{"slug":"stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1","title":"Tractatus De Septem Vitiis Et Septem Donis Spiritus Sancti [Incertus]","title_source":"Tractatus De Septem Vitiis Et Septem Donis Spiritus Sancti [Incertus]","author":"Augustinus","genre":"homily","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:17:51Z","cost_usd":0.00528},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0040/stoa082/stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":9,"english_words":1875,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":7684,"commentary_units":54,"commentary_kinds":9,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":15,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1","abstract":"This homily, traditionally attributed to Augustine but now considered spurious, addresses the seven deadly vices and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The surviving text covers only the vices, defining vitium as a corruption of natural affection beyond order and measure, distinct from peccatum (sin) which requires consent. The list of vices (pride, envy, wrath, acedia, avarice, gluttony, lust) follows the standard Western monastic tradition, notably Gregory the Great's Moralia in Job. The work survives in the Patrologia Latina edition, with a poorly documented manuscript tradition. It was used in medieval monastic and catechetical contexts for moral instruction, influencing later treatments of the seven gifts, despite its inauthentic Augustinian attribution.","historical_context":"The work likely dates from the early medieval period (6th–9th centuries), when lists of vices and gifts were being systematized in Western Christianity. The precise date, place, and community of origin are unknown. The text survives in Latin, transmitted through the Patrologia Latina edition, which collects many pseudo-Augustinian works; its manuscript tradition is not well documented. The homily reflects the monastic and catechetical contexts where moral instruction was central, and its list of seven principal vices aligns with the tradition established by Gregory the Great (c. 540–604) in his Moralia in Job. The attribution to Augustine (354–430) is rejected by modern scholarship, and the work should be considered an anonymous early medieval composition. The text shows signs of scribal errors (e.g., 'præter ord!nem' for 'ordinem', 'uon regeneratis' for 'non regeneratis'), indicating a complex transmission history.","significance":"The homily is significant as an early medieval witness to the systematization of the seven deadly vices and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, themes that became central to Western Christian moral theology. It influenced later treatments of the gifts, such as those by Thomas Aquinas, and was used in monastic and catechetical instruction. Its false attribution to Augustine illustrates the medieval practice of ascribing authoritative texts to Church Fathers to enhance their prestige.","timeline":[{"date":"6th–9th c.","event":"Probable composition of the homily, when lists of vices and gifts were being systematized."},{"date":"c. 540–604","event":"Gregory the Great writes Moralia in Job, establishing the list of seven vices used in this homily."},{"date":"354–430","event":"Life of Augustine of Hippo; the homily is later falsely attributed to him."},{"date":"1844–1864","event":"Patrologia Latina edition published by J.-P. Migne, including this work among pseudo-Augustinian texts."},{"date":"20th–21st c.","event":"Modern scholarship rejects Augustinian authorship, classifying the work as Incertus."}],"relations":[{"work":"Moralia in Job","relation":"Source for the list of seven vices","key":"wikipedia:Gregory the Great","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Summa Theologica","relation":"Later theological treatment of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit","key":"wikipedia:Summa Theologica","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Patrologia Latina","relation":"Edition preserving the text","key":"wikipedia:Patrologia Latina","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"De Civitate Dei","relation":"Authentic Augustinian work often contrasted with this spurious homily","key":"wikipedia:The City of God","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Evagrius Ponticus","relation":"Earlier monastic tradition of listing vices, influencing Gregory the Great","key":"wikipedia:Evagrius Ponticus","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The work's date is uncertain; it is placed broadly in the early medieval period (6th–9th centuries) based on content and transmission.","Authorship is spurious; the attribution to Augustine is rejected by modern scholarship.","The manuscript tradition is poorly documented; the text survives only in the Patrologia Latina edition without a critical apparatus.","The surviving text covers only the vices, not the gifts promised in the title; the work may be incomplete.","Scribal errors (e.g., 'præter ord!nem', 'uon regeneratis') indicate textual corruption."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000583,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:17:51Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0040/stoa082/stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0040.stoa082.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":9,"translated":9,"commentary_passages":9,"commentary_units":54,"english_words":1875,"source_letters":7613,"commentary_kinds":9},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is a homily on the seven deadly vices and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, traditionally attributed to Augustine but now considered spurious (Incertus).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives in the Patrologia Latina (PL) edition, which collects many pseudo-Augustinian works; its manuscript tradition is not well documented.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work likely dates from the early medieval period (6th–9th centuries), when lists of vices and gifts were being systematized, but no precise dating is established.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Despite its inauthenticity, the homily was used in medieval monastic and catechetical contexts for moral instruction, influencing later treatments of the seven gifts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The attribution to Augustine is rejected by modern scholarship; readers should not assume Augustinian authorship or doctrinal authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition does not provide a critical apparatus or stemma; the Latin text is based on the PL edition without collation of other manuscripts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: homily in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 9 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":9},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"TRACTATUS DE SEPTEM VITIIS ET SEPTEM DONIS SPIRITUS SANCTI.\n\nVitium quid, It quando culpa. Quotuplex et cujusque definitio.\n\nSeptem sunt vitia principalia, quae rationalem naturam inficiunt, ei ejus integritatem quasi quodam sua; admixtionis fermento corrumpunt. Vitium autem est corruptio naturalis affectus præter ord!nem, et extra mensuram. Hoc vero cum per consensum recipiulr, peccatum est; sentire autem solum sine consensu, pœna est et non culpa. Sane in uon regeneratis vitium omnino excusationem non habet, ubi etsi consensus non sequitur, solum hoc damnationi debituln est, quod praetor rationem movetur; propter quod ait Apostolus, Jam nihil damnationis al his, qui sunt in Christo Jesu (Rom. VIII, 4). Primum vitium est. superbia: secundum, invidia: tertium, ira: quartum, acedia: quintum, avarilia: sextum, gula: septimum, luxuria. Superbia est amor propriæ excellentiæ. lovidia est livor felicitatis alienæ. Ira est irrationabilis perturbatio meritis. Acedia est fastidium interni boni. Avaritia est immoderata habendi cupiditas. Gula est nimius edendi appetitus. Luxuria est immoderatum desiderium explendae libidinis. Ilac ergo sunt vitia septem, de quibus universa rationalis animæ corrupiin manat: omne enim quod integritatem corrumpit, vitium est. Sed est alia integritas, etc.","english":"TREATISE ON THE SEVEN VICES AND THE SEVEN GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.\n\nWhat a vice is, and when it is a fault. How many there are, and the definition of each.\n\nThere are seven principal vices, which infect rational nature and corrupt its integrity as if by a kind of leaven of admixture. A vice, moreover, is a corruption of a natural affection beyond order and beyond measure. This, when it is received through consent, is a sin; but to feel it alone without consent is a penalty and not a fault. Indeed, in the unregenerate, vice has no excuse at all, where even if consent does not follow, this alone is owed to damnation, that it is moved contrary to reason; on account of which the Apostle says, \"Now there is nothing of damnation in those who are in Christ Jesus\" (Rom. 8:4). The first vice is pride; the second, envy; the third, wrath; the fourth, acedia; the fifth, avarice; the sixth, gluttony; the seventh, lust. Pride is love of one's own excellence. Envy is spite at another's happiness. Wrath is an irrational disturbance of the mind. Acedia is disgust with an internal good. Avarice is an immoderate desire for possessing. Gluttony is an excessive appetite for eating. Lust is an immoderate desire for satisfying libido. These, then, are the seven vices, from which all corruption of the rational soul flows: for everything that corrupts integrity is a vice. But there is another integrity, etc.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"TRACTATUS DE SEPTEM VITIIS ET SEPTEM DONIS SPIRITUS SANCTI","severity":"info","text":"The title announces a treatise on seven vices and seven gifts, but the surviving text covers only the vices; the gifts are not treated in this passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"vitium","severity":"info","text":"The author defines vitium as a corruption of natural affection beyond order and measure, distinguishing it from peccatum (sin) which requires consent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. VIII, 4","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Romans 8:4 (Vulgate: 'Jam nihil damnationis in his, qui sunt in Christo Jesu') supports the claim that the regenerate are free from damnation even when moved contrary to reason.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Septem sunt vitia principalia","severity":"info","text":"The list of seven principal vices (pride, envy, wrath, acedia, avarice, gluttony, lust) follows a standard Western monastic tradition, notably found in Gregory the Great's Moralia in Job.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Gregory the Great"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"præter ord!nem","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'præter ord!nem' with an exclamation mark, likely a scribal error for 'ordinem'; the sense is 'beyond order'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"uon regeneratis","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'uon regeneratis' is a corruption; the intended reading is 'non regeneratis' (the unregenerate), as the context contrasts them with those in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text breaks off with 'Sed est alia integritas, etc.', leaving the treatment of the seven gifts incomplete.","The phrase 'quasi quodam sua; admixtionis fermento' contains a semicolon that may be a scribal error; the intended reading is likely 'quasi quodam suae admixtionis fermento'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"CASTIGATlONES ET VARIÆ LECTIONES IN EUMDEM TRACTATUM.\n\nEditio Hugonis antiquior Parisiensis anni 1526, ad Badium, tom. 1, fol. 206, c, Allegoriarum in Matthæun ea. 3, corruptus vera amor per concupiscentiam animas turpitudo est. vignierius in Supplemento, corruptus vero amor per concupiscentiam tollit sanitatem. o laritas enim conguitionis quasi quædam animæ pulchritudo est: sinceriius vero, etc.\n\nIbid. c, cap. 4, cætera vero obsequentia dIa. Lege ex Vignerio, subsequentia vitia.\n\nIbid. hi, post, simul vero omnia blasphemant; Vignierius addit, Dominum; et mox hahet, sumnum bonum, ubi Hugo, bonum suum. Fol. 207, I, cap. 5, post, propter hoc Dei Filius, addendum, qui; et mox, non rationabilis esse potuisset: legendum, rationabilis esse non potuisset. Et paulo post, quod inordinatus est, vitium est; pro, quod inordinatum est, ritium esse.","english":"EMENDATIONS AND VARIOUS READINGS ON THE SAME TREATISE.\n\nIn the older Paris edition of Hugh of 1526, printed by Badius, volume 1, folio 206, column c, of the Allegories on Matthew, chapter 3, the corrupt reading \"vera amor per concupiscentiam animas turpitudo est\" is corrected by Vignier in his Supplement to \"corruptus vero amor per concupiscentiam tollit sanitatem.\" For charity is a kind of beauty of the soul; more correctly, etc.\n\nIn the same place, column c, chapter 4, \"cætera vero obsequentia dIa.\" Read with Vignier, \"subsequentia vitia.\"\n\nIn the same place, column hi, after \"simul vero omnia blasphemant,\" Vignier adds \"Dominum\"; and soon after it has \"sumnum bonum,\" where Hugh has \"bonum suum.\" Folio 207, column l, chapter 5, after \"propter hoc Dei Filius,\" add \"qui\"; and soon after, \"non rationabilis esse potuisset\": read \"rationabilis esse non potuisset.\" And a little later, \"quod inordinatus est, vitium est\"; for \"quod inordinatum est, vitium esse.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Castigationes et variæ lectiones","severity":"info","text":"This heading introduces a critical apparatus, not part of the original homily. It records emendations by Vignier to Hugh of St. Cher's Allegories on Matthew, based on the 1526 Paris edition by Badius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Vignierius","severity":"info","text":"Vignier (Jean Vignier, 16th–17th c.) produced a Supplement correcting Hugh's text. His emendations reflect early modern editorial efforts to restore patristic readings in printed editions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"vera amor per concupiscentiam animas turpitudo est","severity":"caution","text":"The transmitted text is corrupt. Vignier's correction to 'corruptus vero amor per concupiscentiam tollit sanitatem' restores sense: 'corrupted love through lust destroys health.' The original likely contrasted charity as beauty of the soul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"cætera vero obsequentia dIa","severity":"caution","text":"The abbreviation 'dIa' is unclear; Vignier reads 'subsequentia vitia' ('the following vices'). This suggests a scribal error or misreading in the 1526 edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"simul vero omnia blasphemant","severity":"caution","text":"Vignier adds 'Dominum' after 'blasphemant,' clarifying the object of blasphemy. The omission in Hugh's text may be a scribal oversight.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"sumnum bonum","severity":"caution","text":"The 1526 edition reads 'sumnum bonum' (highest good), but Hugh's text has 'bonum suum' (his own good). The correct reading is uncertain; Vignier retains 'sumnum bonum' as likely original.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage is a critical apparatus, not the homily itself; the original text of the treatise is not directly present. The emendations refer to Hugh of St. Cher's Allegories on Matthew, not to Augustine's work directly. The abbreviation 'dIa' in 'cætera vero obsequentia dIa' is unresolved; Vignier's reading 'subsequentia vitia' is conjectural."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Ibid. m, cap. 6, septem antidota specialia, vignerius, spiritualia; forte minus bene. Deinde, quæ tamen I. forte legen.ium, quæ tantum.\n\nIbid. n, ut sequatur larqitio ejus qnod voluntas requirit. vignierius, ut subsequatur largitio, ut quod voluntate perdidit, voluntate requirat.\n\nIbid. addendum, Adveniat regnum tuum. contra iram opponitur tertiapetitio; post voces, secunda petitio. ibid. o, cap. 7, quasi captatio benevolentiæ: et infra, bofc uro conmendatione captationis benevolentiæ. Vigniesitis non legit vocem, benevolentiæ; quam Hugo reticere solet. ut videre est lib. de Modo orandi, capp. i et 5.\n\nIbid. pro, a prælatis, corrigendum, appellans.\n\nIbid.: Illic namque quærenda sunt. Apud Vignierium, Illic namque quærenda est hæreditas.\n\nIbid. v, honorem Dei præponimus. Apud Vignierium, Itonorem tuum præponimus: et mox, tibi ei tua, ubi apud Hugonem, tibi et Deu 208, t, cap. 8, pusl, audi iterum, vignierius repetit verbum, audi.","english":"Ibid. m, chapter 6, seven special antidotes, Vignier, spiritual; perhaps less well. Next, \"quæ tamen I.\" perhaps read \"legen.ium,\" \"quæ tantum.\"\n\nIbid. n, \"ut sequatur largitio ejus quod voluntas requirit.\" Vignier, \"ut subsequatur largitio, ut quod voluntate perdidit, voluntate requirat.\"\n\nIbid. addendum, \"Adveniat regnum tuum.\" Against wrath, the third petition is opposed; after the words, the second petition. Ibid. o, chapter 7, as a captatio benevolentiae: and below, \"bofc uro\" commendation of captatio benevolentiae. Vignier does not read the word \"benevolentiae,\" which Hugh is accustomed to omit; as may be seen in the book *De Modo Orandi*, chapters 1 and 5.\n\nIbid. for \"a prælatis,\" correct to \"appellans.\"\n\nIbid.: \"Illic namque quærenda sunt.\" In Vignier, \"Illic namque quærenda est hæreditas.\"\n\nIbid. v, \"honorem Dei præponimus.\" In Vignier, \"Itonorem tuum præponimus\": and soon after, \"tibi ei tua,\" where in Hugh it is \"tibi et Deu\" 208, t, chapter 8, \"pusl, audi iterum,\" Vignier repeats the word \"audi.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"septem antidota specialia","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'septem antidota specialia' (seven special antidotes) is a variant reading introduced by Vignier, possibly replacing 'spiritualia' in the source text. This reflects editorial intervention in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Vignier"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quæ tamen I. forte legen.ium, quæ tantum","severity":"caution","text":"The text 'quæ tamen I. forte legen.ium, quæ tantum' is corrupt or unclear; the editor suggests reading 'legen.ium' as 'legendum' or similar, but the sense remains uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Vignier","severity":"info","text":"Vignier's emendations are frequently cited in this passage, indicating his role as a critical editor of Hugh of Saint Victor's works, though his readings are sometimes judged 'minus bene' (less well).","cites":[],"named_sources":["Vignier"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Adveniat regnum tuum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Adveniat regnum tuum' (Thy kingdom come) is identified as the third petition of the Lord's Prayer, here opposed to the vice of wrath, following a structural scheme of seven petitions against seven vices.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"captatio benevolentiae","severity":"info","text":"'Captatio benevolentiae' is a rhetorical term for seeking the audience's goodwill. Vignier omits the word 'benevolentiae', which Hugh of Saint Victor is said to omit habitually, as seen in *De Modo Orandi*.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Hugh of Saint Victor"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Illic namque quærenda est hæreditas","severity":"info","text":"Vignier's reading 'Illic namque quærenda est hæreditas' (For there the inheritance is to be sought) differs from the source's 'Illic namque quærenda sunt', suggesting a textual variant or emendation.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Vignier"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage is a series of textual notes and emendations, not a continuous narrative; the exact relationship between the cited readings and the original treatise is unclear.","The phrase 'bofc uro' appears corrupt and its meaning is uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Ibid., bonus ad tantum bonum. Vignierius, bonus ad sumnum -łłl...n.\n\nIbidem: bonus dum, te de ignaradeinceps de ignavia excusare; corrigen\\\n\nIbid. z, cap. 9: ibi nos per humilitatem superiori subjecimus. Vignierius, subjicimus. 209, b, cap. 10, orandum ut in cœlo. vignierius, orandum est, etc.\n\nIbid. c, ut in eis Voluntas tua fiat, imitentur illos, etc, locus intricatus; apud vignierium intricatior sic: Ut in eis voluntas Dei fiat, et præcedant corde quo secuturi sunt et corpore, nec imitentur illos qui adhuc animo terrce inhæreNt et terra sunt. Sic corrigendus videtur: ut in eis voluntas vei fit, et præcedunt corde sic imitentur ilia. qni adhuc, et caetera ut apud \\ ignierium.\n\nIbid., aut potestate tua corrigentur. Apud Vignierium, constringemur.\n\nIbid. c, cap. 11, pasce habitatores. Addit Vignierius, tuos.\n\nIbid. f, et nos amplius non colligimus nisi quanto uti. Melius Vignierius, et non amplius; non colligimus nisi quan. IUM uti.","english":"Ibid., \"bonus ad tantum bonum.\" Vignier, \"bonus ad summum\" — [illegible].\n\nIbidem: \"bonus dum, te de ignavia excusare\" — correct.\n\nIbid. z, ch. 9: there we subject ourselves through humility to a superior. Vignier, \"subjicimus.\" 209, b, ch. 10, \"orandum ut in caelo.\" Vignier, \"orandum est,\" etc.\n\nIbid. c, \"ut in eis voluntas tua fiat, imitentur illos,\" etc., a tangled passage; in Vignier more tangled thus: \"Ut in eis voluntas Dei fiat, et praecedant corde quo secuturi sunt et corpore, nec imitentur illos qui adhuc animo terrae inhaerent et terra sunt.\" It seems it should be corrected thus: \"ut in eis voluntas Dei fiat, et praecedunt corde, sic imitentur illa qui adhuc,\" and the rest as in Vignier.\n\nIbid., \"aut potestate tua corrigentur.\" In Vignier, \"constringemur.\"\n\nIbid. c, ch. 11, \"pasce habitatores.\" Vignier adds, \"tuos.\"\n\nIbid. f, \"et nos amplius non colligimus nisi quanto uti.\" Better in Vignier, \"et non amplius; non colligimus nisi quantum uti.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"bonus ad tantum bonum","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text reads 'bonus ad tantum bonum,' while Vignier's edition gives 'bonus ad summum.' The variation suggests a scribal or editorial divergence in the transmission of the passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"bonus dum, te de ignavia excusare","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'bonus dum, te de ignavia excusare' is marked for correction in the manuscript, indicating textual corruption or an unclear reading that requires emendation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"subjicimus","severity":"info","text":"Vignier's edition reads 'subjicimus' instead of 'subjecimus,' reflecting a variant in the verb form. This may indicate a different manuscript tradition or an editorial choice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ut in eis Voluntas tua fiat, imitentur illos","severity":"caution","text":"The passage is described as 'locus intricatus' (a tangled passage), and Vignier's version is even more convoluted. The editor proposes a correction, suggesting significant textual instability.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"aut potestate tua corrigentur","severity":"info","text":"The Latin reads 'corrigentur' (they will be corrected), while Vignier has 'constringemur' (we will be constrained). This lexical variation points to a divergent reading in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"et nos amplius non colligimus nisi quanto uti","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text reads 'quanto uti,' but Vignier's edition has 'quantum uti,' which the editor considers better. This suggests a grammatical correction or variant in the source manuscripts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage is a series of textual variants and corrections from different editions, making the original reading uncertain. The editor's proposed emendations are tentative."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Ibid., sine scientia excedat. Forte legendum, accedat.\n\nIbid. g, intus habcs panem Vignierius omittit, habes.\n\nIbid., ipsa est esuriens. Vignierius, ipsa enim est, etc.\n\nIbid.: Hic est (vignierius addit, dies) hodiernus quanda. Vignierius babet, hodiernus in quo: el mox, ad de. iderium boni excitatur; cum vox, boni, apud Hugonem desideretur.\n\n210, k, da nobis hodie, da: legendum cum Vignierio, da nobis hodie. Hodie da.\n\nIbid. I, cap. 13, qui tam fideliter conditionem proponit. Melius v iguierius, qui tam fidenter, etc.\n\nIbid., sentimus bonam (Vignierius aJdit, esse) misericordiam.\n\nIbid. In, virtutis præstes affectum. Legendum cum Vignierio, effectum.\n\nIbid. n, nobis congratuito. Vignierius, nobiscum gratum. Forte, nobiscum gratuito.\n\nIhid., nos viscera (misericordiæ tuæ, omitt Vignierius) affluentia, (addit vero, bonitate) consid. Forte singula hæc verba retinenda.","english":"Ibid., without knowledge he exceeds. Perhaps it should be read, he approaches.\n\nIbid. g, you have bread within; Vignierius omits, you have.\n\nIbid., it is itself hungry. Vignierius, it is itself, etc.\n\nIbid.: This is (Vignierius adds, day) today's when. Vignierius has, today in which: and soon, to the desire of the good is aroused; when the word, good, is missing in Hugh.\n\n210, k, give to us today, give: it should be read with Vignierius, give to us today. Today give.\n\nIbid. l, ch. 13, who so faithfully proposes the condition. Better Vignierius, who so confidently, etc.\n\nIbid., we feel good (Vignierius adds, to be) mercy.\n\nIbid. m, you supply the affection of virtue. It should be read with Vignierius, the effect.\n\nIbid. n, we congratulate to ourselves. Vignierius, grateful with us. Perhaps, gratuitously with us.\n\nIbid., our bowels (of your mercy, Vignierius omits) overflowing, (he adds, however, goodness) consider. Perhaps each of these words should be retained.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"sine scientia excedat","severity":"info","text":"The reading 'excedat' (exceeds) is questioned; the editor suggests 'accedat' (approaches), indicating a possible scribal error in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Vignierius","severity":"info","text":"Vignierius (likely Jean Vignier, a 17th-century editor) is cited repeatedly as an alternative textual witness, suggesting his edition was a key reference for the annotator.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Vignier"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Hic est (vignierius addit, dies) hodiernus quanda","severity":"caution","text":"The passage is corrupt: 'quanda' is likely a scribal error for 'quando' (when), and Vignier adds 'dies' (day) and reads 'hodiernus in quo' (today in which), clarifying the sense.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"apud Hugonem","severity":"info","text":"The annotator notes that the word 'boni' (good) is missing in Hugh (likely Hugh of St. Victor), indicating a variant in the textual tradition attributed to him.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Hugh of St. Victor"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"nobis congratuito","severity":"caution","text":"The reading 'nobis congratuito' (we congratulate to ourselves) is uncertain; Vignier has 'nobiscum gratum' (grateful with us), and the editor suggests 'nobiscum gratuito' (gratuitously with us) as a possible emendation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nos viscera (misericordiæ tuæ, omitt Vignierius) affluentia, (addit vero, bonitate) consid","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase is corrupt: Vignier omits 'misericordiae tuae' (of your mercy) and adds 'bonitate' (goodness); the editor suggests retaining all words, indicating a contested reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage is a series of textual notes comparing manuscript readings with Vignier's edition; many readings are uncertain due to scribal errors or variant traditions."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Ibid, tuo juri cedere. Vignierius, jure.\n\nIbid. p, uf tamen eos puniamus. Vignierius, ut non eos puniamus.\n\nIbid. r, cap. 13, non tam tentatio quam oppressio ( est, omittit Vignierius) si prævalet. Addit deinde, aut si non prævalet.\n\nHid. s, cum propter id quod. vignierius, cum per id quod.\n\nI, t, itaque tentat (Vignierius addit, hoc) vitium.\n\nIbid. y, cap. 14, nec possumus eii e. Vignierius, erui.\n\nIbid., Ecce (Vignierius addit, nos) soli sine te. Deinde inserto puncto, facti sumus, etc.\n\nIbid., et non est sicut cætera mala. Abundat, est.\n\nIbid. y, x, pestiferæ dilectionis (Vignierius, delectationis) persuasione.\n\nIbid. z, æstimare forte poterat. Vignierius, existimare.\n\nIbid., quod jam non potest celari. Vignierius, hoc jam, etc.\n\nPB DONIS SPIRITUS SANCTI.\n\nIN ILLUD LUCÆ: Si enim vos cum sitis mali, (L x. it, 13), etc.\n\nSeriptum ea: Si enim vos cum sitis mali, nostis bona data; dare filiis vestris ( Ibid. ), quanto maqis Pater vester cœlestis dubit spiritum bonum petentibus se. Ergo spirium dabit Pater cœlestis filiis suis petentibus sc. Qui enim filii sunt, nan aliud quærunt: qui aliud quærunt, mercenarii suut, servi non filii. Qui argentum quærunt, qui aurum quærunt, qui transitoria quærunt, qui terrena I quærunt qua runt ministerium servitutis, non spiritum libertatis. Quod quæritur, datur. Si quæris corpomlia, nou plus qnam quæris accipis.","english":"Ibid., to yield to your right. Vignierius, by right.\n\nIbid. p, but that we punish them. Vignierius, that we do not punish them.\n\nIbid. r, ch. 13, not so much a temptation as an oppression (is, Vignierius omits) if it prevails. He then adds, or if it does not prevail.\n\nIbid. s, because of that which. Vignierius, through that which.\n\nIbid. t, therefore the vice tempts (Vignierius adds, this).\n\nIbid. y, ch. 14, nor can we be cast out. Vignierius, be torn out.\n\nIbid., Behold (Vignierius adds, we) alone without you. Then with a period inserted, we have become, etc.\n\nIbid., and it is not like the other evils. The word \"is\" is redundant.\n\nIbid. y, x, by the persuasion of a pestilent affection (Vignierius, delight).\n\nIbid. z, he could perhaps estimate. Vignierius, judge.\n\nIbid., which can no longer be hidden. Vignierius, this now, etc.\n\nON THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.\n\nON THAT PASSAGE OF LUKE: For if you, although you are evil, (Luke 11:13), etc.\n\nIt is written: For if you, although you are evil, know good gifts; give to your children (Ibid.), how much more will your heavenly Father give the good spirit to those who ask him. Therefore the heavenly Father will give the spirit to his children who ask him. For those who are children seek nothing else: those who seek something else are hirelings, servants, not children. Those who seek silver, those who seek gold, those who seek transitory things, those who seek earthly things, seek the ministry of servitude, not the spirit of freedom. What is sought is given. If you seek bodily things, you receive no more than what you seek.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"PB DONIS SPIRITUS SANCTI","severity":"info","text":"The heading 'PB DONIS SPIRITUS SANCTI' marks a new section, likely a separate homily or treatise on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, distinct from the preceding textual notes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Si enim vos cum sitis mali, nostis bona data; dare filiis vestris","severity":"info","text":"The passage cites Luke 11:13, though the wording differs from the Vulgate; the reference is to a verse on giving good gifts to children, used to argue for the Father's gift of the Spirit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mercenarii","severity":"info","text":"'Mercenarii' (hirelings) contrasts with 'filii' (children), drawing on a patristic trope that those who seek material rewards are servants, not true heirs of spiritual gifts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Vignierius","severity":"info","text":"The repeated references to Vignierius indicate a critical edition or variant readings by the scholar Jean Vignier (17th c.), whose emendations are recorded and debated in this textual apparatus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Ibid, tuo juri cedere. Vignierius, jure.","severity":"caution","text":"The variant 'jure' (by right) vs. 'juri cedere' (to yield to your right) suggests a textual crux; the correct reading is uncertain, affecting the legal metaphor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"spiritum libertatis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'spirit of freedom' echoes Pauline language (e.g., 2 Cor 3:17) and contrasts with 'ministry of servitude', reflecting a theological emphasis on spiritual vs. material goods.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The heading 'PB DONIS SPIRITUS SANCTI' may be a later addition; the relationship between the textual notes and the homily is unclear.","The exact source of the Luke citation is uncertain; the verse numbering (L x. it, 13) may reflect a non-standard system."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Si queris spiritualia, quod quæris datur, ct quod non quæris adj citur; spiritualia dantur, corporalia adjiciuntur. Quærite primum regnum Dei, et hæc omnia adjicientur vobis (Matth. vi, 55). Igitur Patrem rogaturus, etc.\n\nCASTIGATIONES ET VARIÆ LECTIONES IN EUMDEM TRACTATUM.\n\nEditio Hugonis Badiana Parisiensis, tom. i, fol. 215, o, vetentibus sc. vignierius addit, dabit spiritum bonum, dabit spiritum suum. Tum rosequitur, dalit spiritum suum, etc.\n\nIbid. p, quia pius cst. Forte legendum, quia pater est.\n\nIbid. q, inter verba, corruptionem, elationem ct santiatem, humilitatem; vignierius inserit, id esi.\n\nIbid., et spirius sunt dona. vignierius omittit, dona. i. r, ipse (vignierius est) pietas.\n\nIbid. s, medicina propter te. Melius vignicrius, pre e.\n\nIbid., pænam non habet. vignierius, pacem non habet. minus bene.\n\nIbid., tu (vignierius, autem) ex eo quod contrarium, etc.","english":"If you seek spiritual things, what you seek is given, and what you do not seek is added; spiritual things are given, bodily things are added. Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added to you (Matthew 6:55). Therefore, about to pray to the Father, etc.\n\nCORRECTIONS AND VARIOUS READINGS IN THE SAME TREATISE.\n\nThe Badius edition of Paris, volume 1, folio 215, o, \"vetentibus\" — Vignierius adds, \"he will give a good spirit, he will give his spirit.\" Then it continues, \"he will give his spirit,\" etc.\n\nIbid. p, \"quia pius est.\" Perhaps the reading should be, \"quia pater est.\"\n\nIbid. q, between the words \"corruptionem, elationem\" and \"sanitatem, humilitatem,\" Vignierius inserts, \"id est.\"\n\nIbid., \"et spiritus sunt dona.\" Vignierius omits \"dona.\" i. r, \"ipse\" (Vignierius: \"est\") \"pietas.\"\n\nIbid. s, \"medicina propter te.\" Vignierius reads better, \"pro e.\"\n\nIbid., \"poenam non habet.\" Vignierius: \"pacem non habet.\" Less well.\n\nIbid., \"tu\" (Vignierius: \"autem\") \"ex eo quod contrarium,\" etc.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. vi, 55","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Matth. vi, 55' is a misattribution; the verse 'Quaerite primum regnum Dei, et haec omnia adicientur vobis' is actually Matthew 6:33, not 6:55, which does not exist in the canonical Gospel.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Castigationes et variae lectiones","severity":"info","text":"This section is a critical apparatus collating the Badius edition (Paris, volume 1, folio 215) with Vignierius's readings, typical of Renaissance editorial practice for patristic texts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Vignierius","severity":"info","text":"Vignierius (likely Nicolas Vignier, 1530–1612) was a French scholar who produced editions of Augustine; his variant readings here show active textual criticism, though some are judged 'minus bene' (less well).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quia pius est","severity":"caution","text":"The conjecture 'quia pater est' (because he is the Father) for 'quia pius est' (because he is pious) is plausible given the context of the Lord's Prayer, but the manuscript evidence is not provided.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"poenam non habet","severity":"caution","text":"Vignierius's reading 'pacem non habet' (does not have peace) for 'poenam non habet' (does not have punishment) is judged 'minus bene' by the editor, but the correct reading remains uncertain without manuscript consultation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Igitur Patrem rogaturus, etc.","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Igitur Patrem rogaturus, etc.' (Therefore, about to pray to the Father, etc.) signals a transition to a discussion of the Lord's Prayer, which is the subject of the following section of the treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The verse reference 'Matth. vi, 55' is clearly erroneous; the intended verse is likely Matthew 6:33, but the exact source of the misnumbering is unclear.","The reading 'vetentibus' in the Badius edition is obscure; Vignierius's addition suggests a lacuna or corruption, but the original text is not recoverable from this apparatus alone."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Ibid. t, quia non respiciebas. vignierius, quia non sentirbas.\n\nIbid. u, saltem intribulatione. Apud vignierium, in retributione: et mox. afficer is; loco, affl igeris.\n\nIbid., aliud est quod vides. vignierius, aliud est ad quod vides.\n\nIbid. y, forte legendum, non in hoc malam quod liberat: naum, inquam, non malam.\n\nADMONITIO IN SUBSEQUENTEM LIBRUM.\n\nLiber ne Conflictu vitiorum et virtutum scriptoribus quatuor nobilissimis tributus est, Angustino primum in omnibus Operum illius editionibus; Leoni deinde in ejus editione Parisiensi anui 1511; postea Ambrosio in Romana editione anni 1585, in qua scriptus ad Simplicianum prænotatur; et demum Isidoro Hispalensi in editione anni 1599, apud Madritum, et in altera apud Parisios procurante Jacobo Dubreul Germanensis nostri coenobii monacho, anno excusa. Decepit Breulium Sigebertus Gemblacensis in libro de Viris illu-. stribus, deceptus ipse falsa veterum aliquot inscriptione codicum, qui nomen Isidori habere dicuntur. Porro inspecti a nobis codices Mss. aut Ambrosio assignant, aut Augustino, aut Leoni: et nomine Augustini citat Gratianus 2, quæst. 22, cap. Nec artificioso. Auctorem nos credimus Ambrosium, non illum quidem supra laudatum Mediolanensem episcopum, sed Autpertum monasterii S. Vincentii ad Vulturnum in Benevento abbatem, cui etiam Ambrosio prænomen fuit.","english":"In the same place, t, because you were not looking back. Vignier, because you were not feeling.\n\nIn the same place, u, at least in tribulation. In Vignier, in retribution: and soon after, you are affected; in place of, you are afflicted.\n\nIn the same place, another thing is what you see. Vignier, another thing is that to which you see.\n\nIn the same place, y, perhaps it should be read, not in this evil which it frees: evil, I say, not evil.\n\nWARNING CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING BOOK.\n\nThe book On the Conflict of Vices and Virtues has been attributed to four most noble writers: first to Augustine in all editions of his works; then to Leo in his Paris edition of the year 1511; afterwards to Ambrose in the Roman edition of the year 1585, in which it is noted as written to Simplician; and finally to Isidore of Seville in the edition of the year 1599, published at Madrid, and in another at Paris procured by James Dubreul, a monk of our monastery of Saint-Germain, printed in that year. Breulius was deceived by Sigebert of Gembloux in his book On Illustrious Men, himself deceived by the false inscription of some old codices, which are said to bear the name of Isidore. Moreover, the manuscripts inspected by us assign it either to Ambrose, or to Augustine, or to Leo: and Gratian cites it under the name of Augustine in his Decretum, Part 2, Question 22, chapter \"Nor by the crafty.\" We believe the author to be Ambrose, not indeed the aforementioned bishop of Milan, but Autpert, abbot of the monastery of Saint Vincent on the Volturno in Benevento, who also had the forename Ambrose.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Liber ne Conflictu vitiorum et virtutum","severity":"info","text":"The editor reviews the conflicting attributions of the treatise On the Conflict of Vices and Virtues, noting that it has been assigned to Augustine, Leo, Ambrose, and Isidore of Seville in various editions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Gratianus","severity":"info","text":"Gratian's Decretum cites the work under Augustine's name, indicating its authority in medieval canon law despite the uncertain authorship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ambrosius Autpertus","severity":"info","text":"The editor proposes Ambrose Autpert (d. 784), abbot of San Vincenzo al Volturno, as the true author, noting that he also bore the forename Ambrose, which caused confusion with the bishop of Milan.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Sigebertus Gemblacensis","severity":"caution","text":"The editor warns that Sigebert of Gembloux's De Viris Illustribus misled Jacobus Dubreul by relying on falsely inscribed manuscripts attributing the work to Isidore.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ADMONITIO IN SUBSEQUENTEM LIBRUM","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a separate editorial note (admonitio) prefixed to the following book, not part of the original homily, and discusses textual variants and authorship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Ibid. t, quia non respiciebas. vignierius, quia non sentirbas.","severity":"info","text":"The editor records a variant reading: 't' has 'because you were not looking back,' while Vignier's edition reads 'because you were not feeling,' suggesting a textual crux.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact manuscript basis for the variant readings (t, u, y) is not specified; the editor's own preferred reading for 'y' is conjectural ('forte legendum').","The identity of 'Vignierius' is not given; likely a previous editor or collator."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Testatur scriptor ejus Vitæ, quæ in saeculo tertio Benedictino, parte 2, ad:'num Christi 778, exstat, compositum ab ipso librum de Conflictu vitiorum. Atqui liber subsequen3 multam affinitatem cun. Ambrosii Autperti opere in Apocalypsim habet, ac virum plane sapit monasticæ vitæ sectatorem, et propter monachos maxime scribentem, veluti ubi ait, cap.: Si igitur sæcularibus viris ita est peruiciosa cupiditatis industria, quanto magis illis periculosior, qui habita et conversatione jam sæculares esse desierunt, qui totum quod vivunt Domino devoverunt? Et cap.: Si cuncta quas tibi prælatus servanda commirit, illibata consignas, et ne modicum quid reservandum existimas, etc.; quæ postrema verba, aliaque multa de stabilitatc. cap. 14, de taciturnitate, cap. 22, etc., ex S. Benedicti præceptionibus usurpata videntur. Nec ad rem confirmandam addimus disertis verbis commendari Benedictinam regulam in fine libri: præsertim quod liber apud Ambrosium et Isidorum editus, necnon in Mss. quibusdam et in editione Erasmiana, etc., careat capilibus duobus postremis, et ad hæc verba capitis desinat: Tu autem, homo Dei, vigilanti studio attende qum dico, addita plerumque clausula, ipso adjuvante qui vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculorum. Amen. Recognitus cst liber ad Mss Germanensem, Corbeiensem, Lyrensem, Victorinum, etc.","english":"The author of his Life, which exists in the third Benedictine century, part 2, around the year of Christ 778, testifies that a book on the Conflict of the Vices was composed by him. But the following book has much affinity with the work of Ambrose Autpert on the Apocalypse, and clearly savors of a man who is a follower of the monastic life, and who writes especially for monks, as where he says, chapter: \"If, therefore, the pursuit of cupidity is so pernicious for secular men, how much more dangerous is it for those who, by their habit and way of life, have already ceased to be secular, who have devoted their entire life to the Lord?\" And chapter: \"If you deliver up intact all that your superior commits to you to be kept, and think that not even a little should be reserved,\" etc.; which last words, and many others concerning stability, chapter 14, concerning taciturnity, chapter 22, etc., seem to be borrowed from the precepts of St. Benedict. Nor do we add, to confirm the matter, that the Benedictine Rule is commended in explicit words at the end of the book; especially since the book, as published by Ambrose and Isidore, as well as in certain manuscripts and in the Erasmian edition, etc., lacks the last two chapters, and ends with these words of the chapter: \"But you, man of God, attend with vigilant zeal to what I say,\" usually with the added clause, \"with the help of him who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.\" The book has been collated against the manuscripts of Germain, Corbie, Lérins, and Saint-Victor, etc.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Testatur scriptor ejus Vitæ","severity":"info","text":"The reference is to a lost Life of the author, possibly a Carolingian-era monastic figure, cited to support the work's authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"background","lemma":"Ambrosii Autperti opere in Apocalypsim","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose Autpert (d. 784) wrote an influential commentary on the Apocalypse; the editor notes stylistic affinity with that work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Benedictinam regulam in fine libri","severity":"info","text":"The editor notes that the Benedictine Rule is explicitly commended at the end of the book, but this may be a later addition, as some manuscripts lack the final chapters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"careat capilibus duobus postremis","severity":"info","text":"The last two chapters are absent from the editions by Ambrose and Isidore, from certain manuscripts, and from the Erasmian edition, suggesting textual instability.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"Recognitus cst liber ad Mss Germanensem, Corbeiensem, Lyrensem, Victorinum","severity":"info","text":"The text was collated against manuscripts from the abbeys of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Corbie, Lérins, and Saint-Victor, indicating a scholarly critical edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"subsequen3","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'subsequen3' is a scribal or typographical corruption for 'subsequens' (the following).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'scriptor ejus Vitæ' is uncertain; the date 'circa annum Christi 778' may be approximate.","The phrase 'capilibus duobus postremis' likely means 'the last two chapters' but could be a misreading of 'capitibus'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}