and then `14` as a flagged `1` beside a crossbarred `4`, all inside one line. **Use that line the way Pars IV used p. 248 n. 5's `q. 3. / d. 15.` pair.** All read clean.
- **★★ CORRECTED 2026-07-30 BY `bon-brev-p5-c3`: `edd. 1, 3` (p. 253 n. 2), WHERE THIS CHUNK ORIGINALLY RENDERED `codd. 1, 3` ("codices 1, 3").** `bon-brev-p5-c2`, working the same register, read the word as `edd.` and flagged it rather than editing a neighbour's chunk. **`p5-c3` re-derived it from p. 253's band at eighteenfold zoom and the flag is UPHELD; the Latin and the English are both corrected here.** ★ **The reading is settled three ways, and the first is decisive on its own: (a) LETTER COUNT — the word sets THREE glyphs plus a period, and `codd.` needs FOUR (`c-o-d-d`); there is no round `o` anywhere in it. (b) GLYPH — the first sort is an `e`, closed by a horizontal crossbar at mid-height, against the open, barless `c` of `ex pluribus codd.,` TWO LINES ABOVE IN THE SAME ENTRY, which supplies a same-entry contrast set for exactly this question. (c) THE SIGLUM SYSTEM — in this apparatus a numeral in the witness slot is ALWAYS an edition and a letter is always a codex (`A B E M P cum 2` stands ten words earlier in this very entry), so `codd. 1, 3` would assert that two editions are codices and is impossible on its face.** ★ **This is why the `codd.`/`edd.` question is NOT a digit-class problem and must not be worked like one: `1` and `3` were never in doubt — the word governing them was.** The raw agrees (`edd. 1 , 3`), but the raw did not settle it; the band did. **A `[?]` flag raised against a neighbour's committed text is closed here with a disposition, not left open.**
- **`II. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.` (p. 253 n. 3) and `p. II. c. 12.` (p. 253 n. 4) — read clean, each with its own contrast beside it.** `1, 3` sets the flagged `1` against two stacked bowls three characters away; `d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.` sets a `9` and two flagged `1`s; `c. 12.` a flagged `1` and a `2`.
- **Every citation whose sense can be tested was tested, and all four check out.** **p. 253 n. 1:** II *Sent.* d. 26 is the distinction *de gratia*, and I *Sent.* d. 14 a. 2 is on the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit — which is precisely the anchor's *imago recreationis*, the likeness that remains from God. **p. 253 n. 2:** the same I *Sent.* d. 14 a. 2, one question earlier, on the Spirit given with the gift — the anchor is *quod qui habet habet et Deum*. **p. 253 n. 3:** II *Sent.* d. 29 a. 1 q. 1 asks whether man was created in grace, i.e. whether grace is a naturally implanted habit — the anchor's own claim is that it *cannot* be *per habitum aliquem naturaliter insertum*. **p. 253 n. 4:** Breviloquium Pars II c. 12 is *De completione et ordinatione totius mundi consummati*, the chapter that closes the circle of emanation and return — and the anchor is `ad modum circuli intelligibilis`. **p. 252 n. 5's** `p. II. c. 9` and `p. IV. c. 1. seqq.` likewise: Pars II c. 9 is on the production of the rational spirit and Pars IV c. 1 on why the Word had to become incarnate, which are the note's *productivum* and *reparativum* principles in that order.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★ A BATTERED SORT RENDERED WHOLE AND RECORDED: `vigorem` (p. 253's *Pro thesi 4* paragraph) PRINTS AS `vigo r m`.** At maximum zoom the italic `e` of `vigorem` has **failed to print** — there is a clean word-shaped gap between the `r` and the `m`, with no ink and no broken shoulder, and the `r` itself is thinned. **This is a battered/dropped sort, not a plate error and not an ambiguity: it is rendered whole as `vigorem`.** Three independent things agree — the grammar (`per vigorem virtutis, splendorem veritatis et fervorem caritatis` needs three accusatives, and the two companions are unmistakable), the plate itself two lines below (`et *vigor virtutis* animam *purgat*`, set clean), and the sense. Recorded rather than flagged.
- **★ THE `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` COLON — FOURTEENTH consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–X, Pars V cap. I). **It survives the PART boundary intact**, which nothing had yet shown; p. 237's full stop remains the one and only exception in the corpus. Here it opens on a plain causal `cum` period (`quia, cum primum principium *productivum* … fecerit`), not on the *sicut/sic* correlative that Pars IV capp. IX and X both took.
- **★★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION TAKES A TENTH DISTINCT DISTRIBUTION, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME THE SAME CAPITULUM MARKS TWO DIFFERENT FOURFOLD DIVISIONS TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.** Cap. I puts **THREE** dashes in its opening *divisio* paragraph, marking members 2–4 of a **fourfold** division (`— Secundo` · `— Tertio` · `— Quarto`), `Primo` following the colon undashed — the Cap. VII/IX/X shape. Then in the **thesis** paragraph, which states a second and different **fourfold** division, it marks **only members 3 and 4** (`— Ipsa nihilominus est` · `— Ipsa denique est`), leaving thesis 1 (`quod ipsa est donum, quod a Deo immediate donatur`) and thesis 2 (`Etenim cum ipsa et in ipsa datur Spiritus sanctus`) unmarked. The whole *Ratio* and the *Pro thesi 2* and *Pro thesi 3* paragraphs carry **none**, and exactly **ONE** falls in the *Pro thesi 4* paragraph, before `— Dicitur enim gratia gratum faciens`. **Six dashes in six paragraphs, two fourfold divisions, three dashes for one and two for the other.** ★ As in every previous case the count matches nothing, and here it does not even match itself. Transcribed, never regularised, and never counted from the number of members.
- **★★ THE TEN EFFECTS ARE STATED IN ONE ORDER AND RECAPITULATED IN ANOTHER — NOT HARMONISED.** The thesis paragraph, glossed `Effectus decem.`, lists them as **three triads plus a summary**: *purgat, illuminat, perficit* · *vivificat, reformat, stabilit* · *elevat, assimilat, Deo iungit* · `ac per hoc acceptabilem facit`. The *Pro thesi 4* paragraph on p. 253 redistributes the same ten under the three causes: *vigor virtutis* takes **purgat, stabilit, elevat**; *splendor veritatis* takes **illuminat, reformat, assimilat**; *fervor caritatis* takes **perficit, vivificat, iungit**; and the tenth is `homo Deo placens et acceptus existit`. **Nine of the ten are the same verbs in a different grouping and a different order, and the tenth is restated as a participial phrase rather than a verb.** The text's own `omnes decem actus praedictos` licenses the identification, and the plate makes no attempt to align the two lists. **Neither list is reordered toward the other, in either direction.**
- **The italics are selective and were set exactly as printed.** In the *divisio*, *gratia* alone is italic and `Spiritus sancti` roman, while the four members are entirely roman — although the same four phrases become the four capitulum titles. In the thesis paragraph *donum divinitus datum*, *increatum*, *optimum et perfectum* and the two scriptural tags are italic; but the tag is broken by a roman `vidit` standing between two italic stretches (`*fluvium splendidum ad modum* vidit *crystalli procedere de sede Dei et Agni*`), because the plate italicises the Apocalypse's words and not Bonaventure's verb. The *Effectus decem* list is **entirely roman**, though every one of its members is italic when the *Pro thesi 4* paragraph takes it up. In the *Ratio*, *productivum* / *reparativum*, *essentiam* / *influentiam*, *situm localem* / *habitum deiformem*, *ordinem originis* / *rectitudinem electionis* / *quietudinem fruitionis*, and *imago* / *similitudo* are italic as the terms of their contrasts; `influentia deiformis` is roman four times over in the same paragraph, though it is the paragraph's subject. In *Pro thesi 3*, *filio* is italic and `templum Dei, sponsam Christi et filiam Patris` italic except for `aeterni`, which the phrase runs past. **The plate's italic is not a rule that may be completed.**
- **`Deus`, `Deo`, `Deum`, `Dei`, `Spiritus sanctus`, `Spiritus sancti`, `Verbi`, `Verbum`, `Christi`, `Patris`, `Patre`, `Ioannes`, `Apocalypsi`, `Trinitati`, `Maiestatis`, `Agni` are capitalised as printed**, and `gratia`, `anima`, `sponsa`, `sponso`, `templum`, `filia` are not; the English follows.

**Enumerations preserved exactly.** The **FOURFOLD** *divisio* of the whole treatise on grace — as a **gift divinely given** · in comparison with **free choice** · in comparison with the **habits of the virtues** · in comparison with the **exercises of merits** — of which this capitulum takes only the first. Then a second and independent **FOURFOLD** statement of the theses: grace is a gift **immediately given and infused by God** · a gift with which the **uncreated Gift**, the Holy Spirit, is given · a gift by which the soul is made **bride, daughter and temple** · a gift with **ten effects**. ★ **These two fourfold divisions are NOT parallel and must not be aligned** — the first divides the tract into capitula, the second divides this capitulum's doctrine; the plate's own glosses keep them apart (`Partes 4 huius tractatus.` against `Thesis 1.`–`Thesis 4.`). Within the theses: the **threefold** naming of the soul (*templum Spiritus sancti, sponsa Christi, filia Patris aeterni*) — which **recurs in a different order** in *Pro thesi 3* (*templum Dei, sponsam Christi et filiam Patris aeterni*), preserved as printed; and the **TENFOLD** effect, on which see above. In the *Ratio*: the **twofold** principle (*productivum* / *reparativum*); the **twofold** rejected-and-accepted mode of God's condescending (not through *essentia* / but through *influentia*) and of the spirit's elevation (not through *situs localis* / but through *habitus deiformis*); and the **THREEFOLD** conformity of the image, glossed `Triplex conformitas.` (*ordo originis* · *rectitudo electionis* · *quietudo fruitionis*). In *Pro thesi 4*: the **threefold** means of that conformity (*vigor virtutis* · *splendor veritatis* · *fervor caritatis*), each carrying three of the ten effects. The closing *Corollarium* is **threefold** (*gratis a Deo* · *secundum Deum* · *propter Deum*) and the *Notandum* closes on the figure of the **intelligible circle**.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 252 L — "Partes 4 huius tractatus." · "Thesis 1." · "Thesis 2." · "Thesis 3." · "Thesis 4." · "Effectus decem." p. 252 R — "Ratio." · "Pro thesi 1." · "Triplex conformitas." p. 253 L — "Pro thesi 2." · "Pro thesi 3." · "Pro thesi 4." · "Corollarium." · "Notandum." **Fourteen glosses across six paragraphs, and an ELEVENTH distinct form.** ★★ **The numbered series is STRICTLY PARALLEL — `Thesis 1.`–`Thesis 4.` answered one-for-one by `Pro thesi 1.`–`Pro thesi 4.`, with `Ratio.` standing between them** — the third such pair in the corpus after Pars IV capp. VIII and X, and the FIRST of the three that nothing breaks: there is no rival series, no unnumbered answering paragraph, no compound gloss, and no answer left unglossed. **What it does instead is add TWO unnumbered glosses BELOW the last numbered answer — `Corollarium.` and `Notandum.` — both inside the *Pro thesi 4* paragraph, so that a reader counting paragraphs finds six and a reader counting glossed units finds eight.** ★ And the opening paragraph's `Partes 4 huius tractatus.` glosses a division that this capitulum does **not** answer at all, the other three parts being capp. II–X. **So the gloss series is complete and correct at every point and still cannot be used to count anything.** Transcribe as printed; regularise nothing; never check a member count against a gloss count in either direction.

**No `[?]` flags.** Four readings could have carried one — `Iac. 1, 17` against the raw's `4, 17`, `pag. 225` against the raw's `220`, the `B C I M` run against the raw's `C C 1 M`, and the dropped `e` of `vigorem` — and each is settled positively on the band, by stroke count, by alphabetical position, by a same-line glyph contrast, or by the cited text checking itself against its anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag. The one typographic oddity (the failed `e` sort) is a battered sort rendered whole, 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 Pars V agent's benefit.
- **p. 252, left column — GOOD, and one of the cleanest body columns since p. 246.** `traclatum`, `aU-qua` (**`ali-` damaged**), `considcranda`, `Terlio`, `arbilriinn` (**`arbitrium` badly damaged**), `domim divi-`, `wftts datum` (**`nitus datum` DESTROYED — the worst single word on the leaf, and it sits immediately beside the `Thesis 1.` gloss**), `quOd` (**a spurious capital**), `donalur`, `Eteniin`, `sanclus`, `ct perfectum`, `desccndit`, `loannes`, `procc-`, `dcre`, `per.quod` (**lost interior space**), `Palris`, `lit nisi` (**`fit` damaged**), `dignaliva condc-`, `nac pcr`, `donuin`, `perficit^`, `facil`. **About twenty-five garbles in forty printed lines, with TWO words destroyed and one lost interior space.** ★ **Density LOW, severity MODERATE, and the severity is concentrated in a single line — `wftts datum` for `nitus datum`.** **All six left-margin glosses are damaged and two lose their numerals** (`partes 4 hu-lus tracia-` with the second line's `ius` gone, `Thesis i.` for `Thesis 1.`, `Eirecius de-""'` for `Effectus decem.` with the whole second line reduced to quotation marks).
- **p. 252, right column — GOOD, and a step BELOW the left across the same gutter.** `(lonum`, `fuciens recto`, `dehuit`, `liaec`, `cuin priinum`, `sumina`, `rcparatimm.` (**`reparativum` damaged AND given a spurious full stop**), `capacilatem illam infirmatain`, `liatendo suinmum` (**`habendo` destroyed**), `bonuin exeellens`, `nuUus`, `oninino`, `esscntiani`, `influcn-`, `hatyitum deiformem` (**`habitum` destroyed**), `beatitndinis`, `Ilaec`, `deifonnis`, `Deuin` (**three times**), `ordinem on-` (**`ori-` damaged**), `secunduin` (**twice**), `illiid iin-`, `simililudo`. **About thirty garbles in forty printed lines, with TWO words destroyed and one spurious point.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity MODERATE — and note that BOTH of the destroyed words (`habendo`, `habitum`) begin `hab`, the same trigraph, eight lines apart. Two facing columns, two grades, for the sixth consecutive leaf.** The `Ratio.` gloss survives as `naiio.`, `Pro thesi 1.` as `rro thesi i.` (**numeral lost**), `Triplex conformitas.` as `Tripiej con-` (**second line lost entirely**).
- **p. 252 footer, both blocks — GOOD, and BOTH digit classes are live in a single register of five entries.** Left: `EplsU 1. Cor. 12, 8-H.` (**`11` set as `H`**), `olJiciu \ inlcrserit sunl` (**the edition-siglum `1` set as a backslash**), `lac. 4, 17.` (**WRONG DIGIT — `1` read as `4`, the `1`/`4` class**), `Apoc^ 22, 1` clean, `nuvium`, `lanquam crystallum` clean, `\crba perficilur et desi-derantur` , `in Vat., 1 et 3.` clean, `pa;;. 220, nota 6.` (**WRONG DIGIT — `225` read as `220`, the `3`/`5` class's neighbour, AND `pag.` destroyed**). Right: `II. Sc[it. d. 26. q. \. scq.` (**the `1` set as a backslash again**), `C C 1 M` (**TWO WRONG SIGLA in four characters — `B` read as `C` and `I` as `1`**), `p. II. c. 9` clean, `p. IV. c. 1. seqq.` clean, `reparavU`, `satulem`, `aeteruam`, `C I Q U ct 1 re-paraveril` clean including both species of upright, `consisUt D E 1 consistut` (**the codex `I` set as `1`**), `I M beati/icativae` clean. **About twenty garbles across fifteen printed lines, with TWO wrong digits and THREE mangled sigla in five entries.** ★ **ONE of the two digit failures is `1`/`4` and one is in the `3`/`5` family — an even split on one leaf, against p. 251's four-to-one the other way and p. 249/250's three-to-nothing. Three consecutive leaves, three different profiles: there is no dominant class and there never was.** ★★ **And the register's characteristic failure here is not digits at all but the EDITION-SIGLUM `1`, which the raw renders as `\` twice and as a codex `I`'s substitute twice more. On this leaf the `1`/`I` distinction is the raw's weakest point, and it is the one place where both readings are grammatically admissible.**
- **p. 253, left column — GOOD, and the cleanest column on either leaf.** `est divinac imaginis`, `dicilur`, `Ilursus`, `fruilur`, `deiformitale`, `speciahus habealur`, `incoinparabiliter`, `dilifjatur`, `adoplctur`, `Iiinc est`, `nalurali-`, `insertuin`, `ponde-ret`, `matrimonia-`, `vigo? m virtutis` (**the plate's own dropped `e`, faithfully reproduced as a gap by the raw too**), `purgat, slabilit`, `illumincl`, `fer-vor caritatis`, `iungil`, `existil`, `deiforinis`, `denominalur`, `coinpletissimo`, `habenlem`, `secundtim`, `revertalur`, `cir-culi`, `consislit`, `complementum ^`. **About thirty garbles in fifty printed lines, NO word destroyed and NO lost interior space.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity LOW — and it is the first column in eight leaves with no destroyed word at all.** All five left-margin glosses survive with their numerals (`Pro thesi 2.` · `Pro thesi 3.` · `Pro thesi 4.` · `Corollarium.` · `Notandum.`), the **first gloss run since p. 247 to lose nothing** — and the reason is visible on the band: p. 253's glosses sit further from the text block than p. 252's and none of them fuses to a body line.
- **p. 253 footer, both blocks — GOOD.** Left: `Vide II. Sent. d. 26. q. 3. et 4. ac I. Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2.` clean **including every digit and both roman numerals**, `Cfr. I. Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 1.` clean, `A B E M P cum 2 specialius pro specialiter` clean, `post sicut D F prosequuntur` clean, `codd. 1, 3 addunt beatitudinis` clean, `Vide II. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.` clean, `Cfr. supra p. II. c. 12.` clean, `Pro revertatur A referatur` clean. **The left block is the CLEANEST register in Partes IV–V: not one wrong digit and not one wrong siglum in six entries, against p. 248's three and four in five.** Right (nn. 7–9, forwarded, read for the runover test only): `Enchirid. c. 32. n. 9.` clean, `Epist. 186. (alias 106.) c. 3. n. 10.` clean, `d. XXVI. c. 2` clean, `B I O P Q S` clean, `Psalm. 15, 2` clean, `Gen. 15, 1` clean. ★ **So the leaf's footers run in the opposite direction to its bodies: p. 252's register carries five errors in five entries while p. 253's carries none in nine. Grade the run, not the page, and never carry a footer grade across a gutter or a leaf.**

**★ NEITHER SIGNATURE FALLS ON p. 252 OR p. 253.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` and the quire signature both last fell on p. 249; pp. 250–253 carry neither, so the printer's signature's ~8-leaf cadence still points to roughly **p. 257**, inside Pars V. Neither is ever an entry. **p. 252's register is six** (band-derived by `p4-c10`, re-confirmed here) **and p. 253's is nine**, band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`.