[Modus legendi abbreviaturas]

The handwriting here is unclear and appears to be a note in the vernacular regarding the text.
A red manicule points toward the start of the next line.

Because no part of the present work has distinctions [beyond that number], therefore to cite beyond that would be noted as the error of one who is unskilled. And because there are distinctions in every part of the decree, note that I must be careful in citing. For when a distinction is cited absolutely with a number without adding another determination, such as saying distinction 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5, etc., then it must be sought in the first part of the decree, where there are one hundred and one distinctions. But when a distinction is cited with the addition "on penance", as here "on penance, distinction 2", etc., then it must be sought in the second part of the decree, in cause 33 and question 3 of that cause, where the treatise on penance is placed, which has 7 distinctions, beyond which you shall not cite there if you wish to appear just. But if a distinction is cited with the addition "on consecration", as here: con. di. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., then they must be sought in the third part of the decree, where there are only 5 distinctions, nor shall you cite more than these, otherwise you show yourself ignorant of the law. And thus in all these parts of the decree, a distinction is cited with the following quota, under the doctrine that sometimes no determination precedes, as in the first part; sometimes it precedes, and this in two ways: either it precedes from the proper part, as in the second part of the decree, or from consecration, as in the third part of the decree. Also, in the second part, the number of the cause is cited, omitting the word "cause" but implying it. Thus, even in the feminine gender, the numeral adjective is used substantively, including its substantive, such as "first, second, third, fourth", etc., implying "cause", then the substantive. The "question", however, is expressly placed with its adjective, namely "first, second, third, fourth question", etc. Afterwards, the beginning of the canon, so that everyone may ponder: "Do we not read?"

In the decree it is cited by 's'

Also, sometimes it is cited by 's', omitting the name of the chapter, and the beginning is added: 's', as: "2 q. 6 s. biduum". And frequently when a chapter is cited, there is In the decree it is cited by 'et s' no need to cite the 's', and vice versa. But if the chapter is long, say "in the beginning" or "at the end", or "at the first" or "at the end" where the authority or cited text holds. Finally, cherish the decree if you wish to be learned in canon law. They distinguish causes, penance, and consecration. So much for the first book.

& edition of the decretals

The second book of canon law, which is called the Decretals, was composed by Pope Gregory IX, who prepared it to be reduced into one compilation by Master Raymund, his chaplain, correcting and harmonizing the various decretal letters of his predecessors. And this was around the year of our Lord 1232. And thus, it was 38 years after the compilation of the decree. The Decretals were reduced into this form. For after this, under the year of our Lord 1246, the Council of Lyons was celebrated by Pope Innocent IV, in the second year of his pontificate, in which he issued many constitutions which also in his time were placed over...