This edition is CC BY 4.0 on its English and its encoding — a deliberate departure from the Wroot Press default of CC BY-NC 4.0, made so this English can sit beside the same text's other published home without friction. Source Latin is public domain throughout.
Center Latin is drawn from the Patrologia Latina (Migne, PL 192) via the Corpus Corporum TEI transcription. Center English, and the Bonaventure witnesses on this page, are Wilson Pruitt's own translation, first published in the Bonaventure edition at bonaventure.wrootpress.com, quoted here and linked back to that home rather than re-translated (Wroot Press's one-translation-one-home rule). Fresh English drafted for this edition and not otherwise credited is a Claude draft, approved by Wilson Pruitt.
Use of this edition's own work — the English translations, headnotes, apparatus, and the structured data and encoding (the crux/witness/thread graph) — to train, fine-tune, evaluate, or ground machine-learning systems, and to build retrieval indexes over it, is permitted under the CC BY 4.0 terms above: keep the attribution and say if you changed the text. Crawl it, index it, quote it. A bulk export of the whole graph is at /export so you need not crawl at all. This permission does not extend to the third-party CC BY-SA material (Hebrew/Aramaic witnesses via Sefaria/Wikisource, where marked) or to the Peter Auriol Electronic Scriptum notes quoted at apparatus length under their own copyright — see the licence tables below for the per-witness breakdown, and each witness's own original.license /english.license field before reusing its text at scale.
Bonaventure's Article Unique asks four questions on this pars. The pilot builds the first as crux one and the second as crux three. The remaining two are questions about whether a person can know that he has charity; both benches address them, and they are named here, with the texts linked, rather than built — a decision of scope, not a judgement that they are minor.
Three notes in this edition carry the line — as reported by John Capreolus. They stand under the name and on the bench of the man whose argument they give — Peter Auriol, Adam Wodeham, John Duns Scotus — but the Latin under them is not his. It is what Capreolus wrote about him, in the Defensiones theologiae divi Thomae of about 1426, on pages where he was staging opponents in order to answer them.
This edition otherwise holds a strict rule: a text may be found through a later author and never cited through him. A reported note is the declared exception, and it is declared because the alternative was worse. Auriol's own question on this distinction was edited in modern times and never published, and no early print carries it. Wodeham'sLectura secunda was first printed in 1990. For these men, report is not a shortcut past a rare book; it is the only public-domain access to the argument that exists. A rule refusing it would not have kept this edition purer. It would have kept them off the page.
So: a reported note is evidence for what Capreolus wrote about a man. It is never evidence for what the man wrote. Nothing in it should be quoted as his words, and where the two are compared the comparison is between a fifteenth-century Thomist's account of an argument and someone else's. Mediation is admitted once. It is not admitted twice: this edition prints nothing that reaches it at two removes, which is why Godfrey of Fontaines, whom Capreolus reports only at second hand through Auriol, does not appear at all.
One consequence is visible on the Scotus note. Scotus's commentary survives in three redactions that do not always agree, and this edition names which one every witness follows. Capreolus does not: he cites Scotus only as in secundo. That note therefore says its redaction is not recoverable rather than choosing one, and with the redaction unknown the place and the exact date are unknown too.
Where […] appears inside a Latin text on this site it means one of two things, and never a third. Usually it is damage: the 1900 and early printings this edition reads were scanned, and on some pages the scan cannot be read at all. An ellipsis of that kind is the scanner's, not the editor's, and the witness note says which printed page it falls on. Nothing has been repaired by conjecture, and where a citation's numerals are illegible they are elided too, because a guessed article number is worse than an admitted gap. The other use is a quotation removed under the rule above — where a witness quotes at length an author who stands elsewhere on this site in his own right, the quotation is cut and the note says so. In neither case has anything been left out because it was inconvenient.
Migne PL / Quaracchi editions of pre-1900 Latin texts.
The Peter Auriol Electronic Scriptum (peterauriol.net) is open access and is NOT public domain; its contents page asserts copyright for Russell L. Friedman, Lauge O. Nielsen and Chris Schabel. RULED 2026-09-06 (Wilson): text keyed to this licence is quoted at apparatus length as fair use and may ship as such; it must not be extended beyond apparatus length without a public-domain source to rebuild from. The Rome 1596 print remains the PD route if one becomes available.
Wilson Pruitt / Wroot Press, sententiae.wrootpress.com
Migne PL / Quaracchi editions of pre-1900 Latin texts.