De virginitate B. Mariae

## Col 0857A (chunk 0000) — head, and all six chapter-head repeats

• Reading (as printed): CAP. I. Quod Maria in consensu conjugali virginitatis propositam non mutavit. (chunk head; repeated with (cont.) in chunks 0002–0004)
• Note: propositam (fem. acc.) cannot agree with anything in the clause; the sense and the body of the chapter require propositum (neut., "purpose"), which is what Hugh writes throughout the text itself (virginitatis propositum non mutavit, cols 0858C, 0865C, 0870C). Per Pattern 9 a Latin gender/case mismatch has no English exponent — there is no way to render "propositam" differently from "propositum" — so the English head reads "the purpose of virginity" and the defect stays visible in the facing Latin column. No emendation made; flagged so a later sweep does not churn it.

## Col 0857A (chunk 0000)

• Reading (as printed): Ego igitur (sicut placitum fuerat, quae super hoc dicenda videbantur) stylo signans legenda transmitto.
• Note: Migne's parenthesis swallows the object of signans … transmitto (quae super hoc dicenda videbantur), so the sentence outside the brackets has no object. Punctuation follows the plate (Pattern 8): the parenthesis is reproduced where Migne prints it, and the English is left with the same syntactic hole — "I therefore (as had been agreed, the things which seemed to need saying upon this) am setting down with the pen and sending them to be read." The intended punctuation is almost certainly (sicut placitum fuerat) alone.

## Col 0858A (chunk 0001)

• Reading (as printed): matrimonium non facit coitus, sed consensus … sed intelligendum putaveras, consensus coitus, additum fuisset
• Note: Migne marks neither the quoted maxim nor the phrase consensus coitus typographically — no guillemets, no italics. Per Pattern 6, marks we supply because English needs them take straight quotes, so the maxim is rendered "intercourse does not make a marriage, but consent." consensus coitus is left unquoted and set off with dashes, since Hugh is naming the missing words rather than quoting a source. No guillemets supplied anywhere in this chunk (Latin twin has none).

## Col 0859B (chunk 0001)

• Reading (as printed): … propositum virginitatis usque in finem inviolatum custodivit!
• Note: An exclamation mark closes what is grammatically a statement completing the Quid igitur restat nisi ut dicamus … construction; a full stop is expected. Preserved as printed per Pattern 8.

## Col 0860A (chunk 0001)

• Reading (as printed): ait Apostolus: Quae sub viro est mulier, vivente viro, alligata est legi. Si autem fuerit mortuus vir ejus, liberata est a lege viri [n: (I Cor. VII)]
• Note: Migne's italic runs interleave with plain type mid-quotation (Rom. 7:2, cited as I Cor. VII — see below), and the plain run fuerit mortuus sits between the italic Si autem and the italic vir ejus. English word order cannot keep the subject after the verb, so vir ejus ("her husband") has been pulled forward out of the italic run: "is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is freed from the law of her husband." Italic-run count (3) is preserved; the boundary of run 2/3 shifts by two words. No other change.

## Col 0860A (chunk 0001) — citation

• Reading (as printed): [n: (I Cor. VII)] attached to alligata est legi … liberata est a lege viri
• Note: The verse is Romans 7:2, not 1 Corinthians 7. Note contents are reproduced verbatim and untranslated per the marker rule; the misattribution is Migne's and is recorded here rather than corrected.

## Col 0861D–0862A (chunk 0002)

• Reading (as printed): ut mihi respondeas an aut propter hoc, duo in carne una sociati sunt
• Note: an aut is a doubled interrogative particle with no second limb — the disjunctive aut has no answering member anywhere in the sentence. Rendered literally ("whether or on this account they were allied…") rather than smoothed to "whether on this account"; per Pattern 7 the printed reading stands. Probably a compositor's doubling.

## Col 0863A (chunk 0002)

• Reading (as printed): quanto magis quae neque fuit neque esse potuit, secundum carnalem commistionem non relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam
• Note: quae has no antecedent and the relative clause quae neque fuit neque esse potuit sits unattached inside the comparative. Rendered as printed ("how much more that which neither was nor could be: according to carnal mingling a man does not leave…"). The argument requires something like quanto magis [secundum illam] quae neque fuit neque esse potuit. Not emended.

## Col 0863A (chunk 0002)

• Reading (as printed): ut affectum uxoris illi praeferat; ut eum non solum sed singularem haberet?
• Note: non solum sed without a following etiam or a balancing adverb; solum is here taken adjectivally with eum (= affectum), giving "not merely sole, but singular." An alternative reading takes solum as the adverb and supposes a dropped word after sed. Rendered on the first reading; the ambiguity is recorded, not resolved in the text.

## Col 0865A (chunk 0003)

• Reading (as printed): Nequaquam ergo ex eo pensandum est conjugii sacramentum, in quo tunc sanctificaretur, sed exerceretur conjugalis castitas; et nunc sanctificaretur conjugium, sed excipitur conjugatorum infirmitas.
• Note: Both limbs run sanctificaretur … sed … with no negative, which reverses Hugh's argument (his whole point is that the sacrament is not sanctified in the carnal office). A dropped non before each sanctificaretur is near-certain. Per Pattern 7 the printed reading is rendered as it stands ("in which then conjugal chastity would be sanctified, but exercised; and now marriage would be sanctified, but the infirmity of the married is allowed for"), producing English that asserts the opposite of the surrounding paragraph. Not emended.

## Col 0865D (chunk 0003)

• Reading (as printed): Et ait Maria: Quomodo fiet istud: quoniam virum non cognosco?
• Note: A colon stands where the sense (and Luke 1:34) requires a comma or nothing; the question mark then closes a clause introduced by a colon. Both marks preserved per Pattern 8, including the second occurrence a few lines below (quomodo ergo fiet istud, ut filium pariam, et virum non cognoscam: Quia virum non cognosco.), where a colon interrupts the sentence and is followed by a capital.

## Col 0866A (chunk 0003)

• Reading (as printed): Tu vovistvirum te non cognituram
• Note: vovistvirum is run-together type for vovisti virum ("you vowed that you would not know a man"). Per Patterns 7 and 10 the whole broken run is carried into the English untranslated and in italics — "You vovistvirum that you would not know" — which necessarily leaves the object of cognituram unexpressed in the English, since virum is inside the broken run. The intended reading is not in doubt.

## Col 0867A (chunk 0003)

• Reading (as printed): cur ei postea dictum est: Joseph, fili David, noli timere accipere Mariam conjugem tuam? [n: (Matth. I.)]
• Note: The question mark falls inside the italic scripture run and inside the quotation, although the question is Hugh's frame (cur … dictum est), not the angel's. Preserved exactly as printed (Pattern 8); no mark supplied outside the run.

## Col 0867C (chunk 0003)

• Reading (as printed): Lex, inquit, dixit: « Maledicta sit sterilis, quae non parit; et quae non relinquit semen in Israel [n: (Deut. VII, 14; Exod. XXIII, 26)]. »
• Note: The only guillemet pair in the work. Migne places the citation note inside the quotation, before the closing », and leaves inquit outside the guillemets (it belongs to Hugh's frame, not the quoted Law). Both reproduced 1:1 per Patterns 5 and 6 — the note stays inside, inquit stays outside. Neither Deut. 7:14 nor Exod. 23:26 contains this wording; the "curse of barrenness" is Hugh's paraphrase of the Law, and Migne's note is an approximate locator. Note contents verbatim, untranslated.

## Col 0867D (chunk 0003)

• Reading (as printed): At tamen audiamus, quod paret.
• Note: paret (from pareo, "appears") gives "let us hear what appears," which is odd as a transition into the opponent's next objection; parat ("what he is preparing") or pariat would both fit better. paret is a real Latin form, so it is translated rather than carried through in italics (Pattern 7 / Pattern 9): "But let us nevertheless hear what appears."

## Col 0868D–0869A (chunk 0004)

• Reading (as printed): Et quia se in honore esse intellexit, non est comparata mutis insipientibus, nec similis facta est illis [n: (Psal. XLVIII)]
• Note: Hugh negates Ps. 48:13 and reapplies it to Mary, and Migne italicizes only the words that survive verbatim from the psalm, leaving Hugh's connective tissue in plain type — five italic runs interleaved with four plain ones. English word order will not carry the interleave word-for-word (intellexit must precede "in honor"). The count of italic runs (5) is preserved and each run holds its corresponding English words, but runs 1 and 2 exchange position: "she understood that she was in honor, she was not compared to the mute senseless ones, nor was she made like to them."

## Col 0869C (chunk 0004)

• Reading (as printed): elegit in terra abjectio plebis fieri et opprobrium hominum
• Note: abjectio is nominative where fieri after elegit requires the accusative abjectionem (Ps. 21:7, opprobrium hominum et abjectio plebis, is quoted with its own case intact). English has no exponent for the case (Pattern 9); rendered "chose to become on earth the abjection of the people and the reproach of men." Not emended.

## Col 0869C (chunk 0004)

• Reading (as printed): maledictum legis in carne sua pro nobis suscipiens a maledicto legis liberavit
• Note: liberavit is transitive and has no expressed object. English cannot leave the verb bare, so "[us]" is supplied in square brackets per the corpus convention for supplied words: "…set [us] free from the curse of the law." No Latin word is emended.

## Col 0870D (chunk 0005)

• Reading (as printed): quomodo in elligi oporteat quod dictum est
• Note: in elligi is split-and-doubled type for intelligi ("to be understood") — a word-division defect with a doubled l. Per Pattern 10 the whole broken run is carried into the English untranslated and in italics, spacing included: "…ought to be in elligi." The intended reading is not in doubt.

## Col 0871B (chunk 0005)

• Reading (as printed): Quod enim concepit, hoc genuit?
• Note: A question mark closes what the argument requires as a statement (it restates the premise established two sentences earlier, quod concipit, hoc parit). Preserved as printed per Pattern 8.

## Col 0872A (chunk 0005)

• Reading (as printed): in altero quidem de carne viri sumitur, in altero autem per amorem viri monstratur
• Note: monstratur ("is shown") against the expected ministratur ("is supplied") — the whole passage is about nature supplying substance (naturam substantiam ministrare, repeated three times in the surrounding lines). monstratur is a real word and is translated as printed ("is shown"), not emended.

## Col 0872A (chunk 0005)

• Reading (as printed): Nam quia in corde, quo amor Spiritus sancti singulariter ardebat, ideo in carne ejus virtus Spiritus sancti mirabilia faciebat.
• Note: in corde lacks the possessive (in corde ejus) that the answering in carne ejus has, and the quia … ideo correlation leaves the quia-clause without a verb of its own beyond the relative. Rendered as printed. The intended reading is quia in corde ejus … ardebat.

## Col 0872C (chunk 0005)

• Reading (as printed): Sic etiam posse astrui, quod in concipiendo libidinem non sensisse perhibetur.
• Note: A bare infinitive posse astrui with no governing verb — an anacoluthon carried over from the preceding putamus. Rendered with the minimum English needs ("Thus also it can be established that…"), which supplies a finite verb the Latin does not print; no Latin word emended.

## Col 0872D (chunk 0005) — head

• Reading (as printed): CAP. III. Quod sine doloris et sine virginitatis detrimento Maria Christum peperit.
• Note: sine doloris … detrimento ("without the detriment of pain") is a strained genitive — the body of the chapter says simply sine dolore peperisse. Rendered literally in the head ("without detriment of pain and without detriment of virginity") so that the parallelism Migne prints is visible.

## Col 0873D (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Quid enim impedit ut vir virum, et femina feminam tali sibi pactionis foedere et societatis amore non astringat?
• Note: impedit ut … non astringat is a double negative that inverts the objection Hugh is reporting (what hinders them from binding themselves, not from not binding themselves). Rendered as printed per Pattern 7 ("what hinders that a man should not bind a man to himself"); a dropped or intrusive non is the likely defect.

## Cols 0874A–0874B (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Cogunt igitur, ut nos [n: (si assensum coitus in conjugii pactione necessarium omnino non esse volumus … proptereaque in eodem sexu (ut si fiat)] ita a conjugii sacramento foret aliena, quemadmodum ob id ipsum fiat illicita;
• Note: The single largest defect in the work. Migne has bracketed a whole limb of Hugh's argument (roughly 60 words, running from si assensum coitus to (ut si fiat)) as an editorial note, and the bracket does not close where the note ends — the marker terminates with ] immediately after (ut si fiat), leaving the main sentence to resume at ita a conjugii sacramento foret aliena with no subject and no main verb for Cogunt igitur, ut nos …. Per the marker rule the note contents are reproduced verbatim and untranslated, exactly as printed, including the unbalanced parenthesis; the English resumes mid-sentence as the Latin does. The material inside the note is running argument, not apparatus — Wilson may want this one looked at against another edition.

• RESOLVED 2026-07-28 (Wilson): it was never a note. The <note> element is a Corpus Corporum markup error, not something Migne prints, so the marker rule never applied to it. Evidence: (1) the host sentence does not construe without the note's contents — Cogunt igitur, ut nos … ita a conjugii sacramento foret aliena leaves the ut clause with no verb, and the verb it needs, demonstremus, is inside the supposed note; apparatus cannot supply the main clause of the text it annotates. (2) The parentheses do not balance: the marked span opens (si assensum and closes (ut si fiat), beginning and ending mid-construction. (3) The content is Hugh's own voice, continuous on both sides, and looks nothing like this work's actual notes, which are short parenthetical locators ((Gen. II), two lines below). Action: patched at source, not in the chunk — data/tei-patches/11085.json drops the spurious <note> element and chunk-work.mjs applies it to the XML before the transform, so a re-harvest reproduces the fix (same mechanism as data/calfa-patches/ on the PG side). Migne's plate is not emended: not one word added, removed, or changed. The ~60 words are now translated as the running text they are; chunk 0006 noteCount 7 → 6, words 1339 → 1338, and every chunk boundary in the work is unchanged (verified by diff against a pre-patch copy). This also removed a phantom fontes record — the indexer had been reading the passage as a cited source.

## Col 0874C (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Reddenda itaque ratio, quare conjugii sacramentum … sanciri non possit.
• Note: Verbless gerundive sentence (est omitted). Rendered with the copula English requires ("the reason must be rendered"); noted because the Latin prints none.

## Col 0875A (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): ut in illius fortitudine et providentia haec (quasi suae fragilitatis consortia) requiesceret
• Note: consortia is indeterminate: neuter plural ("fellowships") in apposition to nothing, or a first-declension feminine ablative singular of a form consortia = consortium. Neither parses cleanly with haec … requiesceret. Rendered on the second reading, in apposition and without supplying a preposition — "(as though a fellowship of her own frailty)". Case cannot be shown in English (Pattern 9).

## Col 0875B (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Patefactum est igitur dilectionis sacramentum. Sacramentum dilectio, et dilectionis sacramentum dilectio.
• Note: The second sentence is verbless and repeats dilectio/sacramentum in a way that resists construing — the expected shape is something like sacramentum dilectionis dilectio [est]. Rendered as literally as the printed words allow: "Love is a sacrament, and the sacrament of love is love." Possibly a compositor's transposition; not emended.

## Col 0875C (chunk 0006) — citation

• Reading (as printed): Caput mulieris vir, caput viri Christus, caput Christi Deus est [n: (I Cor. II)]
• Note: The verse is 1 Cor. 11:3; Migne prints II. Note contents reproduced verbatim per the marker rule.

## Cols 0875C–0876A (chunk 0006) — column skip

• Reading (as printed): anchors run [0875C] … [0876A]
• Note: Migne's plate has no 0875D anchor in this text — the run of anchors skips from 0875C to 0876A. Reproduced exactly; this is not a dropped marker on our side.

## Col 0876B (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Sponsus quoque ipse uniti amoti amoris praerogativam commendans. Sexaginta inquit, sunt reginae …
• Note: Two defects in one sentence. (1) uniti amoti amoris — amoti (perf. part. of amoveo, "removed") is a real Latin word but nonsensical here; the expected reading is uniti amoris ("of a united love"), with amoti an anticipatory doubling of amoris. Because it is a real word it is translated rather than carried in italics (Pattern 7): "the prerogative of a united, removed love." It is not marked [d: …], since the run is not identical and so is not a clean dittography (Pattern 11). (2) A full stop closes commendans, leaving the participle without a main verb and stranding the Song quotation as a fragment. The stop is preserved per Pattern 8.

## Col 0876B (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Propter sacramentum ergo dilectionis aeternae Deus conjugium sancire voluit propter utilitatem propagationis humanae sexum creavit
• Note: Two independent clauses run together with no conjunction and no punctuation between voluit and propter. Punctuation follows the plate (Pattern 8): nothing is supplied, and the English runs on in the same way — "God willed to ratify marriage for the sake of the advantage of human propagation he created sex."

## Col 0876C (chunk 0006)

• Reading (as printed): Non enim secus, sed natura disparem in alterutrum charitatem amori tribuit, et tamen sexus inaequalitatem naturae discernit.
• Note: secus ("otherwise") gives no usable contrast with sed natura; the sentence immediately restates the previous one (amor conjugalis non propter sexum dissimilem sacramentum est, sed propter naturam differentem), which requires sexus — "for it is not sex, but nature, that bestows…". secus is a real word, so it is translated as printed ("For not otherwise, but nature, bestows…") and the conjecture is left here. This is the clearest single-word emendation candidate in the work.

## Whole work — quotation marks

• Note: Migne prints exactly one guillemet pair in 11085 (col 0867C, the Law's curse of barrenness), reproduced 1:1. Everywhere else — and this work is almost entirely quotation and re-quotation of Gen. 2:24, Luke 1, Ps. 48, Ps. 72 and the Song — Migne marks quotation by italics or by nothing at all, most often by nothing: the Genesis lemma Relinquet homo patrem suum… is italicized on first citation (0861C) and then repeated more than twenty times in plain type as Hugh dissects it. Per Pattern 6 no guillemets were supplied for any of these; the plain-type repetitions are left plain, and straight quotes were used sparingly and only where English genuinely needs a mark the plate does not print — six instances in all: col 0858A (the maxim matrimonium non facit coitus, sed consensus), cols 0862A–0862B (the phrase propter hoc twice, and the clauses adhaerebit uxori suae / erunt duo in carne una once each, where Hugh is naming them as phrases rather than quoting them), and col 0866D (the word desponsatio named as a word). Guillemet counts match the Latin twin 1:1 in all seven chunks.

<!-- 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). 4 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.

0864B — added-negative (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: ut in eo quod adhaeret uxori suae sacramentum sit invisibilis societatis, quae in [0864B] spiritu facienda est inter Deum et animam; in eo autem quod duo sunt in carne una, sacramentum sit invisibilis participationis quae in carne facta est inter Christum et Ecclesiam.

Conjecture: the second invisibilis should be visibilis: 'sacramentum sit visibilis participationis quae in carne facta est inter Christum et Ecclesiam'

The clause negates itself: the participation is called invisibilis and in the same breath 'quae IN CARNE FACTA EST' — a thing accomplished in flesh. The whole sentence is built on a two-term antithesis whose first limb is explicit: 'invisibilis societatis, quae in SPIRITU FACIENDA est inter Deum et animam' (invisible / spirit / still to be made) against 'participationis quae in CARNE FACTA est inter Christum et Ecclesiam' (flesh / already made). With invisibilis in both limbs the antithesis collapses and the qualifier 'in carne' is left contradicting its own adjective. The parallel restatement of the same doctrine in chunk 0006 at 0874D carries no 'invisibilis' at all on the flesh side: 'Commistio carnis in conjugibus sacramentum est illius participationis, quae est in carne inter Christum et Ecclesiam.'

0864D — dropped-word (migne, low confidence)

Printed: ut eadem carnis commistio, quae ibi inter virum et mulierem futura praedicitur, hic foedere dilectionis (quae est in spiritu) nihil prodesse demonstretur.

Conjecture: 'hic SINE foedere dilectionis ... nihil prodesse demonstretur'

Without 'sine' the plate says the mingling of flesh profits nothing BY the covenant of love — the reverse of the gloss Hugh gives in the very next sentence: 'non imperantis dissidium, sed docentis, quod SINE DILECTIONIS FOEDERE cassa sit, et virtute carens, etiamsi permaneat societas carnis.' Our English silently supplies the missing 'without' (translation-style 7a silent repair), so the printed defect is invisible to an English-only reader.

0865A — dropped-non (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Nequaquam ergo ex eo pensandum est conjugii sacramentum, in quo tunc sanctificaretur, sed exerceretur conjugalis castitas; et nunc sanctificaretur conjugium, sed excipitur conjugatorum infirmitas.

Conjecture: 'in quo tunc NON sanctificaretur, sed exerceretur conjugalis castitas; et nunc NON sanctificaretur conjugium, sed excipitur conjugatorum infirmitas' — the adversative 'sed' in each limb requires the negative it answers

As printed, the carnal office IS what sanctifies chastity and marriage — the exact thesis Hugh has just denied in the immediately preceding sentence: 'Non ergo virtus sacramenti conjugalis in carne est, sed in mente, nec ille consensus ad sanctitatem perficiendam requiritur.' The sentence is also self-cancelling: 'sanctificaretur, SED exerceretur' and 'sanctificaretur, SED excipitur' set two positives in adversative opposition, which is not Latin; 'sed' is answering a 'non' that is no longer on the plate. The English reproduces the incoherence verbatim ('would be sanctified, but exercised').

0876C — sense-reversing-letter (migne, medium confidence)

Printed: Casta enim dilectio non ex tali sexu aliter afficitur, sed in tali sexu ex tali natura. Propterea quod extra talem sexum taliter affici non potest, quia extra talem sexum non invenitur talis natura.

Conjecture: 'non ex tali sexu TALITER afficitur, sed in tali sexu ex tali natura' — aliter for taliter

The sentence exists to deny that the SEX is what affects love, and to assign the effect to nature; 'aliter' makes it deny instead that love is affected OTHERWISE by such a sex, i.e. it concedes the point being denied. The immediately following sentence prints the word the antithesis requires: 'extra talem sexum TALITER affici non potest' — 'taliter', not 'aliter', is the operative adverb. The same denial is stated two sentences earlier: 'amor conjugalis non propter sexum dissimilem sacramentum est, sed propter naturam differentem.'