De Verbo incarnato

Garbled, doubtful, or judgment-requiring readings in Migne's plate, logged here. The English renders what the plate prints, per translation-style.md Pattern 7: a printed reading that is construable is rendered literally even where it is odd or says the opposite of what the argument requires, and type that is not a word at all is carried into the English untranslated, in italics (Pattern 10 for split/joined runs). Printed punctuation is preserved, supplied nowhere and deleted nowhere (Pattern 8). The conjectured reading is recorded here and only here; it is never applied to the running text. Note contents ([n: …]) always pass through verbatim and untranslated, so citation errors are flagged here only.

The work is a commentary on Isaiah 21:11–12 (Ad me clamat ex Seir…) whose second half turns technical: chapters VIII–XII argue the fittingness of the Incarnation and of the Son's role in it. The doctrinal vocabulary is therefore load-bearing and is held fixed across all eight chunks — see the table at the foot of this file.

HIGH-STAKES — flagged for Wilson

• col. 1000D (chunk 0002) — Solus autem Spiritus sanctus in Trinitate non per semetipsum custodit: nam nulla in Trinitate persona ab ipso accipit ut aliquid faciat vel facere possit. Rendered literally: "But the Holy Spirit alone in the Trinity does not keep through himself: for no person in the Trinity receives from him that he should do anything or be able to do anything."

As printed this asserts the doctrinal opposite of the argument it sits in. Richard has just built a three-term scheme: the Father keeps through the Son, through the Holy Spirit, and through himself; the Son keeps through himself and through the Holy Spirit, but not through the Father. The series requires, and the causal clause supplies the reason for, "the Holy Spirit alone in the Trinity keeps only through himself" (non nisi per semetipsum) — precisely because no person receives from him, he has no one else through whom to act. The printed non per semetipsum both breaks the descending pattern and is contradicted by its own nam-clause. The intended reading is near-certainly non nisi per semetipsum, i.e. a dropped nisi, the same dropped-word failure mode already recorded at 11534 col. 1054A and 11537 col. 1069D — both Richard, both this stretch of PL 196. Not emended: the English keeps the printed negative and this entry carries the conjecture.

Non-word type carried through (Pattern 7 / Pattern 10)

• col. 1003A (chunk 0003) — Ubi autem non esset plena primae dignitatis reparatio, nec plena resturatio. resturatio is not a word (a dropped a in restauratio, which the plate prints correctly four times in the neighbouring columns: 1002C restaurationis, 1002D restaurationis, 1005D restaurationis, 1007B restaurationis). Carried into the English untranslated, in italics: "neither would there be a full resturatio." The sentence is also the hinge of the argument — reparatio and restauratio are being distinguished, which is why the misprint is worth exposing rather than smoothing.

• col. 1009A (chunk 0006) — In quacunque, inquit, die invocavero te, velociter exaundi me [n: (Psal. LV)]. exaundi is not a word (an intrusive n in exaudi). Carried through untranslated. Because it sits inside an already-italic scripture lemma it takes no second italic marker (nested italics are not expressible), per Pattern 10: the English reads "swiftly exaundi me" inside the surrounding italic run.

Printed readings that assert or construe oddly (rendered literally)

• col. 1005C (chunk 0004) — Par fuit ut qui falsitas fuit causa perditionis, veritas fieret via salutis. Rendered as printed: "It was fitting that, who falsehood was the cause of perdition, truth should become the way of salvation." qui has no antecedent and no function; the sentence needs quia ("because falsehood was the cause of perdition, truth should become the way of salvation"), which is exactly the shape of the parallel sentence immediately following (Par fuit ut qui mortem incurrat per verbum diaboli…, where qui is a genuine relative). The compositor has almost certainly levelled the second quia to the first qui. Not emended.

• col. 1005C (chunk 0004) — Par fuit ut qui mortem incurrat per verbum diaboli, ad vitam rediret per verbum Dei. Present subjunctive incurrat against imperfect rediret in the same ut-clause. Rendered with the printed tenses ("he who incurs death … should return to life"); the expected reading is incurrerat or incurreret. Minor, but recorded so a later sweep does not treat the English tense shift as a translation slip.

• col. 0997A (chunk 0001) — Hinc est quod lenitate jubentur pilos carnis suae radere non avellere. Rendered as printed: "Hence it is that by leniency they are commanded to shave the hairs of their flesh, not to pluck them out." lenitate is a real word and construes as an ablative of manner, so Pattern 7 keeps it — but jubentur is then a plural passive with no subject anywhere in the sentence. The allusion is to Num. 8:7, where it is the Levites (Levitae) who are commanded to shave; Levitae would supply exactly the missing subject and differs from lenitate by one letter in the same letter-order. Conjecture recorded, text left alone.

• col. 0997B (chunk 0001) — Econtrario autem saepe his qui adhuc in saeculari habitu sunt, post expletas concupiscentias ad poenitentiam redeunt, corde compunguntur… his is dative/ablative where the sequence of verbs (redeunt, compunguntur, confitentur, pulsant, all third-plural indicative) requires the nominative hi. Rendered so as to keep the printed case visible ("often to those who are still in the secular habit — after their lusts are spent they return to penitence…"), which leaves the English subject dangling exactly as the Latin does. Not emended.

• col. 1009D (chunk 0006) — Vias itaque veritatis sponte deseruimus, opera tenebrarum ex industria incidimus. incido takes in + accusative; the plate prints a bare accusative. Rendered "we have of set purpose fallen into the works of darkness," i.e. reading the accusative as the goal without supplying in in the text. The parallel incidit in latrones at 1008C (same chunk) prints the preposition, which is the evidence that it has dropped here.

• col. 1010A (chunk 0006) — Nam exprobrationem et confusionem eorum qui tepescunt et defluunt in religione objicitur et improperatur illis a Domino quid agere saepe etiam saeculares personae: The sentence is broken in two places at once. (1) exprobrationem et confusionem are accusatives with no governing preposition; the parallel constructions elsewhere in the work all print ad (Ad exprobrationem itaque eorum qui sunt in Judaea, 0995B; Ad ignominiam ergo eorum, 0995C; Ad ignominiam itaque eorum qui in religione torpent, 0997C). (2) quid agere … saeculares personae has a bare infinitive with no governing verb — an indirect question needs agant, or a main verb (soleant) that the plate does not print. Rendered with the missing preposition marked as ours by brackets and the infinitive left unrepaired: "For [to] the reproach and the confusion of those who grow lukewarm and melt away in religion, it is objected and cast in their teeth by the Lord what secular persons too often to do:". Deliberately not smoothed.

• col. 1010A (chunk 0006) — perdi possunt ad unius, et unum criminis lapsum? Unconstruable as printed: unius (gen.) and unum (acc.) both attach to criminis lapsum, and the comma separates them. Rendered as literally as the printed words allow: "can be lost at the fall of one, and one, of a crime?" The probable intended reading is ad unius et unum criminis lapsum = "at the fall of one man and of one crime," picking up ad unius criminis lapsum at 1009B in the same chapter. Not emended.

• col. 1010A (chunk 0006) — et eas in saeculum pertusum mittere. Rendered literally: "and to put them into a pierced world." saeculum is a real word and construes, so Pattern 7 keeps it — but the phrase is a quotation of Agg. (Hag.) 1:6, misit eas in sacculum pertusum, "into a bag with holes," and pertusus is elsewhere used of nothing but containers. The one-letter difference sacculum/saeculum is a standard compositor's slip. A reader who meets "a pierced world" should know the plate, not the author, produced it.

• col. 1007A (chunk 0005) — et idcirco veri dici mane desiderabant. dici stands where the genitive diei is required ("the morning of the true day"); dici is itself a real Latin form (passive infinitive of dico) but yields no construction here. Treated as an orthographic variant of diei and translated normally ("the morning of the true day") rather than carried through as non-word type, since the defect is a single vowel inside an inflection and carrying it would obscure a sentence that is otherwise entirely clear. Flagged here so the decision is visible and reversible.

• col. 1007C (chunk 0005) — Sciscitanti autem Paulo apostolo an homo futurus esset, an Spiritus deorum: Responsum est a beato Dionysio, verus Deus, et verus homo… Rendered as printed, including the mid-sentence colon and the capital R that follows it (Pattern 8): "But when Paul the apostle inquired whether he was to be a man, or a Spirit of the gods: Answer was made by the blessed Dionysius, true God and true man…" a beato Dionysio makes Dionysius the answerer; the legend Richard is invoking (the Athenian altar to the unknown God, Acts 17) has Dionysius as the one questioned, so a may stand for ad. Left as printed — the ablative is grammatical and the legend circulated in more than one form.

Punctuation preserved against English habit (Pattern 8)

• col. 0996A (chunk 0000) — eo excellentius clamor supplicationis, ascendit. A comma between subject and verb. Preserved: "the more excellently does the cry of supplication, ascend." Not deleted.

• col. 0997A (chunk 0001) — Sed vae, tibi quisquis ibi es. Comma after vae, none after tibi. Preserved: "But woe, to you, whoever you are there" — the second comma is English clause punctuation for the relative, not a supplied mark inside the vae tibi formula.

• col. 0999D (chunk 0002) — Scis itaque quia hoc nomen Deus, commune est tribus. Comma between subject and verb. Preserved: "this name God, is common to the three."

• col. 1001C (chunk 0002) — quod dicitur: Dixit custos. Venit mane, et nox. A full stop breaks the lemma, where the plate elsewhere prints a colon (Dixit custos: Venit mane, et nox, 1001B, same column-run). Preserved as two sentences.

• col. 1002A–B (chunk 0003) — Dixit custos: Venit mane, et nox, ut superius jam dictum est, multi non solum ex Judaeis… The lemma runs into the following sentence on a comma, so that Venit mane, et nox has no terminal mark and multi … praenoverant has no opening one. Preserved as one continuous sentence rather than split at the lemma.

• col. 1005D (chunk 0004) — visitaret per incarnationem, redimeret per passionem. A full stop closing what is grammatically a question (Quis enim unquam praesumeret petere ut…). Preserved; no ? supplied.

• col. 1006B (chunk 0004) — Cur igitur Creatorem invocando non dicit Creator, Creator. A full stop closing a direct question. Preserved.

• col. 1006D (chunk 0004) — Unam eamdemque hominis salutem Filius operatur. Spiritus sanctus cooperatur. A full stop splitting a single antithesis whose two halves share one object. Preserved as two sentences; not merged.

• col. 1007D (chunk 0005) — cum eidem per prophetam dicitur? Utinam dirumperes coelum ac venires! and cum ipsi proclamaret? Excita potentiam tuam… A ? where a colon introducing the quotation is expected (the question is the main clause, and the mark lands after the subordinate cum-clause). Preserved in both places.

• col. 1008B (chunk 0006) — Sed viro fideli quid dicitur: Educet quasi lumen… A colon closing a direct question. Preserved; no ? supplied.

Citation notes (contents pass verbatim; flagged here only)

• col. 1007A (chunk 0005) — [n: (Psal. III)] on Exortum est in tenebris lumen rectis, misericors et miserator Dominus, which is Ps. 111 (112):4. III is presumably a truncation of CXI. Note content untouched.

• col. 1008B (chunk 0006) — [n: (Psal. IV)] on Semita justorum quasi lumen splendescit, et crescit usque ad perfectam diem, which is Prov. 4:18, not a psalm at all. The chapter number is right and the book is wrong — the reverse of the preceding case. Note content untouched.

• col. 1005B (chunk 0004) — [n: (Gen. II)] on Eritis sicut dii scientes bonum et malum, which is Gen. 3:5. Note content untouched.

• col. 1008C (chunk 0006) — Samaritanus namque custos interpretatur. Not a defect: the etymology is Jerome's (Samaria / šāmar, "to keep"), and it is the hinge of the whole tropological reading. Recorded because it is the reason custos must be rendered keeper and custodire to keep throughout — "watchman," the conventional English of Isa. 21:11, would silently destroy the identification.

Not defects (recorded so a later sweep does not churn them)

• col. 0995A (chunk 0000) — Seir ipse est qui Edon vel Esau dicitur. Edon for Edom is a widely attested medieval spelling of the name and is a proper noun in any case, so it is reproduced as printed with no italics and no emendation (Pattern 9).

• col. 0999C (chunk 0002) — ne in desperationis Caribdin incidentes. Medieval orthography for Charybdim; translated normally as "Charybdis" (Pattern 9).

• col. 1001D (chunk 0002) — sic rediet dies ut iterum recedat. rediet for redibit is an attested late/medieval future of redeo; translated normally (Pattern 9).

• col. 1008C (chunk 0006) — Iste utique Samaritanus in die, iste nos custodit in nocte. The verb is elided in the first limb, as often in this author. English cannot elide it, so [keeps us] is supplied in brackets — our words, marked as ours, not an emendation of the Latin.

Fixed christological vocabulary (held across all eight chunks)

PL 196 polarity sweep (2026-07-28)

Sites found by the volume-wide sweep for sense-reversing defects (dropped or intrusive negations, and single letters that invert a claim). All are Migne's; all are rendered literally per Pattern 7. Entries already discussed above are repeated here so the class can be read in one place.

### 0999A — letter-inversion (medium confidence) Printed: In nocte itaque, ut dictum est, supplicator jam dictus erat, et idem desiderabat, sed prae nimia confusione et humilitate petere non praesumebat.

Conjecture: diem desiderabat (diem > idem)

'Idem' can only take up 'in nocte' — he was in the night and desired the same, i.e. the night. The immediately following sentence supplies the right word and denies it: 'Cur enim illi respondetur a Domino, venit mane nisi quia verus cordium inspector noverat eum DIEM desiderare?' The suppliant desires the day (the promised 'venit mane'), not the night he is enduring.

### 1000D — dropped-non (high confidence) Printed: Solus autem Spiritus sanctus in Trinitate non per semetipsum custodit: nam nulla in Trinitate persona ab ipso accipit ut aliquid faciat vel facere possit.

Conjecture: non NISI per semetipsum custodit — "the Holy Spirit alone in the Trinity keeps only through himself" (dropped nisi; equivalently solum/nonnisi)

The whole chapter is a counting scheme: the Father keeps three ways ('Pater ergo custodit per Filium, custodit per Spiritum sanctum, custodit per semetipsum'), the Son two ('Nam Filius quidem custodit per seipsum, custodit per Spiritum sanctum, non autem per Patrem suum'), the Holy Spirit one — which is why the DOUBLED invocation excludes him: 'Cum ergo custodiae geminatio sit in invocatione de Spiritu sancto non possumus hoc recte intelligere.' As printed the Spirit keeps in no way at all, which (i) does not follow from its own 'nam' clause — that no person receives FROM him bars his keeping through ANOTHER, not through himself — (ii) destroys the 3/2/1 scheme the exclusion argument depends on, and (iii) flatly contradicts the preceding chapter at 1000A, 'Custos itaque est Dei Filius, custos est Spiritus sanctus… bonitas quae nos custodit inter nocturnos algores,' and 'Filius… custodit per Spiritum sanctum' in the very next-but-one clause.