Epistola canonica B. Jacobi

Translated 2026-08-19, one translator, 4 chunks (3,386 Latin words / 5,007 English; ratios 1.47 · 1.54 · 1.48 · 1.52). verify-english.mjs clean. Apparatus: 3 [sic:] · 3 [var:] · 1 [cj:] · 0 [d:] · 0 [ed:] · 0 [nt:] · 34 [n:] (exact parity with the Latin twins). Structure: ARGUMENTUM, CAPUT PRIMUM, CAPUT II, CAPUT III, CAPUT IV, CAPUT V. Zero guillemets in either language. Conventions are Ruth's (src/english/8968/cruces.md §1) and are not re-opened here; usque ad renders as far as after the shipped sibling 8997 (Titus).

⚠ No plate read was available for this work. Everything below rests on Corpus Corporum's text and on the Clementine on disk. Three sites are flagged as wanting a plate read and are named as such.

§1 · THE VULGATE COLLATION — every lemma checked, divergences AND agreements

All 126 italic lemmata named in the work were collated against sources/vulgate/clementine-flat.txt (Clementine, Tweedale "Quasimodo" 2005). The James lemmata are Jac 1–5; eleven lemmata quote other books and were looked up individually.

1a · Divergences that took a [var: …] (3)

1b · Divergences RECORDED but NOT marked, with the reason (11)

• 0671A · Gal. 2:9 dexteras dederunt ‖ Clem. dextras dederunt mihi, et Barnabae societatis. dexteras/dextras is one word in two forms; the tail is Migne's etc. truncation. No English exponent, no marker.
• 0671B · Jac. 1:6 Qui autem haesitat ‖ Clem. qui enim haesitat. A bare connective swap. Declined: nothing in the gloss turns on "but" against "for", and Pattern 14 fires on divergence that changes the sense. Recorded so the reader knows it was seen.
• 0671C · Jac. 1:9–10 Dives autem glorietur — the glossator lifts glorietur out of v. 9 (Glorietur autem frater humilis) to complete v. 10's elliptical dives autem. That is the Glossa's citing practice, not a variant text.
• 0671C flos feni ‖ Clem. flos foeni; 0674A Quicunque ‖ Quicumque; 0676D Nunquid ‖ Numquid. Orthography, Pattern 9. Named here as a class so a later reader does not re-raise them one at a time.
• 0672A · Jac. 1:14 Unusquisque tentatur ‖ Clem. Unusquisque vero tentatur; and 0678A · Jac. 4:6 Superbis resistit ‖ Clem. Deus superbis resistit. Lemma truncation, not variation.
• 0673B · Jac. 1:26 Augustine's tail quotes the verse as Qui non refrenat linguam suam where the lemma four lines above prints the Vulgate's participle non refrenans. Both forms stand on the page, both are rendered as printed, and the difference is legible to the reader without a marker.
• 0674A · Deut. 1:17 ita parvum ut magnum audietis … quia judicium Dei est ‖ Clem. ita parvum audietis ut magnum, nec accipietis cujusquam personam, quia Dei judicium est. Word order twice, plus an abridging omission. No assertion changes.
• 0675A · Jac. 2:21 Offerens filium suum Isaac ‖ Clem. offerens Isaac filium suum. Word order only; rendered in Migne's order.
• 0675B · Jac. 2:25 Raab meretrix ‖ Clem. Rahab. A proper-name form. Kept as Migne prints it, on Ruth's Lia precedent (Migne's name forms stand).
• 0678D · Job 31:38 Si adversum me terra mea clamat et sulci ejus deflent? ‖ Clem. …clamat, et cum ipsa sulci ejus deflent :. Two words dropped and the colon set as a ?. The punctuation is Migne's and rides as printed (Pattern 8); the omission changes nothing the gloss uses.
• 0680B · Jac. 5:20 Salvabit animam suam a morte ‖ Clem. animam ejus. This one matters and needs no marker of ours, because Migne prints the attribution himself: Quidam codices habent. The gloss's whole point (per hoc … sibi conquirit) depends on suam, and the reader is told on the page that it is a codex variant.

1c · The zeros — lemmata collated and found to agree with the Clementine EXACTLY

Recorded because a findings list alone cannot be told from a list by someone who did not look.

• Jac. 1 — Jacobus · Duodecim tribubus · Omne gaudium · Cum in tentationes · Probatio fidei · Dives autem · Glorietur in humilitate sua · Quoniam sicut flos feni (but for feni, §1b) · Dives in itineribus · Beatus vir (×2) · Nemo, cum tentatur · Quoniam a Deo tentatur · Generat mortem · Omne datum · Nec vicissitudinis · Voluntarie · Ut simus initium · Tardus ad iram · Propter quod abjicientes · Insitum verbum · Consideranti vultum · Non refrenans linguam suam · Et immaculatum se custodire ab hoc saeculo.
• Jac. 2 — Nolite · Domini gloriae · Audite · Nonne Deus · Nonne divites · Blasphemant · Si tamen legem · Regalem · Quicunque autem (but for the spelling) · Offendat autem in uno factus est omnium reus · Sic loquimini · Superexaltat autem · Quid proderit · Sed dicet quis · Tu fidem · Tu credis · Et daemones credunt, et contremiscunt · Vis autem scire, o homo inanis? · Abraham pater noster · Vides quoniam fides cooperabatur operibus illius, et ex operibus · Similiter et … meretrix.
• Jac. 3 — Nolite · Nolite plures · Majus · In multis · Si quis · In verbo non offendit · hic perfectus est vir · ita et lingua modicum quidem membrum est, et magna exaltat · Et magna exaltat · Ecce quantus ignis · Universitas iniquitatis · Quae maculat totum corpus · constituitur in membris nostris · Inflammat rotam · Omnis enim natura bestiarum · Ex ipso ore procedit · Non oportet · Nunquid fons · Nunquid potest, fratres · Sic neque salsa dulcem potest facere aquam · Quis sapiens et disciplinatus inter vos? · Et mendaces esse adversus veritatem · Quae autem · Primum quidem pudica est · Fructus autem · In pace seminatur.
• Jac. 4–5 — Unde bella · Propter quod · Adulteri, nescitis · An putatis? · Ad invidiam concupiscit spiritus qui habitat in vobis · Majorem autem dat gratiam · Detrahit legi, judicat legem (Clem. adds et: detrahit legi, et judicat legem) · Tu autem · Ecce nunc, qui dicitis · Faciemus ibi quidem annum, et mercabimur · Quae est enim vita vestra? · Agite nunc · Et aerugo · In testimonium · Manducabit carnes · Sicut ignis · Ecce merces · Epulati · Patientes · Prophetas · Sufferentiam Job · Et finem Domini · Oret · Et si in peccatis · Confitemini · Oratione oravit · Et rursum · Si quis ex vobis · Salvabit.
• Outside James, checked and clean: Luke 12:32 at 0673C (Nolite timere, pusillus grex…) — verbatim, but for a comma Migne adds after timere. 1 Kings 2:3 at 0676A (Nolite multiplicare loqui sublimia gloriantes) — verbatim. Matt. 22:39 at 0674A (Diliges proximum) — verbatim so far as it is quoted.

1d · The one scripture divergence that is neither Migne's nor the Clementine's

0675C · Prov. 24:16. Migne prints Septies in die cadet justus et resurget; the Clementine has Septies enim cadet justus, et resurget. The added in die comes from Luke 17:4 (septies in die), and the gloss depends on it: the next clause reads sicut quotidiana est offensio, ita quotidiana est medela. Rendered as printed ("Seven times in the day"). No [var:], and the reason is a judgment, not an oversight: this is not Migne's compositor slipping but the glossator quoting a conflated form he then argues from, and a marker saying "Vulg. lacks in die" would invite the reader to discount the very word the argument turns on. The divergence is recorded here instead, where the argument can be given. ⚑ Note also that the gloss's closing sed impii corruunt in malum echoes the same verse's impii autem corruent in malum in the present tense, outside any italic lemma.

§2 · CARRIED TYPE — the three [sic: …] markers

Each is a form unique in src/latin/ against a frequent correct twin, so each is carried under Patterns 7/10/12 and Englished beside the marker under 7a⁗ (the marker never stands in for the rendering).

• 0676A · sapientiem for sapientem. Corpus control: 1 sapientiem (this site) against 26 sapientem. English: singularly boasts itself wise [sic: sapientiem] and eloquent.
• 0678C · genennae for gehennae. Corpus control: 1 genennae (this site) against 30 gehennae, 20 gehennam, 9 gehenna. English: the visible fire of gehenna [sic: genennae] torment the unmerciful rich.
• 0679A · longaminiter for longanimiter. Corpus control: longanimiter occurs nowhere in src/latin/, but the stem does, heavily — longanimitatem 17, longanimitas 11, longanimitatis 10, longanimitate 10; longamin- occurs at this site only. English: him suffering long-sufferingly [sic: longaminiter] upon the cross.

⚑ Strip test run: with every marker deleted, all three sentences read aloud complete, with verb, object and negation intact.

§3 · THE [cj: …] — 0678A, a dropped negative in the gloss on Propter quod

Migne prints, on Jac. 4:2 (propter quod non postulatis):

Propter haec, scilicet quod Deum digne postulatis; si enim illum pia intercessione postularetis etiam temporalia ad usum necessaria, et non solum sempiterna daret.

Rendered as printed, the gloss says the readers do ask God worthily, which is the opposite of the verse it glosses and is contradicted by its own next clause: si … postularetis … daret is contrary to fact, so they are not asking. A non has fallen out of the setting.

[cj: postulatis; read non postulatis, "you ask not"]

Which word, and why the rival lost. The alternative was to gloss digne (read non digne, "not worthily"), which also construes. It is rejected because the lemma itself is Propter quod, whose verse reads propter quod non postulatis: the word that fell out is the verse's own non, standing where the verse stands it, before the verb. Glossing digne would put our conjecture on a word the verse does not carry. The marker opens on postulatis, which is verbatim in the Latin twin, so the convention's guard is satisfied — the 7561 @0648 precedent for a dropped word exactly.

Bar check. Pattern 18a: a lost negation is inside the class the extension admits, and incoherence is not a defence there.

§4 · MIGNE'S OWN, RENDERED LITERALLY AND LEFT STANDING

0678A · negligunt Sed humilibus — a full stop that is not there

Migne runs …qui Deo subdi poenitendo negligunt Sed humilibus dat gratiam… with no mark between the two sentences and a capital S. Pattern 8 forbids supplying one, so the English runs on identically: …neglect to be made subject to God by repenting But to the humble he gives grace…. ⚠ Do not "fix" this: the missing stop is the record. Wants a plate read.

0673C–0674D · VERS 19.-- without the period

At 0673C the run of verse addresses is VERS. 1, VERS. 5, VERS. 6… and at 0674D it prints VERS 19.--, alone in this work. Reproduced verbatim (the address passes through untranslated). ⚑ Not unique to this work: src/latin/8980/0003.md prints VERS 14.-- the same way, which is some evidence the form is Migne's or Corpus Corporum's habit rather than a one-off here. Wants a plate read.

0675C · alii male docendo, et aliis male vivendo

Se illis … alii male docendo, et aliis male vivendo, et aliis modis — the second member wants the nominative alii to answer the first, and prints the dative/ablative aliis, which then sits oddly beside the genuine ablative aliis modis three words later. Rendered for the sense the parallel requires ("some by teaching ill, and others by living ill, and in other ways") and not marked: nothing is broken type, and Pattern 18 is scoped away from case/number slips that merely fail to construe (18a's declined list). Logged so a plate reader can settle it.

0676B · concinantur — read as concinnantur, and the rival named

…cuncta fere facinora, aut concinantur, ut latrocinia, stupra: aut patrantur … aut defenduntur… Corpus control: concinantur occurs once, here; concinn- forms occur nine times (concinnant, concinnare, concinnatum, concinnabat, concinnandas…), and single-n concin- forms in the corpus are all from concino, "to sing together" (concinamus, concinat). Rendered "are contrived", i.e. read as concinnantur with the medieval simplification of the geminate, which is a Pattern 9 orthographic convention and not an emendation. ⛔ The rival was to render concino literally — "almost all crimes are sung together, as robberies, ravishments" — and gloss it [cj:]. It is rejected because the triad concinantur / patrantur / defenduntur is a contrive-commit-defend sequence in which only concinnare has a slot, and because "sung" is not a sense concino carries of a crime in any Latinity. Stated here rather than hidden, because the reader meets an English word whose Latin looks like a different verb.

0672B · nec tamen omnino desistit

Negation on desistit, scoped by omnino, with the sed correlative answering (sed sedet in occultis). English keeps the scope: "nor yet does he altogether desist" — not "does not desist at all", which would deny the sed clause. Checked against the 8960 @0734B failure shape and cleared.

0672B · Sicut qui tentatus superat, praemia vitae

The first limb of the comparison has no verb at all in Migne; the second supplies incurrit. Rendered with a bracketed English copula, "[has] the rewards of life", rather than promoting a verb into the running text.

0678C · sic aerugo vestras carnes

The same shape: sic aerugo vestras carnes has no verb. Rendered "so rust [consumes] your flesh."

0680A · quid ergo multi fideles multis orationibus?

The usque ad tail ends on a verbless question. Not completed — rendered elliptically, "what then of many faithful men with many prayers?", keeping Migne's question mark. The abridgment removes words; it does not license us to supply a verb (the ferias lesson).

0678A · Quasi dicat, lex non fecit

Two readings construe: "the law did not do so" (i.e. did not forbid detraction, which is what the detractor implicitly asserts) and "the law did it not [well]". The first is taken, on the strength of the immediately preceding Quae detractionem prohibuit, which supplies the verb's content. The other is not excluded and nothing else in the paragraph turns on it.

§5 · SUPPLIED SUBJECTS AND PRONOUNS — every one, with its evidence

The dominant defect class, so each supplied person is named here rather than assumed.

• 0671A Iste … suscepit → "This man" = James, from the lemma Jacobus immediately above.
• 0671A Idcirco eis scribit → "he writes" = James, from the same lemma and from ipse … ordinatus erat episcopus in the same sentence.
• 0673D Pauperes etiam parentes quorum nutriretur officio elegit → "by whose office he himself should be nourished". The unexpressed subject of nutriretur is Christ, not the poor and not the parents: the sentence's elegit has the same subject as the preceding Pauperes elegit Deus qui alibi ait — the God who speaks Luke 12:32 — and the only person whom chosen parents nourish is the incarnate Lord. Named in the English ("he himself") so the reader is not left to bind it to parentes.
• 0672D–0673A Monuit … hortatur nunc → "he" = the Apostle, the running subject of the gloss's verbs of comment (subdit, addit, monet, arguit) throughout all four chunks.
• 0676A si impetus dirigentis bene eam gubernat → "governs it" = the tongue, from the lemma lingua modicum quidem membrum est quoted three lines above.
• 0678C ut hanc visibiliter intuendo → "by beholding it" = the rust (aerugo, feminine), from the lemma Et aerugo that opens the verse. The alternative antecedent, poenarum, is genitive plural and cannot take a feminine singular accusative.
• 0673B quem dolorem postea obliviscitur, consueta illecebris carnis anima → "the soul", printed in the Latin; not supplied.
• 0679A Non dicit … sed → "He does not say" = the Apostle; and quia ad patiendum … invitat the same.

§6 · NEGATION ATTACHMENT — the sites where the host is not the nearest verb

Run per the brief's test 2/2a: for each printed negative, the single Latin word it attaches to, then that word found in the English with the negative on it. Only the sites that met the trigger condition (a negative with a quantifier, correlative or predicate nearby) are listed; the remaining ~45 negatives sit on their own verbs with no competitor.

§7 · RENDERING DECISIONS THAT A READER MIGHT QUERY

7a · The three bare Nolite lemmata — Ruth §1.2 applied, with one stated exception

• 0673C Nolite. Quasi dicat: (Jac. 2:1). The italic span in Migne swallows the glossator's own formula Quasi dicat:; the span is preserved exactly as printed, so the English italic reads Do not hold the faith in respect of persons. As if he should say: The bare Nolite is expanded to the phrase it opens (Jac. 2:1 nolite in personarum acceptione habere fidem), on Ruth's Non te → "Let no man see thee" precedent: "Do not." is not English.
• 0675B Nolite. and Nolite plures. (Jac. 3:1) are rendered minimally, "Be ye not." and "Be ye not many.", and this is the exception to the rule just applied. The reason: Migne glosses the bare prohibition first and plures second, so expanding both to the verse ("Be ye not many masters") would collapse two distinct lemmata into one identical English and destroy the distinction the double lemma exists to make. The rule bends where obeying it would erase what it is protecting.
• 0674C Superexaltat autem. is rendered "But mercy exalteth itself." — the subject misericordia supplied from Jac. 2:13, the verb's own extent kept. The fuller "above judgment" was declined as more supply than the fragment reaches.

7b · 0673B · Per saeculum intelligit mundum — the one added italic span

The gloss defines saeculum by mundus, and English has one word for both, so a faithful all-English rendering ("By the world he understands the world") explains nothing. The glossed word is therefore carried in italic Latin: "By saeculum he understands the world, or all the things which are in the world." This is the stylus/epistylium (11551) and murenulae/ferculum (10804) precedent — where the gloss is the word, the word stands in Latin. ⚑ It is the only place in this work where the English carries an italic span the Latin does not, and the band check at 0673B reports it (LA 4 / EN 5); that delta is this and nothing else.

7c · 0679A · Sufferentiam Job rendered "the patience of Job"

sufferentia is "endurance", and the familiar English is exactly the pressure 7a″ warns about. The traditional wording is nevertheless allowed here because Migne's Latin is verbatim Clementine (Jac. 5:11 Sufferentiam Job audistis), which is the register's own scripture-echo licence and Ruth's Aethiopia praeveniet precedent. Nothing in the gloss turns on patience against endurance; what it turns on is sufferentiam against finem, and that contrast is carried.

7d · 0676A–B, 0675C · magisterium fixed as "mastership"

magisteria / magisterium occurs four times (0675B ×1 plural, 0676B ×2, and the argument's mandatione magistrorum). One English is used throughout — mastership, with magistrorum as "masters" — because the chapter's whole argument is about the one office and elegant variation would break it.

7e · 0671B · A perfectioribus incipit de extrinsecis tentationibus — a call declined

a perfectioribus may be "from the more perfect [men]" or "from the more perfect [matters]". Rendered literally, "He begins from the more perfect, concerning outward temptations", which carries both. Declined rather than resolved: nothing later in the work disambiguates it, and the sequence it announces (outward temptations first, inward at VERS. 13 Hactenus de tentationibus exterioribus) works under either reading.

7f · Column anchors that had to be split away from their Latin word

Three anchors fall at a point English word order cannot reproduce; each is placed inside the same phrase, as near its Latin neighbour as the syntax allows, per 2b. Recorded so a reader who compares the columns knows it was a choice: 0671D temporalia [0671D] sunt → "are the temporal [0671D] things"; 0677B bonis [0677B] consentiens → "consenting to good [0677B] things"; 0677C quasi semente [0677C] aspergit → "as with [0677C] seed" (the verb aspergit stands after the anchor in Latin and before the phrase in English, so no placement can put the anchor before it). All other anchors stand immediately beside the English word that renders the Latin word they precede, checked one at a time.

7g · Punctuation, checked band by band

Every column band was compared for : ; ? ! « » and . against the Latin twin and all bands now agree exactly. Twelve supplied semicolons and one supplied colon were found by that check and reverted to Migne's commas; three of Migne's colons at 0676B had been softened to semicolons and were restored. Commas are not compared and are free. Question marks: 1 · 2 · 1 · 6, matching the Latin in every chunk. No ? was supplied and none deleted; no indirect question needed Pattern 8b.

§8 · CHECKED CLEAN — the sections read and found sound

Named so a later reader can tell what was examined from what was passed over.

• The whole ARGUMENTUM and CAPUT PRIMUM for the 7a″ conformation class, lemma by lemma against the Clementine. One conformation was found and fixed in draft, at 0676A: Ecce quantus ignis had been given Douay's "Behold how small a fire" (which renders the Greek ἡλίκον, not Migne's Latin). Migne prints quantus and the gloss confirms it (magnam materiam … perire facit); the English now reads "Behold how great a fire." ⛔ This is the work's one caught conformation and it was caught on the fourth-test read, not by any count.
• Two further silent supplies were caught the same way and removed: Cum in tentationes had been left as the stump "When into temptations" (now "When you shall fall into temptations", per §7a's rule), and Nunquid potest, fratres had acquired a "my" that Migne does not print (Clem. fratres mei; Migne fratres), and Manducabit carnes a "your" (Clem. carnes vestras; Migne carnes). All three were the familiar-Bible reflex reaching past the plate.
• 0673C–0674B and 0678D–0679A, the two densest negation clusters, read twice each; see §6.
• 0676C (Pliny's asp, Marcellinus's tigress) — no scripture, no negation, no defect.
• [n: …] markers: 34, all citations, none editorial prose, so no [nt: …] is due. The two that look like candidates, (AUG., Serm. 3 ad fratres in eremo.) at 0673B and (BEDA) throughout, are locators.
• Guillemets: zero in the Latin, zero in the English, checked per chunk.
• Dittography: none found; no [d: …].
• Digitization holes: none found; no [ed: …].

§9 · WANTED FROM A PLATE READ (three items, all cheap)

1. 0678A — the missing full stop at negligunt Sed humilibus.
2. 0674D — VERS 19.-- without its period.
3. 0675C — aliis for alii, and 0676B concinantur: both are the shape that a digitization "correction" or corruption produces (Pattern 4 of the brief), and neither is detectable from the Latin alone.

Migne prints no foot-of-page conjecture notes in our text of this work; whether the plate carries any is unknown, since none of PL 114's pages for cols 0671–0680 has been read. data/plate-notes/coverage.json should record this work as unchecked, not as zero.

§Adjudication — blind polarity read (2026-08-19)

Blind reader, fenced from this file: 4 sites, all OURS-SIDE, no polarity defect in either direction. It checked all three non solum … sed correlatives specifically for a non pulled onto the verb and found all three correctly hosted, stripped all three [sic:] brackets (none had swallowed its word), and confirmed the 0678A [cj:] was seen and correctly handled. 2 repaired, 2 declined.

1. REPAIRED · 0678A · Quasi dicat, lex non fecit. — was "the law did not do so"; now "the law did not act [rightly]." fecit has no expressed object, and the supplied "so" could only reach back to Quae detractionem prohibuit — making the detractor deny the prohibition one sentence after the gloss asserts it. The gloss's own second alternative settles it: detrahit et judicat legem quare talia jussa dederit — he faults the law for having given the command, he does not deny that it did. A supplied two-letter word, and it reversed the sentence.
2. REPAIRED, BUT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE PROPOSAL · 0675C · Nolite. — the reader found the same bare lemma rendered two ways in one work (0673C expanded to "Do not hold the faith in respect of persons", 0675C left as the stump "Be ye not") and proposed contracting the expansion. Declined; the stump was expanded instead: "Be ye not many masters" (Jac 3:1, the verse the fragment opens, and what the gloss itself glosses — sic moneo ad vitanda stulta magisteria). Glossa convention 3 requires a fragmentary lemma to be rendered as the phrase it stands for, on the Ruth precedent (Non te. → "Let no man see thee", never "Not thee"). The inconsistency was real; the convention decides which way to resolve it.
3. DECLINED · 0671B Cum in tentationes. and 0672C Ut simus initium, — same class as 2, and convention-compliant as they stand. See the batch ruling below.

### ⭐ BATCH RULING — lemma expansion is NOT the defect; CONFORMATION is This class was raised independently by three of the four blind readers in this batch (here, in 1 Peter at 0687C, and as a six-site cluster in Ecclesiastes), each proposing that expansions be contracted to the printed catchword. The boundary was already settled last batch, tested from both sides — one reader flagged expansions as repairs, another flagged a non-expansion as a defect, both declined — and it stands: the defect is never expansion or its absence, it is CONFORMATION. Convention 3 licenses the expansion; what is forbidden is following the familiar English Bible where Migne's own plate diverges from it. None of the sites raised in this batch is that. ⚑ Worth noting for the next brief: the readers' "control" is often not a control. A single-word lemma that is already complete English (Sepultura. → "Burial.") is not the same class as a clipped lemma whose governed word is missing (Multas. → "Many [cares]"), and comparing the two manufactures an inconsistency that is not there.

⬜ Unchanged: data/plate-notes/coverage.json must record 8998 as unchecked, not zero — no PL 114 page for cols 0671–0680 has ever been read, so the absence of [cn:] means only that Migne's foot-of-page apparatus is unrecovered here.