Quaestiones in Epistolas Pauli

Garbled type, editorial anomalies, and printer errors logged per translation policy. Governed by translation-style.md Pattern 7: the English renders what Migne's plate PRINTS, never the conjectured reading, and type that is not a word at all is carried into the English untranslated (in italics in running prose; left standing as Latin inside an already-italic scripture lemma, where nested italics are impossible). Conjecture lives here and never in the running text.

Precedent withdrawn (2026-07-28). Many entries below previously claimed to have rendered "the intended reading" — the precedent set in src/english/10103/cruces.md and now superseded. 33 passages have been restored to the printed readings; each entry records the conjecture and the reading the English carried before.

Structural labels are outside this rule: QUAESTIP, QUESTIO, QAEESTIO, QUAESTIO. etc. are normalized to QUESTION by the house label convention, and the printed form is logged in the entry.

Chunk 0001 (col 0436B)

• Reading: QUAESTIP XXI. (Latin source) — the structural label QUAESTIO is misprinted with a final P for O. Rendered in the English as QUESTION XXI. (the intended label). Migne typo, not a real variant.

Chunk 0003 (cols 0442B / 0443B)

• Reading: two consecutive questions are both numbered QUAESTIO XLIII in Migne (the first at col 0442B ff., the second beginning "Rursus sic quaeritur" at col 0443B). Migne's numbering skips XLIV, so the sequence resumes correctly at QUAESTIO XLV in chunk 0004. Reproduced verbatim as printed (both QUESTION XLIII.); not silently renumbered.
• Reading: Solutio printed without a following period at cols 0442D and 0443B ("Solutio Ad hoc quidem respondent"; "Solutio Nihil est hoc"). Rendered as Solution. with period for the label, matching the house convention.

Chunk 0017 (cols 0490A / 0493A)

• Reading: potest sic quaerit cur hoc voluerit (col 0490A, QUAESTIO CCXXXV solution) — quaerit (indicative) stands where the impersonal passive infinitive quaeri is required ("it can thus be asked why he willed this"). quaerit is a Latin word, so it is rendered as printed — "it can not incongruously thus he asks why he willed this, and be answered" — and the broken construction is Migne's. Intended reading quaeri, from the coordinate infinitive responderi. (Earlier: "it can... be asked.")
• Reading: In Esau nihil odiendium nisi originale peccatum (col 0493B, QUAESTIO CCXLVII, gloss) — odiendium is a misspelling for odiendum ("to be hated"); the parallel gloss just above prints diligendum correctly. Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "In Esau nothing odiendium except original sin." Intended reading odiendum. (Earlier: "nothing to be hated.")

Chunk 0018 (col 0494D)

• Reading: QUAESTIO CCXLIV. (col 0494D, "Item Christum occidendo") — the question number regresses to CCXLIV where the sequence requires CCLIV: it falls between CCLIII (col 0494B) and CCLV (col 0494D–0495A), and the count resumes correctly at CCLV thereafter. Reproduced verbatim as printed (QUESTION CCXLIV.), not silently renumbered. Migne misnumbering.
• Reading: QUAESTIO. CCLVI. (col 0495A) — the structural label is printed with a stray period after QUAESTIO (QUAESTIO. CCLVI.). Normalized to QUESTION CCLVI. per the house label convention. Migne typo.

Chunk 0019 (col 0499B)

• Reading: De sanctitate, qua intelligitur inconstantia fidei agit Apostolus (col 0499B, QUAESTIO CCLXXII solution) — inconstantia ("inconstancy") contradicts the argument, which (following CCLXXI on the branches being "constant") requires constantia ("constancy of faith"). Rendered literally as printed ("the inconstancy of faith") per the render-don't-emend rule, flagged here. Probable Migne error for constantia.

Chunk 0020 (col 0501A)

• Reading: Propter auctoritatem principit (col 0500D–0501A, QUAESTIO CCLXXXII solution) — principit is a misprint for principii (genitive of principium); the parallel later in the same sentence prints principium correctly. Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "on account of the authority of the principit." Intended reading principii. (Earlier: "the authority of the origin.")
• Reading: [dilectiones.] (QUAESTIO CCLXXXIV, col 0502A) — an editorial bracketed variant reading (dilectiones, "loves") glossing the printed delectationes ("delights"). Reproduced verbatim per the variant-marker rule; main text rendered "delights."

Chunk 0021 (col 0508A)

• Reading: Infirmum autem suscipite [assumite ] (QUAESTIO CCCXIII, col 0507D–0508A) — the scripture lemma carries a bracketed variant verb assumite ("take up") for suscipite ("receive"), with Migne's italic-close asterisk falling after the bracketed word. Preserved the bracketed variant and mirrored the asterisk placement: Now him that is weak receive [take up ]*.

Chunk 0022 (col 0509B)

• Reading: QUESTIO CCCXVII. (col 0509B) — the structural label QUAESTIO is misprinted without the medial A (QUESTIO). Rendered QUESTION CCCXVII. per the house convention. Migne typo, not a variant.

Chunk 0024 (cols 0513A, 0514A)

• Reading: QUESTIO I. (col 0513A, opening of the First Corinthians section; also carried into the chunk frontmatter incipit) — QUAESTIO misprinted as QUESTIO (missing medial A). Rendered QUESTION I. per house convention.
• Reading: aliquando dispositio,, (QUAESTIO II, col 0514A) — doubled comma, a printer error. Rendered with a single comma.

Chunk 0006 (col 0452B)

• Reading: baptisma non solum manibus, sed etiam feminis conveniens (QUAESTIO LXX solution, col 0452B) — manibus ("to hands") is evidently a misprint for maribus ("to males"), which the antithesis with feminis ("females/women") requires (the point is that baptism, unlike circumcision, suits both sexes). Rendered literally as "suited not only to hands, but also to women" per the no-emendation rule; flagged here. Migne typo, not a real variant.

Chunk 0007 (col 0455D)

• Reading: QAEESTIO LXXXIV. (structural label, col 0455D) — QUAESTIO misprinted with transposed/garbled vowels (QAEESTIO). Rendered QUESTION LXXXIV. per house convention. Migne typo, not a variant.

Chunk 0008 (col 0458B)

• Reading: Omnia dimissa peccata erant eis per fidem et dilectionem, sed omnimodum effectum remissionis consecuti sunt (QUAESTIO XCV solution, col 0458A–B) — the sense requires a negative (sed [non] omnimodum effectum ... consecuti sunt, "but they had NOT obtained the full effect of remission"), which the following sentence confirms (they had only one of the two effects of remission before Christ's death — release from punishment, not yet the vision of God). As printed, the clause reads positively and contradicts its context. Rendered literally as printed ("but they obtained the full effect of remission") per the no-emendation rule; flagged here. Dropped non, a Migne omission.

Chunk 0009 (col 0464C)

• Reading: Non solum autem, sedet gloriamur ... in tribulationibus (QUAESTIO CXXV lemma, Rom. V, col 0464C) — sedet is a run-together misprint for sed et ("but also"). The scripture policy is the same rule as Pattern 7 — translate what Migne PRINTS — so the run-together non-word is carried through untranslated: "And not only, sedet we glory in tribulations" (left as Latin inside the italic lemma). Intended reading sed et, certain from Rom. 5:3. (Earlier: "but we also glory.")

Chunk 0010 (cols 0467A / 0467B)

• Reading: QUAESTIO CXXXIV quotes Rom V with inravit for intravit ("Per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum inravit"). Migne typo (dropped t); being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in the lemma — "Through one man sin inravit into this world." Intended reading intravit. (Earlier: "sin entered into this world.")
• Reading: same question, nculcatius for inculcatius ("quid quaerit nculcatius?"). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "what does he seek nculcatius?" Intended reading inculcatius (dropped initial i). (Earlier: "more emphatically.")

Chunk 0011 (col 0471C)

• Reading: QUAESTIO CLVIII prints por culpam for per culpam ("interior vetus est por culpam"). por is no word at all and is carried through untranslated in italics — "the inner is old por fault." Intended reading per. (Earlier: "old through fault.")

Chunk 0012 (cols 0473A / 0473B)

• Reading: QUAESTIO CLXV prints immmoderata (triple m) for immoderata ("cum magna suavitate et immmoderata delectatione"). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "with great sweetness and immmoderata delight." Intended reading immoderata. (Earlier: "immoderate delight.")
• Reading: QUAESTIO CLXVI prints a bracketed variant reading beside the main text: Adultae [adulterinae] ergo justitiae. Migne offers adulterinae ("adulterine") as an alternative to adultae ("grown, adult"). Main reading translated ("a grown justice"); the bracketed Latin variant reproduced verbatim and untranslated, per the variant-marker rule.

Chunk 0013 (cols 0477C / 0477D)

• Reading: QUAESTIO CLXXXVI prints diligentur for diligenter ("Qualiter autem de homine legis legatur diligentur intuendum est"). diligentur IS a Latin word — future passive of diligo, "they will be loved" — so it is rendered as printed: "But how it is to be read of the man of the law, they will be loved, is to be considered." The intrusion is Migne's. Intended reading is the adverb diligenter. (Earlier: "is to be diligently considered.")
• Note: QUAESTIO CLXXXVI reads cognoscit per peccatum, cui nolens resistere, vincitur — the syntax is awkward (per where the sense wants the object of cognoscit). Rendered literally ("knows through sin; to which, unwilling to resist, he is conquered...") without emendation.

Chunk 0025 (col 0517D)

• Reading: Neque principum hujus saeculi quae destruitur [qui destruuntur]. (QUAESTIO XVIII lemma, I Cor. II, col 0517D) — the scripture lemma carries a bracketed variant: singular quae destruitur ("which is brought to nought," agreeing with sapientia) with plural qui destruuntur ("who are brought to nought," agreeing with principum) offered in brackets. Both translated and the bracket preserved, per the scripture-variant handling in chunk 0021: which is brought to nought [who are brought to nought].

Chunk 0026 (cols 0521C, 0522C)

• Reading: spera (QUAESTIO XL solution, col 0521C) in charitas omnia significat, spera, et suavia — misprint for aspera ("harsh things"), which the antithesis with suavia ("sweet things") requires (charity signifies all things, harsh and sweet, pertaining to salvation). As printed, spera is unconstruable in context. As printed, spera can only be the imperative of spero, and it is rendered as such — "charity signifies all things, hope thou, and the sweet things" — the printed word put into English as closely as it allows, with the intrusion left visible. Intended reading aspera. (Earlier: "all things, the harsh and the sweet.")
• Reading: Expurgate velus fermentum (QUAESTIO XLV lemma, I Cor. V, col 0522C) — velus is a misprint for vetus ("old"), which the same question's prose confirms (vetus fermentum ... vitae vetustatem). velus is no word at all and is carried through untranslated in the lemma — "Purge out the velus leaven, etc." — while the question's prose, which prints vetus correctly, keeps "old leaven." Intended reading vetus. (Earlier the lemma read "the old leaven.")

Chunk 0027 (cols 0525B, 0526C)

• Reading: Quaeritur au inter infideles (QUAESTIO LXI, col 0525B) — au is no word at all and is carried through untranslated in italics — "It is asked au among unbelievers." Intended reading an ("whether"). (Earlier: "It is asked whether among unbelievers.")
• Reading: Unusquisque primum donum habet (QUAESTIO LXVII lemma, I Cor. VII, col 0526C) — the Vulgate reads proprium donum ("his own gift"); Migne prints primum ("first"), on which the following discussion (of the diverse grades of the faithful) builds nothing. Rendered literally as printed ("his first gift") per the render-don't-emend rule; flagged here as a probable Migne error for proprium.

Chunk 0028 (cols 0529A, 0531C)

• Reading: Omnes eamdem escam spiritatem manducaverunt (QUAESTIO LXXX lemma, I Cor. X, col 0529A) — spiritatem is no word at all and is carried through untranslated in the lemma: "All ate the same spiritatem food." Intended reading spiritualem. (Earlier: "the same spiritual food.")
• Reading: ille sibus cujus iste (QUAESTIO LXXX solution, col 0529A) — sibus is a misprint for cibus ("food"); the sentence concerns the efficacy of "that food" (the manna) compared with "this." Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "For that sibus was of the same efficacy as this." Intended reading cibus. (Earlier: "that food.")
• Reading: QUAESTIO XCXIII. (structural label, col 0531C) — the Roman numeral is malformed: standing between XCII (92) and XCIV (94) it must denote XCIII (93). Reproduced literally as printed (QUESTION XCXIII.) per the render-literally rule; flagged here as a Migne numeral error for XCIII.

Chunk 0030 (cols 0536B / 0537B)

• Reading: scientia vero ex parte destrueter (QUAESTIO CXIX solution, col 0536B) — destrueter is a misprint for destruetur ("shall be destroyed"), the form used earlier in the same question. Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "but knowledge in part destrueter." Intended reading destruetur. (Earlier: "shall be destroyed in part.")
• Reading: spes autem remunerationis (non) potest haberi sine charitate (QUAESTIO CXXII solution, col 0537A–B) — the negative non stands in parentheses, an editorial insertion signaling that the clause should read non potest ("cannot be had"): otherwise the sentence contradicts the distinction it draws (hope of meriting requires charity; hope of reward does not). Preserved the parenthetical in the English ("the hope of reward can (not) be had without charity") rather than silently emending; flagged here.

Chunk 0032 (col 0542C)

• Reading: Canetenim tuba, (QUAESTIO CXL lemma, I Cor. XV, col 0542C) — Canetenim is a run-together misprint for Canet enim ("for the trumpet shall sound"). The scripture policy is the same rule as Pattern 7 — translate what Migne PRINTS — and Canetenim is not a word, so it is carried through untranslated in the lemma: "Canetenim the trumpet, etc." Intended reading Canet enim, certain from 1 Cor. 15:52 and from the question's own prose on the trumpet. (Earlier: "For the trumpet shall sound.")

Chunk 0034 (col 0548D)

• Reading: [n: (III Cor. VI)] (QUAESTIO XVII citation marker, col 0548D) — the citation reads "III Cor." where the passage (Ecce nunc dies salutis) is II Cor. VI; a Migne numeral error (III for II). Reproduced verbatim per the marker-verbatim rule; flagged here as the intended II Cor. VI.

Chunk 0035 (col 0551B)

• Reading: QUAESTIO XXXI. [ In fame, et siti, etc. (col 0551B, opening of the chunk) — a stray unclosed open-bracket [ stands between the structural label and the scripture lemma, with no matching close-bracket anywhere in the question. Migne printing artifact (probably a dropped editorial bracket). Reproduced verbatim in the English (QUESTION XXXI. [ In hunger, and thirst, etc.) per the marker-verbatim rule; flagged here.

Chunk 0037 (col 0561B)

• Reading: constat ergo quod si baptizatus (QUAESTIO XXIV solution, col 0561B) — si ("if") stands where the subjunctive sit ("that he is") is required by the argument (the conclusion of the dilemma is that the feigned recipient is baptized, since he cannot be re-baptized on repentance). si is a Latin word, so it is rendered as printed — "it is established therefore that if baptized" — and the resulting stump of a clause is Migne's. Intended reading sit. (Earlier: "that he is baptized.")

Chunk 0045 (cols 0582C / 0583D)

• Reading: secundum humanitatom (QUAESTIO VI opening, col 0582C, "Christus etiam secundum humanitatom potest dici caput") — humanitatom is a misprint for humanitatem ("humanity"), the form used correctly in the same question's argument ("qui nondum secundum humanitatem erat"). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "Christ even according to humanitatom can be called the head." Intended reading humanitatem. (Earlier: "according to his humanity"; the two correct occurrences earlier in the question are untouched.)
• Reading: ut I otetur (QUAESTIO IX solution, col 0583D, "Omnis plenitudo divinitatis dicitur, ut I otetur") — garbled type for ut notetur ("that it may be noted"), which the parallel clause below confirms ("ut insinuetur"). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "that I otetur: that it is there in every mode of indwelling." Intended reading notetur. (Earlier: "that it may be noted.")

Chunk 0047 (col 0588C)

• Reading: a sommo and a sommo mortis (QUAESTIO IX solution, col 0588C, "nemo tam facile potest excitari a sommo ... a sommo mortis") — sommo (doubled m) is a misprint for somno ("sleep"), which the whole question requires (the elect are called "sleeping," to be wakened from "the sleep of death"). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics, both times — "wakened from sommo … from the sommo of death." Intended reading somno. (Earlier: "from sleep … the sleep of death.")

Chunk 0048 (col 0593A)

• Reading: ut salvi fierunt (QUAESTIO XIII solution, col 0593A, "non receperunt claritatem veritatis, ut salvi fierunt") — fierunt (perfect indicative) stands where the imperfect subjunctive fierent is required in a purpose clause ("that they might be saved"). fierunt is construable as a late perfect indicative of fio, so it is rendered as printed — "that they were saved" — leaving the indicative in a clause the sense wants subjunctive. Intended reading fierent. (Earlier: "that they might be saved.")

Chunk 0049 (cols 0595D / 0596C)

• Reading: Ssd quaeritur (QUAESTIO IX, col 0595D, "potest causam notare vel consecutionem. Ssd quaeritur quomodo ignorantia") — Ssd is a misprint for Sed ("but"). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "Ssd it is asked how ignorance…" (Earlier: "But it is asked.")
• Reading: QUAESTIO. XII. (structural label, col 0596C) — the label is printed with a stray period after QUAESTIO (QUAESTIO. XII.), as at chunk 0018 col 0495A. Normalized to QUESTION XII. per the house label convention. Migne typo.

Chunk 0040 (cols 0567C / 0569B / 0570D)

• Reading: adulteriora provocare (Ephesians prologue, col 0567C) — evidently ad ulteriora provocare run together ("to spur/provoke them on to further things"), which the parallel with the surrounding infinitives (confirmare … informare) requires. As printed it is no Latin word, so it is carried through untranslated in italics — "to spur on adulteriora, and also to form them to humility." Intended reading ad ulteriora. (Earlier: "to spur them on to further things.")
• Reading: Instaurare omnio, quae in coelis sunt (QUAESTIO V lemma, Ephes. I [1:10], col 0569B) — omnio is a misprint for omnia ("all things"), the reading the discussion itself presupposes. omnio is not a Latin word, so it is carried through untranslated in the lemma: "To restore omnio, which are in the heavens, etc." Intended reading omnia. (Earlier: "To restore all things.")
• Reading: integro et interrupto bono (QUAESTIO XI solution, col 0570D) — interrupto ("interrupted") stands where the sense (the intact original good in which man was created, contrasted with the later "corruption of sin") requires incorrupto ("uncorrupted/unbroken"). Rendered literally as printed ("that whole and interrupted good") per the no-emendation rule; flagged here. Probable Migne error for incorrupto.

Chunk 0041 (col 0574A)

• Reading: QUAESTIO. XXVIII. (col 0574A, "Nolite contristare Spiritum sanctum") — the structural label is printed with a stray period after QUAESTIO (QUAESTIO. XXVIII.). Normalized to QUESTION XXVIII. per the house label convention. Migne typo.

Chunk 0043 (cols 0575D / 0578C / 0579A)

• Reading: admonitionem mortalem interserit (Philippians prologue, col 0575D) — mortalem where a scribe might expect moralem ("a moral admonition"); but mortalis ("touching death/mortality") is defensible in context (Philippians on life and death, "to die is gain"). Rendered literally as printed ("an admonition of mortality"), not emended to moralem. Flagged as a possible printer error but plausibly intentional.
• Reading: majorem beatudinem (QUAESTIO VIII, col 0578C) — beatudinem is no word at all and is carried through untranslated in italics — "how he did not have greater beatudinem after the resurrection." Intended reading beatitudinem; the correct form stands elsewhere in the same question, which is left untouched. (Earlier: "greater beatitude.")
• Reading: QUAESTIO. XII. (col 0579A, "Qui spiritui servimus Deo") — the structural label is printed with a stray period after QUAESTIO (QUAESTIO. XII.). Normalized to QUESTION XII. per the house label convention. Migne typo.

Chunk 0050 (cols 0597C-D / 0601A)

• Reading: Adam est seductus, quia non credidit verum esse, quod hostis persuasit (QUAESTIO XV objection, col 0597C-D) — the objection requires Adam [non] est seductus ("Adam was NOT seduced"): the reason given ("because he did not believe true what the enemy urged") and the conclusion drawn ("thus he sinned knowingly, she through ignorance") both demand that Adam was undeceived, matching the biblical lemma Adam non est seductus (1 Tim. 2:14). As printed the clause reads positively and contradicts its own argument. Rendered literally as printed ("Adam was seduced") per the no-emendation rule; flagged here. Dropped non, a Migne omission.
• Reading: Item pugna verborum liberaverit, quia Dominus dicit: Si Filius vos liberavit... (QUAESTIO XXXII, col 0601A) — the clause is grammatically incomplete/elliptical: pugna verborum (nom.) has no governing verb, and liberaverit (subj. perf.) hangs without a construction, evidently standing for an indirect question ("[the question was] whether he had freed [them]"). As printed the clause is defective and not fully construable; it is rendered as closely as the printed words allow — "Likewise a strife of words, he may have freed [them], because the Lord says" — with the missing verb of pugna verborum left missing, as in Migne. Intended sense: an indirect question, "[it was asked] whether he had freed them." (Earlier: "Likewise there was a strife of words whether he had freed them.")

Chunk 0052 (col 0603B)

• Reading: sempliciter for simpliciter (QUAESTIO III, col 0603B: "cur non dicat sempliciter ante tempora") — e-for-i misspelling of simpliciter ("simply"). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "why he does not say sempliciter before the ages." Intended reading simpliciter, which stands correctly one sentence earlier and is left untouched. (Earlier: "does not say simply.")

Chunk 0054 (cols 0609A-B / 0611D-0612A)

• Reading: gratiam fidei, umbrae legis perferendam declarat (modus tractandi, col 0609A-B) — perferendam ("to be carried through / endured") stands where the dative umbrae legis and the parallel argument (Christ "praefert," is preferred, to prophets, angels, Moses) require praeferendam ("to be preferred to"). perferendam is a Latin word, so it is rendered as printed — "he declares that the grace of faith is to be carried through for the shadow of the law" — which leaves the dative umbrae legis unconstruable, exactly as the plate does. Intended reading praeferendam, from the parallel praefert just above. (Earlier: "is to be preferred to the shadow of the law.")
• Reading: ut tibi: Voluntarie genuit nos verbo veritatis (QUAESTIO X solution, col 0611D-0612A) — tibi ("to thee") stands where a citation- introducing ibi ("there, in that passage") is required. tibi is a Latin word, so it is rendered as printed: "as to thee:". Intended reading ibi. (Earlier: "as there:".)

Chunk 0055 (cols 0612B / 0613C)

• Reading: et in plagis [verberibus] filiorum hominum (QUAESTIO XI, II Reg. VII lemma, col 0612B) — the scripture lemma carries a bracketed variant word: verberibus ("stripes/lashes") offered alongside the printed plagis ("blows"). Both translated and the bracket preserved, per the scripture-variant handling of chunks 0021/0025: and in the blows [stripes] of the sons of men.
• Reading: quod alia finnt, Deo jubente (QUAESTIO XVII solution, col 0613C-D) — finnt is a misprint for fiunt ("are done/made"), the form used correctly earlier in the same distinction (alia fiunt, Deo permittente). Being no word at all it is carried through untranslated in italics — "that some things finnt by God commanding, others are done by God permitting." Intended reading fiunt. (Earlier: "some things are done by God commanding.")

Chunk 0056 (col 0616A)

• Reading: Possunt quidem angeli majores divi quam homines (QUAESTIO XXVI solution, col 0615D-0616A) — divi ("divine ones") stands where the passive infinitive dici ("to be said") is required by the sense (angels "can be said greater than men as regards the body ... but not as regards the purity of the mind"). divi is a Latin word ("divine ones"), so it is rendered as printed: "Angels indeed can be greater divine ones than men as regards the body…" Intended reading dici. (Earlier: "can be said greater than men.")

Chunk 0057 (col 0620D)

• Reading: Non habemus pontificem qui [non possit compati, id est noverit (QUAESTIO XLVIII solution, Hebr. IV lemma, col 0620D) — a stray unclosed open-bracket [ stands within the scripture lemma before non possit compati, with no matching close-bracket. Migne printing artifact. Reproduced verbatim in the English (We have not a high priest who [cannot compassionate, that is, has known) per the marker-verbatim rule; flagged here.

Chunk 0058 (col 0625C)

• Reading: Nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex[n: (Hebr. )] (QUAESTIO LXX solution, col 0625C) — the citation marker prints the book abbreviation with an empty chapter number ((Hebr. ), a trailing space where the chapter numeral should stand; the passage is Hebr. VII, 19). Reproduced verbatim per the marker-verbatim rule; flagged here as a Migne citation gap.

Chunk 0059 (cols 0626C / 0627B)

• Reading: Exemplar onim proprie dicitur (QUAESTIO LXXVI solution, col 0626C) — onim is no word at all and is carried through untranslated in italics — ""Exemplar" onim is properly said…" Intended reading enim. (Earlier: "For 'exemplar' is properly said.")
• Reading: Si enim cinis vitulaeaspersus inquinatos sanctificat (QUAESTIO LXXXI lemma, Hebr. IX, col 0627B) — vitulaeaspersus is a run-together misprint for vitulae aspersus ("of a heifer, [being] sprinkled"), which the same question's prose confirms (cinis vitulae aspersus). As printed it is no word, so it is carried through untranslated in the lemma: "For if the ashes vitulaeaspersus sanctify the defiled." Intended reading vitulae aspersus; the question's prose, which prints it divided, keeps its English. (Earlier the lemma read "the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled.")

Chunk 0060 (col 0631C)

• Reading: Deinde patres quidemcarnis nostrae eruditores habuimus (QUAESTIO CV lemma, Hebr. XII, col 0631C) — quidemcarnis is a run-together misprint for quidem carnis ("indeed of the flesh"; the antithesis is patres carnis nostrae / Patrem spirituum, "fathers of our flesh" vs. "the Father of spirits," which the same question's prose confirms). As printed it is no word, so it is carried through untranslated in the lemma: "Moreover we have had fathers quidemcarnis of ours as instructors." Intended reading quidem carnis. (Earlier the lemma read "fathers of our flesh as instructors"; the prose occurrence, printed correctly, is untouched.)

<!-- 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). 23 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.

0433B — added-negative (ours, high confidence)

Printed: QUAESTIO VI. Quid non sit in substantia hominis, quod in substantiis Christi. Solutio. Quia nec caro est anima, nec anima est caro; nec homo est caro, vel anima, sicut Deus est homo, et homo est Deus, et Christus est utrumque.

Conjecture: "What is NOT in the substance of man, that IS in the substances of Christ?" — the negation belongs to the first clause (substantia hominis), not to the second (substantiis Christi); the English has transposed it and so asks the opposite question.

The immediately preceding sentence, closing Quaestio III, states the reciprocal predication of Christ and then says 'quod in substantiis hominis non contingit' — 'which does not happen in the substances of man.' Quaestio VI's own solution then lists what fails in man (nec caro est anima, nec homo est caro vel anima) over against what holds in Christ (sicut Deus est homo, et homo est Deus, et Christus est utrumque), and closes 'major est unio inter Deum et hominem quam inter carnem et animam.' The lack is in man, the possession in Christ; the English question asserts the reverse.

0458A — dropped-non (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Solutio. Omnia dimissa peccata erant eis per fidem et dilectionem, sed omnimodum effectum remissionis consecuti sunt. Duplex est remissionis effectus, scilicet, carere poena, et frui gloria, alterum tantum ante mortem Christi habebant: [0458B] quia poenam actualem non sentiebant, alterum nondum acceperant, quia non videbant Deum.

Conjecture: sed NON omnimodum effectum remissionis consecuti sunt — 'but they did not obtain the full effect of remission.' Migne's plate has lost the negation; our English renders the defective Latin as printed and so asserts the opposite of what the passage is proving.

The very next sentences deny precisely what this one now grants: 'Duplex est remissionis effectus... alterum tantum ante mortem Christi habebant... alterum nondum acceperant, quia non videbant Deum' — they had only one of the two effects, and had not yet received the other. The question being answered is why, if their sins were remitted, they were still 'in inferno tenebantur'; a full effect of remission would leave the question unanswered. Cf. also the following solution: 'nec etiam eorum peccata dimissa simpliciter, nisi sub quadam exspectatione et sponsione futuri, qui pro eis satisfaceret.'

0477C — dropped-non (ours, high confidence)

Printed: Homo ante peccatum per nullam culpam infirmus vel impotens effectus est; ideo facile poterat reddere quod Deus poterat exigere

Conjecture: The Latin denies the predicate — 'by no fault was man, before sin, made weak or impotent' (i.e. he was NOT made weak). English 'was made weak or impotent through no fault' asserts that he WAS weak and merely excuses the cause; read 'Man before sin was not made weak or impotent by any fault'.

The immediately following clause draws the opposite consequence from the sentence as rendered: 'ideo facile poterat reddere quod Deus poterat exigere' ('therefore he could easily render what God could exact'), and the contrast that follows is explicit — 'post peccatum, et per peccatum talis effectus est, quod non valet solvere omne debitum' ('after sin, and through sin, he was made such that he cannot pay every debt'). Weakness is the post-lapsarian state; an English sentence that grants man weakness before sin cannot ground 'therefore he could easily render.'

0490D — added-negative (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Videtur enim non esse mihi imputandum si non facio quod sine gratia non possum facere, cum gratia non sit collata mihi, sed magis illi qui non confert mihi necessariam gratiam, cum non possit sine detrimento suo.

Conjecture: Intrusive 'non': read 'cum possit sine detrimento suo' — 'since he could [confer it] without any loss to himself.' Our English follows the printed plate faithfully.

The clause is the causal support for the objection's own charge, which is stated in the same sentence: blame falls 'magis illi qui non confert mihi necessariam gratiam' ('rather on him who does not confer on me the necessary grace'). A reason that God 'cannot [confer it] without harm to himself' exculpates the very party the sentence is accusing, destroying the objection the whole quaestio is raised to answer. The printed 'non possit' is further contradicted by the answer developed in this same discussion (and at 0489C in the preceding chunk), where withholding grace costs God nothing and wrongs no one: 'Nulla autem est iniquitas vel injustitia, si Deus non det aliquid illi, cui nil debet.'

0495B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: potest enim fieri, ut sicut Judaeis ad litteram illud peccatum est, ita in eo figuraliter nobis sit praeceptum, ne nos quaeramus. Quis ascendit, etc.

Conjecture: illud praeceptum est (praeceptum corrupted to peccatum)

The immediately preceding sentence of the same quaestio states what the words were to the Jews: 'prohibebat enim Judaeis ne dicerent, Quis ascendit in coelum' — Moses' words were a PROHIBITION laid on the Jews, not a sin committed by them; and the correlative clause 'ita in eo figuraliter nobis sit PRAECEPTUM' requires 'praeceptum' in the sicut-limb for the ad litteram / figuraliter parallel to stand.

0496C — dropped-non (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Quaeritur quomodo Judaei non credendo in Christum peccaverunt, cum scriptum sit: Propterea poterant credere non quia dixit Isaias: Deus excaecavit oculos eorum, et induravit cor**

Conjecture: Propterea non poterant credere, quia dixit Isaias (the negative belongs to poterant, not to quia)

Two lines later the same quaestio quotes the identical text correctly against itself: 'quomodo hoc verum est. Propterea non poterant credere quia Deus excaecavit, etc.' and again 'dicens: Propterea non poterant, quia dixit Isaias'; and the Solutio opens 'Verum est quod non poterant credere, sicut dicit Evangelium.' As printed the lemma asserts the opposite of the very text the question is built on (Joan. XII, 39).

0499B — added-negative (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Solutio. De sanctitate, qua intelligitur inconstantia fidei agit Apostolus; non de habilitate, quam haberent ad sanctitatem.

Conjecture: qua intelligitur constantia fidei

The immediately preceding quaestio (CCLXXI, same column band) ends: 'et illi pauci, qui conversi sunt ad fidem, si ita constantes fuerunt; patet quod illi qui in fine convertentur, erunt constantes.' Constancy of faith is the sense of 'naturaliter sancta' being defended; sanctity glossed as INconstancy of faith reverses the answer to the question just asked ('quomodo hic dicitur naturaliter sancta, quasi habens habilitatem sanctitatis?').

0502B — added-negative (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Sicut enim semetipsum pro nobis sanctificavit et non tradidit, sic et semetipsum misit, id est suam missionem vel incarnationem (quod idem est operatus est).

Conjecture: semetipsum pro nobis sanctificavit et tradidit

The whole point of the sicut...sic clause is that the Son does to himself what is elsewhere said to be done to him, so as to license 'semetipsum misit'; a denial in the sicut-limb destroys the argument it is supporting, and the sentence before it has just conceded the parallel case for the Spirit ('temporaliter etiam a seipso procedit'). It also contradicts the standard text the clause is built on ('tradidit semetipsum pro nobis', Eph. V; Gal. II).

0507C — dropped-non (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: A quibusdam etiam abstinemus, quia non est necesse eis uti, ut a carne equina, non quia aeque bona esset ad vescendum, ut bovina; sed quia opus non est.

Conjecture: non quia non aeque bona esset ad vescendum ut bovina

The clause names the REJECTED reason for abstaining, and the sed-clause names the real one: 'sed quia opus non est', matching the frame set two words earlier, 'quia non est necesse eis uti'. As printed the rejected reason is that horse-flesh IS as good as beef — which was never a reason to abstain; the sentence only works if the rejected reason is inferiority of the food.

0511D — dropped-non (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Sed nonne promissio facta est gentibus, cum Dominus dicat in Osee: Vocabo plebem meam non plebem meam**

Conjecture: Vocabo non plebem meam, plebem meam (the non belongs to the first member)

The citation is adduced as proof that a promise WAS made to the gentiles, and it is chained with two further texts of gentile inclusion ('Laetamini gentes cum plebe ejus'; 'Laetare sterilis, quae non paris'). As printed the transposed 'non' makes God name his own people 'not my people' — the reverse of the inclusion the objection needs, and the reverse of the text at Osee II / Rom. IX, 25.

0516B — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Vel mundus, id est sapientes mundi, et si Deum cognovissent secundum opera restaurationis, in potentia, non in pietate; in majestate, non in humilitate.

Conjecture: secundum opera creationis (or conditionis)

The two appositions in the same sentence deny to the philosophers precisely what the works of restoration are — 'non in pietate ... non in humilitate' names the incarnation/redemption as what they did NOT know; and the next sentence supplies the channel by which they did know: 'Notandum esse theophanias in creaturis, id est divinas apparitiones, ut in mundo, cujus magnitudo summam Dei potentiam demonstrat.' Knowledge 'in potentia' is knowledge from the works of creation, not of restoration.

0534D — dropped-word (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Item Joannes evangelista cum videret quemdam, qui non sequebatur Dominum, ejicere daemonia in nomine Christi, voluit prohibere; cui Dominus ait: Noli prohibere, qui non est mecum contra me est [n: (Marc. IX)].

Conjecture: The lemma should be Mark 9:39-40 as cited: "Nolite prohibere ... qui enim non est adversum vos, pro vobis est." The plate has substituted the contrary logion (Matt. XII, 30), reversing the sense of the Lord's reason.

The clause is offered as the ground of the command it immediately follows — "Noli prohibere" — yet as printed it supplies a reason for forbidding: a man who does not follow Christ would, on this saying, be "against me." The note itself points to Marc. IX, where the verse reads the other way. Hugh's argument also needs the tolerant form: the point being proved is that "et mali his donis saepe utuntur," i.e. that the non-follower's exorcisms were genuine gifts, not diabolical opposition.

0535A — added-negative (migne, high confidence)

Printed: QUAESTIO CXVI. Si habuero omnem fidem, charitatem autem, etc. Hic Apostolus manifeste ostendit quod fides, et caetera dona non possunt haberi sine charitate.

Conjecture: Read "quod fides et caetera dona possunt haberi sine charitate" (or "nihil prosunt sine charitate"); the printed "non" is intrusive.

The next sentences of the same quaestio argue the exact opposite and treat it as established: "ergo de fide catholica hic agit: unde constat, quod ipsa potest haberi sine charitate, et sic a malis potest haberi, quod multi negant." QUAESTIO CXXI (col. 0537A) makes the refutation explicit against the very position the opening sentence as printed asserts: "Dicunt tamen quidam ... quod fides sine charitate esse non potest: quorum error hic destruitur ... innuit manifeste, quod fides etiam perfecta potest haberi sine charitate." As printed, the heading sentence states the error the quaestio exists to destroy.

0546A — added-negative (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Item si dicatur littera ideo occidere, quia non possunt omnia ad litteram ibi observari: non pereat, qui ea observaverit. eodem modo dici potest de Evangelio.

Conjecture: Read "nonne pereat (or perit) qui ea observaverit?" — the objection requires that the literal observer does perish; "non" appears to be "nonne" truncated, or an intrusion.

The sentence immediately following spells out the parallel it is supposed to license, and it turns on the literal observer being destroyed: "Nam si hoc, nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, ... ad litteram observatur ... hic, sicut alibi, stultum et damnabile est." A clause saying the literal observer does NOT perish removes the very ground of the objection (that the letter kills) and leaves "eodem modo dici potest de Evangelio" with nothing to transfer.

0556D — dropped-non (ours, high confidence)

Printed: Non tamen ita quod lex post Christi adventum per nullum temporis curriculum licite a quoquam fieret.

Conjecture: The Latin has a double negative — non ... per NULLUM temporis curriculum — i.e. 'Yet not in such a way that through NO interval of time could the law lawfully be kept by anyone after Christ's coming' (= there was an interval in which it could). The English collapses 'per nullum' into 'through any', turning the concession into a flat denial.

Hugh has just declared for Augustine against Jerome two sentences earlier: 'Augustinus dicit quod licuit Judaeis tunc in primitiva Ecclesia eas observare' / 'Augustine says that it was permitted the Jews then, in the primitive Church, to observe them', and 'Salva reverentia secretorum, B. Augustini sententiam praeferimus sententiae B. Hieronymi'. He then presses Jerome directly: 'Sed nonne Christus etiam post Joannem legem servavit, vetus pascha celebrando? Nunquid Christus fecit quod non decuit?' The English sentence asserts precisely Jerome's position, which this whole paragraph is written to refute.

0570D — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Natura tribus modis accipitur in sacra Scriptura, scilicet pro illo integro et interrupto bono, in quo conditus est homo

Conjecture: incorrupto for interrupto — 'that whole and UNcorrupted good in which man was created'.

'interrupto' cancels its own paired adjective 'integro' ('whole') in the same phrase, and cancels the sense of the first of the three acceptations, whose proof-text follows immediately: 'secundum quam acceptionem dicitur quod omnis creatura Dei bona est'. The contrast is drawn explicitly against the second and third acceptations — 'natura corruptio peccati' and 'reliquiis illius boni naturalis, quae remanserunt in nobis post peccatum' — so the good of man's creation is precisely the one that is NOT yet broken. The English reproduces the printed reading literally.

0573C — added-negative (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: QUAESTIO XXV. In virum perfectum, etc. Quaeritur qua perfectione. Solutio. Nec perfectio potest intelligi vel de toto Christo, id est corpore et capite, vel de singulis membris.

Conjecture: Haec (or Talis) perfectio potest intelligi vel de toto Christo ... vel de singulis membris — 'This perfection can be understood either of the whole Christ ... or of the individual members'; Migne's Nec for Haec.

The solution then develops BOTH branches affirmatively, each with its own explanatory particle: 'Christus ENIM in se consummatus, in aliis crescit et proficit, sed in futuro tandem perficietur' (the whole Christ, head and body) and 'Unusquisque ETIAM tunc erit vir perfectus, tam virtutum consummatione quam corporis statura' (the individual members). A denial that the perfection can be understood of either is contradicted by the two explanations that immediately follow it; the disjunctive 'vel ... vel' after 'Nec' is also ungrammatical for a double negation (nec ... nec).

0587A — dropped-word (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: qua praemissa de bonis eorum gratias agit, commemorans non fidem et opera, sed etiam conversionis modum et malorum sustinentiam ut ad perseverandum provocet

Conjecture: non SOLUM fidem et opera, sed etiam — Migne's plate has lost 'solum', so the printed clause asserts that the Apostle does NOT recount their faith and works; our English silently repairs it by inserting 'only'

The same sentence's own main clause says 'de bonis eorum gratias agit' (he gives thanks for their good things), and the correlative 'sed etiam' is unusable without 'non solum'. The chunk opens by saying these Thessalonians 'nec per tribulationes, nec per pseudopraedicatores potuerunt moveri a fidei veritate' and 'Hos collaudat Apostolus' — their faith and works are precisely what he does commemorate.

0591D — dropped-non (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: ideo dictus est diabolus operari occulte in Nerone, non quia manifesta esset illa persecutio, sed quia illa est umbra, et figura, et imago quaedam illius, quae fiet per Antichristum

Conjecture: non quia manifesta NON esset illa persecutio — a 'non' has dropped out of the causal clause; the English silently supplies it

The objection two lines earlier is 'Nonne Nero Christum negavit, et aperte eos, qui Christum praedicabant, persecutus est?' — the persecution WAS open, and the whole point of the second solution is that 'occulte' is not said because the persecution lacked manifestness but because it is a figure of Antichrist's. As printed ('not because that persecution was manifest') the clause denies the very fact the objection has just established.

0593A — added-negative (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Si enim ei non divinum cultum exhibebunt, cum conscientia eorum dictet eis, ipsum tanquam Deum adorandum, ad mortem peccabunt, et ita videntur inexcusabiles esse

Conjecture: et ita videntur EXCUSABILES esse — the objection argues that they have an excuse; Migne's 'in-' reverses the objection into the solution's own position

The question is 'an habeant aliquam excusationem?' and the premise given (refusing worship against a binding conscience is itself mortal sin) is an argument FOR excuse, not against it. The Solutio then rebuts: 'ubi satis docet quod propter praecedentia peccata NON habebunt excusationem, etsi arbitrentur se obsequium praestare Christo' — a rebuttal that has nothing to rebut if the objection already concluded they were inexcusable.

0597C — dropped-non (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Adam est seductus, quia non credidit verum esse, quod hostis persuasit; mulier vero est seducta credens verum esse, quod serpens dicebat

Conjecture: Adam NON est seductus, quia non credidit verum esse, quod hostis persuasit

The lemma being commented on, printed three lines above, is 'Adam non est seductus, sed mulier'; the clause's own causal ground ('because he did not believe what the enemy urged') is the reason he was NOT seduced; the contrasting 'mulier VERO est seducta credens verum esse' has no contrast left if Adam too was seduced; and the very next question opens 'Quaeritur quomodo verum sit, quod non est seductus?'

0611D — dropped-non (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: unde dicit genui, ne nova intelligatur: hodie enim de praeterita; et sic innuitur esse aeterna: in qua nil est praeteritum, quasi esse desierit; nec futurum, quasi nondum sit.

Conjecture: hodie [autem] ne praeterita — i.e. the pair 'genui, ne nova ... hodie, ne praeterita'; Migne's 'enim de' has swallowed the negative 'ne', reversing the clause

The very next clause says the generation 'is eternal, IN WHICH NOTHING IS PAST, as though it had ceased to be' (in qua nil est praeteritum, quasi esse desierit). A 'hodie' that is said 'de praeterita' asserts exactly what the following words deny; the whole point of the two-word gloss is that 'genui' rules out newness and 'hodie' rules out pastness.

0626D — dropped-non (migne, high confidence)

Printed: Cum ergo aliquid legitur, quod a nobis non observatur, quaerendum est tantum quid significet, non reprehendendum; quia eo ipso, quod jam observatur, non damnatum, sed impletum probatur.

Conjecture: quod jam NON observatur

The subject of the sentence is fixed by its own opening clause: 'aliquid ... quod a nobis NON observatur' — a thing we do NOT observe. The causal clause then has to be 'because by the very fact that it is now not observed it is proved fulfilled, not condemned'; as printed ('quod jam observatur') it says the opposite of the case under discussion and destroys the argument. Note our English already reads 'is now not observed', i.e. the translation silently repairs the printed Latin — the pair is out of register at this word.