Magistri Petri Lombardi
Arch. Episc. Parisiensis

Master Peter Lombard
Archbishop of Paris

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri

The Four Books of Sentences

LIBER SECUNDUS SENTENTIARUM.

 

DE  RERUM  CREATIONE  ET  FORMATIONE  CORPORALIUM ET  SPIRITUALIUM
ET  ALIIS  PLURIBUS  EO  PERTINENTIBUS

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE SENTENCES

 

ON THE CREATION AND FORMATION OF THINGS CORPORAL AND SPIRITUAL AND MANY OTHERS PERTAINING TO THIS

DISTINCTIO XVII.

DISTINCTION 17

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 408-409.
Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 409-409.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Cap. I.

 

De creatione animae, an de aliquo facta sit.

Chapter I.

On the creation of the soul, or whether it was made from something?

Hic de origine animae plura quaeri solent, scilicet unde creata fuerit, et quando, et quam gratiam habuerit in creatione.  —  Sicut hominis formatio secundum corpus describitur, cum dicitur:1  Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae, ita eiusdem secundum animam factura describitur, cum subditur:  Et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae.

Here several (things) are customarily asked concerning the origin of the soul, that is, “Whence was it created?”, and “When?”, and “How much grace did it have at (its) creation?”.  —  Just as the formation of man according to (his) body is described, when there is said:1  God formed man from the slime of the earth [limo terrae], so the making [factura] of the same according to (his) soul is described, when there is subjoined:  And He breathed into his face the breath of life [spiraculum vitae].

Cap. II.

 

De insufflatione et inspiratione Dei; quando facta fuerit anima, an in corpore, an extra.2

Chapter II.

On the insufflation and inspiration of God; when was the soul made, whether in the body, or outside (of it)?2

Corpus enim de limo terrae formavit Deus, cui animam inspiravit; vel secundum aliam litteram flavit, vel sufflavit, non quod faucibus sufflaverit, vel manibus corporeis corpus formaverit; spiritus enim Deus est nec lineamentis membrorum compositus.  Non ergo carnaliter putemus, Deum corporeis manibus formasse corpus, vel faucibus inspirasse animam, sed potius hominem de limo terrae secundum corpus formavit iubendo, volendo, id est voluit et verbo suo iussit, ut ita fieret; et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae, id est substantiam animae, in qua viveret, creavit, non de materia aliqua corporali vel spirituali, sed de nihilo.

For God formed (man’s) body from the slime of the earth, “into” which “He breathed” [inspiravit] a soul; and/or according to the other text “He blowed” [flavit], and/or “blew upon” [sufflavit], not that He blew upon (him) with (His) throat [faucibus], and/or formed (his) body with corporeal hands, for God is a spirit and (He is) not composed with the features of members [lineamentis membrorum].  Therefore let us not think carnally, that God formed (his) body with corporeal hands, and/or breathed a soul into (him) with (His) throat, but He rather formed man from the slime of the earth according to the body by commanding, by willing, that is He willed and He commanded by His Word, so that it he would thus be made; and He breathed into his face the breath of life, that is He created the substance of (his) soul, in which he would live, not from some corporal and/or spiritual matter, but from nothing [de nihilo].

Putaverunt enim quidam haeretici, Deum de sua substantia animam creasse, verbis Scripturae pertinaciter inhaerentes, quibus dicitur:  Inspiravit vel insufflavit etc.  Cum flat, inquiunt, vel spirat homo, de se flatum emittit; sic ergo, cum dicitur Deus flasse vel spirasse spiraculum in faciem hominis, ex se spiritum hominis emisisse intelligitur, id est de sua substantia.  —  Qui hoc dicunt, non capiunt, tropica locutione dictum esse sufflavit vel flavit, id est flatum hominis, scilicet animam fecit.  Flare enim est flatum facere, flatum facere est animam facere.  Unde Dominus per Isaiam:3  Omnem flatum ego feci.  Non sunt ergo audiendi qui putant, animam esse partem Dei.  Si enim hoc esset, nec a se nec ab alio decipi posset, nec ad malum faciendum vel patiendum compelli, nec in melius vel deterius mutari.  Flatus ergo, quo hominem animavit, factus est a Deo, non de Deo nec de aliqua materia, sed de nihilo.

For certain heretics thought, that God created the soul from His own substance, cleaving (as they did) pertinaciously to the words of Scripture, by which there is said:  He breathed into [inspiravit] and/or breathed upon [insufflavit] etc..  When man blows [flat], they say, and/or breathes [spirat], he emits a blowing [flatus] from himself; thus, therefore, when God is said “to have blowed” and/or “breathed” “a breath into the face of man”, He is understood to have emitted out of Himself a spirit for man, that is from His own Substance.  —  Those who say this, do not grasp that “He blew upon” and/or “He blowed”, has been said in a tropological expression, that is, He made man’s breath [flatum], that is soul [animam].  For “to blow” [flare] is ‘to give breath’ [flatum facere], “to give breath” is ‘to make living’ [animam facere].  Whence the Lord through Isaiah (says):3  I have given all breath [Omnem flatum ego feci].  Therefore those who think, that the soul is part of God, are not to be heard.  For if this were, neither would he be able to be deceived by himself nor by others, nor (would he be able) to be compelled to do and/or suffer evil, nor to be changed into (something) better and/or worse.  Therefore the breath [flatus], by which He animated man, was made by God, not from God nor from any matter, but from nothing.

Sed utrum in corpore, an extra corpus, etiam inter doctos scrupulosa quaestio est.  —  Augustinus enim super Genesim4 tradit, animam cum Angelis sine corpore fuisse creatam, postea vero ad corpus accessisse:  « Neque compulsa est incorporari, sed naturaliter illud voluit, id est sic creata fuit, ut vellet; sicut naturale nobis est velle vivere.  Male autem velle vivere, non naturae, sed voluntatis est perversae ».  —  Alii vero dicunt, animam primi hominis in corpore fuisse creatam, ita exponentes verba illa:  Inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae, id est animam in corpore creavit, quae totum corpus animaret; faciem tamen specialiter expressit, quia haec pars sensibus ornata est ad intuenda superiora.  Sed quidquid de anima primi hominis aestimetur, de aliis certissime sentiendum est, quod in corpore creentur.  Creando enim infundit eas Deus et infundendo creat.  Dicendum est etiam, animam illam non sic esse creatam, ut praescia esset operis futuri iusti, vel iniusti.5

But whether (God created man’s soul) in (his) body, or outside of (his) body, is a scrupulous question even among the Doctors (of the Church).  —  For (St.) Augustine hands down On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis,4 that the soul was created with the Angels, without a body, but afterwards approached the body:  «  Nor was it compelled to be incorporated, but it naturally willed that, that is it was created thus, to will (it); just as it is natural for us to will to live.  But to will to live wickedly, belongs not to nature, but to a perverse will ».  —  But others say, that the soul of the first man was created in the body, expounding those words:  He breathed into his face the breath of life, thus, that is, ‘He created (his) soul, which animated (his) entire body, in (his) body’; yet He expressly said [expressit] “the face” in particular, because this part has been ornamented with the senses to intuit superior (things).  But whatever one estimates concerning the soul of the first man, it must be known most certainly concerning the other (souls), that they are created in the body.  For by creating (them) God infuses them and by infusing (them) He creates (them).  It must be said, too, that the former soul was not thus created, to be prescient of (its own) just and/or unjust future work.5

Cap. III.

 

In qua aetate factus fuit homo.

Chapter III.

At what age man was made.

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum Deus hominem repente in virili aetate fecerit, an perficiendo et aetates augendo, sicut nunc format in matris utero.  —  Augustinus super Genesim6 dicit, quod Adam in virili aetate continuo factus est, et hoc secundum superiores, non inferiores causas, id est secundum voluntatem et potentiam Dei, quam naturae generibus non alligavit, qualiter et virga Moysi conversa est in draconem.  Nec . . .

There is also customarily asked, “Whether God made man without delay [repente] at the age of manhood [in virili aetate], or whether (He did so) by perfecting and increasing (his) age [aetates], just as He now does in the womb of (his) mother.  —  (St.) Augustine says On (a Literal Exposition of ) Genesis,6 that Adam was made immediately [continuo] at the age of manhood, and this according to superior, not inferior, causes, that is (he was made) according to the Will and Power of God, which He did not bind to the genera of nature, in that manner in which the rod of Moses was converted into a serpent [draconem].  Nor . . .

1  Gen. 2, 7.  —  Hoc et seq. cap. Magister sumsit ex August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. 2. 3; et deinde a verbis Hugo, I. de Sacram. p. VI, c. 3; cod. Erf. remittit ad Gandolph. II. Sent.

2  Secundum codd. Magister incipit cap. II. in media propositione ultima capituli I., scil. cum verbis:  ita eiusdem factura.

3  Cap. 57, 16, secundum Septuaginta; Vulgata:  Et flatus ego faciam.

4  Loc. cit. c. 25. 27.  Cod. Erf. addit:  Hoc non asserit Augustinus.  —  Paulo superius post extra corpus cod. C adiicit sit anima.  —  Quae sequuntur inveniuntur loc. cit. c. 28.

5  Cfr. supra dist. IV. et infra dist. XXIII. c. 4.  —  Propositio praecedens est Augustini, loc. cit. c. 26.

6  Libr. VI. c. 13. 14. 15. 17.  —  Postea alluditur ad Exod. 7, 10.

1  Gen. 2:7.  —  Master (Peter) has taken this chapter and the one following out of (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VII, chs. 1, 2 and 3; and then from the words of Hugo (of St. Victor), On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. VI, ch. 3; the Erfurt codex cites Gandolphus, Sent., Bk. II.

2  According to the codices, Master (Peter) begins Chapter II in the middle of the final proposition of Chapter I, namely at the words:  so the making of the same [ita eiusdem factura].

3  Isaiah 57:16, according to the Septuagint; the Vulgate reads:  And I will give breath [Et flatus ego faciam].

4  Loc. cit. chs. 25 and 27.  The Erfurt codex adds:  (St.) Augustine does not assert this.  —  A little above this codex C reads (his soul is) in (his) body, or outside of (his) body [in corpore, an extra corpus, sit anima] for (God created man’s soul) in (his) body, or outside of (his) body [in corpore, an extra corpus].  —  (The words) which follow are found loc. cit., ch. 28.

5  Cf. above d. IV, and below d. XXIII, ch. 4.  —  The preceding proposition is (St.) Augustine’s, loc. cit., ch. 26.

6  Book VI, chs. 13, 14, 15 and 17.  —  After this there is an allusion to Ex. 7:10.

p. 409

talia contra naturam fiunt nisi nobis, quibus aliter naturae cursus innotuit; Deo autem natura est quod facit.  Non ergo contra dispositionem suam illud fecit Deus.  Erat enim in prima causarum1 conditione, sic hominem posse fieri, sed non ibi erat necesse, ut sic fieret; « hoc enim non erat in conditione creaturae, sed in beneplacito Creatoris, cuius voluntas necessitas est ».  « Hoc enim necessario futurum est quod vult et praescit.  Multa vero secundum inferiores causas futura sunt, sed in praescientia Dei futura non sunt.  Si autem ibi aliter futura sunt, potius futura sunt, sicut ibi sunt, ubi praescit ille qui non potest falli ».  « Sic ergo factus est Adam non secundum inferiores causas, quia non erat in rerum causis seminalibus, ut ita fieret, sed secundum superiores, non contra naturam operantes, quia in rerum causis naturalibus erat, ut ita posset fieri ».

do such come to be against nature except for us, to whom the course of nature was made known in another manner; but for God nature is what He makes.  Therefore God did do this against His own disposition.  For there was in the first condition of causes,1 that man could be made thus, but it was not necessary then [ibi], that he would be made thus; « for this did not exist [non erat] at the foundation of the creature, but in the good-pleasure of God, the Will of Whom is the Necessity ».  « For there is necessarily going to be that which He wills and foreknows. But many (things) are going to be according to inferior causes, but are not going to be in the Foreknowledge of God.  But if they are going to be otherwise, they are going to be rather, as they are There, where He who cannot be deceived foreknows (them) ».  « Therefore Adam was thus made not according to inferior causes, because it was not in the seminal causes of things, that he would be made thus, but according to superior ones, not working against nature, because it was in the natural causes of things, that he could be thus made ».

Cap. IV.

 

Quare homo, extra paradisum creatus, in paradiso sit positus.

Chapter IV.

Why man, having been created outside of Paradise, was placed in paradise.

Hominem autem ita formatum tulit Deus, ut Scriptura2 docet, et posuit in paradiso voluptatis, quem plantaverat a principio.  His verbis aperte Moyses insinuat, quod homo, extra paradisum creatus, postmodum in paradiso sit positus.  Quod ideo factum dicitur, quia non erat in eo permansurus, vel ut non naturae, sed gratiae hoc assignaretur.

Moreover God brought the man thus formed, as Scripture teaches, and placed [posuit] (him) in a paradise of pleasure [paradio voluptatis], which He had planted from the beginning.  With these words Moses openly insinuates, that man, created outside of Paradise, was placed after a while in paradise.  Which is, therefore, said (to have) been done, because he was not going to remain in that (place), and/or so that this would be assigned not to nature, but to grace.

Cap. V.

 

Quibus modis paradisus accipiatur.

Chapter V.

In which manners is “paradise” accepted?

Intelligitur autem paradisus localis et corporalis, in quo homo locatus est.  « Tres enim generales de paradiso sententiae sunt; una eorum qui corporaliter intelligi volunt tantum; alia eorum qui spiritualiter tantum; tertia eorum qui utroque modo paradisum accipiunt.  Tertiam mihi placere fateor, ut homo in corporali paradiso sit positus »,3 qui ab illo principio plantatus accipi potest, quo terram omnem, remotis aquis, herbas et ligna producere iussit.  « Qui etsi praesentis Ecclesiae vel futurae typum tenet, ad litteram tamen intelligendum est, esse locum amoenissimum, fructuosis arboribus magnum et magno fonte fecundum.  Quod dicimus a principio antiqua translatio4 dicit ad orientem.  Unde volunt, in orientali parte esse paradisum, longo interiacente spatio vel maris vel terrae, a regionibus, quas incolunt homines, secretum et in alto situm, usque ad lunarem circulum pertingentem; unde nec aqua diluvii illuc pervenerunt ».5

Moreover the “paradise”, in which man was placed [locatus est], is understood (to be) the local and corporal one.  « For there are three general sentences concerning the “paradise”; one of those who want (it) to be understood only corporally; another of those who (want it to be understood) only spiritually; the third of those who accept “paradise” in each manner. I confess [fateor] that the third (sentence) pleases me, that man was placed [positus est] in a corporal paradise »,3 which can be accepted (to have) been planted from that beginning, in which He commanded all the land [terram omnem], with the waters moved back, to produce herbs and trees [ligna].  « Which, even if it is a type [typum tenet] of the present and/or future Church, it must be understood, however, according to the letter, to be a most pleasant place, with very fruitful trees [magnum fructuosis arboribus] and fecundated by a great spring.  What we say “from the beginning” [a principio] the ancient translation4 says “to the east” [ad orientem].  Wherefore they want, that Paradise be in an eastern region [in orientali parte], with an interlaying space either of sea and/or of land, far from the regions, in which men dwell [incolunt], hidden away [secretum] and sited on a high (place), stretching up to the orbit of the Moon [lunarem circulum]; whence neither did they arrive there on the water of the Flood ».5

In hoc autem paradiso erant ligna diversi generis, inter quae unum erat quod vocatum est lignum vitae, alterum vero lignum scientiae boni et mali.

Moreover in this Paradise there were trees [ligna] of diverse genus, among which one was that which was called “the Tree of Life”, but the other “the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”.

Cap. VI.

 

De ligno vitae.

Chapter VI.

On the Tree of Life.

Lignum autem vitae dictum est, sicut docet Beda6 et Strabus, « quia divinitus accepit hanc vim, ut qui ex eius fructu comederet, corpus eius stabili sanitate et perpetua soliditate firmaretur nec ulla infirmitate vel aetatis imbecillitate in deterius vel in occasum laberetur ».

Moreover, it was called “the Tree of Life”, just as (St.) Bede (the Venerable)6 and (Walafrid) Strabo teach, « because it accepted this force divinely, so that the body of him who would eat of its fruit, would be strengthened with stable health and perpetual solidity and would not lapse by any infirmity and/or imbecility of age into a worse (state) and/or (fall) into destruction ».

Cap. VII.

 

De ligno scientiae boni et mali.

Chapter VII.

On the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Lignum autem scientiae boni et mali non a natura hoc nomen accepit, sed ab occasione rei postea secutae.  « Arbor enim illa non erat mala, sed scientiae boni et mali ideo dicta est, quia post prohibitionem erat in illa transgressio futura, qua homo experiendo disceret, quid esset inter obedientiae bonum et inobedientiae malum.  Non ergo de fructu, qui nasceretur inde, positum est illud nomen, sed de re transgressionem secuta ».7  Cognovit enim homo, priusquam tangeret hoc lignum, bonum et malum; sed bonum per prudentiam et experientiam, malum vero per prudentiam tantum; quod etiam per experientiam novit, usurpato ligno vetito, quia per experientiam mali didicit, quid sit inter bonum obedientiae et malum inobedientiae.  Si vero primi parentes obedientes essent nec contra praeceptum peccassent; non ideo tamen minus diceretur lignum scientiae boni et mali, quia hoc8 ex eius tactu accideret, si usurparetur.  A ligno igitur prohibitus est, quod malum non erat, ut ipsa praecepti conservatio bonum illi esset, transgressio malum.  Nec melius consideratur, quantum malum sit inobedientiae quam hoc modo, cum scilicet ideo reus factus esse homo intelligitur, quia prohibitus rem tetigit, quam si non prohibitus tetigisset, nec peccasset nec poenam sensisset.  Si enim venenosam herbam prohibitus tetigeris, poena sequitur, etsi nemo prohibuisset;9 similiter sequeretur, si etiam prohiberetur res tangi, quae non tangenti tantum, sed prohibenti obest, sicut aliena pecunia:  ideo prohibitum est peccatum, quia prohibenti est damnosum.  Cum vero tangitur quod nec tangenti obest, si non prohibetur, nec cuilibet, si tangatur; ideo prohibetur, ut per se bonum obedientiae et malum inobedientiae monstretur; sicut primus homo, a re bona prohibitus, poenam incurrit, ut non ex re mala, sed ex inobedientia poena esse monstretur, sicut ex obedientia palma.

“The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” did not accept this name from (its) nature, but from the occasion of the thing (which) followed afterwards.  « For that tree [arbor] was not evil, but was said (to be) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for this reason, because after the prohibition there was in it the future transgression, by which man, by experiencing, would learn, what lay [esset] between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience [inobedientiae].  Therefore not from the fruit, which would be born therefrom, was that name imposed [positum], but from the thing (which) followed the transgression ».7  For man knew [cognovit], good and evil, before he touched this tree [lignum]; but the good through prudence and experience, but evil through prudence only; which he also knew [novit] through experience, with the use [usurpato] of the tree forbidden, because he learned through experience of evil, what lay [sit] between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience.  But if (our) first parents were obedient neither would they have sinned against the precept, yet no less for this reason would it be called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, because this8 would accede (to it), if it were (ever) put to use [usurparetur].  Therefore he was prohibited from the tree, which was not evil, so that the very conservation of the precept would be a good for him, the transgression an evil.  And one considers no better, how much evil belongs to disobedience than in this manner, when, that is, man is understood to have become the accused [reus] for this reason, that being prohibited he touched the thing, which if he had touched not being prohibited, neither would he have sinned nor known [senisset] punishment.  For if being prohibited [prohibitus], you touch a venomous herb, the punishment follows, even if no one would have prohibited (it);9 similarly it would follow, if the thing, which is prejudicial [obest] not only to the one touching, but (also) to the one being prohibited [prohibenti], were also prohibited to be touched, such (as is) the money of another:  for that reason the sin was prohibited, because it was dangerous [damnosam] to the one being prohibited.  But when there is touched (that) which is neither prejudicial to the one touching, if it is not prohibited, nor to anyone, if it be touched; it is prohibited for this reason, to demonstrate [ut monstretur] per se the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience; just as the first man, prohibited from a good thing, incurred a punishment, not to demonstrate that there is punishment on account of an evil thing, but (that there is such) on account of the disobedience, just as the palm-branch (bestowed upon the Saints) on account of (their) obedience (demonstrates their reward).

1  Plurimae edd. cum Vat. creaturarum, refragantibus codd.

2  Gen. 2, 8.

3  August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. n. 1. 4., et habetur in Glossa ord.

4  Id est Septuag.  Cfr. August., loc. cit. c. 3.  —  Subinde post volunt edd. 1, 8 subiiciunt quidam.

5  Beda, Hexaëm. ad Gen. 2, 9, et est in Glossa.  Ad verba in alto situm etc. cod. Erf. annotat:  Illud non est Bedae, sed Strabi in quadam Glossa ibid.  Lunarem hyperbolice dictum est i. e. altius omni terra, secundum Damascenum.  Cfr. Comment. dub. 3.

6  Beda, Hexaëm. ad Gen. 2, 9, et habetur hoc sicut et Strabi sententia in Glossa ord.  Sumtae sunt hae sententiae ex August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3.

7  Ex Glossa ord. ad Gen. 2, 9.  Cfr. August., XIV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 14. n. 31.   In eod. libr. c. 15. invenies et quae sequuntur.  Cfr. August., ibid. c. 13. n. 28. 29.  Ultima verba cap. respiciunt Prov. 21, 28:  Vir obediens loquetur victoriam.

8  Solummodo Vat. haec.

9  Edd. 1-9 ita habent:  prohibuisset, similiter sequeretur.  Si etiam.  Subinde Vat., et codd. A C prohibetur pro prohiberetur.

1  Very many editions, together with the Vatican edition, have of creatures [creaturarum], breaking with the codices.

2  Gen. 2:8.

3  (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VIII, ch. 1, nn. 1 and 4, and as had in the Glossa ordinaria.

4  That is, the Septuagint.  Cf. (St.) Augustine, loc. cit., ch. 3.  —  Then the editions have certain (authors) want [volunt quidam] for they want [volunt].

5  (St.) Bede (the Venerable), Hexaëmeron, on Gen. 2:9, and as is had in the Glossa ordinaria.  At the words sited on a high (place) etc. [in alto situm etc.] the Erfurt codex notes:  This (statement) does not belong to (St.) Bede, but to (Walafrid) Strabo, in a certain Gloss ibid..  “Of the Moon” has been said as hyperbole, i. e. higher than every land, according to (St. John) Damascene.  Cf. (St. Bonaventure’s), Commentaria, here in Doubt 3.

6  (St.) Bede, Hexaëmeron, on Gen. 2:9, and this as well as the sentence of (Walafrid) Strabo is had in the Glossa ordinaria.  These sentences have been taken from (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis¸ Bk. VIII. ch. 3.

7  (St.) Bede, Hexaëmeron, on Gen. 2:9.  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis¸ Bk. XIV, ch. 14, n. 31  In the same book, in ch. 15, you will find also those which follow.  Cf. (St.) Augustine, ibid., ch. 13, nn. 28 and 29.  The final words of the chapter respect Prov. 21:28:  The obedient man will speak of victory [Vir obediens loquetur victoriam].

8  Only the Vatican edition has this (knowledge) [haec] for this (name) [hoc].

9  Editions 1-9 have it thus:  would have prohibited (it), it would similarly follow.  If the thing etc. [prohibuisset, similiter sequeretur.  Si etiam].  Then the Vatican edition, and codices A and C have is [prohibetur] for were [prohiberetur].

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.