MIGNE.APP

Cruces

Flores seu sententiae ex S. Bernardo

Anonymous — read the work →

These are the edition's working notes, published as they were written. They record, work by work, where Migne's plate is defective or the reading uncertain: the printed form, what the English does with it, and why. They are not a groomed apparatus. Where a note argues with itself, withdraws an earlier decision, or leaves a question open, that is the record of how the reading was actually reached, and it is left standing — a conjecture that is visible can be checked, and one that has been tidied away cannot.

The English never silently repairs the page. A construable but wrong reading is rendered literally and the conjecture is recorded here, never applied to the text. How the English is produced and checked →

Garbled or corrupt printed readings, logged here. Governed by translation-style.md Pattern 7: the English renders what the plate PRINTS, never the conjectured reading; type that is not a word at all is carried into the English untranslated, in italics. Three entries below previously applied their conjecture to the running text (the withdrawn 10103 precedent) and have been restored to the printed readings. Also records the one standing editorial decision taken for this work.

Editorial decision (applies to both chunks)

Each sentence in this florilegium is followed by an italic source citation in abbreviated Latin (Serm. 36 in Cant., n. 3; Tract. de cont. mun. ad cler., c. 1; Epist. 82). These are Migne's citation apparatus, not authorial prose, so they are kept verbatim in Latin, unanglicized, on the same footing as [n: …] markers — even though they are not [n: …]-wrapped. Expanding the abbreviations into English work-titles would require inventing expansions Migne does not print.

Where the italic tail contains editorial comment rather than a locator (Nam vitia identidem repullulant; Nempe amorem comparis; Proverb. vulgare), that comment is translated, with the italic structure kept. Every line has been kept discrete — no two sentences run together into continuous prose.

This decision is cheap to reverse if Wilson prefers pattern 2 of translation-style.md applied to the locators as well.

Chunk 0

Chunk 1

Inline citation tails — [f: …] tagging pass (2026-07-18)

The standing editorial decision above was superseded in its mechanics (not its principle) by translation-style.md pattern 4: the locators are now wrapped in [f: …] markers so the indexer harvests them as fontes. 167 locators tagged (114 in chunk 0, 53 in chunk 1); 26 bare Ibid., 48 members of the Ibid. family resolved by the indexer. Four paragraphs carry no locator at all and are correctly untagged: the three Sunt qui scire volunt clauses at 1199D–1200A (they share the citation printed after the fourth) and Sapiens est, cui quaeque res sapiunt at 1201B.

Swallowed-sentence fix (segmentation guard, rule 3)

Comment-vs-content judgment calls

Migne's glosses in this work almost all carry an explicit gloss marker — Nam, Nempe, Adeo, id est, Sicut, Proverb. — which is the test used throughout. Marker-bearing runs were read as editorial comment: translated, kept italic, left outside the tag (1198C Nam. vitia idemtidem repullulant; 1198C Nempe amorem comparis; 1198D Nam ad violenta media convertitur; 1199A Sicut Graece loquentem non intelligit…; 1199A Nam optimum cibi condimentum fames; 1199B Nempe erga Deum; 1199B Adeo jam palam et sine pudore peccatur; 1200D id est, Non prius effundes…; 1201A Nempe ne majoris ingratitudinis rei fiant; 1201D Nam peccata populi comedis; 1202D Proverb. vulgare; 1204B Nam si impliceris infimis, non pervenies). Migne's cross-references --Vid. notas, ibid. (1200B) and nunc tomo V (1203C) are likewise comment, not locator, and are untagged.

Column anchors trapped inside a locator — partial tags

scripts/index-work.mjs matches [f: ([^\]]*)], so a [f: …] tag cannot contain a column anchor, and the tag content must survive as a verbatim substring of the Latin twin — which still prints the anchor mid-locator. Four locators are split by an anchor in the plate. In each, the tag takes the longest anchor-free stretch that still identifies the source; the remainder stays as printed italics outside the marker. The anchors themselves are untouched and in order. These four index as partial raws:

If the indexer is ever taught to skip anchors inside [f: …], these four should be re-tagged whole.

<!-- 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). 1 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.

1199B — dropped-word (ours, medium confidence)

Printed: Utinam relinquant nobis moderni Noe, unde a nobis possint operiri. Ibid., n. 19, cap. 8. Adeo jam palam et sine pudore peccatur.**

Conjecture: "Would that the Noahs of our day would leave us something whereby THEY might be covered BY US" — a nobis possint operiri has moderni Noe as subject of the passive operiri and a nobis as the agent; the English inverts both, making us the covered and them the coverers.

The inline gloss printed with the sentence is the contradicting neighbour: Adeo jam palam et sine pudore peccatur — "So openly and shamelessly is sin now committed." The allusion is Gen. 9:23, Shem and Japheth covering the drunken Noah's nakedness: the complaint is that modern prelates sin so nakedly that they leave their subordinates nothing with which to cover THEM. If, as the English has it, we were to be covered by them, the gloss about shameless, open sinning would have nothing to attach to; and the two sentences that bracket it (Multi non tanta alacritate currerent ad honores / In alto positum, non altum sapere, difficile) are both indictments of prelates, not of us.