These are the edition's working notes, published as they were written. They record, work by work, where Migne's plate is defective or the reading uncertain: the printed form, what the English does with it, and why. They are not a groomed apparatus. Where a note argues with itself, withdraws an earlier decision, or leaves a question open, that is the record of how the reading was actually reached, and it is left standing — a conjecture that is visible can be checked, and one that has been tidied away cannot.
The English never silently repairs the page. A construable but wrong reading is rendered literally and the conjecture is recorded here, never applied to the text. How the English is produced and checked →
Uncertain/garbled printed readings rendered literally in the English, logged here per translation protocol. Column anchors and [n:] notes were reproduced verbatim and are NOT cruces; only genuine printing anomalies are recorded.
Chunk 0000 (Monitum praevium)
- col 0640A — Source prints
Pap. 1361where the parallel citations all readPag.(page). Treated as a printer's error for "Pag."; rendered as "P. 1361" in line with the surrounding page-references. Reading:Pap.→ pag.
Chunk 0001 (Caput I)
- col 0644C (VERS. 7) — Source prints
mini esse sponsatam;miniis a printer's error formihi("betrothed to me"). Rendered "betrothed to me." Reading:mini→ mihi.
Chunk 0003 (Caput III)
- col 0649A (VERS. 3) — Malformed apparatus bracket in the source:
( Cod. Vat., sollicitantem]— opens with a parenthesis but closes with a square bracket. Reproduced verbatim (with the mismatched delimiters) in the English, since the variant content is untranslated apparatus. Reading: mismatched(/].
Chunk 0004 (Caput IV)
- col 0652A (VERS. 6) — Dittography in the source:
Duo ubera duo sunt sunt populi— the wordsuntis printed twice. CORRECTED 2026-07-28 (Pattern 7 + Pattern 11). The earlier rendering collapsed the doubling to a single "are" — a silent emendation, the very thing Pattern 7 forbids; "to avoid nonsensical English" is not a ground for correcting the plate. Both printed sunt are now rendered and the repeat is marked: "The two breasts are [d: are] the two peoples..." Conjecture (NOT applied): a single sunt. - col ~0653A (VERS. 12) — Source prints
spiritualium eperum germina;eperumis a printer's error foroperum("of works"). Rendered "of spiritual works." Reading:eperum→ operum.
Garbled / uncertain printed readings encountered while translating chunks 0005–0009. Rendered by the evident intended word; printed form recorded here.
Chunk 0005
- col 0656D — Lemma "Species ejus, ut Libani; electus, ut cedri" is repeated in the commentary as "Electus ut edri." — "edri" is a misprint for cedri (matching the lemma just above). Rendered as "Chosen as the cedars."
Chunk 0007
- col 0661B — "oaorem" in the lemma "Mandragorae dederunt oaorem in portis nostris" is a misprint for odorem (confirmed by the commentary "mandragorae dant odorem" immediately following). Rendered "The mandrakes have given an odor in our gates."
- col 0659D — "pauperihus" ("in cratere potus, qui pauperihus datur") is a misprint for pauperibus. Rendered "given to the poor."
Chunk 0009
- col 0666B — "Hi sua in perfectione [ F., imperfectione] octogenario numero comparantur": the printed running text reads perfectione, which contradicts the sense (the eighty/concubines signify imperfection). Migne's own apparatus flags the correction (F., imperfectione). Printed reading retained in translation ("in their perfection") with the [ F., imperfectione] apparatus preserved verbatim, per the render-as-printed rule.
- col 0666D — "ut tibi sint mercis non periturae divitiae" [ Ms., sit merces]: mercis is an ungrammatical form (for merces, "reward"); Migne notes the Ms. reading sit merces. Rendered loosely "that there may be to thee, as reward, riches that shall not perish," with the [ Ms., sit merces] apparatus preserved.
<!-- corpus-polarity-sweep 2026-07-28 --> ## Corpus polarity sweep — 2026-07-28
Blind Opus read of the Latin/English pair for sense-reversing defects (one word or one letter asserting the opposite of what the context requires). 2 site(s). Migne's defects are recorded here and rendered literally in the English; our own errors were fixed in place. Full context: data/sweeps/corpus-polarity/REPORT.md.
0666B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)
Printed: Hi sua in perfectione [ F., imperfectione] octogenario numero comparantur: illi perfecta beatitudine sexagenario designantur
Conjecture: sua imperfectione (word-division defect: imperfectione set as in perfectione)
The immediately preceding paragraph has just proved eighty deficient: 'Poteris et per te ipsum, juxta eamdem regulam, octogenarii explorare diminutionem... quae simul ducta septuaginta faciunt non octoginta' — 'explore the deficiency of eighty... make seventy, not eighty.' And the men so numbered are the ones who 'terrena sequentes commoda... terreni lucri gratia desudant in docendo.' The eighty is the imperfect number and these are the defective teachers; 'in their perfection' asserts the reverse, and also destroys the antithesis with 'illi perfecta beatitudine sexagenario' in the same clause. Migne's own F. apparatus reads imperfectione; the printed lemma and our English both carry the reversed sense.
0666C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)
Printed: illi perfecta beatitudine sexagenario designantur, ut reginarum nomine digni efficiantur, quia spiritualem sobolem propter amorem solummodo Sponsi... generare non desistunt. Illi vero concubinarum nomine denotantur, quia saeculi ambitione, vel temporalis honoris gratia, praedicando seu baptizando nobiles quidem generant saepe filios
Conjecture: Hi vero concubinarum nomine denotantur
The contradicting neighbour is the immediately preceding clause about the very same 'illi': 'ut reginarum nomine digni efficiantur' — 'so that they are made worthy of the name of queens.' The printed text then makes those same 'illi' the ones 'denoted by the name of concubines.' The pronoun must switch back to the 'Hi' of the octogenary group ('Hi sua in[im]perfectione octogenario numero comparantur'), who teach 'saeculi ambitione, vel temporalis honoris gratia.' Note that our English silently repairs the defect by rendering the second Illi as 'The former' (i.e. the eighty), which yields the right sense but does not match the printed Illi.