Expositio in Hierarchiam Coelestem S. Dionysii

## Col 0938A (chunk 0005)

• Reading (as printed): iterum restituens reparando, sicut poenis constituit creando
• Note: poenis breaks the clean parallel restituens reparando … constituit creando ("restoring by repairing … as it established by creating") and is theologically odd (why "by punishments" in the act of creation?). Likely a corruption (perhaps for prius or primis). Rendered literally: "again restoring us by repairing, as it established us by punishments in creating."

## Col 0941D (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Cum vero puro pura et nuda revelatione ostenditur
• Note: puro immediately before pura reads as a dittography/corruption (no governing noun for a masc./neut. puro). It is a real Latin word, so per Pattern 7 it is translated rather than dropped or carried through in italics, and no mark is supplied to smooth it (Pattern 8): "But when it is shown by pure by pure and naked revelation." Latin gender has no English exponent (Pattern 9), so the masc./neut. ending cannot be shown. The intended reading is pura et nuda revelatione. An earlier draft deleted the printed puro outright; that has been withdrawn. Per Pattern 11, the repeated occurrence is now marked: "by pure [d: by pure] and naked revelation."

## Col 0945B (chunk 0008)

• Reading (as printed): ut alii plus, alii miuus accipiant
• Note: miuus is not a word — a u/n inversion of minus. Per Pattern 7 the non-word is carried into the English untranslated and in italics: "so that some receive more, others miuus." An earlier draft read the typo as "less"; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 0946A (chunk 0008)

• Reading (as printed): nisi varietate sacrorum vel animum anagogice circumvelatum (the Dionysian lemma)
• Note: vel animum is a corruption of velaminum ("of veils") — confirmed by Hugh's own gloss two clauses later, which quotes the lemma correctly as nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum ("veiled about by the variety of sacred veils"). The lemma as printed was rendered literally ("by the variety of sacred things, or the mind"); the gloss was rendered with the correct velaminum ("sacred veils").

## Col 0976A (chunk 0019)

• Reading (as printed): ... qui est in homine. » [0976A] [n: (I Cor. II)]. »
• Note: Migne prints a redundant closing guillemet: the I Cor. 2:11 quotation ("Nemo hominum scit...") closes with », then a page-break anchor and the citation note follow, and a second stray » appears after the note. Reproduced verbatim in the English (marker order preserved; the stray guillemet is Migne's typesetting artifact, not a second quotation boundary).

## Col 1013A (chunk 0032)

• Reading (as printed): ... theopbanias, id est divinas apparitiones vocare consuevit
• Note: Printed theopbanias (b for h) for theophanias. theopbanias is not a word, so per Pattern 7 it is carried into the English untranslated and in italics: "…to call those manifestations … theopbanias, that is, divine apparitions." The intended reading is unambiguous — the word is glossed in situ (divinas apparitiones) — but the conjecture belongs here, not in the running text. An earlier draft rendered "theophanies"; that has been withdrawn. (The correctly spelled theophaniae elsewhere in the work is translated normally.)

## Col 1012B (chunk 0031)

• Reading (as printed): Theophaniae autem sanctis factae sunt [sed] secundum decentes Deum
• Note: [sed] is a bracketed editorial supplement inside the quoted (Scotus) lemma. Reproduced in the English as "[but]" — bracket preserved, content translated.

## Col 1016A (chunk 0032)

• Reading (as printed): prae caeteris omnibus apparitionibus eloquiorom
• Note: Printed eloquiorom (o for u) for eloquiorum. Not a word; carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7 — "beyond all the other apparitions eloquiorom." The same phrase is spelled correctly later in the chunk (col. 1016B, apparitionibus eloquiorum) and is translated there. An earlier draft rendered both "of the words"; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1017D — TITULUS CAPITULI V (chunk 0033)

• Reading (as printed): ... praeterquam primi et ecundi ordinum habent agnominationes
• Note: Printed ecundi for secundi in the chapter title. Not a word, but it stands inside the heads: structure (## TITLE OF CHAPTER V …), where Pattern 9's section-label rule applies: the English head normalizes, because the Latin side of the parallel page preserves the misprint verbatim and nothing is concealed. Rendered "second"; left as an explicit exception to the Pattern 7 carry-through, not an oversight.

## Col 1018D (chunk 0033, LITTERA)

• Reading (as printed): sic et ipsum ante se essentiarum [adhuc immundae] omnino sacrae virtutes reducunt
• Note: [adhuc immundae] is a bracketed editorial insertion within the corrupt Scotus lemma (which is grammatically broken throughout this stretch). Reproduced in the English as "[still unclean]" — bracket preserved, content translated; surrounding clause rendered as literally as the garbled Latin allows.

## Col 1019A/B (chunk 0034)

• Reading (as printed): coelestium spirituum quidam Deo sempe assistere
• Note: Printed sempe for semper. Not a word (final r lost); carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7 — "certain of the heavenly spirits are declared sempe to stand by God and always to see his face," where the second, correctly printed semper is translated. An earlier draft rendered both "always"; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1021A (chunk 0034)

• Reading (as printed): interni praeceptoris nuntia foras ad hominum cognitionem efferte
• Note: Printed efferte where the infinitive efferre is expected by the syntax. efferte is a real Latin word (2nd pl. imperative of effero), so per Pattern 7 it is rendered as printed — "that is, carry ye the messages of the interior teacher outward to the knowledge of men" — which leaves an imperative standing where the sentence needs a subject infinitive. The intended reading is efferre. An earlier draft supplied the infinitive; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 0957A (chunk 0013)

• Reading (as printed): per incomprehensibilia divina aenigmat occultare
• Note: aenigmat is a truncated/garbled form of aenigmata (accusative plural, "enigmas"), the object of occultare. It is not a word, so per Pattern 7 it is carried through untranslated in italics: "to conceal by incomprehensible divine aenigmat." An earlier draft rendered it "enigmas"; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 0960A (chunk 0013)

• Reading (as printed): ... et pardalineam vestiunt, et ur sam saevientem [n: (Cant. II; Isa, XXVIII; Osee V)]. ... Ad dam vero, et quod omnium vilius esse ...
• Note: Two adjacent broken forms in this dissimilar-symbols catalogue, both defects of word division. Split type is non-word type (ruled 2026-07-28): a defect of word division is carried through untranslated in italics whichever direction it runs, exactly as the run-together Canetenim is under Pattern 7. The WHOLE broken run is carried, spacing included, and is not split into a translated half and a carried half — the defect is the run, not either fragment. So ur sam (for ursam, "she-bear") is rendered "and a raging ur sam," and Ad dam (for ad dam[m]am, "to a doe/deer") is rendered "Ad dam indeed," with Ad carried along with the rest even though it is a real word on its own. Both sit inside an already-italicized lemma run, so neither takes a second italic marker (as with the other carried non-words in this work). The conjectured readings are ursam and ad damam; the earlier per-sense renderings ("a raging she-bear," "But to a doe") and the note that the spacing was "not otherwise reproducible in running prose" are both withdrawn — it is reproducible. Note that the gloss at col. 0968D (chunk 0022) prints ursam correctly three times and is translated "she-bear" there; only the lemma is defective.

⛔ CORRECTED 2026-08-14 by the [sic:] force-quarantine sweep (translation-style.md 7a⁗). Two changes, and the second overturns the conjecture above. 1. Both markers now carry their force in plain English beside them — a raging she-bear [sic: ur sam] and I will add [sic: Ad dam]. The marker still isolates the defective run, spacing and all; what it may not do is take the sense with it. The withdrawal recorded above withdrew the sense, not merely the styling. 2. Ad dam is NOT ad dam[m]am, "to a doe." It is Addam, "I will add" — a first-person future verb, not a preposition plus a noun. The work refutes its own conjecture: Hugh glosses this very lemma at col. 0986D (chunk 0022), where Migne prints « Addam vero, » and Hugh expounds it in the first person — praesumam quidem … qui et hoc divinis significationibus adjiciam — and our own published English there already reads "« But I will add, » I will indeed presume … I who add this too to the divine significations." So our page said "I will add" at one column and "to a doe" at another, for the same word. That also fixes the syntax: quod omnium vilius esse … visum est is the accusative object of addam, not a second dative governed by ad. The English no longer reads "and to that which seemed…" but "that which seemed…", and the sentence has a main verb for the first time. This was two defects stacked — a swallowed verb and a wrong conjecture propagating a dative into the lemma — and neither was visible without reading the two columns together.

## Col 0956C / 0959A / 0960A (chunk 0013) — bracketed editorial variants

• Readings (as printed): pecudalitatem [pecuinitatem]; immanem [immanentem]; divina sapientes [divinam sapientiam].
• Note: These are the edition's own bracketed alternative readings (Migne/source apparatus), not garbled type. The bracketed Latin alternates are preserved verbatim and untranslated in place, immediately after the translated primary reading (cf. the [ al., …] variant convention).

## Col 0925A (chunk 0001) — bracketed editorial variant

• Reading (as printed): Sed mundus medicum [modicum] despexit
• Note: The edition's own bracketed alternative reading, not garbled type. Primary reading medicum ("the physician" — apt to the immediately following healing imagery: disease, medicine, the blind man's cure) is translated; the bracketed alternate [modicum] ("a little / of little account") is preserved verbatim and untranslated in place. Rendered "But the world despised the physician [modicum]."

## Col 0934C–0935A (chunk 0004) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): Propter quoae et sanctissimam nostram hierarchiam ...
• Note: quoae is not a Latin word; evident misprint for quae (relative, "on account of which"). Per Pattern 7 the non-word is carried through untranslated in italics: "On account of quoae, judging our most holy hierarchy…" An earlier draft rendered the intended sense; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 0983C (chunk 0021) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): Irrationabilitas enim, quae significat excelsum rationis; et insensualitas, quae excessum sensibilitatis demonstrat
• Note: excelsum rationis almost certainly a misprint for excessum rationis — the parallel clause reads excessum sensibilitatis, and the following gloss reads Excessus enim rationis et sensibilitatis vel sursum fit, vel deorsum. Left literal rather than emended: "irrationality, which signifies the loftiness of reason; and insensibility, which demonstrates the excess of sensibility."

## Col 0991B (chunk 0024) — dagger/lacuna in the Dionysian lemma

• Reading (as printed): operari quod omnino praeter hostiarum + mysteria, aut sacras ordinationes
• Note: Migne prints a cross/dagger (reproduced as +) between hostiarum and mysteria, marking a corruption/lacuna in the Latin of the quoted Dionysian text (the LITTERA). Marker reproduced verbatim in place: "to do anything at all apart from the + mysteries of the sacrificial victims, or the sacred ordinations."

## Col 0994C (chunk 0025) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): Scopas autem, id est directio vel destinatio, est qua tendit
• Note: The transliterated Greek σκοπός is spelled Scopas here, though the same passage elsewhere gives scopos (nominative) and scopon (accusative). Apparent compositor's slip. Rendered as printed (scopas), not normalized.

## Col 1005B (chunk 0029) — garbled type in the Dionysian lemma

• Reading (as printed): et de angelo ipsum Vesum confortante
• Note: Vesum is a misprint for Jesum — the angel strengthening Jesus (cf. Luke 22:43); the very next clause names ipse Jesus explicitly. Rendered literally as Vesum within the italic LITTERA run, not emended.

## Col 1034A (chunk 0038) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): quod theologicam seientiam ipsa prima dispositio, quantum fas, illuminata est a divina bonitate
• Note: seientiam is not a word — a typographical error for scientiam ("knowledge"), the object of the illumination clause. Carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7: "was illuminated in the theological seientiam." An earlier draft rendered the intended sense; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1036B (chunk 0039) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): sed iis, qui foris erant, dic non debuerunt
• Note: dic is a real Latin word (2nd sg. imperative of dico, "say"), not broken type, so per Pattern 7 it is rendered as printed: "but to those who were outside they ought not say" — an active imperative form standing where a passive infinitive is required, which does not construe. The intended reading is dici ("to be spoken"), exactly parallel to the correctly printed dici non debuerunt a few clauses earlier, which is translated normally. An earlier draft supplied the passive infinitive here too; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1112A (chunk 0066) — LITTERA/gloss divergence

• Reading (as printed): in the LITTERA (Dionysian lemma), ... ex illuminandarum materiarum ad illuminationis distributivum habitum in opportunitate; the EXPOSITIO gloss (chunk 0067, col 1117C) quotes and glosses the same clause as ex inopportunitate illuminandarum materiarum.
• Note: The lemma prints two words in opportunitate ("in opportuneness/fitness"), whereas Hugh's own gloss reads the single word inopportunitate ("inopportuneness") and builds the sense on it (dimmer light in grosser matter = inopportunitas). The LITTERA was rendered literally as printed ("... in relation to the distributive habit of illumination in point of opportuneness"); the gloss was rendered with its inopportunitas ("the inopportuneness of the matters to be illuminated"). No emendation of the LITTERA Latin.

## Col 1120B (chunk 0068) — split word (line-break artifact)

• Reading (as printed): etiam ipsa supernatur alis ordinatio
• Note: supernatur alis is supernaturalis ("supernatural") split by a stray space at a line break (cf. the ur sam / Ad dam splits logged at col 0960A). Split type is non-word type (ruled 2026-07-28), so the whole broken run is carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7: "« the supernatur alis ordination itself also, »" Here the run is not inside an italic lemma — it sits inside guillemets — so it takes its own italic marker. The intended reading is supernaturalis. The earlier per-sense rendering, and the note that the spacing was "not otherwise reproducible in running prose," are withdrawn — it is reproducible. The word prints correctly as supernaturalis in the LITTERA at col. 1117D (chunk 0066) and again later in this same chunk (illa, inquam, supernaturalis ordinatio), and is translated normally in both places; only this one occurrence is broken.

## Col 1122B (chunk 0069) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): ipsam excelsissimam coelestium animorum dispositionem, principium post Deus, secundum quod consequens est
• Note: post Deus requires the accusative post Deum ("after God"); Deus (nominative) is a plain case misprint. Not a Pattern 7 defect to undo: Latin case has no English exponent (Pattern 9), so "God" is the only possible rendering either way. Rendered "the principle after God"; nothing to emend and nothing to carry through. Marked so a later sweep does not churn it. The same phrase recurs correctly as post Deum in Hugh's following gloss.

## Col 1064A (chunk 0049) — case-agreement misprint

• Reading (as printed): Et omnia haec per sapientia Dei facta sunt
• Note: sapientia (ablative) stands where per requires the accusative sapientiam. A plain case-ending misprint. Not a Pattern 7 defect to undo: Latin case has no English exponent (Pattern 9), so "the wisdom of God" is the only possible rendering either way. Rendered "were made through the wisdom of God"; nothing to emend and nothing to carry through. Marked so a later sweep does not churn it.

## Col 1064B (chunk 0049) — case-agreement misprint

• Reading (as printed): Quando mundum istum vides, quanta in ipsos vides?
• Note: ipsos (masc. acc. pl.) has no plural antecedent; the referent is singular mundum. ipsos is a real Latin word, and unlike a bare case ending its NUMBER does have an English exponent, so per Pattern 7 it is rendered as printed: "how many things do you see in them?" — a plural pronoun with only a singular antecedent to refer to. The intended reading is in ipso ("in it"). An earlier draft rendered "in it"; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1072C (chunk 0052, LITTERA) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): Poc enim est omnino divina ordinatione divinitus promulgatum
• Note: Poc is not a word — a misprint for Hoc ("This"), confirmed by Hugh's own exposition of the same lemma clause at 1080B (chunk 0054), which quotes it correctly as Hoc enim est omnino divina ordinatione divinitus promulgatum. Carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7: "For Poc has been divinely promulgated altogether by the divine ordination." The correctly printed Hoc at 1080B is translated normally. An earlier draft rendered the intended sense; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1071C (chunk 0052, LITTERA) vs 1075A/1076A (chunk 0053) — variant reading

• Reading (as printed): lemma at 1071C reads ad nullum una videntium; the same lemma clause requoted in the exposition (1075A, and glossed at 1076A) reads ad nullum vana videntium.
• Note: una in the LITTERA is almost certainly a corruption of vana — Hugh's gloss (1076A, chunk 0053) reads vana and explains it as quae per se considerata ima apparent, et transitoria ("things which, considered in themselves, appear lowly and transitory"). The LITTERA (chunk 0052) was rendered literally as printed ("turned toward none of the things seen as one"); the exposition (chunk 0053) follows its own vana ("seen as vain"). Neither Latin is emended.

## Col 1078B (chunk 0054) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): Sicut enim ipsa meditantibus superioribus ad similitudinem Dei convertitur
• Note: meditantibus is a real Latin word ("meditating", abl. pl. participle of meditor), so per Pattern 7 it is rendered as printed: "just as it itself is turned to the likeness of God by the superiors meditating, so, with it mediating, the things that are lower are called back." The intended reading is mediantibus ("mediating"), required by the parallel clause immediately following, ita mediante ipsa quae inferiora sunt … revocantur, which prints correctly and is translated so. An earlier draft read the intended word in both places; that has been withdrawn. Pattern 18 applied 2026-08-15 (withdrawn-net read): the printed word is real and the English asserts a doctrine Hugh is not stating — mediation, not meditation, is the whole point of the clause, and its own parallel ita mediante ipsa is the contradicting neighbour. The page now reads by the superiors meditating [cj: meditantibus; read mediantibus, "mediating"].

## Col 1066B (chunk 0050) — garbled type (minor)

• Reading (as printed): Propterea non atttendas ad numerum
• Note: atttendas (triple t) is not a word — a typographical error for attendas ("attend, regard"). Carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7: "Therefore do not atttendas to the number, but seek the fruit." An earlier draft rendered "attend"; that has been withdrawn. (Distinguish ocultum at 1068C for occultum and hierachia/hierachiae for hierarchia, which recur throughout chunks 0052–0053: consonant simplification and the loss of medial r in hierarchia are attested medieval spellings, so per Pattern 9 they are translated normally, with no italics and no carry-through. atttendas is unique to this plate and so falls the other way.)

## Col 1090B (chunk 0058) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): et idcirco apud non aptius angeli nominati sunt magis quam priores
• Note: apud non — non is a real Latin word ("not"), not broken type, so per Pattern 7 it is rendered as printed: "therefore they are named angels more fittingly among not than the prior or superior ones," which does not construe. The intended reading is apud nos ("among us"): the LITTERA a few clauses earlier prints et magis apud nos angeli, quam priores aptius nominati correctly, and that occurrence is translated "among us." An earlier draft read the intended word in both places; that has been withdrawn. Pattern 18 applied 2026-08-15, on Wilson's ruling that INCOHERENCE IS NOT A DEFENCE WHERE THE WRONG WORD IS A NEGATION (translation-style.md 18): it was declined on the first pass because "among not" makes no claim to be false about, and that reasoning was overruled — a lost or intruded non is exactly the class 7a⁗ exists for, and with no marker here it had nowhere else to live. The page now reads among not [cj: non; read nos, "us"].

## Col 1092C–1092D (chunk 0059) — unbalanced guillemet in the lemma

• Reading (as printed): Sequitur: « Hoc perhibetur et ipse Hebraeorum populus perpessus esse, hoc scilicet, quod a cultu Dei recessit ... Ait enim divina vox ipsi [1092D] Israel. « Cognitionem Dei repulisti: et post cor tuum existi. »
• Note: Migne opens the Dionysian lemma with « at Hoc perhibetur but prints no closing » before Hugh's gloss (hoc scilicet, quod ...) begins; a second « then opens the embedded Hosea/Jeremiah quotation (Cognitionem Dei repulisti ...), which alone closes with ». Reproduced verbatim: the guillemets are kept exactly where Migne set them (two opens, one close in this stretch), so Hugh's gloss visually falls inside the unclosed lemma as in the source. Not emended.

## Cols 1092B (chunk 0059) — authorial glosses bracketed inside a scripture quote

• Reading (as printed): Dicentes enim se esse sapientes [ecce superbia] stulti facti sunt, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum [ecce error in non existentes deos] (within the Rom. 1 quotation)
• Note: [ecce superbia] and [ecce error in non existentes deos] are Hugh's own interpretive asides (tying the Pauline quote to his two points — pride and error unto non-existent gods), interpolated in square brackets, NOT edition-apparatus variant readings (unlike [modicum], [visionem], [forma], which are left untranslated). Because they are authorial prose content, they are TRANSLATED in place and kept in brackets: "[behold, pride]" and "[behold, the error unto non-existent gods]."

## Col 1141B (chunk 0075) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): « Sursum ferens, » quia pondere carons summa petit
• Note: carons is not a word — a typographical error for carens ("lacking"), governing the ablative pondere ("weight"). Carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7: "because, carons weight, it seeks the highest things." An earlier draft rendered "lacking"; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1142D (chunk 0075) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): propter « luculentum, » id est clarum et evidens, sine insigne ipsius figurae humanae
• Note: sine insigne is ungrammatical (sine takes the ablative insigni), but both words are real Latin words, so per Pattern 7 they are rendered as printed: "that is, the clear and evident, without the distinguishing mark of the human figure itself" — which negates what the gloss is asserting. The intended reading is sive insigne ("or the distinguishing mark"), the gloss series being a string of sive/vel alternatives. Case has no English exponent (Pattern 9), so the insigne/insigni mismatch cannot be shown. Likewise the same sentence's si cum recipitur non minoratur prints si ("if") for sic ("so"), the correlative of the preceding sicut cum effunditur non augetur; both are real words, so it is rendered "if when it is received it is not diminished." An earlier draft read the intended words in both spots; that has been withdrawn. Pattern 18 applied 2026-08-15 (withdrawn-net read) to sine only: "without the distinguishing mark" is fluent English that negates what the gloss series asserts, so the page now reads without [cj: sine; read sive, "or"] the distinguishing mark. The si-for-sic in the same sentence was ALSO glossed on 2026-08-15, on Wilson's ruling: it weakens a correlative into a condition and asserts nothing false, which is why the first pass declined it — but a correlative is in the same mood-governing class as a negation, so the page now reads if [cj: si; read sic, "so"] when it is received.

## Col 1150A (chunk 0078) — garbled type

• Reading (as printed): deleta ab animo omnium imagitionum cogitatione in incircumpscritum lumen contemplandum mente proficisci
• Note: Two plain misprints in one clause: imagitionum for imaginationum ("of imaginations") and incircumpscritum for incircumscriptum ("uncircumscribed"). Neither is a word, so both are carried through untranslated in italics per Pattern 7: "the thought of all imagitionum being wiped from the mind, to set forth with the mind to contemplate the incircumpscritum light." An earlier draft rendered both per sense; that has been withdrawn.

## Col 1154C (chunk 0079) — person slip in the closing sentence

• Reading (as printed): Mihi autem solatium affert, quod illius quem exponendum suscepit, in quo sapientia transcendit sanctitas condescendit.
• Note: suscepit (3rd sing., "he undertook") sits awkwardly in a first-person frame (Mihi … affert, "it brings solace to me"); the sense requires suscepi ("[whom] I undertook to expound"). It is a real Latin word, so per Pattern 7 it is rendered as printed: "that of him whom he undertook to expound," leaving an unidentified third-person subject in a first-person sentence. An earlier draft rendered it first-person, citing a corpus practice for morphological slips that has since been withdrawn along with the rest of that precedent.

## Col 1125A (chunk 0070) — garbled type / likely misprint

• Reading (as printed): Quia seraphim ardens, vel succedens interpretatur, et significat ignitum
• Note: In the etymological gloss of seraphim, succedens ("succeeding") stands beside ardens ("burning") and is itself glossed as ignitum ("fiery") — a sense succedens cannot bear. Almost certainly a misprint for succendens ("kindling / setting afire"), a standard companion gloss of seraphim alongside ardens. But succedens is a real Latin word, so per Pattern 7 it is rendered as printed — "seraphim is interpreted burning, or succeeding," — leaving a gloss that the following significat ignitum contradicts. (The italics here are Migne's, which sets both etymological glosses in italic; they are not a Pattern 7 carry-through marker.) An earlier draft rendered "kindling"; that has been withdrawn. Pattern 18 applied 2026-08-15 (withdrawn-net read): the etymology as printed is a false claim about the word, and significat ignitum in the same clause is the contradicting neighbour. The page now reads or succeeding, [cj: succedens; read succendens, "kindling"].

## Col 1135C (chunk 0073, LITTERA) — bracketed editorial variant

• Reading (as printed): intellectuales sulcos revocans [renovans] in susceptionem coelestium
• Note: The edition's own bracketed alternative reading, not garbled type. Primary reading revocans ("recalling") is translated; the bracketed Latin alternate [renovans] ("renewing") is preserved verbatim and untranslated in place (cf. the [ al., …] variant convention). Rendered "that which recalls [renovans] the intellectual furrows."

## Col 1139A (chunk 0074) — bracketed editorial variant

• Reading (as printed): « Sursum conversibiliter [ convertibiliter ] extendi, »
• Note: The edition's own bracketed alternative reading (here italicized in the source), not garbled type. Primary reading conversibiliter ("convertibly") is translated; the bracketed italic Latin alternate [ convertibiliter ] is preserved verbatim and untranslated in place. Rendered "To be extended upward convertibly [ convertibiliter ]."

<!-- 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). 41 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.

0937D — dropped-word (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Omnis scilicet ista processio manifestationis luminum in nos proveniens hoc operatur, videlicet quod replet nos, non utique alio quam seipsa ex eo quod replet, iterum restituens reparando, sicut poenis constituit creando, restituit scilicet utpote unifica virtus, quae dispersa colligit

Conjecture: sicut prius constituit creando ("as it first established us in creating") — the sentence needs an adverb balancing restituens/reparando against constituit/creando, not the ablative plural poenis; Migne's poenis makes creation an act of punishment.

The immediately preceding sentences deny any harshness in the movement of the Father: « Motus Patris, affectus est paternae benignitatis; sola enim benignitate et pietate sola Pater movetur, ut lumina sua effundat super nos. Movetur non conturbatione sui, sed miseratione nostri. » A creation by poenae is the opposite of what its own neighbour asserts, and the rest of the chunk keeps the same key (« data optima ... dum conderetur », « Hoc enim bonum nihil a se conditum alienum relinquit a se »).

0938C — dropped-word (migne, low confidence)

Printed: et moveri videtur ipsum lumen, cum potius illius tenebrae solae moveantur, et fugiant praesentiam luminis coruscantis. Et videtur motus luminis hic esse, cum sit tenebrarum fugientium lumen

Conjecture: cum sit tenebrarum fugientium MOTUS — Migne's lumen (caught from luminis two words earlier) displaces the noun the antithesis requires: the motion only seems to be the light's, whereas it is the motion of the fleeing darkness.

The contradicting neighbour is the clause immediately before it: « cum potius illius tenebrae solae moveantur ». As printed, the motion is re-attributed to the light (a 'light of the fleeing darkness'), which is exactly what the preceding clause denies; the whole paragraph exists to argue that the light is unmoved and only the mind's darkness moves.

0946A — dropped-word (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Etenim neque possibile est aliter nobis lucere divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum vel animum anagogice circumvelatum, et iis, quae secundum nos sunt, providentia paterna connaturaliter, et proprie praeparatum.

Conjecture: sacrorum VELAMINUM — a word-division defect: velaminum has been set as 'vel animum', turning the genitive plural into a stray 'vel' + accusative 'animum'. The English then had to render the broken text as 'sacred things, or the mind'.

The same Dionysian lemma is printed correctly twice in the immediate neighbourhood: at 0934C in the LITTERA (chunk 0004) « nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum anagogice circumvelatum », and in Hugh's own paraphrase eleven lines below the defect at 0946B « nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum et praeparatum providentia paterna connaturaliter et proprie ». The intervening exposition is entirely about the velamina (« Sacra velamina, in quibus nobis radius divinus lucet, sunt mysticae in sacro eloquio descriptiones ... Quibus videlicet velaminibus ipse radius divinus anagogice circumvelatur »), so 'vel animum' has no possible referent.

0959A — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Eodem modo concupiscentiam quidem esse dicimus in irrationabilibus inconsultam quamdam, et materialem ex naturali motu, aut consuetudine in mutabilibus incontinenter ingenitam impassibilitatem, et irrationabilem corporalis voluptatis continuitatem

Conjecture: passibilitatem (or empassibilitatem/passionem) for impassibilitatem — the intrusive im- inverts the term

The same sentence defines this thing as 'an irrational continuity of bodily pleasure' (irrationabilem corporalis voluptatis continuitatem), and the immediately preceding sentence grounds the whole class in passion: 'Etenim furor in irrationabilibus quidem ex passibili motu est' — 'For fury indeed in irrational things is from a passible motion.' The contrast is completed a few lines later, where the intellectual counterpart alone is the impassible one: 'superessentialiter castae, et impassibilis contemplationis.' An impassibility that consists in continuous bodily pleasure is the opposite of what the passage is building.

0959B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: simul omne animal [0959B] compellentis secundum sensum inconcupiscibile

Conjecture: concupiscibile for inconcupiscibile (Greek τὸ κατ' αἴσθησιν ἐπιθυμητόν, 'the sensibly desirable')

The clause is the closing term of the definition of concupiscentia in irrational animals — 'irrationabilem corporalis voluptatis continuitatem ... compellentis' ('an irrational continuity of bodily pleasure ... compelling'). Desire compelling every animal toward what is NOT to be desired reverses the very faculty being defined; the next sentence's contrast is not between desirable and undesirable but between sensible desire and 'amorem divinum.'

0960B — added-negative (ours, high confidence)

Printed: non sinens nostrum animum remanere in dissimilibus formarum facturis, sed reluctantem negare materiales passibilitates, et assuescentem pure extendere per visibilia in supermundanas altitudines

Conjecture: 'but making it struggle to deny (reluctantem negare = resisting, so as to refuse) the material passibilities' — reluctantem qualifies the mind's recoil FROM matter, not a reluctance to reject it

The same sentence's two flanking members require rejection of matter: 'non sinens nostrum animum remanere in dissimilibus formarum facturis' ('not suffering our mind to remain in the dissimilar makings of forms') and 'assuescentem pure extendere per visibilia in supermundanas altitudines' ('accustoming it to extend itself purely ... into the supramundane heights'). A mind made reluctant to deny material passibilities is the opposite of a mind not allowed to remain in them.

0964C — added-negative (ours, high confidence)

Printed: coelestes et deiformes animos, id est spiritus invisibiles, incorporeos, et Dei non corporum similitudinem ac formam habentes

Conjecture: 'having the likeness and form of God, not of bodies' — 'non' negates 'corporum' only, not 'Dei'

The clause is Hugh's gloss on the lemma word it stands next to: 'coelestes et DEIFORMES animos' — deiform minds. To gloss 'deiform' as 'not having the likeness and form of God' contradicts the word being glossed; and the parallel term 'incorporeos' shows what the 'non' is doing (denying bodily, not divine, likeness).

0965D — dropped-word (migne, low confidence)

Printed: atque illis spiritibus coelestibus ad ea, quae ipsis invisibilia sunt, significanda attributa

Conjecture: quae IN ipsis invisibilia sunt (or quae ipsis NOBIS invisibilia sunt) — 'those things which in them are invisible [to us]'

The second half of the very same sentence states the case correctly: 'sed per haec alia, quae in ipsis, nobis sunt invisibilia, visibiliter proposita perpendere studeamus' — 'but that through these things we may study to weigh other things, which are IN THEM and are invisible TO US.' The signs exist because the spirits' properties are invisible to us, not to the spirits.

0966D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: inquantum ipsa theologia ad significationem visibilium pulchras et decentes ab iis quae nostra sunt, formationes assumpsit

Conjecture: invisibilium for visibilium

The formations taken from 'those things which are ours' ARE the visible things; they cannot be taken to signify themselves. The same paragraph states the purpose twice the other way: 'ut nostrum animum ad invisibilium cognitionem per haec visibilia et nota revelarent' ('that they might illuminate our mind unto the knowledge of INVISIBLE things through these visible and known things'), and the answering clause of this very sentence, 'theologiam non solum similes, sed etiam dissimiles in demonstrationem DIVINORUM formas assumpsisse.'

0967C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: propriis et cognatis figurationibus, id est inconvenientibus et similibus figurationibus [0967D] sumptis apud nos

Conjecture: convenientibus for inconvenientibus

The gloss contradicts the lemma it is glossing in the same breath: Hugh is explaining 'propriis et cognatis figurationibus' ('proper and cognate figurations'), and his own second gloss-word is 'similibus' ('like'). 'Unfitting' cannot gloss 'proper and cognate,' and the objector whose position this reports is precisely the one demanding fitting images drawn 'ex pretiosissimis apud nos.'

0968B — added-negative (migne, high confidence)

Printed: ut ex utraque parte rationabile fieret: ut per hoc, quod nostrum esset, id est familiare et cognitum nobis, erudire non posset; et per hoc, quod sublimius et dignius esset, spiritualium excellentiae et dignitati congrueret

Conjecture: erudire posset — the 'non' is intrusive

The clause the sentence opens with requires both members to be positive: 'ut ex utraque parte rationabile fieret' ('so that on either part it would become reasonable'), and the coordinate member is affirmative ('congrueret'). Familiarity is offered as the ground of instruction, not as its obstacle. Note our English silently repairs this — it drops the printed 'non' without a marker, so the defect is invisible to a reader of the translation alone.

0971C — dropped-word (migne, high confidence)

Printed: A corporalibus, sicut cum eam rationem et intellectum; a corporalibus, quemadmodum cum eam lumen et [0971D] splendorem nominant

Conjecture: Ab INcorporalibus, sicut cum eam rationem et intellectum [nominant]; a corporalibus, quemadmodum ...

The sentence immediately before announces the two members: 'Per similes quidem aliquando a corporalibus sumptas, aliquando AB INCORPORALIBUS' — and the matching pair a few lines later keeps them distinct: 'AB INCORPORALIBUS quidem, ut cum ei iram, zelum, poenitentiam attribuunt; A CORPORALIBUS vero, quando illi formas, vel figuras bestiarum ... apponunt.' Reason and intellect are the incorporeal member; Migne prints 'a corporalibus' twice, collapsing the distinction the whole passage rests on. Our English silently repairs it to 'From incorporeal things.'

0982A — added-negative (migne, high confidence)

Printed: « Cum vero dissimiles similitudines non intellectualibus, et spiritualibus circumponentes, » vel vestientes: « circumformatus, » id est adaptamus « eis concupiscentiam; » tunc ipsam concupiscentiam, non qualem prius, sed amorem potius divinum intelligere oportet

Conjecture: Read « Cum vero dissimiles similitudines intellectualibus et spiritualibus circumponentes » (or « in intellectualibus »); the printed non is intrusive.

The apodosis of this very sentence requires that the likenesses ARE being put about intellectual/spiritual beings: "tunc ipsam concupiscentiam, non qualem prius, sed amorem potius divinum intelligere oportet, et desiderium immaterialitatis, sive incorporalitatis, et divinitatis super rationem, et intellectum existens." The lemma introducing the whole passage says the same: "Postquam demonstravit quid significet furor sensibilibus et materialibus attributus, quid item immaterialibus et invisibilibus naturis coaptatus; nunc consequenter differentiam concupiscentiae ostendit." As printed, the protasis would be about non-intellectual beings, i.e. the opposite class. Our English silently drops the non and renders the intended sense.

0984A — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: et excellentes sensum animi nostri materialem et alienatum in corporalibus hoc est, ad materialia tantum vigentem; et per materialia et corporalia ab immaterialibus, et incorporalibus alienatum, eadem percipere non valentem.

Conjecture: Word-division defect: "alienatum in corporalibus" should be "alienatum incorporalibus" (estranged FROM incorporeal things), as the lemma prints it.

The lemma being glossed, quoted a few lines above in the same chunk, reads "...et alienatum incorporalibus animi sensum excellentes"; and the gloss's own continuation flatly states the contrary of the split reading: "et per materialia et corporalia ab immaterialibus, et incorporalibus alienatum." The sense is estranged from the incorporeal, not estranged among the corporeal — corporeal things are precisely where it is at home ("ad materialia tantum vigentem"). Our English follows the split reading.

0984D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Sed tamen compacte, id est convenienter, et apte, et pulchre, id est decenter subauditur definitis eisdem proprietatibus, utrobique videlicet et intellectualibus et insensibilibus.

Conjecture: et intellectualibus et SENSIBILIBUS — the in- is intrusive.

This clause glosses the lemma printed a few lines earlier in the same chunk: "compacte autem, et pulchre intellectualibusque, et sensibilibus proprietatibus definitis." The word utrobique ("on both sides") demands the two poles of the running antithesis, intellectual and sensible; "intellectual and insensible" names one pole twice and destroys the pairing. Our English follows Migne with "insensible."

0987A — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Cum enim nihil verme vilius et humilius esse videatur, quis summam majestatem in hanc adjectionem [0987A] deducere praesumeret, nisi ipsa se prius propria dispensatione tali specie significando circumformaretur.

Conjecture: in hanc ABJECTIONEM deducere — ad- for ab-, reversing the direction (increase vs. casting down).

The Psalm verse quoted immediately above supplies the word: "Ego sum vermis, et non homo; opprobrium hominum, et abjectio plebis (Psal. XXI)"; and the clause itself turns on descent — "nihil verme vilius et humilius esse videatur... summam majestatem... deducere." One cannot "bring down the highest majesty into an addition/increase." Our English silently prints "abasement," repairing the plate without a note.

0992B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Hactenus quae universaliter dicenda erant introducendis in hierarchiarum cognitionem pro ratione demonstrationum visibilium in significationem visibilium propositarum theologus disseruit.

Conjecture: in significationem INvisibilium propositarum — the prefix in- has dropped, collapsing the visible/invisible antithesis on which the whole preceding book turns.

As printed, visible demonstrations are set forth to signify visible things, which is vacuous and contradicts the argument this sentence is summing up. Immediately preceding, at 0987A (chunk 0022): "Ii omnes cum per visibiles species et visibilium rerum proprietates invisibilia designare volunt, distinguunt..."; and at 0985A (chunk 0021): "Similitudinem dicit, quando per extrinsecas formas vel figuras, vel qualitates descriptiones invisibilium a visibilibus sumuntur." Our English reproduces Migne's reading and so inherits the reversal.

1004A — dropped-word (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Extra unitatem nullus illam accipere potest, et in unitate alteri data nulli sufficere potest.

Conjecture: et in unitate alteri data nulli deesse potest (or: nulli non sufficere potest) — 'and, given to another within unity, it can be lacking to none / cannot fail to suffice for anyone'

The immediately preceding clause is the premise the sentence exists to unpack: « quia gratia ad universos effunditur et in singulis operatur » — 'because grace is poured out upon all and works in individuals' — and the sentence before that says the goods are manifested « non singulis quibusque, sed hierarchiae, id est universitati » (not to single individuals but to the whole). Hugh's antithesis needs a negative first limb (outside unity, no one receives) answered by a positive second limb (inside unity, it fails no one). As printed, both limbs are negative, so unity confers nothing, which denies the very premise ('poured out upon ALL') and the conclusion drawn one clause later, that the goods are manifested to the hierarchy precisely so that imitation becomes possible for all.

1013A — added-negative (ours, medium confidence)

Printed: quoniam, etsi natura Deus non est, quod cernitur, secundum demonstrationem est, quia tamen per ipsum, et in ipso Deus manifestatur.

Conjecture: 'because, although what is discerned is not God by nature, according to demonstration it IS [God], since through it and in it God is manifested.' The printed Latin has two clauses — a concessive negative (natura ... non est) and a main affirmative (secundum demonstrationem est) — and the English has pulled 'secundum demonstrationem' inside the negation and dropped the affirmative 'est' altogether.

The clause the English keeps is the reason-clause that the suppressed affirmation governs: « quia tamen per ipsum, et in ipso Deus manifestatur » — 'because through it and in it God is manifested.' A 'quia' can only explain an assertion, and once the assertion has been turned negative it explains nothing; the English has to weaken 'quia' to 'yet' to make the sentence run. The whole sentence exists to license the immediately preceding statement that « divina Scriptura manifestationes illas ... theophanias, id est divinas apparitiones vocare consuevit » — Scripture is accustomed to call these manifestations divine apparitions. Denying that the discerned thing is God 'according to demonstration' removes the only ground on which that naming is defended.

1032B — dropped-non (migne, low confidence)

Printed: Puras igitur eas esse existimandum, non ut immundis maculis et inquinationibus liberatas: neque ut materialium receptivas phantasiarum, sed ut omni diminutione mundas, et altiores…

Conjecture: neque ut materialium inreceptivas (Eriugena-type inacceptibiles / Gr. ἀνεπιδέκτους) phantasiarum — the privative prefix has dropped, so the rejected description has become its own opposite

The frame is 'non ut X … neque ut Y … sed ut Z', where X is itself a privative ('non ut immundis maculis … liberatas'). With the privative gone, Y is no longer a mode of purity at all, and the same sentence's positive limb asserts the contrary: 'sed ut omni diminutione mundas, et altiores, et … secundum excelsissimam castitatem … supercollocatas' (English: 'but as clean by every diminishment, and higher, and … according to the most exalted chastity, super-placed'). A purity that is denied to consist in NOT receiving material phantasies leaves the angels receiving them, against 'most exalted chastity' in the next clause.

1037C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Propterea non dilexit acutum et calidum, sed calidum et acutum: quemadmodum prius mobile, postea incessabile…

Conjecture: non dixit acutum et calidum, sed calidum et acutum ('he did not SAY "sharp and hot" but "hot and sharp"') — dixit has been expanded to dilexit under the pull of the surrounding dilectio vocabulary

The sentence is about the ORDER OF DIONYSIUS' WORDS, not about an object of love: immediately before, 'Quia tamen prius dilexerunt postea cognoverunt, ut acutum in dilectione esset sicut et calidum. Prius calidum, postea acutum'; immediately after, 'quemadmodum prius mobile, postea incessabile, ut mobile ad inquisitionem excitet'. Read as printed, Hugh says the author 'did not love the sharp and the hot' — flatly against the whole passage, where the author is the one who 'tam multa de dilectione dixit' and 'Non autem iste parvam dilectionem dicere voluit'.

1037D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Si enim in dilectum non vadis, adhuc foris amas, neque acutum habes dilectionis. Sed habes, et torpens divisus manes, et extra illum, ut unum non efficiaris.

Conjecture: Sed hebes et torpens divisus manes ('but dull and numb you remain divided') — hebes has been read as habes

The immediately preceding clause is 'neque acutum habes dilectionis' — 'nor do you HAVE the sharpness of love'. 'Sed habes' therefore asserts possession one half-line after possession was denied, and it is left with no object at all. Hugh's own vocabulary supplies the true word a few lines earlier at 1037C: 'Ergo hebetes fuerunt, et tardi ad cognoscendum', paired there as here with torpor ('sed non tepidi, aut pigri'). Our English half-repairs the defect with a bracketed supply '[only warmth]' that has no warrant in the printed Latin.

1044C — sense-reversing-letter (ours, high confidence)

Printed: Quae in terra erant, purganda erant a corruptione; quae autem in coelo, purganda erant ab imperfectione. Illa, quia in prima conditione non erant perfecta; ista, quia post primam conditionem erant corrupta. Illa purgata sunt ab imperfectione… ista purgata sunt a corruptione… Illorum ergo purgatio non erat mali emendatio, quod non habebant…

Conjecture: Hugh's illa here = the heavenly, ista = the earthly (the pairing is fixed by 'Illa purgata sunt ab imperfectione … ista … a corruptione'). Render them by their referents — 'the heavenly ones, because in their first condition they were not perfect; the earthly, because after their first condition they had been corrupted' — not by 'the former/the latter', which the English's own preceding sentence maps the other way round.

Our English has just written, one clause earlier, 'Those which were on earth were to be purged from CORRUPTION; those which were in heaven were to be purged from IMPERFECTION.' Its 'the former' therefore denotes the earthly — and it then says 'The former, because in their first condition they were not perfect', and 'The former have been purged from imperfection', and 'Of the former, therefore, the purgation was not the amendment of an evil which they did not have.' Each is the exact opposite of the sentence it follows, and the last one attributes sinlessness to the earthly, against the same paragraph's 'the latter have been purged from corruption, when they are freed from sin' and against 1044D 'because they were always clean' (said of the angels).

1048C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Ubi majestas est, thronus est; ubi incommutabilitas est, sedes est. Thronus significat incommutabilitatem. Ergo in ipsa aeternitate, in ipsa incommutabilitate sedes Dei collocatae sunt.

Conjecture: Sedes significat incommutabilitatem (or 'Thronus significat majestatem') — the subject of the definition has been swapped for its opposite member

The clause immediately before assigns the two terms explicitly and in the other direction: 'Ubi majestas est, THRONUS est; ubi incommutabilitas est, SEDES est.' The clause immediately after draws the conclusion from the seat, not the throne: 'Ergo in ipsa … incommutabilitate SEDES Dei collocatae sunt.' The same division governs the surrounding exposition (1047B–C: 'altissimas, propter dignitatem; compactas, propter veritatem'; 1049A: thrones = raised by dignity, seats = placed by stability). Our English reproduces the reversal verbatim.

1071C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: ad nullum una videntium, sed ad proprie ὄν universale conversam

Conjecture: 'una' is a misprint for 'vana' — read 'ad nullum vana videntium', 'turned toward none of the things that seem vain'.

Migne reprints the same lemma two columns later at 1075A with the correct word — « ad nullum vana videntium, sed ad proprie ὄν on universale conversam » — and Hugh's own gloss at 1076A fixes the sense beyond doubt: 'Existimo declarare conversam non ad aliquid eorum quae vana videntur, id est quae per se considerata ima apparent, et transitoria.' With 'una' the clause denies that the dominations turn toward what is seen as one, while the second half of the very same clause says they are turned to the one universal ὄν, and 1076B glosses that ὄν as 'universale, quia omnibus esse tribuit'.

1072C — dropped-word (ours, medium confidence)

Printed: Sic existimo et angelicorum ordinum immediatam participationem primo in Deum extentorum perfectorem esse per medietatem perfectorum.

Conjecture: The bare 'per' here is the comparative second term (Greek genitive of comparison: τελεωτέραν εἶναι τῆς διὰ μεσότητος ἀποτελουμένης) and should read 'is more perfect THAN [that accomplished] through the mediation of the perfected' — the English dropped the comparative 'than' and turned the compared term into an instrument.

The immediately preceding sentence in the same paragraph renders the identical construction correctly and asserts the opposite ranking: « Nam sapientes circa sacras nostras immolationes aiunt, per seipsas lucentes divinorum plenitudines per alias contemplativarum participationum esse perfectiores » — English: 'the plenitudes of the divine things, shining through themselves, are more perfect than [those] through other contemplative participations.' As rendered, the next sentence says mediated participation is what makes the immediate participation more perfect, i.e. the reverse of its own premise and of the whole surrounding argument (chunks 0046-0048: the first orders are illumined 'non per alias sanctas essentias, sed ab ipsa Divinitate').

1085A — added-negative (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Et primo quidem [1085A] dicere necessarium existimo, secundum quod mihi impossibile, sacrarum earum cognominationum manifestationes.

Conjecture: possibile (the LITTERA has picked up an intrusive im-)

Hugh re-quotes this very clause at the head of his EXPOSITIO (chunk 0058, 1087B) as « Et primo quidem dicere necessarium existimo secundum quod mihi possibile » — 'according to what is possible for me'. As printed in the LITTERA the sentence has Dionysius judging it necessary to say what is impossible for him to say. The same formula recurs unnegated three times within the same LITTERA column band: 'et ad ipsum, ut possibile, reformatur' (1085B), 'ad illud ipsum, quantum possibile, formari' (1085A), 'assimilata, secundum quod possibile est'.

1086D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: solo fere ultra omnes Israel in viri Dei illuminationem, et cognitionem converso.

Conjecture: veri Dei (i for e)

Hugh re-quotes and glosses the identical clause in chunk 0061 at 1098A: 'et solo Israel converso in illuminationem et cognitionem veri Dei fere ultra omnes gentes' — and the very next sentence of the LITTERA itself reads 'ipsum possedisse Israel in veri Dei famulatum'. The whole argument is that Israel alone turned to the TRUE God while the nations erred 'in non existentes deos'; 'the man of God' asserts the contrary of the point being made.

1090B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: et idcirco apud non aptius angeli nominati sunt magis quam priores sive superiores

Conjecture: apud nos (n for s)

The lemma Hugh is glossing, printed in chunk 0057 at 1085C, reads 'et magis apud nos angeli, quam priores aptius nominati'; and his own gloss in the same sentence-run says 'eorum proprium est nobis divina secreta nuntiare... eorum proprium est nuntios esse nobis'. 'apud non' negates precisely the 'among us' on which the whole explanation turns, and the English carries the broken 'among not' through to the reader.

1095A — dropped-word (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Etenim sic simpliciter Melchisedech ipsi theosophi non amicum Dei, sed et sacerdotem vocaverunt.

Conjecture: non amicum Dei TANTUM, sed et sacerdotem

Hugh's gloss on this very lemma, in the next sentence, restores the word: 'theosophi... non sic simpliciter amicum tantummodo Dei, sed etiam sacerdotem vocaverunt'. The LITTERA of the same passage at 1086B likewise prints 'non amicum Dei tantum, sed et sacerdotem vocaverunt'. As printed at 1095A the sentence denies that Melchizedek was called God's friend at all, whereas the entire argument (Gen. XIV, 'erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi') rests on his being called both.

1097A — reversed-subject-object (ours, medium confidence)

Printed: nullo modo existimandum Judaeos quidem pleniter duxisse divinitatem: angelos autem specialiter... imperare aliis gentibus. — glossed: nullo modo existimandum est divinitatem duxisse Judaeos, hoc est, ducatum praebuisse Judaeis pleniter, vel absolute, hoc est, per semetipsam, scilicet sine mediante angelorum ministerio

Conjecture: the lemma should read 'that the divinity led the Jews fully' — the accusative-plus-infinitive is ambiguous, and Hugh resolves it in the very next clause; note also outside this defect that the LITTERA at 1086C prints 'dixisse' where the EXPOSITIO lemma has 'duxisse', and our English there ('spoke of the divinity fully', chunk 0057) follows the plate

Our English lemma at 1096C-1097A says the Jews led the divinity; Hugh's gloss on that same lemma, three words later on the same line, says 'divinitatem duxisse Judaeos, hoc est, ducatum praebuisse Judaeis' — the divinity led the Jews. The whole chapter argues that God governs some nations directly and others through angels, so only the gloss's direction is possible. (defectType lies outside the four listed values; flagging it as such.)

1099D — dropped-non (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Etenim nihil per se perfectum indigens universalis perfectionis, nisi vere perfectissimum et ante perfectum.

Conjecture: nihil per se perfectum et NON indigens universalis perfectionis (Gr. οὐδὲν αὐτοτελὲς ἢ ἀπροσδεές)

The exception clause in the same sentence names 'vere perfectissimum et ante perfectum', and the clause immediately before it speaks of 'anteperfectae perfectionis' — the fore-perfect is by definition what needs nothing. As printed, the sentence makes the truly most perfect the one thing that DOES need the universal perfection, which is the opposite of what the exception is for.

1100C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: « Occultior quidem tanquam invisibilior, et magis simplificata et vivificata. »

Conjecture: unificata

Hugh's gloss two sentences later restores the word twice: 'Occultior, inquit, est in eo quod invisibilior est, et magis simplificata, et unificata. In eo occultior est quod... propinquior simplicitati, et unitati Deitatis.' The LITTERA of the same lemma in chunk 0061 at 1099B also prints 'magis simplificata et unificata'. 'vivificata' substitutes life for the unity that is the whole point of the pairing with 'simplificata'.

1104C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Sequitur: « Etenim nihil per se perfectum indigens universalis perfectionis, nisi vere perfectissimum, et ante perfectum. » ... quia nihil est per se perfectum, et nihil quod non sit per se imperfectum, et quod non sit indigens per se invisibilis, vel omnis perfectionis, nisi illud bonum summum.

Conjecture: « invisibilis » is a misprint for « universalis »; read 'indigens per se universalis, vel omnis perfectionis' — 'needy of the universal, that is, of every perfection.'

The lemma Hugh is glossing stands three lines above in the same paragraph and prints the word correctly: « nihil per se perfectum indigens universalis perfectionis. » Hugh's own explanatory doublet — « vel omnis perfectionis » ('or of every perfection') — is the standing gloss of universalis, not of invisibilis; the sentence as printed makes the glossator explain 'invisible' by 'every', which the immediate context forbids.

1106A — dropped-non (ours, high confidence)

Printed: Hoc est, quod dicit: « Extremae enim, » subauditur essentiae, ut sunt angeli, « participatae sunt ab excelsissimis virtutibus » in omnibus proprietatibus suis; sed non enim diverso, superiorum proprietates ad inferiorum participationem universaliter veniunt.

Conjecture: Migne's « sed non enim diverso » is « sed non e diverso » (e > enim), i.e. 'but not conversely'; the negation governs the verb: '...but not conversely do the properties of the higher come universally to the participation of the lower.' Our English detaches 'not otherwise' from 'veniunt' and so asserts the very thing the clause denies.

The sentence immediately before it states the one-way rule — « quod angeli nominantur, mirum non est quia angeli ultimi sunt, et eorum proprietas a superioribus participatur universaliter » ('their property is universally partaken by the higher') — and the sentence immediately after draws the opposite conclusion from the reverse direction: « Propterea mirum est quomodo angeli, et qui ante angelos sunt... nomen virtutum assumant, cum non participent proprietatem » ('Therefore it is a wonder how the angels... assume the name of virtues, since they do not partake the property'). The lemma being expounded says the same at 1105B: « ultimae vero majorum superpositas universitates non habent. » The English as it stands makes the lower partake the higher's properties universally, which would remove the wonder Hugh is about to insist on.

1124B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Et videt etiam ipse Isaias summitatem sublimiorem « omnibus ipsis, » scilicet excelsissimis spirituum beatorum essentiis; « etiam superarcane, » id est, excellentissimo modo: « summitatem, » dico, « super principalem, » id est Deum, qui summus et principalis omnium est, supercollocatam « in medio superfirmatarum virtutum. »

Conjecture: Word-division defect: read « superprincipalem » as one word (so Migne himself prints it in the LITTERA at 1113A: « sublimiorem superprincipalem summitatem in medio superfirmatarum virtutum supercollocatam »). Hugh's gloss then identifies the summit with God — 'the superprincipal summit, that is, God, who is the highest and principal of all' — not something set above a 'principal' who is God.

As divided, 'id est Deum' attaches to 'principalem', so the summit stands ABOVE God; the very next sentence identifies the summit as God himself: « In medio enim virtutum... ipse Deus summus, et principalis sedens videtur in solio excelso et elevato » ('God himself, the highest and principal, is seen sitting upon a throne lofty and elevated'). Migne's own lemma two columns earlier prints the compound « superprincipalem summitatem » undivided.

1124D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, low confidence)

Printed: « Sed adhuc, » sive insuper etiam hoc didicit ipsum « esse omnium principium, » quia ab eo sunt omnia; et causam sanctificam, quia per eum subsistunt universa; et immutabile fundamentum eorum, quae sunt, secreta singularitate...

Conjecture: « sanctificam » for « substantificam » — 'the substance-making cause, because through it all things subsist.'

Hugh's own causal clause attached to the word states the ground of SUBSISTENCE, not of sanctification: « quia per eum subsistunt universa », and it stands in a series whose members are all being-terms ('principle of all... immutable foundation of the things that are... from which both being and well-being is'). The lemma he is expounding, printed by Migne at 1113B, reads « et causam substantificam esse ». Our English carried the plate's word through unaltered.

1131D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Si vero easdem et ordinare, et ordinari dicimus, non autem earumdem, aut ab eisdem, sed eas singulas ordinari quidem a prioribus, ordinari autem novissimas: non inconsequenter fortassis quis dixerit…

Conjecture: ordinare autem novissimas (for printed 'ordinari autem novissimas')

The clause is the distributive resolution of 'easdem et ordinare, et ordinari dicimus' — one member must be active, one passive; printed 'ordinari … ordinari' makes both passive and destroys the very distinction being drawn. Hugh's own exposition of this same lemma, printed at 1138D in chunk 0074, quotes it correctly: « ordinari quidem a prioribus, ordinare autem novissimas, » nullum inconveniens est — rendered there 'are indeed ordained by the prior ones, but ordain the last ones.' The littera and its own lemma-quotation disagree by one letter.

1137B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: « in simplicitatem animorum coelestium: tanquam » per se « in consequentibus, » id est inconvenientibus.

Conjecture: tanquam per se inconsequentibus (word-division: 'inconsequentibus' set as 'in consequentibus')

Hugh's gloss attached to the very word reverses it: 'id est inconvenientibus' — 'consequent' cannot mean 'unfitting'. Two sentences later he restates the point with both words in their negative form: 'Alioquin visibilis formatio inconsequens, et inconveniens esset.' And the littera being glossed reads, in chunk 0073 at 1131C-D, 'descendentes iterum ipsis, tanquam inconsequentibus, in simplicitatem coelestium animorum analytice reflexis' — undivided. The English follows the split plate and prints 'in things consequent, that is, in things unfitting,' a self-contradiction on the page.

1142A — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: quod apparet ex eo quod aliquando offensione et concursu corporum sine attritione inde etiam excutitur ubi non esse videbatur.

Conjecture: sive attritione (for printed 'sine attritione')

The next sentence makes attrition the sole cause of the striking-out: '« Neglectus » quidem, et non motus … « non esse putatur; attritu autem » sive attritione, provocatus, et commotus « quasi quadam vindicta subito relucet »' — 'but by attrition or rubbing, provoked and set in motion … it suddenly shines forth.' 'Offensio et concursus corporum' IS attrition; the printed 'sine' denies the mechanism the immediately following clause asserts. Migne's own 'attritu autem sive attritione' shows the sive/sine confusion is live in this column.

1142D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, high confidence)

Printed: « et » propter « luculentum, » id est clarum et evidens, sine insigne ipsius figurae humanae; quia ex ipsa erectione sua magis evidentem praestat, et venustiorem aspectum;

Conjecture: sive insigne (for printed 'sine insigne')

The causal clause immediately following asserts the opposite of the printed phrase: the human figure's erectness 'affords a more evident and more comely aspect' — i.e. the figure precisely HAS the distinguishing mark, which is why 'luculentum' is predicated of it. 'Sive insigne' completes the standard gloss-triplet ('clarum et evidens, sive insigne') that Hugh uses throughout this passage. Grammar corroborates: 'insigne' is neuter nominative/accusative and cannot govern 'sine', which requires the ablative 'insigni'.