De sapientia animae Christi

Garbled or doubtful type in Migne's plate, rendered literally and logged here.

• col. 0846C (chunk 0000) — Nunquid nomina est veritas? nomina (nom./acc. pl.) cannot stand as predicate of the singular est. The likely reading is Nunquid non una est veritas? ("Is truth not one?"), which the surrounding argument wants. Rendered from the printed text as "Is truth a matter of names?"; not emended.

• col. 0846D (chunk 0000) — Sed narrant quinque somnia sua. quinque ("five") is unmotivated; the expected reading is quique / quisque ("each one relates his own dreams"). Rendered literally as "their five dreams."

• col. 0846D (chunk 0000) — jam non solum secundum morituram, sed exortam quoque a se sapientiam putant. secundum is a real word (the preposition "according to"), so it is rendered as printed: "they now think that wisdom not only will die according to them, but has also arisen from them" — where it is left with no object, as in the Latin. The intended reading is secum ("with them"), since the allusion is Job XII, 2, vobiscum morietur sapientia. An earlier draft rendered the conjecture; that has been withdrawn. Not emended in the Latin either. Pattern 18 applied 2026-08-15 (withdrawn-net read): "wisdom will die according to them" is fluent English asserting that these men merely hold an opinion, where the charge is that wisdom dies WITH them — and the paired clause exortam quoque a se ("has also arisen from them") is the contradicting neighbour. The page now reads will die according to them [cj: secundum; read secum, "with them"].

• col. 0847A (chunk 0000) — In nobis quippe quod de rerum cognitione percipimus, et eo modo, cordis intellectus de iis quae extra sunt ad veritatem indicant, quo se interius animus in repraesentatione figurat. The sentence has no finite main verb for its opening clause and the eo modo … quo correlation straddles a plural verb with a singular subject. Rendered clause-for-clause without repair; the English is as unresolved as the Latin.

• col. 0847C (chunk 0000) — the preface breaks off at quam cor perversum, with no verb (habere) supplied and no final period. Mirrored exactly: the English chunk also ends unpunctuated. Chunk 0001 opens with a new head, so nothing has been lost at our chunk boundary.

• cols. 0845D → 0846C (chunk 0000) — the column sequence jumps from 0845D straight to 0846C; there are no 0846A/0846B anchors in the TEI. Reproduced as transmitted.

• col. 0848A (chunk 0001) — Ubi quantum non est, tantum dici quod potest? The word order is disturbed (expected quid potest dici tantum). Rendered literally, "Where there is no 'how much,' what can be said to be 'so much'?"

• col. 0848B (chunk 0001) — Nullus tamen sine sapentia sapiens esse potest. sapentia is not a word — dropped i for sapientia, which the same sentence prints correctly twice in the two clauses immediately before it. Per Pattern 7 the non-word is carried into the English untranslated and in italics: "Yet no one can be wise without sapentia."

• col. 0849A (chunk 0001) — Lux lucet, et per se sciamus quod per se lucet and, two lines later, Nam ut erat, inquit, lux vera. Both are suspect (scilicet for sciamus; et for ut). Rendered from the printed text without emendation.

• col. 0852C (chunk 0002) — dittography. The plate prints Omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae ibi sunt; sed twice, once immediately before the 0852C anchor and once immediately after it — a compositor's repeat across the column break. Reproduced verbatim in both Latin and English; not silently collapsed. Per Pattern 11, the repeated occurrence (which falls entirely after the anchor, not straddling it) is now marked: "…are there; but [0852C] [d: All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are there; but] they are hidden."

• col. 0853A (chunk 0002) — Vidit ergo in divinitate, vidit et in humanitate, tamen ex divinitate sunt? et illi quae audierunt non nisi ex illustratione divini luminis videre potuerunt. The interrogative clause tamen ex divinitate sunt? has no construable subject and the following et illi quae audierunt mixes masculine plural with neuter plural. Rendered literally; the incoherence is Migne's.

• col. 0854A (chunk 0003) — Sicut non potest creatura aequali Creatori. Printed: aequali, a real word (dat./abl. sg. of aequalis, "equal"), agreeing as printed with Creatori. It is therefore rendered as printed — "As a creature cannot to an equal Creator, so neither the good of the one to the good of the other" — which leaves potest without an infinitive and the clause unconstruable. The intended reading is the passive infinitive aequari ("cannot be made equal to the Creator"), which supplies the missing infinitive and matches the comparison the argument is drawing; the English's gapped first clause now mirrors the gapped second clause of the printed Latin. An earlier draft rendered the conjecture; that has been withdrawn.

• col. 0855A (chunk 0003) — et quae termimum habet immensitatem. termimum is not a word — foul-case m for n in terminum ("an end"), which the antithesis with immensitatem requires. Per Pattern 7 the non-word is carried into the English untranslated and in italics: "and — which has termimum — immensity."

• col. 0855A (chunk 0003) — Quibus verbis (fere) adjungendum esse putatis. The parenthetical (fere) is Migne's, sitting oddly mid-clause; kept in the English as "(well-nigh)".

• col. 0856B (chunk 0003) — Noluit igitur ille unionem solvere, ne nos praesumatur unitati comparare. The impersonal passive praesumatur with an accusative-and-infinitive is irregular (expected the active praesumamus). Rendered as printed, passive and impersonal: "lest it be presumed to compare us to that unity." An earlier draft turned the passive into an active with a supplied subject ("lest anyone presume"); that smoothing has been withdrawn.

• col. 0856D (chunk 0003) — Hoc credenti qui non credit, non bene credit. The dative credenti forces "he who does not believe one who believes this," which is what the English gives; some may prefer hoc credendum qui non credit. Not emended.

Not cruces — flagged for a human

• col. 0848A (chunk 0001) — [n: (Psal. CXLVI)] on Magnus Dominus … et sapientiae ejus non est numerus. This is Ps. 146 (147):5 in Vulgate numbering; correct as printed, noted only because modern readers will look for 147.

• col. 0848A (chunk 0001) — [n: (Prov. XXI)] on Non est sapientia, non est prudentia, non est consilium contra Deum = Prov. XXI, 30. Correct.

• col. 0848C (chunk 0001) — [n: (Eccli., XXIV)] prints an internal comma after the abbreviation that the work's other notes do not use. Preserved verbatim.

• col. 0852D (chunk 0002) — [n: (I Joan. IV; Joan. I)] on Deum nemo vidit unquam. Unigenitus Filius … The compound note is Migne's own (1 John 4:12 for the first clause, John 1:18 for the second). Preserved verbatim; flagged because a naive indexer will read it as one locus.

• col. 0854B (chunk 0003) — the quotation tagged [n: (ibid.)] prints sed Spiritum Christi, with Christi set outside the italics. The Vulgate of 1 Cor. II, 12 reads sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est; Christi is the reading Hugh's argument requires, and Migne's roman type appears to mark it as the author's substitution. Left exactly as printed, italic runs and all.

• col. 0854B (chunk 0003) — likewise Nobis autem revelavit Deus per Spiritum sanctum?, where sanctum falls outside the italic run. Rendered with the same split ("through the Spirit,* the holy one?"); an English reader will find the seam awkward, but the run boundary is Migne's.

• col. 0856B (chunk 0003) — Cujus non sum dignus ut solvam corrigiam calceamenti ejus [n: (Joan. I)] has ejus outside the italic run. The English preserves the split ("… the latchet of the shoe of him"), which reads stiffly; a normalizing editor would move the italic close after ejus.* Flagged rather than silently fixed.

• heads (chunks 0001–0003) — all three carry the same head, SEQUITUR Decisio quaestionis …, with (cont.) appended by the chunker on 0002 and 0003. The (cont.) marker is passed through in the English heads unchanged; it is our apparatus, not Migne's, and a human should confirm the renderer suppresses it.

• addressee — the preface is directed only to G.; the initial is not expanded here.

<!-- corpus-polarity-sweep 2026-07-28 --> ## Corpus polarity sweep — 2026-07-28

Blind Opus read of the Latin/English pair for sense-reversing defects (one word or one letter asserting the opposite of what the context requires). 2 site(s). Migne's defects are recorded here and rendered literally in the English; our own errors were fixed in place. Full context: data/sweeps/corpus-polarity/REPORT.md.

0846C — dropped-non (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Nunquid nomina est veritas? Ecce (ut interim de Deo taceamus) quid est quod dialectica tot diversas et tam adversas, ne dicam perversas habet sententias? Nunquid omnes noverunt unum id quod est, sed amore fallendi diversa finxerunt?

Conjecture: Nunquid non una est veritas? — the plate's nomina is a word-division/haplography of non una; as printed, plural nomina with singular est is ungrammatical, which is the giveaway that the reading is corrupt.

The clause is the hinge of Hugh's argument that diversity of opinion comes from us, not from truth: the immediately preceding sentence asks 'quid est quod de rerum veritate tam diversa sentire solent homines?' and the immediately following one asks 'Nunquid omnes noverunt UNUM ID QUOD EST, sed amore fallendi diversa finxerunt?' — i.e. the unity of the thing known against the multiplicity of opinions. 'Is truth one?' is what both neighbours require; 'Is truth names?' introduces a nominalist question the passage never raises again. Our English smoothed the broken Latin into a plausible-sounding question rather than flagging it.

0855A — dropped-word (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Sed haec determinatio, quamvis non omnino refutanda videatur, est tamen multo competentior et commodior expositio ad quam sententia haec accommodari possit.

Conjecture: est tamen ALIA multo competentior et commodior expositio ad quam sententia haec accommodari possit — 'yet there is ANOTHER far more fitting and convenient exposition to which this opinion can be accommodated.' The plate as printed makes 'haec determinatio' itself the more fitting exposition, i.e. the opposite of what Hugh goes on to do.

Two neighbours contradict the printed reading. (1) The concessive immediately before it — 'quamvis non omnino refutanda videatur' ('although it does not seem wholly to be rejected') — is a demurral, and is pointless if Hugh is about to call the same determination much more fitting. (2) The sentence immediately after it drops the correspondent's determination and substitutes Hugh's own: 'Anima namque Christi idcirco omnia habere dicitur per gratiam, quae Deus habet per naturam, quia plenitudo deitatis in Verbo ei unita est...' — the alternative exposition the missing 'alia' announces. Our English is a silent repair (translation-style 7a): it recovers the true sense by reversing the comparative onto 'haec determinatio' ('far less suitable than the more convenient exposition'), so the printed defect leaves no trace for the reader.