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 →
Every entry is an individual judgment call, logged per instance. Pattern numbers refer to translation-style.md.
Chunk 0000
0665D — justicabitur for justificabitur. Printed: "Unde et secundum eos dicitur merito quia ex operibus legis non justicabitur omnis homo." justicabitur is not a Latin word; the intended reading is certainly justificabitur (the same clause is quoted correctly at 0665B, 0667B, 0668A and elsewhere in the work). Under Pattern 7's non-word class it is carried into the English untranslated, in italics: "no man justicabitur." Compositor's omission of the fi syllable.
*0666A–B — italic run closes inside the parenthesis: Abba (Pater ).* Printed: Non enim accepistis iterum spiritum servitutis in timore, sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis in quo [0666B] clamamus: Abba (Pater ) [n: (Rom. VIII)]. The closing italic marker falls after Pater and before the space + closing parenthesis, so the ) stands outside the italic run. Mirrored exactly in the English — "Abba (Father )" — rather than rebalancing to "(Father)". Typographic defect of the plate, not of the transform.
0667C — note [n: (Num. XXX)] on a passage that is not Numbers 30. The clause glossed ("offerat hoc vel illud … et remittetur ei, et propitius ei erit Dominus") answers to Leviticus 4–5 / Numbers 15. Migne's citation reproduced verbatim per the marker rule; flagged only so the indexer's refDisplay is not mistaken for a resolution.
0667B — note [n: (Rom. III)] on Arbitramur hominem justificari per fidem sine operibus legis. Correct as printed (Rom. 3:28); logged because the same lemma recurs at 0668B and at 0670A without a note, and the parallel may look like a dropped marker.
0668A — legiszelatores (run-together type). Printed: "Propter quosdam legiszelatores, quos lucrifacere potius quam scandalizare cupiebat." Two words set as one; the intended reading is legis zelatores, "zealots for the law." Pattern 10 (split/run-together type is non-word type): carried into the English untranslated in italics, spacing as printed — "legiszelatores."
0668A–B — exoperibus (run-together type) inside a scripture lemma. Printed: "Hinc est quod non dicit ex lege, sed exoperibus legis non justificabitur omnis [0668B] caro." Intended reading ex operibus. Carried untranslated in italics per Pattern 10; because the run already sits inside an italic lemma it takes no second italic marker, per that pattern's closing rule. The same phrase is set correctly as two words in the immediately preceding sentence, which is the evidence.
0668C — Augustine reference left unresolved. "in quibus aliquando, ut Augustinus scribit, sibi visus est adversari testimoniis legis et prophetarum textus apostolici sermonis." Migne prints no [n: …] here; no citation supplied, per the no-invention rule.
Chunk 0001
0670B — Gratia Dei sum in quod sum for id quod sum. Printed: "Gratia, inquit, Dei sum in quod sum [n: (I Cor. XV)]." 1 Cor. 15:10 reads gratia Dei sum id quod sum. in for id is a real Latin word, so Pattern 7 governs rather than the non-word carve-out: rendered literally, "I am in what I am." Near-certain misreading of id.
0671D — double negative reverses the argument: negat … hominem non posse vivificari. Printed: "Negat autem Apostolus quod ex sola cognitione sive doctrina perficiendi; negat, inquam, et merito, hominem non posse vivificari." As printed, Richard has the Apostle deny that a man cannot be given life — the opposite of the whole surrounding argument, which is that bare knowledge cannot vivify. The intended reading is almost certainly hominem posse vivificari (the non is intrusive). Rendered as printed per Pattern 7; the same class of dropped/intruded negative is already documented for this author at 11534 col. 1054A and 11537 col. 1069D.
0671D — the same sentence is syntactically incomplete: quod ex sola cognitione sive doctrina perficiendi;. No finite verb governs the quod clause, and perficiendi has no noun. Rendered as closely as the printed words allow ("that from knowledge alone, or the teaching, of what is to be accomplished") and left unmended; the semicolon is preserved per Pattern 8.
0669C — elliptical clause Si nulla caro, nullus homo, quantum omnis homo caro; quia carnalis venundatus sub peccato. Verbless throughout; quantum stands for quantum est quod / inquantum. Rendered literally with the ellipses supplied only as English syntax requires ("If no flesh, then no man, inasmuch as every man is flesh; because he is carnal, sold under sin"), no words invented.
0670A — bare (ibid) inside an italic lemma, not a [n: …] marker. Printed: "qui justificat [0670A] circumcisionem ex fide, et praeputium per fidem (ibid)." Unlike the note at the next sentence ([n: (ibid.)], with stop), this one is set as running text inside the italics and without a terminal stop. Carried verbatim and untranslated, as printed, and NOT promoted to a note marker — the count would then disagree with noteCount: 13.
0670A / 0671B — the same Luke 10 saying quoted twice with different wording: Multi justi et prophetae … Multi reges, et prophetae. Migne prints justi at 0670A and reges at 0671B. Each translated as printed ("Many just men and prophets" / "Many kings and prophets") per the scripture policy; no harmonization.
Chunk 0002
0674A — nex for nec. Printed: "Lex autem nec docet unde homo redimi debeat, nex exhibet unde liberari valeat." nex is a Latin word (slaughter, violent death) but is unconstruable here; the nec … nec correlative in the same sentence is the evidence. Treated as non-word type per Pattern 7 and carried untranslated in italics — "nex does it set forth."
0673A — Sed quomodo in ejus nomine petimus si in ipsum credimus? As printed the question is self-answering nonsense ("how do we ask in his name if we believe in him?"); the argument requires nisi in ipsum credimus, "unless we believe in him," which is what the answering quotation (Creditis in Deum, et in me credite) supplies. Rendered as printed per Pattern 7.
0673A — note [n: (Joan. XVIII)] on Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos. The verse is John 15:12. Migne's citation reproduced verbatim; logged because the next note in the same paragraph, [n: (Joan. XV)], carries the reference this one should have.
0674A — note [n: (Joan. III)] on Qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. The verse is John 8:34. Reproduced verbatim.
0673C — the parable material is compressed without quotation marks of any kind. "Dimitte denarios centum qui debentur tibi… dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos, etc." Migne marks none of this as quotation — no guillemets, no italics. No marks supplied in the English (Pattern 6: " " is ours to supply, but the Latin here reads as Richard's own paraphrase, not as a quotation the English needs to set off).
0672D–0673A — Sine me nihil potestis facere printed twice in one lemma. "Sine me nihil potestis facere. Sicut palmes non potest fructus facere nisi manserit in vite, sic et vos sine me nihil potestis facere." NOT marked [d: …]: this is not compositor's dittography but Migne printing the summary clause of John 15:5 and then the fuller verse, and the repetition is present in the biblical text itself. Logged so a later sweep does not add the marker.
Chunk 0003
0675A–B — constat quid de criminosis, haec nec exponi debeant. Printed as an indirect question introduced by quid with a plural subjunctive and a resumptive haec; the sense requires quod de criminosis haec nec exponi debeant ("that these things ought not to be expounded of the criminal"). Rendered as literally as the printed words allow, with the comma preserved per Pattern 8.
0676C — note [n: (Exod. XLII.)] on Omnia quae locutus est Dominus faciemus. Exodus has forty chapters; the verse is Exod. 24:3, cited correctly as [n: (Exod. XXIV)] in chunk 0002 at 0672A. Reproduced verbatim per the marker rule.
0676D — Sed unde hoc bonum accidit. bonum has no construction: the sentence asks whence the error just described arises, so bonum is either intrusive or displaced from the preceding cooperatur in bonum. Rendered literally ("But whence does this good come about") per Pattern 7.
0678A — Videntur itaque esse duo genera operum insolubilium, unum autem genus operum solubilium, vera perseverantium bona, perseverantia non poenitentium mala, et nullo termino delenda. The apposition is disordered: two kinds of insoluble works are announced and three items follow, and vera/perseverantia look like a transposed pair (vere perseverantium bona / perseverantia non poenitentium mala would give the required sense — the goods of those truly persevering, the persisting evils of the impenitent). Rendered word-for-word as printed, no transposition.
0678A — Sed quoniam igne consumi nequeant, sed in aeternum maneant. Sed … sed with no adversative force, and the subjunctives have no governing verb. Rendered literally; the sentence is left as the anacoluthon it is.
0678B — full stop mid-sentence followed by lowercase: mercedem accipiet. si cujus opus arserit. Migne prints a terminal stop and then continues in lower case. Both the stop and the lower-case opening are preserved in the English ("he shall receive a reward. if any man's work burn…") per Pattern 8 — never delete a mark the plate prints. Same defect class as 11542 col. 1041D.
0677C — Si igitur per hujusmodi mercedem acquirimus, quid aliud … intelligere debemus. Interrogative in form, closed with a full stop rather than a question mark. Preserved as printed per Pattern 8.
0677A — Paul's thorn referred to without citation. "Nam illud a se auferri ter postulavit" (2 Cor. 12:8). Migne prints no note; none supplied.
Chunk 0004
0678D — interpolatae infamiae for infestationi / vexationi. Printed: "Qui igitur interpolatae infamiae traditus fuerit, pro certo habet quomodo poenitere." The whole passage turns on vexatio interpolata (intermittent vexation), named four times in the surrounding lines; infamia (ill repute) is a real word and construes grammatically but not logically. Rendered as printed — "delivered over to intermittent infamy" — per Pattern 7.
0679A–B — Notandum autem quod tradi in interitum carnis, pro certo quando homo moritur de caetero spiritus ipse carnis obsequiis pro voto non utitur. Anacoluthon: the quod clause with its infinitive tradi is never completed, and a fresh main clause begins at pro certo. Rendered literally, with an em-dash marking the break the Latin syntax makes but does not punctuate; no words supplied.
0680C — jura apostolicae sententiae. jura ("rights, laws") where the argument wants the force or sense of the apostolic saying (vim or jus singular). Rendered literally as "the rights of the apostolic judgment" per Pattern 7.
0679C — Gregory's Dialogus cited without a note. "Hinc est quod B. Gregorius in suo Dialogo…" (the Subiaco monks' attempt to poison Benedict, Dial. II.3). Migne prints no [n: …]; none supplied. Rendered as a work title per Pattern 2 — Dialogue, italic and capitalized, keeping Migne's singular.
0679C–D — [n: (Eccli. XV)] sits after the closing italic marker and after the column anchor. Printed: … quod placuerit dabitur ei [0679D] [n: (Eccli. XV)]. Order preserved exactly; the note is not pulled back inside the lemma.
Chunk 0005
0682A — note [n: (Rom. II)] on Si quis autem se existimat aliquid scire. The verse is 1 Cor. 8:2, cited correctly as [n: (I Cor. VIII)] in the very first line of this chunk. The (Rom. II) marker in fact belongs to the following quotation (Rom. 2:14–15), which carries [n: (ibid.)] — so the two notes appear to have slipped one position. Both reproduced verbatim in place per the marker rule.
RESOLVED 2026-07-28 — no correction filed, and none should be. DO NOT "FIX" THIS. The concern that the ibid. would resolve to a wrong antecedent is mistaken. Anaphora resolves against the PRINTED sequence (index-work.mjs walks back to the nearest preceding non-Ibid. locator), so (ibid.) at 0682A inherits (Rom. II) at 0681D and indexes as Rom.2 — which is the true reference for the quotation it sits on. Verified in data/index/pl/11549.json: {"refKey":"Rom.2","refDisplay":"ibid.","antecedent":"Rom. II","antecedentColumn":"681d"}.
The trap is that a citation-corrections.json entry against (Rom. II) would be applied upstream of anaphora resolution (index-work.mjs line 177), so the Ibid. would inherit the CORRECTED key and resolve to 1 Cor. 8:2 — breaking a reference that is currently right. Migne's error is confined to where he attached the first note; the anaphora built on top of it lands correctly. Following the plate is both the policy and, here, the accurate outcome.
0682B — angelus Satanas for angelus Satanae. Printed: "datus est mihi angelus Satanas stimulus carnis meae qui me colaphizet." 2 Cor. 12:7 reads angelus Satanae. As printed the nominative makes Satan himself the angel in apposition. Rendered literally, "an angel Satan," per Pattern 7 and the scripture policy.
0682A — quod rectum ab Apostolo dicitur. rectum where the sense wants the adverb recte. Adverbial neuter accusative is attested in medieval Latin, so this falls under Pattern 9 (attested spelling / usage, not a defect): translated normally as "what is rightly said by the Apostle," no italics. Logged for the record only.
0682D — Qualis, quaeso, dicenda illa existimatio rei … utrum sit aliquanti vel nihili. Interrogative in form (Qualis … quaeso), closed with a full stop; the copula is also omitted. Both preserved per Pattern 8 and Pattern 7.
0683A → 0684A — the plate jumps a full column-and-a-half. The last paragraph runs [0683A] … Sed a divina excellentia [0684A] omnino alienum est …: columns 0683B, 0683C, 0683D are absent from the text as transmitted, and the anchors are absent with them. The break is visible in the argument, which announces "Modis autem duobus intelligi potest amor gratuitus" and then gives only one mode before resuming mid-thought at 0684A. Anchors reproduced exactly as the source has them — the gap is not filled and no continuity is fabricated.
RESOLVED 2026-07-28 — NOT text loss. Do not reopen; this is the documented false-positive class. The heading above overstates the case. Migne's A–D marks are positional quarter-guides transcribed where they appear, not four per column, so a 0683A → 0684A jump is the normal pattern and arithmetic over the bands manufactures phantom gaps (established 2026-07-19; 49 such "gaps" examined, all same-letter, zero real). The authoritative test is TEXT CONTINUITY, and it passes cleanly here: the Latin reads … Sed a divina excellentia [0684A] omnino alienum est … — continuous mid-sentence, no mid-word break. The TEI confirms 0683B–D were never present.
The supporting argument above is also wrong: the second of the two announced modes is given — it is the Item amor gratuitus non incongrue dicitur, ubi tribuenti omnia nil nisi amor retribuitur clause immediately after the anchor, Item being exactly how the second member is introduced. Nothing is missing from this work.
0681C, 0682A — unmarked quotations left unmarked. "De his autem quae idolis sacrificantur, scimus quia omnes scientiam habemus"; "Sed non in omnibus, inquit, est scientia"; "Nam, etsi sunt qui dicantur dii…" — all quoted from 1 Cor. 8 with neither guillemets nor italics on the plate. No marks supplied in the English, matching the Latin twin; Pattern 6 permits " " where English needs it, and here it does not.
Whole-work notes
No guillemets anywhere. Both twins carry 0 « and 0 » across all six chunks. Every scripture lemma is marked by italics alone, and the commentator's own restatements of the lemmas are unmarked. Nothing was supplied.
Pattern 4 ([f: …]) deliberately not applied. This is lemma-and-gloss commentary on Paul, not a florilegium: there are no inline citation tails, and all source references are Migne's [n: …] notes. Confirmed against the prompt's genre ruling.
Head text. The single running head, "Explicatio aliquorum passuum difficilium Apostoli," is rendered "An Explanation of Certain Difficult Passages of the Apostle" throughout, with the chunker's (cont.) reproduced verbatim in that exact English form on chunks 0001–0005.
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.
### 0671D — added-negative (high confidence) Printed: Negat autem Apostolus quod ex sola cognitione sive doctrina perficiendi; negat, inquam, et merito, hominem non posse vivificari.
Conjecture: hominem posse vivificari (delete non)
The printed text makes the Apostle deny that a man CANNOT be given life, i.e. assert that knowledge alone does give life — the opposite of the whole argument. The very next sentence draws the contrast the other way: 'Sed quod Apostolus negat de sola mandati cognitione, Dominus affirmat de mandati impletione: Hoc, inquit, fac, et vives... Non dicit, si hoc scis, vives: sed, hoc fac, et vives.' And a few lines above: 'Vides quia secundum Apostolum lex nec vivificare, nec justificare potest.' What the Apostle denies is precisely that knowing vivifies; only 'hominem posse vivificari' makes the following 'Quod igitur Dominus affirmat, Apostolus non negat' coherent.
### 0673A — dropped-non (high confidence) Printed: Sed quomodo in ejus nomine petimus si in ipsum credimus?
Conjecture: nisi in ipsum credimus
As printed, faith is made the obstacle to asking in Christ's name, whereas the gloss immediately supplies the right word: 'Hoc est quod te docere voluit, cum dicit: Creditis in Deum, et in me credite' — belief is the precondition, not the bar. The sequel confirms it: 'Qui igitur quod debet implere non potest, in Christum credat, in Christo petat Patrem qui omnia potest.' Required sense: 'how do we ask in his name UNLESS we believe in him?' (nisi for si).