Explicatio in Cantica canticorum

Translated 2026-08-17 by ten Opus agents over 48 chunks (50,355 Latin words), in two rounds of six and four, each range logging to its own cruces-NNNN.md. Those ten files are the record and are unabridged; this file is the merge. It exists because a work split across ten agents who cannot see one another will drift on its load-bearing vocabulary, and reconciling that is a required pipeline step (translation-runbook.md step 4), not a tidy-up. Concatenating is the easy half.

Work totals: 46 [var:] · 40 [sic:] · 20 [cj:] · 1 [d:] · 0 [ed:] · 0 [nt:] · 0 [f:] · 183 [n:] (183 in the Latin twins — exact parity). verify-english.mjs clean at 48/48: columns, notes and sections aligned, no duplicate paragraphs. EN/LA word ratio 1.49 work-wide (75,097 / 50,355). Structure: PROLOGUS + CAPUT I–XLII. Zero guillemets in the whole work, both languages.

§1 · WORK-WIDE CONVENTIONS — RULED AND APPLIED. DO NOT RE-DECIDE.

Set down with their reasons so a later sweep does not churn them, and so a reader can tell a considered choice from an accident.

The diminutive is load-bearing. lectulus = "little bed", lectus = "bed", everywhere, because the exposition argues the point outright twice — chunk 0002's "Et non in lecto, sed in lectulo, quia quies a talibus habita exigua est, et angusta" and 0038B's "nec tam lectus quam lectulus nominatur". An English that says "bed" for both makes Richard's argument say nothing. Held at all three sites the Latin prints it (0002, 0012, 0013), including "Solomon's little bed" at 0012, where the oddity in English is the argument. Same reasoning: adolescentulae = "young maidens".

Bride and Bridegroom. sponsa = the bride · sponsus = the Bridegroom (capitalized: he is Christ throughout) · dilectus = the beloved · amica mea = my love. Canticum canticorum = "the Song of Songs" against plain canticum = "canticle".

quies splits by sense, and the split is in the Latin. "rest" where the sense is eschatological (CAPUT X's rest of the blessed; 0521A's quiesce post laborem), "stillness" where it is the mind's contemplative quiet (0521A's In sinistra quievisti, eight words later). Two agents hit this seam independently before it was ruled — 0007 @0421C and CAPUT X — which is why it is a distinction and not drift. vacare = to be at leisure/free.

ferculum stands in italic Latin at every occurrence (0016 ×6, 0038 ×4, 0047). Migne's Cant. 3:9 matches the Vulgate exactly, so this was purely an English question — and Richard hangs two incompatible glosses on the word: quae pascit et reficit (the dish that feeds, which the first half of CAPUT XVI runs on) and ferculum a ferendo, quia fertur de loco ad locum (the litter that is carried). No English word keeps both hooks, so both reach the reader in his own words. Decided from this work's double gloss; 10804 was deliberately not followed as an authority (translation-style.md § The Song of Songs — each commentary stands on its own). Same reasoning: reclinatorium = "reclining-place" (the reclinat se et requiescit hook runs a full column), and the Dei lectio / Dei electio wordplay and pacatae / pacificatae contrast (0005 — Richard says He does not say pacatae … but pacificatae) stay in Latin, because the sentence is about the Latin words.

emissiones = "sendings-forth" (0034), never Douay's "emissions": Migne re-quotes it with the verb three times — Emittit enim cyprum, Emissiones quoque ejus, Hanc paradisum emittit hortus — so the hook must survive in English.

Two pomegranates, two words. malum punicum = "pomegranate" · malogranatum = "granate apple", which keeps the etymology Richard states (grana … whence also it is called a granate apple). Checked across 0024 and 0034: the mapping holds and is not drift.

⚑ candidatio is TRANSLATED — "whitening" — and this REVERSES a call made mid-flight. The round-1 ratification kept it in Latin on one agent's report; the merge overturned it on the evidence of all five sites. Every one stands beside candidus / candet / candidat (0035: candidatio … qui candidus est · 0045: nec tantum est candidus, sed etiam candidatio. Candidat enim), and English white / whiten / whitening shares that root — so §Song case 2's condition for keeping Latin (no English word shares the root the gloss needs) is simply not met. Swept at 0016, 0031, 0035, 0045; 0029 already had it. ⚠ Two of those sites had also added italics the plate does not print (0031, 0045) — fixed in the same edit.

Watchmen and keepers stay distinct — vigiles / custodes, because 0507B prints vigiles qui circumierunt where Richard re-quotes custodes on the same page. vigilare splits the way both agents independently made it split: "waketh" where it renders Cant. 5:2's lemma (Ego dormio, et cor meum vigilat), "keeps watch" in the surrounding prose.

Further fixed vocabulary: pietas = tenderness (separable from misericordia = mercy and from compassio) · fortium = "of the strong", never Douay's "valiant" (the fortitudo hook runs through chs. XXI–XXII) · propugnacula = bulwarks · clypei = shields · hinnuli capreae = "fawns of a roe", mother and young kept distinct · discretio = discretion · notitia = acquaintance · vitta = fillet · pigmentarius = perfumer, pigmentum = pigment · mammae = paps against ubera = breasts (Cant. 4:10 sets both side by side and 0033 glosses each in turn) · species carries both "beauty" (the speciosa chain, 0516–0517) and "by sight" (per speciem vs per fidem, 0521A) — both are in the Latin; a sweep must not flatten them.

Spelling normalized to the corpus's own house form (US: savor, odor, labor, fervor, honor — corpus counts run 66/33, 366/189, 478/159 in that direction). 13 sites in chunks 0016–0019, the only range that used -our.

Heads follow the plate's numeral form: CAPUT PRIMUM → "CHAPTER ONE.", every other chapter a numeral → "CHAPTER XVI.". Both label and italic summary are translated (11064 precedent).

§2 · WHAT THE PLATE ITSELF GETS WRONG — the finds that shape the text

The lemma of CAPUT XXX is defective: Migne prints Fons nortorum for Cant. 4:15's Fons hortorum (0035, @0491B). Marked [sic: nortorum] with "of gardens" standing outside the quarantine per 7a⁗-b, so the fountain of the whole chapter keeps its garden. Corroboration is dense and internal — hortus is set correctly 14× in 0034 alone, in 0035's own Isti sunt horti, and in both 0036 and 0037's lemmata — and the corpus control is exact: across the 5,276-file PL TEI, Fons hortorum occurs in 61 files and nortorum in one: this file, this site.

## CAPUT XXXII prints with NO closing period (0037), where all 41 other heads carry one. Pattern 8: preserved, in both languages. Not a chunker artifact — checked on the plate's own text.

Split type, carried whole (Pattern 10 + 7a⁗-b), each with the sense supplied in plain words outside the marker: hos a tendit = attendit (0020, self-corroborated three times in the same column — Qui enim bene agentes attendit, semper bonos attendunt, quales attendit) · nox a = noxia (0510C) · pot isset = potuisset and exhibui se = exhibuisse in one clause (0480D — quarantining both removes the clause's only finite verb and its only infinitive) · in perfectione = imperfectione (0420D), which is the dangerous shape: a word-division defect that lands as a perfectly valid phrase, inside a paragraph entirely about the man's imperfection, invisible to every mechanical test.

[sic:] confirmed by the corpus, not by ear. The method (from 11632, now the fleet's default): grep the full PL TEI before marking. Confirmed unique to this file, this site — emavi, ordor, signarus, terestrem, emoliescunt, comprenhendere, and Pigmen at 0431C (861 pigment- forms corpus-wide against one bare pigmen). ⚠ One marker is honestly weaker and says so: desirabilis (0520C) — 6 occurrences across 6 files, so not unique to this plate. It is marked because it fails Pattern 9's actual test (haplography, not an attested orthography) with desiderabilis printed correctly four times in the same sentence. Dropping that one marker changes nothing else.

The edition contradicts itself, and it is transcribed as printed both times: Job 29:19 diverges differently at two sites (0477B radix eorum … secus aquas, 0489A super aquas); illius / ejus alternate inside one verse of Cant. 5:15 (0515A vs 0518B).

A clause-length dittography across the 0470D–0471A column break, [d:] placed on the first occurrence because the second carries the grammar.

§3 · SCRIPTURE: 46 [var:], AND THE RULE THAT DECIDES THEM

The threshold, ruled at the round-1 merge and applied work-wide: [var:] fires on a continuous quotation functioning as a proof-text or as the thing being glossed — whether or not italics or an [n:] mark it — when the divergence changes the sense or a gloss depends on it. It never fires on pronoun-equivalence, on spelling, or on an allusive echo. Worked pair: per noctem for per noctes fires (a chapter-long exposition of one night hangs on the singular); tenui illum for tenui eum does not (same referent, nothing hangs on it). Spelling is Pattern 9: Hierusalem, coelorum, genitricis, caprae/capreae — no markers. ⚑ Ps. 26:4 at 0489A was promoted at the merge (voluntatem for voluptatem): the reading changes the sense and Richard's gloss per cujus impletionem depends on it, and it was declined only for sitting in unitalicized prose — a precondition Pattern 14 does not contain. Its founding case (10083, Hosea 1:4) was scripture introduced as proof, not a formatted lemma.

The divergences that would have destroyed an argument if a remembered Bible had been supplied — this is what the per-range naming of lemma words bought:

• Jn 14:23 as mandata mea servabit for sermonem meum servabit (0422B). Richard's gloss quotes mandata on both sides of it; "will keep my word" leaves the proof-text proving nothing.
• Cant. 3:11's in die solemnitatis et laetitiae for in die desponsationis illius (0445D). He expounds both readings in sequence — the printed one as the Ascension, then the Vulgate form outright at 0447A for the espousals. A conformed lemma collapses a two-part exposition.
• Hab. 3:3 in an LXX form, de monte umbroso et condenso (0407A), whose condensus and umbrosus the next sentence glosses.
• Cant. 3:1's singular per noctem (0410B), carrying the whole chapter.
• Cant. 4:16's fluent for fluant (0493D), jussive to future indicative, with four of Richard's own glosses reading it as consequence. ⭐ 11632 fired on this same clause for the same reason from its own plate — independent confirmation the threshold is set right.
• Cant. 5:1 lacking et bibite (0497D) — and the dropped verb is the one whose gloss occupies the chapter's whole second half (reficit et potat … inebriat).
• Ps. 41:3's ad Deum fontem vivum for fortem (0511C), the gloss drawn straight from the divergent word (de illo fonte vivo … ipsum fontem sitiunt).
• Eph. 4:26 turned from precept to statement (0481B), sol non occidit … ejus for the jussive occidat … vestram — and Richard's id est Christus only works on the statement.
• The work's last lemma diverges (0522B): Quae est ista quae ascendit, et transiens deserta? against Vulg. 8:5's de deserto — with three forms now in evidence, since this work itself prints per desertum at 0010 for Cant. 3:6.

Silence is recorded as evidence. Every named lemma checked and found to agree is itemised in its range's file rather than passed over, so a later reader can tell a checked agreement from an unchecked one. ⚠ And per Pattern 14's own note, the absence of a [var:] in the 102 earlier works is not evidence of agreement.

§4 · [cj:] — 20 APPLIED, AND A CENSUS OF WHAT WAS DECLINED

The bar (Wilson, 2026-08-15) glosses only where the printed word is real and the faithful English misleads and the wrong word is a negation or a correlative. Applied here at 20 sites, the clearest being: canimus for caminus (0436C — the blessed sing where the contrast is a little fire here against a furnace there, and Migne's own proof-text prints caminus nine words later) · vitae for vittae (0461D) · se for si (0461B, a conjunction governing a whole protasis) · qua for quam in a non tam … quam correlative (0498D) · munditiae for immunditiae (0484A, "the stench of cleanness" — ⚠ this one turns on treating a lost privative im- as a negation, and its entry says so, so the class can be withdrawn without argument) · an intruded negation at 0475C/D, flatly contradicted by the next sentence (Non possunt haec ante te silere) · ignoscit for ignescit, three sites together (0004, 0040 ×2 — withdraw them as one or not at all).

Declined, rendered literally, and named for the corpus census (WITHDRAWN-NET.md's targets): excusso jam tempore for tepore (0448D — the strongest: this work prints tepor / teporis / tepidus six times elsewhere, and "time shaken off" parallels nothing while lukewarmness shaken off parallels the weakened passions in the same clause) · fabulantur for tribulantur (0498C, "while the good tell tales" — a confident wrong reading rather than a visible hole) · ascendit for accendit (0456C/0457C) · instat for inflat (0457A) · argumentum for argentum (0498A, all 7 corpus witnesses read argentum) · effectum for affectum (0421B) · spem for sepem (0451C) · gemina for germina (0487D) · ad indigenas for indigentes (0515A) · accessit for recessit (0518D) · a toto for auro (0522D) · areolam for aureolam (0512C) · discere for deserere (0430B) · voluptatum for voluntatum (0450D) · Sponsus … non dormit at 0502B, where every following pronoun is feminine and the lemma is the bride's, so the plate makes Christ the sleepless one and then prays for her.

⚠ CAPUT IX's head prints De spirituali assensu animae where the chapter expounds quae ascendit throughout — very likely ascensu. Declined: it sits inside a ## head, and a structural label does not meet Pattern 18's bar. If it is ever glossed, 0010 and 0011 change together.

§5 · CAPUT XLII IS RHYMED VERSE, PRINTED AS PROSE

Not scouted, found in the text: the final chapter is a rhymed Marian laus — operta · portendit · referta, Holoferni · spernis · sternis, ferus · Assuerus — and Migne prints it as continuous prose with no lineation.

• It is NOT lineated by us. The plate's layout governs, as everywhere else in this corpus. The rhyme is recorded here and belongs in the "On this text" note, not in a silent re-typesetting. ⬜ If verse in this corpus is ever to be lineated, that is a conventions decision above this work's level, and it would be a rebuild, not a re-translation.
• The rhyme explains two things that would otherwise look like defects: the chapter's ellipses, and Ave Maria … tecum sit Deus for Dominus tecum — a rhyme-driven divergence, correctly declined as a [var:] because it is a rhyme line, not a proof-text.
• ⚠ Two Pattern 8 defects of OURS were found here and fixed at the merge: a supplied ? and a supplied ! where Migne prints plain commas (mulier Hebraea, quid Judaeos Aman spernis, Esther est Judaea). Caught by verify-english's question-mark parity check — the same check that caught a vanished 46-word sentence in 11632. The work now has zero sentence-type punctuation deltas against its Latin twin across all 48 chunks.
• ✅ Papae (0522B) STANDS in italic Latin — ruled by Wilson, 2026-08-17. Every English equivalent ("Wonderful!", "Ha!", "Bless me!") guesses at the tone of a rhymed poem, and the guess would be invisible to the reader as ours. Do not re-open it, and do not translate it in a later sweep.
• The coda reuses the commentary's own vocabulary (singulare ferculum, reclinatorium, turris eburnea). Recorded as weak: these are standard Marian-Song commonplaces and are not evidence about the attribution question.

§6 · OPEN — nothing here blocks the ship

Wanting the plate, not our TEI (no [cj:] fired, rendered literally):

• 0406C quasi ex terra homines esse debemus, which says the opposite of the next two sentences. Two repairs fit — quasi extra terram (matching the same chunk's quasi extra corpus fieri) or a dropped non — and neither is secure.
• 0517C sublimata est sicut Christus, et si tantum quantum Christus — no apodosis, and as printed it concedes exactly what the paragraph's last sentence denies (Sublimis igitur Maria, sed sublimior Christus). A dropped non makes it construe. The crux most wanting a second reader; it is the polarity read's business.
• 0511D Unde juxta fluenta haec resident, quia hanc quietem mentis nondum habent — two sentences after Richard equates sitting with stillness, the page says the imperfect do sit. juxta may itself be the concession.

Wanting an apparatus we do not have:

• 0443A Populus meus saturavit me vocibus, implevit me odoramentis, introduced as scripture, uncited, answering to no known reading (Isa. 43:23–24 is negative in both limbs). No [var:]: Pattern 14 needs a received reading to name.
• 0499C Cum sapientia bibe vinum (Eccli. IX) — occurs once in the entire PL TEI, here. Needs a Vetus Latina apparatus.

Will not construe, rendered as closely as the printed words allow: 0461A Si vero imo… · 0486B/C, a 40-word run with no governing verb · 0472A omnis armatura fortium esse adjungitur.

For the indexer, reproduced verbatim as required — misattributed [n:] citations: (Psal. XLII) for Isa. 42:15 (0425A) · (Job I) for Job 18:10 (0416C) · (Job LVI) for Job 36:16 · (II Par. XVII) for 2 Par. 20 · (I Machab. III) for 1 Macc. 5 · (Cant. IV) at 0447D for words that are Cant. 1:15's · (Cant. III) at 0522B for Cant. 8:5's. ⚠ Weigh each against known false positive 2 before any citation-corrections.json entry: a correction applied upstream of anaphora makes a following Ibid. resolve wrong.

Protected from future sweeps, not defects: rependi at 0484B is the gerund of repere, "of creeping", not a form of rependere · vasa … fuerit's number mismatch at 0479B is Pattern 9 · the 0523A → 0524A band gap is known false positive 1, and the text construes across the anchor.

§7 · THE BLIND POLARITY READ (step 4a) — 6 readers, 48 chunks, 8 OUR-SIDE DEFECTS FIXED

Recorded: --chunks 48 --sites 15 --ours 8. Six Opus readers, eight chunks each, none permitted to open any cruces file (the 2026-07-28 finding: every agent given the cruces returned "all already logged" and found nothing, while blind readers on the same works found four live defects). Every chunk was named clean or with findings, and every rejected candidate was named with its reason — the discipline that distinguishes a report from a reader who never read.

The eight our-side defects, all fixed. Not one was visible to any automated check, and verify-english had already passed the work.

1. 0502D — agency reversed. immaculatam, id est a peccatorum sordibus a se mundatam was "cleansed by him". a se is reflexive to the bride, the subject of the whole gloss-series; "by him" transferred the cleansing to Christ and conformed the gloss to expected doctrine. The archetype of the class: it reads better than the truth.
2. 0428C — separation read as location. quibus se extenuari vel implicari a perficiendo was "entangled in the perfecting of herself" — the opposite motion, and it dissolved the reason she withdraws at all.
3. 0439B — plural verb given a singular subject. quanto spiritualius eos expugnant was "it storms them", making faith the aggressor in a sentence whose point is that the enemy concentrates his fire on the shield of faith.
4. 0491B — a [sic:] swallowed the clause's only verb. ad proprium exerescere left an English infinitive with no predicate between two translated infinitives. Now "to grow up [sic: exerescere]", the sense fixed by semper excrescit six lines later.
5. 0490D — a [sic:] swallowed half an antithesis. Primi parentes terestrem habebant paradisum left the reader "a paradise … the heavenly one after it", opposing nothing. Now "an earthly [sic: terestrem] paradise".
6. 0493A — a feminine relative mis-bound. Fide mulier tetigit quae retro accessit made Christ the one approaching from behind, and then made him the one not pressing bodily.
7. 0502B–C — the person switched mid-run, unmarked. The plate prints Sponsus where the subject is plainly the bride (pro ipsa, two clauses later, is feminine). Our English carried "he" for four clauses and then became "she" with no marker, so a reader met two people inside one sentence-run and could not tell which was Migne and which was us. The printed Sponsus is now carried throughout and the contradiction is visible.
8. 0457C — four co-subjects collapsed to one. hanc plenius ascendit cordis levitas, naturalis benegnitas, prosperitas, vel orta aliqua causa laetitiae promoted one subject and stranded three after a colon.

Two further classes the read turned up, both ours, both fixed:

• ⚑ Chapter heads had drifted three ways in English while the Latin was uniform — CHAPTER NINE / TEN / ELEVEN against numerals everywhere else, and chapter XI's summary was "caution" in 0014 and "wariness" in 0015. Heads are an indexed field (CLAUDE.md rule 9), so a chapter spanning two chunks would have indexed under two different English titles. ⚠ The lesson: checking that the LATIN heads are uniform does not check ours. All five split chapters now match exactly; CHAPTER ONE is the only spelled-out head, because CAPUT PRIMUM is the only spelled-out Latin one.
• ⚑ Eight undeclared bare-bracket supplies ([think], [men], [is occupied], [do they suffer], [each], [it], [and], [seedlings]). scan-raw-markers.mjs scans for 10 declared marker forms only, so an undeclared bracket passes it and reaches the reader as literal brackets on the built page — the failure that hit PG pages twice. These were grammatical ellipsis supplies, not editorial content, so they are now plain text. ⬜ If a supply is ever genuinely editorial, it needs [ed:], not naked brackets.

Left unrepaired, deliberately, and named here so the next reader starts ahead: infractus at 0468B (from infringo = "broken", against our "unbroken" — the se fregerit / infractus figure nine words apart is the argument, and the corpus prints 37 infractus to weigh; wants the plate) · the undisclosed quam → quae at 0483C (a conjecture adopted silently, below Pattern 18's bar, so disclosure belongs here not in a marker) · experte for ex parte at 0522A, where 1 Cor 13:12's perfecte / ex parte antithesis is what the clause exists to make · Si vero imo at 0461A, half-translated with no cue that the plate is broken.

Migne-side cruces the read added: 0517C prints Ecclesia triumphans where every predicate in the sentence denies triumph (inferior est, defectum patitur, non aequaliter vestiri) — the moon under Mary's feet is the Church militans, and Richard prints the militans/triumphans pair himself at 0512C · 0423C, where cognito periculo suo hanc recipit credits the negligent man with receiving the grace, against the next sentence's ne in vacuum hanc recipiat · 0459D–0460A, where the protasis names levis / remissus but the apodosis needs a severe-vs-slack pair.

Positive evidence, recorded because absence of a finding must be distinguishable from absence of a reading: across all 48 chunks not one dropped or intrusive negation particle was found on our side. The 7a″ sweep checked over sixty lemmata individually and found no conformed lemma anywhere in the work — including four places where the pull toward the remembered English is strongest and was resisted: Matt. 23:24 keeps Migne's reversed camel-then-gnat order · 1 John 3:2 keeps the printed singular similis ei erit against the Vulgate's similes ei erimus · 3 Kings 19:12 keeps aurae levis against the familiar tenuis · Ps. 33:9 keeps the adapted indicative Gustat. In the genre where 7a″ predicts conformation as the dominant failure, this work has none — which is what naming the lemma words per range bought.

Richard of St Victor, Explicatio in Cantica canticorum. Range: PROLOGUS (0000–0001), CAPUT PRIMUM (0002), CAPUT II (0003), CAPUT III (0004).

⚠ The lectus / lectulus pair — how this range renders it (0002, 0003)

Fixed per the work brief and held visibly distinct through all five chunks: \lectulus\ = "little bed" · \lectus\ = "bed", with no exceptions and no elegant variation. The exposition at 0410C is what forces it: Et non in lecto, sed in lectulo, quia quies a talibus habita exigua est, et angusta → "And not in the bed, but in the little bed, because the stillness had from such things is scant, and narrow." The argument is restated at 0411B (Quaerit autem hunc in lectulo et non in lecto) and is unintelligible unless both English terms are already in place, so the diminutive is carried even where Richard is not arguing from it (0410B in lectulo hunc quaerere debet, 0411A lectulus est in quo sponsa quiescit, 0411A ad lectulum quietis).

Where lectus appears on its own, it stays plain "bed" — and 0003 is where this matters. At 0412A Multo labore lectum sibi paraverat the bride prepares a bed (not a little bed), and at 0413D Job's stratus and the bride's lectus suae quietis / lecto turbato are all "bed": Richard is now comparing her lectus with Job's overturned couch, and using "little bed" there would silently import the CAPUT PRIMUM argument into a chapter that does not make it. Stratus (0413D) is rendered "bed" as well, distinguished only by context; there is no third English diminutive in play.

Nine other agents inherit this: "little bed" is never "couch", "small bed" or "pallet", and "bed" is never "little bed".

Vulgate divergences marked [var: …] (Pattern 14)

Lemma words checked and found to AGREE (no marker; recorded so the check is auditable)

• 0000 @0406A Littera occidit … spiritus autem vivificat (II Cor. 3:6) ✓
• 0000 @0406B Gloria Dei celare verbum (Prov. 25:2), est omitted only ✓ · @0406C Et gloria regum investigare sermonem ✓
• 0000 @0406C Quem dicunt homines esse Filium hominis / Vos autem quem me esse dicitis? (Matt. 16:13, 15) ✓ · @0407A Si qua igitur in Christo nova creatura, vetera transierunt (II Cor. 5:17, igitur for ergo — no English exponent) ✓
• 0000 @0407B Quia si bestia tetigerit montem lapidabitur (Heb. 12:20) ✓ · @0407C Ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer (Ps. 118:140) ✓ · @0407C In dextera ejus ignea lex (Deut. 33:2) ✓
• 0000 @0407C Luke 24:32 Nonne cor nostrum ardens erat in nobis, cum aperiret nobis Scripturas? — abridged (Vulg. adds dum loqueretur in via), an omission not a divergence, so no marker.
• 0000 @0408A Exsultavit cor meum in Domino (I Sam. 2:1) ✓ · @0408A–B Sterilis peperit plurimos, et quae habebat plurimos, infirmata est — Vulg. 1 Sam. 2:5 et quae multos habebat filios infirmata est; compressed, sense unchanged, no marker.
• 0000 @0408B Diligam te, Domine, virtus mea (Ps. 17:2) — Vulg. fortitudo mea. Both render "strength", so the divergence has no English exponent; logged, not marked.
• 0001 @0409A Qui habet sponsam sponsus est (John 3:29) ✓ · Desponsavi vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo (Vulg. II Cor. 11:2 despondi) — lexical only · Ut exhiberet sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam (Eph. 5:27, ipse dropped) ✓ · @0409B Vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas (Eccl. 1:2) ✓
• 0001 @0409B Veni de Libano, veni (Cant. IV) — Vulg. Cant. 4:8 Veni de Libano, sponsa mea, veni de Libano, veni. Migne prints an abridgement, not a variant reading: first and last words with the middle dropped. No marker (Pattern 14 is for divergent wording); logged because the words are a named lemma of this range.
• 0002 @0411D Quaesivi, et non inveni illum (Cant. V) — agrees with Vulg. Cant. 5:6 exactly ✓. This is the control that makes the 0004 entry above a real finding: the same six words are cited correctly as (Cant. V) here and as (Cant. III) two chunks later.
• 0003 @0412A Surgam et circuibo civitatem (Cant. III) — agrees with Vulg. Cant. 3:2 ✓
• 0003 @0414A Ludam et vilior fiam plusquam factus sum, eroque humilis in oculis meis (II Sam. 6:22) — Vulg. Et ludam… et ero humilis; connective only, no marker.
• 0004 @0415D Si simplex fuero, hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea (Job 9:21) — Vulg. adds initial Etiam; abridgement only. ⚠ Rendered "of this very thing shall my soul be ignorant" and not "my soul shall not know", so that no negation particle appears in the English which the Latin does not print (7a).

Carried type — [sic: …] (Pattern 12)

• 0000 @0406C — Migne prints nonne homine estis? in I Cor. 3:3 (Vulg. and sense require homines). homine is a real form but has no grammatical slot beside estis (Pattern 12, test 1), so it is carried untranslated: are you not men [sic: homine]? Per 7a⁗ the predicate is supplied in plain words beside the marker ("men"), because the quarantined run was the whole predicate nominative and the clause Paul is making — that they are still merely men — is the point of the whole paragraph. ⚠ No asterisks inside this marker: the run sits inside an italic scripture lemma and nested italics are not expressible (Pattern 10, final clause).

Real printed words whose faithful English misleads — [cj: …] (Pattern 18)

• 0000 @0406A — ab hoc nuptiali convivio in exteriores tenebras, id est, ignorantiae caecitatem repellamus. repellamus is a perfectly good active subjunctive, so the faithful English is "let us drive away … from this nuptial banquet into the outer darkness" — i.e. an exhortation to expel, where the sense the sentence requires (and the Matt. 22:13 allusion it is built on) is that we are expelled: repellemur. Rendered as printed, with [cj: repellamus; read repellemur, "we shall be driven out"].
• 0004 @0414C — Ad quos dum accedit tepidus incalescit, et fervens amplius ignoscit. A real verb ("pardons"), and the clause is a two-member climax about fire: the lukewarm grows warm, the fervent — ignescit, catches fire. The printed word makes Richard assert something he is not arguing (that fervour issues in pardon in a sentence about the fire Christ sent on earth). Rendered "pardons the more", with [cj: ignoscit; read ignescit, "catches fire the more"].

Passages that will not construe, rendered as closely as the printed words allow

• 0000 @0405A — caecum cor a spirituali intellectum habet: accusative after a, where intellectu is required. A case slip has no English exponent (Pattern 9 family), so the English reads "it has a heart blind to spiritual understanding" and nothing is marked. Conjecture: a spirituali intellectu.
• ⭐ 0000 @0406C — the range's chief unresolved crux. Humanae ergo conversationis verba audientes quasi ex terra homines esse debemus, ne si humanitus quae dicuntur audimus, nihil divinitatis … sentire possimus. Rendered literally, "we ought to be as it were men out of the earth", which is the opposite of the argument: the next two sentences are Quasi jam non homines desiderabat esse Paulus discipulos suos and the Lord making quamdam distantiam between homines and his disciples. Two rival repairs fit the printed page and I can decide between them from neither the sense nor the type: (a) quasi extra terram homines esse debemus, exactly parallel to this chunk's own quasi extra corpus fieri eleven lines earlier — my preferred conjecture; (b) a dropped non (quasi ex terra homines esse non debemus). Because there are two candidates, no [cj: …] was fired — Pattern 18 requires the conjecture, not merely the defect, to be secure. Left literal and escalated here. Whoever settles it should look at the plate, not at our TEI.
• 0002 @0410D — Arcum conteret et confringet, arma et scuta comburet igni (Ps. 45:10). Migne's comma sits after confringet, where the Vulgate punctuates confringet arma, et scuta comburet igni. Punctuation is carried as printed (Pattern 8), so the English reads "The bow he shall break in pieces and shatter, arms and shields he shall burn with fire", which gives confringet the bow as object. No marker: the words are the Vulgate's, only the pointing differs.
• 0002 @0411A — post pondus diei, et aestus tentationem scilicet a labore ad lectulum quietis. tentationem is an accusative singular in apposition to plural aestus; rendered "after the burden of the day and the heats, temptation namely". Conjecture aestus tentationum. Case/number, no English exponent, nothing marked.
• 0003 @0412A — ut minorata actis sapientiam, quae Deus est, perciperet. Rendered "so that, made less in her deeds, she might perceive the wisdom which is God". Conjecture minorata actu. Renders in place; no marker.
• 0003 @0412B — Quam ut decentius ornet sanctorum virtutes circumiens et perlustrans … flores decerpens. The sentence has no main verb — four participles and a purpose clause, closed with a full stop. Rendered as printed, verbless, per Patterns 7 and 8; the following sentence (Hos per imitationem in mores transfundere … contendit) supplies the syntax a reader needs. Not marked: nothing is broken type, only the construction.
• 0003 @0413D — quem universus stratus quietus ejus versatus non evertit? Rendered "whom his whole quiet bed, turned about, did not overturn". Probable stratus quietis ejus eversus. Real words in their slots; logged, not marked. (The negation non is carried; the question mark Migne prints is carried.)
• 0003 @0414A — Quis quod exteriorem et interiorem humilitatem habuerat, his verbis manifestat. An interrogative Quis heading a declarative sentence that Migne closes with a full stop, immediately after a genuine Quis … non miretur? question. Rendered literally, "Who manifests that he had had both outward and inward humility by these words…", with the full stop preserved (Pattern 8). Conjecture Qui. Declined for [cj: …]** because the ruling of 2026-08-15 scopes that marker to negations and correlatives; a stranded interrogative pronoun in a declarative is the 11064 @1021A class, which stays declined.
• 0004 @0415C — et alter alterius bonum revereatur et diligit: subjunctive beside indicative diligit. Mood has no English exponent here; rendered "reveres and loves". Logged, not marked.
• 0004 @0415A — Quod mirabilis in imitatione: masculine nominative against neuter Quod. Pattern 9 — gender has no English exponent. Rendered "Which is wonderful in imitation."
• 0004 @0416A — Sicque contingit ut bene de aliis, sibi vero vilescant: the first member has no verb. Rendered with a supplied bracketed word, "that they [think] well of others, but grow cheap to themselves", per the corpus's existing practice for supplied English words. No marker.

Citations Migne mis-numbers (notes reproduced verbatim, never corrected)

• 0001 @0409A — [n: (I Cor. XI)] on Desponsavi vos uni viro = II Cor. 11:2.
• 0001 @0409B — [n: (Prov. II)] on Audi, fili mi, sapientiam meam = Prov. 5:1.
• 0004 @0415C — [n: (II Cor. XV)] on Paul calling himself least of the apostles = I Cor. 15:9. ([n: (II Petr. III)] in the next clause is correct: 2 Pet. 3:15–16.)
• 0004 @0414B — [n: (Cant. III)] over Cant. 5:6's wording; marked [var: …] above.
• 0003 @0412C — sicut in Job legitur, respicit homines, sanctos attendit [n: (Job XXXIII)]. Cf. Job 33:27 Respiciet homines et dicet: Peccavi; I find no Vulgate warrant for sanctos attendit. Migne sets the words as prose, unitalicized, so they are a loose reference rather than a quotation and take no [var: …]; rendered unitalicized to match.

Quotation marks (Pattern 6)

The work prints zero guillemets in this range (verified: la 0, en 0 per chunk). Two quotations that Migne marks with dicens alone take our own straight quotes, which is what " " is for: 0004 @0414D Antony's Vae mihi peccatori… and 0004 @0414C the Apoc. 3:17 echo Dicit enim quia dives sum, et nullius egeo → "I am rich, and I need nothing". Neither is italic in the Latin, so neither is italic here.

Fixed vocabulary — tensions worth recording

• quies / quiescere = stillness / to be still throughout, per the brief's table, even where "rest" would read better (0412A a quaerendo minime quiescit → "in no wise is still from seeking"; 0414C a quaerendo ampliorem quiescit → "is she still from seeking an ampler grace"). "Rest" is used only for pausandi / requies-type senses; where quiesco governs ab + ablative the English is "be still from", which is stiff but keeps the word joined to the quies mentis of CAPUT PRIMUM. Flagged rather than decided for the whole work by me.
• adolescentulae = young maidens (0001) — the diminutive is kept, on the same reasoning as lectulus; sodales = companions, greges sodalium = "troops of companions". Later agents inherit these.
• Canticum canticorum = the Song of Songs; a plain canticum = canticle. 0000 @0407D turns on the pair (non canticum, sed Canticum canticorum), as does the fivefold list at 0408A (canticles of victory, exhortation and protestation, exultation, help, conjunction with God).
• sacra Scriptura → Holy Scripture (Pattern 3), six times in 0000–0001; Scripturas at 0407C is "the Scriptures".
• sponsus is capitalized Bridegroom wherever it denotes Christ, but 0001 @0408B–C keeps lowercase "bridegroom" in the sequence Dominum … patrem … sponsum where Richard is listing the three names God calls himself, alongside lowercase "lord/father"; it reverts to Bridegroom from sponsus nominatur, et sponsa (0408D) onward, where the person is meant rather than the title. Scripture lemmata quoting sponsus generically (John 3:29, Matt. 9:15) stay lowercase.

Range: src/latin/11550/0005.md – 0009.md → src/english/11550/0005.md – 0009.md Columns 0416B–0429B. Chapters IV–VIII (Cant. 3:3–3:5).

Marker totals for this range: 2 [var:] · 6 [sic:] · 3 [cj:] · 0 [ed:] · 0 [d:].

Anchor/note parity verified mechanically against the Latin twins: 0005 12 anchors / 3 notes · 0006 8 / 4 · 0007 10 / 6 · 0008 9 / 2 · 0009 14 / 4 — all 1:1 in order, heads 1:1, paragraph count 1:1.

1. The Song lemmata — every named word checked against the received text

The four Song lemmata in this range were read word by word against the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate before anything was written. Three of the four agree with the received text exactly; the fourth diverges by one pronoun. Recorded in full so that the absence of a [var:] on them is evidence rather than silence.

1a. col 0421A–B — Tenui illum for Vulg. tenui eum. NO [var:], deliberately.

Migne prints Tenui illum, nec dimittam where the Clementine has tenui eum, nec dimittam. The divergence is real and is recorded here, but no marker fired, because Pattern 14's own threshold is a divergence "in a way that changes the sense," and illum for eum changes nothing: both are the accusative masculine pronoun with the same referent, and illum is in any case the pronoun the very next clause of the received text itself uses (donec introducam illum in domum). Richard's own re-quotations at 0421C and 0422A both print illum, so it is his consistent form, not a one-off slip. Firing here would put a maroquin note on a page where a reader has nothing to learn, which is the marker-spam failure Pattern 16 warns of in its own domain.

⚠ This is the entry to overturn if the work's editorial line is that pronoun-level lemma divergence should be visible. The judgment is mine and it is the only sub-threshold call in the range; the evidence is stated above so a later reader can reverse it in one edit.

1b. col 0426A — Hierusalem for Jerusalem: a spelling, and NOT a defect.

Per Pattern 9 and the brief. The English reads "Jerusalem"; the Latin twin keeps Hierusalem verbatim, so nothing is concealed. Same treatment at 0427B/0427C (atriis Hierusalem) and 0428B (Filias ergo Hierusalem). Likewise genitricis for genetricis at 0421B, and coelorum / coelestibus throughout: attested medieval orthography, no italics, no marker.

1c. The lemma quietly conformed pressure points, and what was resisted

Three places where the remembered English arrived first and the printed Latin was checked against it:

• 0005 @0418C — Num quem diligit anima mea vidistis? Migne prints this in roman, not italics, as a re-quotation woven into the exposition. The English keeps it roman and does not promote it to a lemma; and the received text agrees word for word, so no marker.
• 0006 @0419A / 0420A — the lemma is re-quoted in full in italics at 0420A. Both occurrences render identically ("When I had passed by them a little, I found him whom my soul loves"), because Migne prints them identically. Checked, not assumed.
• 0007 @0421C / 0422A — the lemma is re-quoted twice in truncated form (Tenui illum nec dimittam, etc. / …donec introducam illum in domum matris meae.). Migne's etc. and his truncation point are both kept where he prints them; nothing was completed from the full verse.

2. [var:] — Migne's scripture diverges from the received text (2)

2a. 0007 @0422B — John 14:23, mandata mea servabit for Vulg. sermonem meum servabit

Si quis diligit me, inquit, mandata mea servabit, et Pater meus diliget eum…

Vulg. Jn 14:23 reads Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit. Migne's mandata mea is the wording of Jn 14:21 (Qui habet mandata mea et servat ea) drawn into 14:23 — a conflation, whether Richard's, his copy-text's, or the compositor's, and Pattern 14 forbids guessing which.

This is the range's most consequential divergence, and it is consequential precisely because it is invisible. Richard's whole gloss hangs on the commandments: the sentence introducing the quotation is quae mandata illius servat, and the sentence closing the paragraph is qui mandata custodierit (0423A). A translator who supplied the familiar "will keep my word" would have produced a smooth page on which the proof-text no longer proves what Richard adduces it for — 7914 @1079C's shape exactly. Rendered as printed, with [var: Vulg. sermonem meum servabit, "will keep my word"] beside it.

Pattern 5 note: inquit sits outside the italics between two italic runs in the Latin; the English reproduces that division exactly (If any one loves me, he says, he will keep…). No guillemets anywhere in this range, and none were introduced.

2b. 0007 @0423A — Job 14:15, Voca me for Vulg. Vocabis me, et ego respondebo tibi

Voca me et respondebo tibi, ait B. Job

Migne turns the future indicative into an imperative and drops ego. The sense changes: the received text is God's promise ("Thou shalt call me, and I will answer thee"), Migne's is the speaker's petition ("Call me and I will answer thee"). Richard's gloss reads the printed form as a sequence of two agents — Vocat Deus per gratiam visitantem, et respondebit homo per mandatorum impletionem — which the imperative supports and the Vulgate future does not naturally, so the printed reading is what the exposition needs. Rendered as printed with the received reading beside it.

2c. 0008 @0425A — Isa. 42:15, germen for Vulg. gramen

Desertos faciam, ait Dominus, montes et colles, et omne germen eorum exsiccabo

Vulg. Isa. 42:15: Desertos faciam montes et colles, et omne gramen eorum exsiccabo. germen ("shoot, bud") for gramen ("grass") — marked [var: Vulg. (Isa. 42:15) gramen, "grass"]. Rendered "all their shoot," which is what is printed; the gloss that follows (per montes, majores… per colles, minores) hangs on the mountains and hills, not on the herbage, so nothing in the argument is disturbed either way — but the word is a different word and the reader is entitled to know.

⚠ The note on that verse is misattributed and is reproduced misattributed. Migne prints [n: (Psal. XLII)]; the verse is Isaiah 42:15, not Psalm 42, whose text has no such clause. The [n:] content is Migne's citation and passes through verbatim under the sacred- marker rule; the correction is recorded here and nowhere else in the text. Same class, 0005 @0416C: Migne cites [n: (Job I)] for in terra pedicam abscondit, et decipulam super semitam ponit, which is Job 18:10. Both left verbatim. (No citation-corrections.json entry proposed from this range — neither has a following Ibid. depending on it, but the runbook's false-positive 2 says corrections are upstream of anaphora resolution and this range is not the place to decide it.)

3. [sic:] — carried type (6)

In every case below the marked run is verbatim in the Latin twin (checked mechanically), and in every case the force the run carried is supplied in plain words beside the marker, per 7a⁗.

3a. 0006 @0420D — diliculum for diluculum

quod ad diliculum, et non ad plenam diem venerit

The same word is printed correctly twice in the immediately preceding lines (fit diluculum quo surgit, 0420C; et diluculum compunctionis hominem sibi demonstrat, 0420D), which is what makes diliculum this plate's own defect rather than an orthographic convention — an i/u interchange is not a medieval spelling class, so Pattern 9 does not exempt it. Rendered "that he has come to daybreak [sic: diliculum], and not to the full day": the noun is the whole object of ad, so quarantining it bare would have left the clause with no destination and the antithesis with only one term (7a⁗ q1, in its "the hole is the size of a lexeme" form). The English therefore says daybreak and the marker sits beside it.

3b. 0006 @0420D — exignum for exiguum

ita per eamdem intelligit exignum esse quod invenit

An n/u misreading; exignum is not a Latin word. Rendered "understands that what he has found is but little [sic: exignum]" — the predicate adjective is the whole point of the sentence (and is picked up nine lines later by paululum se memorat invenisse dilectum), so again the sense stands outside the quarantine.

3c. 0007 @0423B — id for in

sicut etiam virtus id vitium vertitur, si nimie, vel extra tempus exerceatur

id is a real word but has no grammatical slot here: vertitur + accusative vitium requires the preposition, and "virtue is turned that vice" construes as nothing. Pattern 12's first failure case, so the type is carried; and because what fell out is a preposition, 7a⁗-b applies — the English reads "is turned into [sic: id] vice", with the preposition's force in plain words. [cj:] was considered and declined: Pattern 18's 2026-08-15 widening is scoped to negations and correlatives and was explicitly not read wider.

3d. 0007 @0423B — ac for ad

nec cessandum, sed per hanc progrediendum, donec ac perfectionem veniatur

Identical shape: ac is a real word with no slot (accusative perfectionem is left stranded), and the missing element is again a preposition. Rendered "until one comes to [sic: ac] perfection." Note that Richard prints ad perfectionem correctly three lines later (ad perfectionem non pertingit, 0423C), which is the internal evidence for the conjecture.

3e. 0009 @0427B — vineunt for vincunt

Cervi quoque spineta transeunt, et venenum vineunt.

Not a word. This is the range's clearest 7a⁗ q1 site: the marked run is the clause's only predicate, so a bare marker would have left "and the harts … venom." Rendered "and overcome [sic: vineunt] venom", and the conjecture is secured by the next sentence, which prints the verb correctly and in the same sense (venenum suggestionum inimici malitiamque mundi vincentes).

3f. 0009 @0427D — Die for Dic (Luke 10:40)

Die illi, ait Martha, ut me adjuvet, [n: (Luc. X)]

Vulg. Lk 10:40: dic ergo illi ut me adiuvet. Die is a real form (ablative of dies) with no slot — the clause has no other verb, and "on the day to her, says Martha, that she help me" construes as nothing. Treated as carried type rather than as a Pattern 14 divergence because the defect is a compositor's c→e, not a variant reading: the shape of the error, not how it reads, is what separates Patterns 12 and 14 here. Rendered "Tell [sic: Die] her, says Martha, that she help me" — the imperative supplied in plain words beside the marker (7a⁗ q1), the marker wrapping only Die and not illi, since illi is not part of the defect.

Migne's comma before the [n:] and his semicolon after it are both kept (Pattern 8).

4. [cj:] — the printed word is real and the faithful English misleads (3)

4a. 0006 @0420D — in perfectione for imperfectione

Sic homo, percepta gratia et per hanc cognita in perfectione sua, vultum pallio operit

in perfectione sua is impeccable Latin and renders in place — "known, through it, in his perfection" — and that is exactly the problem. The clause it stands in says the opposite: the man covers his face quia quanta ignorantia tegatur agnoscit, the paragraph's thesis is intelligit exignum esse quod invenit, and the chapter ends non perfecte, nec ad votum. The faithful English asserts a knowledge of his own perfection in a passage entirely about his imperfection. Glossed additively: in his perfection [cj: in perfectione; read imperfectione, "his imperfection"].

⚑ Note this is also a word-division defect (7a⁗-b), of the fused/split kind that no mechanical test sees — here in the split direction, where the split happens to produce two real words forming a valid phrase. That combination is why [sic:] is wrong for it (it renders in place) and why [cj:] is right (the rendering asserts something false).

4b. 0007 @0421D — vivendus for videndus

Puritati enim cordis vivendus Deus promittitur, sicut scriptum est: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt

vivendus is a real gerundive. Rendered God is promised as to be lived [cj: vivendus; read videndus, "to be seen"] — and the evidence sits in the same sentence: the proof-text Richard adduces is ipsi Deum videbunt, and the two clauses before it are Deum contempletur and Israel videns Deum dicitur. Nothing in the passage is about living; the whole chain is about seeing.

4c. 0007 @0423B — delictum for dilectum

Sponsa ergo affectuose, pariter et desideranter delictum quaesivit, inventum vero ut ad se introduceret non minus sollicita fuit.

delictum ("offence, sin") is a real word and renders in place, producing "the bride sought the offence affectionately and longingly" — a sentence Richard is not merely not arguing but arguing against, and whose own second clause (inventum vero ut ad se introduceret) has a masculine antecedent that delictum cannot supply. Glossed the offence [cj: delictum; read dilectum, "the beloved"]. The single-letter dilectum/delictum pair is a standing hazard in this work (dilectus is the fixed vocabulary's own head-word), so it is worth a look in every range.

5. Would not construe / rendered as closely as the printed words allow (no marker)

Each of these is a real word or phrase that renders in place, does not assert something the author argues against, and therefore takes no marker under Pattern 18's own bar. They are here because Pattern 7 requires the log.

• 0007 @0421B — effectum for affectum. Cupit ergo effectum suum purgari, voluntatem mortificari — the parallel members are voluntatem, spiritum suum, and (at 0421B, nine words earlier) carnaliter affici, so affectum is near-certain, and the fixed vocabulary makes affectus = affection. Rendered "that her effect be purged" as printed. Declined for [cj:] because "her effect" is opaque rather than false — it makes no claim Richard denies. ⚠ The nearest call in the range; if Pattern 18 is read one notch wider it belongs there.
• 0008 @0424B — expungit mente for (probably) compungit mentem. quia nunc expungit mente desiderio divini amoris, nunc spe et gaudio… — every other member of the long series is a bare instrumental ablative and the sentence has no object at all, which is what suggests mentem; and compunctio is this work's own fixed term, used three times in the neighbouring columns. Rendered "now he pricks with the mind by the desire of divine love" — the printed case kept, the verb rendered at its nearest English sense. No marker: the ablative is grammatical, and English can carry it.
• 0007 @0422B — minus perfectiorem. interdum plus afficit minus diligentem et minus perfectiorem — a double comparative. Rendered literally, "and is less more perfect." Comparative reversal is one of 7a's five named mechanisms, so smoothing this to "less perfect" would have been the silent repair; the awkwardness is Migne's.
• 0007 @0423C — cognito periculo suo hanc recipit. Revelat enim mala sua homini, et roborat eum ut corrigere possit, cognito periculo suo hanc recipit, qui per hanc se corrigere, et ad interiora progredi negligit. As printed the sentence contradicts itself: the man who neglects to correct himself is said to receive grace. in vacuum hanc recipit is the obvious conjecture (and the phrase in vacuum hanc recipiat is printed verbatim in the very next sentence). Rendered as printed — "his own peril having been known, he receives it, who neglects to correct himself through it" — and declined for [cj:] because the defect is an omission of a phrase, not a single printed word the gloss could open on.
• 0007 @0422C — quid quod. Unde etiam non diligere arguebantur, quid quod delectaret magis quam quod expediret amplectebantur. Read as the classical idiom quid quod… ("what of it, that…"), which is real Latin and needs no marker, and rendered so. Migne closes the sentence with a period, not a question mark; the period is kept (Pattern 8), which is why the English reads as a statement rather than a question.
• 0009 @0428C — the aestuet clause. non vult exterius implicari, nec curarum saecularium aestuet humanae conversationis et mutabilitatis vento contingat eam ab eo exiguo quod accepit exsiccari. Two subjunctives (aestuet, contingat) with no connective between them; the underlying text was very likely nec curarum saecularium aestu et… vento contingat, i.e. an ablative aestu + et, which the compositor has fused into a verb. Nothing was supplied: the single printed nec is distributed over both verbs — "nor let him seethe with worldly cares, nor let it befall her… to be dried up" — which is the closest English the printed words allow without inventing a lest the plate does not have. ⚠ Note contingat eam is feminine while the subject of the paragraph is masculine imperfectus; the English keeps "her," because reassigning the pronoun to match the subject would be exactly 7a's fifth mechanism (reference mis-bound).
• 0005 @0416D — linita. qui utrumque postem suum et superliminare domus linita non habent de agni Dei sanguine — neuter plural participle against postem/superliminare. Pattern 9: Latin agreement has no English exponent, nothing to emend either way. Rendered "anointed." Flagged so a later sweep does not churn it.

6. Where a gloss hangs on the printed word (Pattern 14 / §Song case 2)

6a. 0005 @0417B — pacatae vs pacificatae: the words are MENTIONED, so they stay Latin

Unde dicit beatus Job quod bestiae terrae (daemones videlicet) pacificatae fiunt bonis. Non dicit pacatae, quia pacem non habent, sed pacificatae, quia pacem eis faciunt dum eos impugnando affligunt.

Richard's argument is the choice of word, so the two words in the second sentence are mentioned, not used, and they stay in italic Latin — the treatment the dialogue register already prescribes for a word discussed as a word. In the first sentence the phrase is used, and there it is Englished as "are made peace-making toward the good", chosen so that the etymology the gloss depends on (pacem… faciunt) is visible in English too. Rendering both as "peaceable" would have made Richard's Non dicit… sed… say nothing — the lectulus failure in another dress.

Divergence recorded, no marker: Vulg. Job 5:23 reads bestiae terrae pacificae erunt tibi. Migne's pacificatae fiunt bonis is woven into an indirect statement governed by dicit beatus Job, i.e. it is not quoted as scripture, so Pattern 14 does not fire — but the divergence is precisely the one Richard's gloss exploits, and pacificatae (the past participle, "made peace-making") is not the Vulgate's adjective pacificae at all.

6b. 0007 @0421D — supplantator / videns Deum

Jacob enim supplantator dicitur… quia Israel videns Deum dicitur, with ut amplius vitia supplantet in between. The etymologies survive translation intact here, so the words are Englished in their printed italics — "Jacob is interpreted supplanter" / "Israel is interpreted seeing God" — and the hook the gloss hangs on (supplanter → supplant) is carried in English. No Latin needed to be kept, and none was.

7. Non-material divergences recorded for completeness (no markers)

Scripture Migne weaves into Richard's own sentences rather than quoting as a lemma. None changes an argument; all are logged so that a later reader knows they were seen and weighed.

• 0005 @0416B — Heb. 1:14, qui haereditatem capiunt salutis for Vulg. capient.
• 0005 @0417B — Isa. 10:7, ad interemptionem gentium non paucarum for Vulg. ad internecionem. (The non paucarum is the Vulgate's own; carried, per negation fidelity.)
• 0006 @0420D — 3 Reg. 19:12, sibilum aurae levis for Vulg. sibilus aurae tenuis.
• 0007 @0423A — Matt. 7:21, Non omnis qui dicit: Domine Domine — Migne drops the Vulgate's mihi. Printed in roman, not as a lemma.
• 0009 @0428D — Eccle. 10:1, muscae morientes… perdunt suave unguentum gratiae for Vulg. perdunt suavitatem unguenti. Migne has recast the noun phrase and Richard has inserted his own gloss (id est cogitationes mundanae) into the middle of it, so it is his sentence, not a quotation; rendered as printed.
• 0009 @0428A — Luke 10:41, Martha sollicita dici possit circa pauca against the Vulgate's sollicita es et turbaris erga plurima. This is deliberate authorial inversion, not a divergence: Richard's whole point is that beside Mary's circa multa Martha is the one busy about few things. No marker, no crux beyond this line.

8. Fixed-vocabulary compliance, and the one tension

Followed throughout: sponsa = the bride · sponsus = the Bridegroom (capitalized) · dilectus = the beloved · meditatio = meditation · contemplatio = contemplation · compunctio = compunction · mens = mind · anima = soul · affectus = affection / affectuose = affectionately · quies = stillness / vacare = to be at leisure. lectulus / lectus do not occur anywhere in 0005–0009, so the diminutive is untested in this range.

⚠ One tension, followed against my own judgment and logged rather than decided. At 0007 @0421C Migne prints perhibet se non quieturam, nec cessaturam a precum instantia — the verb of quies, but here meaning to stop praying, not to be inwardly still. The fixed entry ("stillness, of the mind's rest") would give "she will not be still," which in this clause reads as its near-opposite: the sentence is about her refusing to leave off importunity, and the stillness she is seeking is the very thing she gets by not being still. Rendered "she declares that she will not rest, nor cease from insistence in prayers." The noun quies is "stillness" everywhere it occurs in the range (0424A ×2, 0425B, 0425D twice, 0426A, 0428A); only this one verbal form departs, and the departure is flagged here rather than propagated.

Related, and not a departure: requies / requiescat (0426A, chapter head VIII) is a different word and is rendered "rest" without tension.

9. Left unresolved

1. §1a — the tenui illum judgment. The only sub-threshold divergence call in the range, and the one another reader might make differently. Note that a peer range in this same work has fired a [var:] on a comparably small lemma divergence (0002, Cant. 3:1 per noctem for per noctes), so the work's practice is not yet settled at this grain. Worth a merge-time ruling across all ten ranges rather than ten separate judgments.
2. §5, effectum @0421B. Declined for [cj:] on the ground that "her effect" is opaque rather than false. If the merge takes Pattern 18 one notch wider, this is the site in this range that moves.
3. The two misattributed [n:] citations (§2c: (Psal. XLII) for Isaiah 42:15 at 0425A; (Job I) for Job 18:10 at 0416C). Both reproduced verbatim, as required. Whether either earns a citation-corrections.json entry is an indexing decision, not a translation one, and is left to the pipeline.
4. Nothing in this range required [ed:] or [d:]. The digitization carries continuous text across every one of the 53 column anchors; no empty elements, no dittography, no mid-word breaks at a chunk boundary. Chunk 0005 opens on a fresh ## CAPUT IV head and 0009 closes at the end of chapter VIII, so both boundaries of the range are clean.

Richard of St Victor, Explicatio in Cantica canticorum, PL 196. Range: CAPUT IX (part), CAPUT X, CAPUT XI (opening). Format: column · printed reading · what I did · why.

1. Lemma words checked against the received text (Pattern 14 / 7a″)

Every Song lemma and every scriptural quotation in the range was read word by word against the Vulgate before the English was written. Result below; the four markers fired are itemized in §2.

Song of Songs lemmata — all three agree with the Vulgate

• 0429C (Cant. 3:6) Quae est ista quae ascendit per desertum sicut virgula fumi ex aromatibus myrrhae et thuris, et universi pulveris pigmentarii? — identical to the Clementine text, word for word. No marker.
• 0434B (Cant. 3:7) En lectulum Salomonis sexaginta fortes ambiunt ex fortissimis Israel — identical. No marker.
• 0439A (Cant. 3:8a) Omnes tenentes gladios, et ad bella doctissimi — identical. No marker.
• 0441B (Cant. 3:8b) Uniuscujusque etiam ensis super femur suum, propter timores nocturnos — Migne inserts etiam, which the Vulgate does not print. Rendered ("And every man's blade…"). No [var:]: an added connective at a re-quotation seam does not change the sense, and Pattern 14 fires only on sense-bearing divergence. Recorded here so the divergence is on the record.

Non-Song scripture — divergences found

Woven (unitalicized, unnoted) scripture — no marker, logged as adaptation

Richard weaves scripture into his own syntax constantly; where the quotation is not presented as a quotation (no italics, no [n:]), it is rendered as printed and left unmarked, since [var:] is for scripture quoted as scripture:

• 0429D–0430A Ps. 68:16 (demergit eos tempestas aquae … urget super eos puteus os suum — third person for the psalm's first) · 0430A Ps. 83:8 · 0430B–C Col. 3:5, Lev. 18:5
• 0432C 2 Cor. 11:20 · 0432C 1 Pet. 2:20 (Si peccantes et colaphizati sufferimus)
• 0434C–D Isa. 49:10, Apoc. 21:4, Apoc. 14:13 · 0435A John 17:3 heavily recast (haec est vita aeterna cognoscere Patrem verum Deum, infinitive for the Vulgate's ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum) · 0435D–0436A Apoc. 21:21, Ps. 122 (plateae) · 0436A Ps. 123:4–7 (agrees with the Vulgate where quoted)
• 0437A 1 Cor. 2:9 (quod Deus suis praeparavit for quae praeparavit Deus iis qui diligunt illum) · 0437B 2 Cor. 3:17, John 8:36 · 0437D Ps. 80:17, Ps. 35:9
• 0439B Jas. 2:10 · 0439C Prov. 1:17 · 0439D Heb. 4:12 (et quasi gladius penetrans et cogitationes maligni discernens — Migne's own compression; the Vulgate has penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti … discretor cogitationum) · 0434B Col. 1:20

2. Markers fired

[sic: …] — carried type (Pattern 12; sense supplied in plain words per 7a⁗)

1. 0429C · ad eos mente aceedit → "to them she draws near [sic: aceedit] in mind". aceedit is not a word (accedit, near-certain: a broken c). It is the clause's only verb, so 7a⁗ Q1 applies and the sense stands in plain English beside the marker.
2. 0431C · Pigmen enim est quaelibet virtus → "For a pigment [sic: Pigmen] is any virtue whatsoever". ⚠ Flagged as the least secure marker in the range. pigmentum is the form used everywhere else in this passage (universi pigmenti, primum pigmentum, pigmentarius), so Pigmen looks like a truncated setting — Pattern 10 family. But I could not confirm that pigmen is unattested in medieval lexica, and if it is attested, Pattern 9 governs and the marker should be dropped and the word simply rendered "pigment" (which is exactly what stands beside the marker, so the fix is a deletion, not a re-translation). A reviewer with Du Cange should settle it.
3. 0441A · mente rectractant → "they turn this over [sic: rectractant] in mind". rectractant is not a word (retractant). Again the clause's verb, so the sense is supplied beside the marker per 7a⁗ Q1.

[cj: …] — real word, faithful English misleads (Pattern 18)

1. 0430B · non tam gaudere dicendus est quam gaudium discere → "not so much to rejoice as to learn joy [cj: discere; read deserere, "to forsake"]". discere is a real verb, so nothing is defective and [sic:] has nothing to wrap — and the English then asserts the opposite of the argument, which is that transitory joy is lost: the same sentence ends gaudium ejus simul transit et deperit cum tempore, and the next sentence is Est itaque desertum mundus, quia gaudia sua deserit et amittit. The whole chapter is built on deserere/desertum wordplay. Gloss is additive; Migne's word keeps its English.
2. 0436C · et quia hic igniculus, ibi canimus, sicut dicit auctoritas: Vivit Dominus cujus ignis in Sion et caminus in Hierusalem → "there we sing [cj: canimus; read caminus, "a furnace"]". canimus is a real verb, and the page says the blessed sing where the sentence is contrasting a little fire here with a furnace there — and the proof text Richard immediately quotes prints caminus nine words later. This is the clearest Pattern 18 site in the range.

3. Passages that will not construe — rendered as closely as the words allow

• 0436B · et quia hic se cum eis dum eos tentando affligit — accusative se with no verb at all. Rendered "and because here he [is occupied] with them while by tempting he afflicts them", with the supplied verb in square brackets (the corpus convention for our own supplied English). No conjecture is defensible: exercet, jungit and habet all fit the slot and none is indicated.
• 0432C · Si extollitur et insolescit contra justitiam, vel qui in faciem nos caedit convicio, ita quod causa simus in nostra culpa vel vitio. — a sentence with no main verb, apparently a broken continuation of the preceding 2 Cor. 11:20 list. Rendered as an English fragment, punctuation as printed (Pattern 8).
• 0433B · tantum … quantum ad abstrahere ab hac familiaritate … potuerit — ad + infinitive after potuerit. Rendered as a plain infinitive ("as he shall have been able … to withdraw"); the printed ad has no English exponent here.
• 0433C · quia acedia laboratur — impersonal passive with an ablative. Rendered "because there is a laboring under sloth" rather than converting it to an active ("because he labors under sloth"), which would have quietly repaired the construction.
• 0435C · sed videatur eos quos accepit datos sibi potius in munere quam emptos pretio — videatur with an accusative and no governing infinitive. Rendered "but he seems to have those whom he received as given to him rather in the way of a gift…"; the supplied "to have" is the minimum the English needs and is noted here rather than bracketed.
• 0438D · Cum vero haec in eis debilitata fuerint … et per spiritualia desideria roborata, et tunc quanto haec sub se presserint… — roborata is neuter plural and so agrees with haec (the vices), where the sense wants roborati (the men); and the et tunc leaves the cum clause without an apodosis. Both rendered as printed. The gender/number agreement is Pattern 9 territory (no English exponent for the agreement itself), so no marker.
• 0440B · Cum inimico enim … nullus ex aequo decertare posset … quorum tanta est fortitudo, ut nulla virtus humana ei comparari possit — plural relative for a singular antecedent, then singular ei. Rendered as printed ("their strengths … compared to him"). Pattern 9, no marker.
• 0440B · coram se profiteretur (Josaphat) — "professed himself weak before himself"; sense wants coram eo (before God). Rendered as printed. Not a Pattern 18 site: it is a pronoun-reference slip, not a negation or correlative, and Pattern 18's ruling is expressly scoped away from that class.
• 0429C · dum factis eis dicunt — dative plural where the addressee of the Job quotation is God (ei). Rendered "they say to them". Same class as the previous entry, no marker.
• 0435B · pati voluerit plus quam nullus hominum unquam passus sit — nullus for ullus after a comparative is attested medieval usage, so Pattern 9 applies: rendered normally ("more than no man ever suffered"), no italics, no marker. Negation carried, per the negation-fidelity rule.
• 0430D · ut perficere et ampliorem gratiam mereatur accipere — perficere transitive with no object; proficere ("to advance") would give the expected sense and is a one-letter variant. Rendered as printed ("that she may deserve to perfect and to receive a fuller grace"). Left in the crux, not the text: the reading is uncertain, not misleading, which is Pattern 18's own boundary.
• 0436D · Videndum est nunc quam infusa et quam diuturna sunt — the subject is the gaudia of the previous chunk, and infusa ("poured in") may be diffusa. Rendered "how poured out they are"; no marker, uncertainty only.

4. Notes ([n: …]) reproduced verbatim, including two that point wrong

All notes in the range are citations, so all stay [n:]; none is editorial prose, so no [nt:] (Pattern 15). Two are wrong as printed and are reproduced exactly as printed, per the verbatim rule:

• 0437C [n: (Job LVI)] — Job has 42 chapters. The quotation (requies … plena est pinguedine) is Job 36:16, so LVI is almost certainly XXXVI mis-set. Not corrected, not marked: [n:] contents pass through untouched, and a citation-corrections.json entry is an indexing decision, not a translation one — flagged here for whoever indexes the work.
• 0440B [n: (II Par. XVII)] — Josaphat's outnumbered battle and prayer are 2 Par. 20; ch. 17 is the muster. Reproduced as printed. Same disposition.
• 0441A [n: (I Machab. III)] — the "crossing the torrent first" episode is 1 Macc. 5 (Judas at the brook); ch. 3 is the earlier campaign. Reproduced as printed.

5. Fixed-vocabulary decisions, and the one place the table is under strain

• lectulus = "little bed" · lectus = "bed" — held everywhere, and the range is where it pays off. Chunk 0013 argues the diminutive explicitly at 0438B: quia minimum est quod de illa quiete cognoscere possunt, per diminutivum exprimitur, nec tam lectus quam lectulus nominatur — "it is called not so much a bed as a little bed." Richard then uses the two words differentially within a single paragraph (0438B–C hunc lectum ambire of the penitents who cannot manage it, 0438D hunc lectulum ambire possunt of the strong), so any smoothing to "bed" would erase an argument he has just spelled out. The lemma at 0434B accordingly reads "the little bed of Solomon", odd as it sounds.
• ⚠ quies — I did NOT render "stillness" throughout, and this is the one place I departed from the table; flagging it for merge-time reconciliation rather than deciding for the work. The table gives quies = "stillness (of the mind's rest)". In CAPUT X quies and requies are used interchangeably for eschatological rest (ad quietem perpetuam perducit, Quae quies lectulus dicitur, in illa quiete pausant, hujus quietis consideratio), where "stillness" would misname the doctrine and would also split what Richard treats as one word-pair. I therefore rendered:
• quies/requies = "rest" wherever it denotes the eternal repose of the blessed (0434B–0439A throughout), reading the table's parenthesis "(of the mind's rest)" as scoping the entry to the contemplative sense;
• "still/stillness" where it is the mind's quiet in this life — 0433C quietam vitam ducentibus → "those who lead even a still life"; 0433C propter quietem exterior proximi cura → "for the sake of stillness"; 0438C non quietum, sed turbatum habent lectum → "not a still bed but a troubled one"; 0438A in idipsum … quiescit → "she is still". If the work's merge decides otherwise, the change is mechanical in these chunks.
• gladius vs ensis (0439A–0441B): "sword" and "blade" respectively. Two distinct English words were kept because the exposition glosses gladius and builds on it — sumunt verbum Dei quasi gladium, vivum est enim verbum Dei … quasi gladius, Hos gladios … tenent — so "sword" has to be free to carry that whole chain, while ensis occurs once, in the lemma, unglossed. "Blade" is the deliberately quieter word.
• virgula = "little rod" (not the Douay "pillar of smoke"). The gloss requires it: 0433D sicut virgula quae recta est, et in altum crescit … virgulae enim quae crescendo grossantur, non nimis in altum ducuntur; sed virgulae quae velocius et sursum crescunt, subtiliores et minores sunt. A pillar cannot thicken as it grows or be slender, and the diminutive is doing the same work as lectulus. §Song case 2.
• decantatio = "chanting" (register rule L2), meditatio/contemplatio/compunctio/ affectus per the table, sponsa/sponsus = "the bride"/"the Bridegroom".
• Pattern 3: sacram Scripturam at 0439D → "Holy Scripture" (both capitals); Scripturae elsewhere in the same passage → "Scripture".
• Pattern 17: the only second person in the range is 0433B Vigiliae et orationes sunt tibi inutiles, si sic ista exerceas — grammatically singular, so thou ("are useless to thee if thou so practice them"), addressed to a single reader.

6. Chapter-head reading I am least sure of

0429C / 0432B heads · De spirituali assensu animae — rendered "On the spiritual assent of the soul", twice (0010 and its 0011 continuation), because assensus is a real word and Pattern 7 renders what is printed. But the chapter expounds quae ascendit per desertum and the word ascendere recurs perhaps twenty times in it, so ascensu ("ascent") is very likely what was meant. No [cj:] fired, for two reasons: the marker would sit inside a ## head, where marker parity with the Latin head is fragile, and a head is a structural label rather than an assertion, so it does not meet Pattern 18's "asserts something the author is arguing against" bar. If the work's editor wants it glossed, both heads change together, and 0012–0013's CAPUT X heads are unaffected.

7. Structure notes

• Anchors verified 1:1 and in order against the Latin twins: 0010 = 12, 0011 = 8, 0012 = 9, 0013 = 10, 0014 = 10.
• [n:] in body: 0010 = 3, 0011 = 0, 0012 = 4, 0013 = 3, 0014 = 8 (the file's raw grep gives 9 because the Latin incipit: frontmatter ends mid-marker — the known noteCount off-by-one, not a finding).
• Zero guillemets in the range's Latin and zero in the English. The two supplied quotations at 0431C ("of all the pigment," "of all the powder of the perfumer") use straight quotes, per Pattern 6 — Migne marks that distinction with italics, not with marks.
• (cont.) on the repeated CAPUT IX and CAPUT X heads is carried untranslated.

Range: src/latin/11550/0015.md–0019.md → cols 0441D–0451D. Format per entry: column · printed reading · what was done · why.

A. Markers fired

[var: …] — Migne's scripture against the received text (Pattern 14)

1. 0442A (chunk 0015) · Item novit opera singulorum, et ideo inducit noctem, ut in Job legitur · rendered as printed ("the works of individuals… he brings on night"), with [var: Vulg. Job 34:25 Novit enim opera eorum, et idcirco inducet noctem…] · Vulg. has opera eorum (of them, the wicked of the preceding verses) and the future inducet. Richard's exposition runs on the universal present — et ideo nos excaecari permittit, permittit evenire caecitatem — so both differences are the ones the gloss uses. Note also that the citation here is printed as inline italic (Job XXXIV), not as an [n:] note; it is reproduced verbatim in that form.

1. 0442C (chunk 0015) · agrum hominis pigri replent vepres et spinae [n: (Prov. XXIV)] · rendered "briars and thorns", with [var: Vulg. Prov. 24:31 urticae, "nettles"] · Vulg. Prov. 24:31 has urticae … spinae (nettles … thorns). Load-bearing: the gloss twelve lines later re-quotes the divergent word — non veniet super eos timor iste spinarum et veprium — so the English lemma had to keep vepres/briars or the gloss would refer to a word not on the page.

1. 0445D (chunk 0017) · lemma …in diademate quo coronavit eum mater sua, in die solemnitatis et laetitiae [n: (Cant. III)] · rendered "in the day of solemnity and of gladness", with [var: Vulg. Cant. 3:11 closes desponsationis illius, et laetitiae cordis ejus…] · the strongest divergence in the range. Vulg. Cant. 3:11 closes in die desponsationis illius, et laetitiae cordis ejus. Migne's lemma prints solemnitatis for desponsationis and drops cordis ejus. Richard then expounds both readings in turn — first the dies solemnitatis as the Ascension (in die solemnitatis et laetitiae gloriosae Ascensionis suae), then, at 0447A, he quotes the Vulgate form outright, In die desponsationis illius, ait, et laetitiae cordis ejus, and glosses the espousals of the heavenly Church. Conforming the lemma would have collapsed a two-part exposition into one. (The ait inside that italic run is kept in place per Pattern 5's principle; the run is italic, not guilleted, in the plate.)

1. 0447D (chunk 0018) · lemma Ecce tu pulchra es, amica mea, ecce tu pulchra [n: (Cant. IV)] · rendered "Behold thou art fair, my love, behold thou art fair", with [var: Vulg. Cant. 4:1 Quam pulchra es, amica mea, quam pulchra es…; the wording printed here is that of Cant. 1:15, whose second clause also closes with es] · two facts, no conjecture as to cause: (a) the note cites Cant. IV, but Cant. 4:1 reads Quam pulchra es… quam pulchra es; the words printed are those of Cant. 1:15 (Ecce tu pulchra es… ecce tu pulchra es); (b) the second clause here has no copula. The note [n: (Cant. IV)] is left exactly as printed — the chapter Richard is expounding is Cant. 4 (the next lemma, 0450A, is 4:1b), so this is not a citation error to be corrected but the divergence itself. ⚠ Copula: the English supplies "art" in the second clause. Latin elides the copula freely and English has no exponent for that elision in ecce tu pulchra (Pattern 9 reasoning); the [var:] states that Vulg. 1:15 prints es, so nothing is concealed.

1. 0450A (chunk 0019) · Homo nascitur ad laborem, avis vero ad volandum [n: (Job V)] · rendered "but the bird to flying", with [var: Vulg. Job 5:7 et avis ad volatum, "and the bird to fly"] · Vulg. has et avis ad volatum. Fired although the sense is unchanged, because the exposition immediately reverts to the Vulgate's noun — ad hunc volatum et libertatem nascuntur, Quem volatum… — so the plate's lemma and the plate's gloss do not use the same word, and that is exactly the evidence a reader cannot reconstruct from a conformed lemma.

[sic: …] — carried type (Pattern 12), with the 7a⁗ check applied to each

1. 0444D (chunk 0016) · Sed ascensus iste purpureus est et rebeus · carried as [sic: rebeus] · not a Latin word; near-certain rubeus, "red." 7a⁗ check: the clause keeps its verb (est), carries no negation, no interrogative, no conjunction — the quarantine takes a predicate adjective only, and the next four sentences (ruborem confusionis, purpura ita rubea, rubor ille dispersus, unde rubet) supply the sense in the author's own words. No plain-words supplement needed.

1. 0447B (chunk 0017) · Ex quantum unusquisque de propria salute gaudebit, tantum et majus gaudium de singulis eorum habebit. · carried as [sic: Ex], the correlative rendered ("As much as… so much and a greater joy…") · Ex + the adverbial accusative quantum has no grammatical slot (Pattern 12 test 1); conjecture Et, matching the Item/Item chain of the surrounding sentences. 7a⁗ check: the marker must not* swallow the quantum … tantum correlative, so only the intrusive Ex* is inside it and the correlative is stated in plain English beside it. Only the one word is marked, not a run: this is a wrong/intruded word, not a word-division defect, so Pattern 10 does not apply.

1. 0451C (chunk 0019) · In quibusdam experitur cum quaerere, et desiderare virum… · carried as [sic: cum], with the accusative-and-infinitive supplied in plain words ("she learns by experience that … he seeks and desires") · cum cannot govern an infinitive; conjecture eum (God), the subject of quaerere/desiderare, which the following relative qui … opponat requires. 7a⁗ check: the marked run was the clause's only subject-accusative, so the English states the indirect-statement force outside the quarantine. Second, unmarked defect in the same clause: qui spem orationis vindictae ejus opponat almost certainly stands for sepem — Ezek. 22:30, virum qui interponeret sepem, which the sentence is quoting, and Jer. 15:1 (Moyses et Samuel) follows immediately. Declined as a [cj:]: spem orationis renders in place and states nothing Richard argues against ("the hope of prayer" set against God's vengeance is his own subject-matter here), so it fails the Pattern 18 bar. Rendered as printed; conjecture recorded here.

[cj: …] — real word, faithful English misleads (Pattern 18)

1. 0450C (chunk 0019) · Non est haec singularis, sed et segregata, sed communis; non sua, sed aliorum quaerens… · rendered "not singular, but also set apart [cj: sed et segregata; read nec segregata, "nor set apart"], but common" · the printed words are all real Latin, so Pattern 12 has nothing to wrap, and the faithful English asserts that this wisdom is set apart in a sentence whose whole point (sed communis; non sua, sed aliorum quaerens) is that she is not. The defect is in a correlative/negation — sed et where the parallelism needs nec — which is the class Wilson's 2026-08-15 extension of Pattern 18 explicitly brought in, so incoherence is not a defence here. The gloss opens on the printed words, which stand verbatim in the Latin twin.

1. 0450D (chunk 0019) · unitatem animorum, concordiam voluptatum, amorem mutuum… · rendered "the concord of pleasures [cj: voluptatum; read voluntatum, "of wills"]" · voluptatum is a real word and renders in place, and that is the problem: in a catalogue of the soul's secret intimacies with Christ, "concord of pleasures" asserts what Richard spends chunk 0015 arming the soul against (gladius … super femur delectationum et voluptatum; In remissa enim mente crescunt terrenae delectationes, et silvescunt propriae voluntates). unitatem animorum, concordiam voluntatum is the pairing the list wants. ⚠ Borderline, flagged for the merge read: voluptas can be innocent, and a reviewer who thinks the printed word tolerable should strike the marker rather than alter the English — nothing in the rendering depends on it.

B. Passages that would not construe, or construe only awkwardly (rendered as printed, no marker)

1. 0442A (0015) · Quae si minus caveant, et minus cognoscentur. · caveant is active with quae (the delights) most naturally its object, leaving the subject unexpressed. Rendered "Which things, if [men] guard against them too little, will also be the less known," with the supplied subject in square brackets on the existing convention for supplied English words. No voice change: turning caveant passive would have been a silent repair.

1. 0442C (0015) · quae quantum fructificavit, tantum nemus opacum horum fructetorum generant · singular verb then plural verb on the same subject (vepres et spinae). Rendered as printed ("which, as much as it has borne fruit, so much do they beget…"). No marker: number disagreement across two clauses of running prose, and the English carries both forms visibly, so nothing is hidden.

1. 0443C (0016) · nec ipsis ignorantibus alienos robur mentis suae comedere · the governing sinunt has to be carried over from the preceding clause. Rendered with a bracketed [do they suffer]; the ellipsis is Latin's, and the bracket marks the supplement as ours.

1. 0445C (0016) · the chunk's last sentence, Cum virtutum decore hanc ornat… et proximorum aspectum non offendat. · a cum-period with no apodosis: Migne closes the previous sentence with a full stop at possit. and never supplies a main clause. Rendered as printed (English begins "When he adorns her…" and simply ends), per Pattern 8 — no stop moved, none supplied, none deleted.

1. 0446A (0017) · alii nihil difficilius existimant ferre quam voluptatibus suis resistere possunt · an indicative possunt where the comparison wants an infinitive or subjunctive. Rendered literally ("think nothing harder to bear than that they can resist their own pleasures"). Awkward in English because it is awkward in the Latin.

1. 0448D (0018) · quia sic nosse esse sic expedire novit · knotted even by this author's standards; rendered as closely as the words allow, "because it knows that so to know oneself to be is so to be profited." No emendation attempted.

1. 0448D (0018) · quia excusso jam tempore et debilitatis vitiorum passionibus · rendered as printed, "because, time being now shaken off and the passions of the vices weakened." ⭐ Strong conjecture: tepore, not tempore — chunk 0015 of this same work argues the point in those words (teporis periculum declinant; sicut amor illuminat, ita tepor excaecat), and "lukewarmness now shaken off" is what the clause needs. [cj:] declined: tempore renders in place and, while nearly vacuous, does not assert something Richard argues against, and the defect is not a negation or a correlative — the two classes the Pattern 18 extension covers. This is the entry in this range most likely to be reopened; if the census widens Pattern 18 past those classes, this site qualifies first.

1. 0444D (0016) · tam gratia sua quam donorum exemplo · rendered "as much by his own grace as by the example of his gifts." Possible bonorum ("of the good") — cf. de sanctorum exemplo in the same chunk and considerata bonorum exempla at 0449B. Renders in place; no marker.

1. 0450C (0019) · dicuntur columbarum, id est Spiritus sanctus · nominative where the apposition wants a genitive. Rendered as printed ("are called doves', that is, the Holy Spirit"). No marker: the case slip renders in place and the reader sees it.

C. Pattern 9 items — logged so a later sweep does not churn them

1. 0445A (0016) · ita in sancta et devota anima illa rubor est diversus · feminine demonstrative with masculine rubor. No English exponent; the English reads "that redness." No edit, no marker.
2. 0446A (0017) · ut alacres ingrediendo sitis illa dulcedine et delectatione tracti · masculine plural participle for the filiae Sion. No English exponent. No edit, no marker.
3. 0449B (0018) · Humiliat itaque talem animam degustata gratia, pariter et considerata bonorum exempla… · singular verb with a compound subject running to five members. English "humbles" is number-neutral in this construction; nothing to mark.
4. 0450C (0019) · sensus spiritales for spirituales — attested medieval spelling, correct Latin for its period (Pattern 9). Translated normally, no italics, no crux beyond this line.

D. Scripture divergences NOT marked (woven adaptation or immaterial) — the full list

Recorded because the absence of a [var:] must not be readable as "agrees with the Vulgate." In each of these the difference is Richard adapting a verse into his own syntax, or a near-synonym that no gloss in the range uses.

• 0441C–D (0015) illa uva acerba, quam qui comedit obstupescunt dentes ejus — Jer. 31:30, in Richard's own relative construction; and juxta Jeremiam ad numerum franguntur hujus dentes — Lam. 3:16 (fregit ad numerum dentes meos), ascribed to Jeremiah, which is the normal medieval attribution of Lamentations and not a defect.
• 0441D (0015) luteas habitamus domos, et terrenum habemus fundamentum, et consumimur velut a tinea [n: (Job IV)] — Job 4:19 is third-person plural (qui habitant… qui terrenum habent… consumentur). Shifted to first-person plural throughout by the author, whose application is we. Woven, not variant.
• 0442B (0015) ipse enim vulneratus est propter delicta nostra — Isa. 53:5 propter iniquitates nostras; dolores nostros ipse portavit = Isa. 53:4 exactly. Unmarked in the plate and near-synonymous; no gloss turns on it.
• 0443A (0016) sicut scriptum est: Populus meus saturavit me vocibus, implevit me odoramentis. — ⬜ NOT IDENTIFIED. Introduced as scripture but with no citation, and it does not answer to Isa. 43:23–24, the nearest candidate, in either direction (there the verbs are negative). Rendered as printed; no [var:] fired, because Pattern 14 requires a known received reading to name. Left open for whoever knows the Old Latin here.
• 0444A (0016) abyssus… dicit: Non est in me; et mare… dicit: Non est mecum — Job 28:14 has mare loquitur. Immaterial; the interposed glosses (humanae sapientiae, id est amaritudo vitiorum) are Richard's own.
• 0444A (0016) Judaei miserunt lignum in panem ejus — Jer. 11:19 (mittamus lignum in panem ejus), recast as narrative in the author's voice.
• 0444C (0016) emendum aurum mundum, ignitum, probatum, ut locupletes fiamus — Apoc. 3:18, woven, plural for singular.
• 0446B (0017) camelum glutientes culicem liquant — Matt. 23:24, clause order reversed.
• 0446B (0017) corporalis exercitatio ad modicum valeat… pietas… valet ad omnia — 1 Tim. 4:8 has utilis est in both limbs. Author's paraphrase.
• 0446C–D (0017) genua debilia roboremus (Isa. 35:3 / Heb. 12:12) and gressus rectos pedibus nostris facere debemus (Heb. 12:13) — both turned from imperative to hortatory first plural.
• 0447B–C (0017) Momentaneum et leve tribulationis nostrae, et aeternum gloriae pondus operatur in nobis — 2 Cor. 4:17 compressed (supra modum in sublimitate dropped). Unmarked quotation inside the author's sentence; rendered as printed.
• 0447C (0017) Tunc eritis corona gloriae… in manu Dei vestri — Isa. 62:3 is singular (eris… tui); pluralized to address the filiae Sion.
• 0448D (0018) juxta Job, non sit ei auxilium in se — Job 6:13 non est mihi auxilium in me; third person for first, to fit the indirect statement.
• 0449B (0018) liberabitur a servitute corruptionis in libertatem gloriae filiorum Dei — Rom. 8:21, exact.
• 0448D (0018) Vult et non vult piger [n: (Prov. XIII)] — Prov. 13:4, exact. (Both negations carried: "willeth and willeth not.")
• 0450B (0019) Isti sunt qui, ut nubes volant et quasi columbae ad fenestras suas [n: (Isa. LX)] — Isa. 60:8 verbatim in its words, but the plate's frame turns the prophet's question into a statement. Rendered as printed.
• 0451D (0019) cum in illa vita apparuerit Deus, similis ei erit, quia videbit eum sicuti est — 1 John 3:2 (similes ei erimus… videbimus), recast in the third-person singular for the anima; quia for quoniam. Woven.
• 0451D (0019) cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est — 1 Cor. 13:10, exact; tunc cognoscet sicut cognita est — 1 Cor. 13:12 (cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum), recast for the soul.
• 0450A (0019) cupiditate, quae est radix omnium malorum — 1 Tim. 6:10, exact in substance.

E. Fixed-vocabulary decisions, including the one hook word

1. ⭐ ferculum (0443A–0445B, chunk 0016) — KEPT IN ITALIC LATIN. Migne's Cant. 3:9 agrees with the Vulgate word for word (Ferculum fecit sibi rex Salomon de lignis Libani), so there is no textual divergence; the whole question is English. Richard hangs two incompatible glosses on the one word: - Ferculum est sancta anima, quae pascit et reficit — the word as a dish, the thing carried in at a meal, which feeds; the entire first half of the chapter (reficit… pascit doctrina… pascit consilio… pascit colloquio, and later spiritualibus epulis ditat) hangs on that. - ferculum a ferendo, quia fertur de loco ad locum — the word as a litter, from ferre, because it is carried. No single English word carries both hooks: "litter" (the Douay-Rheims rendering of the verse) kills pascit et reficit; "dish"/"tray" kills the palanquin the verse actually describes and makes "King Solomon made himself a tray of the wood of Lebanon" absurd. Under translation-style.md §The Song of Songs case 2 and the register's italic-Latin provision, the Latin therefore stands, in italics, at every occurrence (inside the italic lemma it takes no second italic marker, per Pattern 10's nested-italics rule), and the etymology renders as "a ferculum from bearing, because she is borne from place to place" — so an English reader meets both the feeding and the carrying, in Richard's own words, with no gloss of ours added. Explicitly NOT harmonized with any other Song commentary in the corpus. 10804's treatment of the same lemma word was not consulted as an authority and is not being followed as an authority: this work's printed Latin and this work's double gloss decided it, and they would have decided it the same way had no other commentary existed.

1. reclinatorium → "reclining-place" (0444A–0445B). Cant. 3:10; the gloss is in qua reclinat se et requiescit Christus, and the argument runs on the verb for a full column (reclinabit in te, qui reclinatorium non habuit in cruce; ut ipse reclinet et requiescat in nobis). Douay's "seat" and the common "back" both sever that hook. Hyphenated coinage kept identical at all eight occurrences.

1. ascensum purpureum → "purple ascent"; media charitate constrata → "the middle parts… paved with charity." Both glosses are etymological in the same way — Ascensum in anima facit, cum… superna desiderare hanc facit, and sed ista strata sint (id est, tanta aequalitate et discretione facta), where "paved/level" is what aequalitas explains.

1. candidatio (0443B) kept in italic Latin, untranslated: Libanus enim qui candidatio dicitur. It is a name-etymology of Lebanon, and the whiteness it depends on is carried into the English by Richard's own next clause (ex munda virgine… sine omni peccati labe). Supplying "a whitening" in quotation marks would have put our gloss on the page beside his.

1. Fixed table followed throughout, without tension: anima = soul, mens = mind, quies = stillness (0450A, magna quiete et securitate fruitur), sponsa = the bride, sponsus = the Bridegroom (0447A, 0447C), amica mea = my love (0447D lemma — the 11536/10804 drift word, and there is exactly one occurrence in this range), dilecta of the soul = "beloved" (0449D). lectulus/lectus do not occur in this range. voluntates rendered "wills" / "self-wills" (0441C, 0442C) to keep it distinct from delectationes = "delights" and voluptates = "pleasures", all three of which Richard contrasts in one sentence at 0442B.

1. Pattern 17 (thou = singular, you = plural) — the range is the pattern's own worked case. Chunk 0017 addresses the filiae Sion in the grammatical plural from end to end (egredimini, videte, considerate, vestras lampades, exite) and takes you/your throughout; chunks 0015, 0016, 0018 and 0019 address one hearer — o homo (0442B), anima sancta (0444B), o anima (0450D) — and take thou/thee/thy. Both are on the page within a few columns of each other and the distinction is Migne's morphology, not our reverence.

F. Verification actually run on this range

• Column anchors: 5 / 11 / 8 / 9 / 8 for 0015–0019 — identical count and order to the Latin twins (diffed, not eyeballed); colFirst/colLast in each frontmatter match the first and last anchor in each body. Frontmatter copied verbatim from the Latin chunks.
• [n:] notes: 2 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 3 — equal to the Latin and to noteCount in every chunk. No note in the range is editorial prose, so no [nt:] was fired; all five are bare scripture locators.
• ## heads: 1 per chunk, 1:1, label and italic summary both translated; 0015's (cont.) kept verbatim and untranslated.
• Guillemets: zero in the Latin, zero in the English (the work has none, per the brief); no straight quotes supplied either, except inside the two [cj:] glosses where the convention requires them.
• scripts/verify-english.mjs 11550 reports no error against 0015–0019 (its only failures are the not-yet-written chunks of other ranges), so every [sic:] and [cj:] content was confirmed verbatim in the Latin twin and every [var:] content confirmed absent from it.
• Em-dashes: zero supplied in all five chunks.
• No [d:], no [ed:], no [f:] fired: the plate sets nothing twice in this range, the digitization has lost nothing (no empty elements, no mid-anchor breaks — every column boundary falls between whole words), and this is lemma-and-gloss commentary, not a florilegium (runbook known-false-positive 4).

Range: src/latin/11550/0020.md–0024.md → src/english/11550/0020.md–0024.md Columns 0452A–0467A (PL 196). CAPUT XVI–XX.

Format: column · printed reading · what was done · why.

1. Markers fired (each is also its own entry below)

Total: 4 [sic:], 4 [cj:], 2 [var:]. No [d:], no [ed:].

2. ⛔ THE WORK'S KNOWN SPLIT-TYPE SITE — 0020, col. 0451D/0452A: hos a tendit

Printed: Dum itaque anima devota hos a tendit et horum sanctitatem meditatur, et ad eorum imitationem se erigere nititur…

Done: the whole broken run is carried untranslated in italics inside a Pattern 12 marker — While therefore the devout soul attends to these [sic: hos a tendit] and meditates upon their holiness — and, per 7a⁗ question 1, the verb the marker swallowed is supplied in plain English outside the quarantine ("attends to these"). Without that, the first clause of a three-clause dum period would have had no predicate at all, exactly the 1917A [sic: eccidit] shape.

Why, and the corroboration is inside this same chunk. a tendit is attendit divided across a space (Pattern 10, split direction; translation-style.md 7a⁗-b). Three sentences later Migne sets the same verb correctly, of the same subject-matter:

Qui enim bene agentes attendit, et eorum virtutibus … delectatur (col. 0452A–B)

and twice more in the same column — quia semper bonos attendunt and quales attendit (0452B–C). The reading is therefore not a conjecture at all; the plate itself prints attendit three times within twenty lines of the defect.

Scope of the quarantine. The marker takes hos a tendit entire, including the well-formed hos, per Pattern 10's Ad dam rule and per the launch brief's explicit instruction. This is the 7a⁗-b hazard in its pure form: a split run leaves a hole the size of a lexeme, and here the lexeme was the clause's only finite verb. 9637's in offenso for inoffenso is the cautionary case in the other direction — there, marking only part of the run would have swallowed a negating prefix. Here nothing negative or interrogative is inside the marker, so 7a⁗ questions 2 and 3 pass; only question 1 needed answering, and it is answered in plain words beside the marker.

3. Named lemma words — the Vulgate check, verse by verse

Every Song lemma in the range was collated word for word against the Clementine Vulgate before the English was written, per 7a″. Result: Migne's Song text in this range is remarkably clean — no material divergence, and therefore no [var:] on a Song lemma. The three non-material divergences are recorded here so that a later reader does not have to re-collate.

⚠ The launch brief states that 0024 carries no Song lemma. It does — Cant. 4:3b, Sicut fragmen mali punici genae tuae, at col. 0463D, and the whole of CAPUT XX expounds it. It was collated on the same footing as the other four. Flagging this so the range-note in a future brief can be corrected.

3a. Lemma-internal negation, 0022 (brief's § "Negation fidelity")

et sterilis non est inter eas keeps its non in the English exactly as printed — "and there is not a barren one among them" — both in the lemma at 0458D and in Richard's closing re-quote at 0461B, where Migne inverts the word order to et non est sterilis inter eas. The inversion is carried (English word order is identical either way, so the change is invisible in translation; noted here because a collator will see it in the Latin twin). The chapter's argument is built on the negation: Nullus enim labor … sterile esse poterit.

4. [var:] — non-Song scripture where Migne's wording is materially divergent

4a. 0022, col. 0460D — 2 Cor 12:10

Printed: Paulus … dicit: Quando infirmor tunc fortior sum et potens [n: (II Cor. XVIII)]. Vulgate: cum enim infirmor, tunc potens sum. Done: rendered as printed — "When I am weak, then am I stronger and powerful" — with [var: Vulg. cum infirmor, tunc potens sum, "when I am weak, then am I powerful"] placed after the [n:] marker so the note's position in the marker sequence is untouched. Why material: Migne's text carries a comparative (fortior) that the Vulgate does not have at all, and doubles the predicate (fortior sum et potens). Richard adduces the verse precisely to prove that a man merits more in the labour of temptation — the argument is comparative, and the comparative in the quotation is what it rests on. Conforming this to tunc potens sum would have removed the one word the proof-text was quoted for: 7a″'s mechanism exactly.

⚠ The note reads (II Cor. XVIII). 2 Corinthians has thirteen chapters; the locus is 12:10. [n:] contents are Migne's and pass through verbatim (see §7 below).

4b. 0023, col. 0462D — Eccli. 28:6

Printed: Sicut enim in Ecclesiastico legitur: In mandatis Dei tabitudo et mors [n: (Eccli. XXVIII)] Vulgate: tabitudo enim et mors imminent in mandatis ejus. Done: rendered as printed — "In the commandments of God is wasting and death" — with [var: Vulg. tabitudo enim et mors imminent in mandatis ejus, "for wasting and death threaten in his commandments"]. Why material: the received text makes wasting and death threaten (a warning against implacability); Migne's, with imminent gone and the phrase re-ordered, makes them contents of the commandments — and that is what Richard's gloss requires, since he reads tabitudo as compassion and mors as mortification of the vices, i.e. as two commanded goods. The divergence and the exposition stand or fall together, which is why the reading is rendered and not repaired.

5. [cj:] — the printed word is real Latin and the faithful English asserts something false

5a. 0021, col. 0455C — Eliae for Eliu

Printed: sicut in Job legitur: En venter meus quasi mustum. Quod etiam ipsi Eliae contigit, qui verba protulit per tumorem sui spiritus… Done: Which happened also to Elias himself [cj: Eliae; read Eliu, "Elihu"]. Why: Eliae is a perfectly good form (Elias, gen./dat.), so Pattern 12 has nothing to wrap and Pattern 7 renders it — and the page then attributes Job 32:19 to Elijah. The corroboration is two lines later in the same sentence-group, in Richard's own voice: quo se incitari Eliu apud Job putavit. He also uses Elias correctly of the real Elijah twice in this chunk (0456C, and 0454C in 0020), so the two names are distinguished everywhere else in the range. Additive gloss per Pattern 18; nothing removed.

5b. 0022, col. 0461B — se for si

Printed: quia, se recte offeras, et recte non dividas, peccasti, ait auctoritas (the auctoritas is Gen. 4:7 in its Old-Latin/LXX form, si recte offeras…). Done: because, itself [cj: se; read si, "if"] thou offer rightly, and divide not rightly, thou hast sinned, says the authority. Why [cj:] and not [sic:]: the run is a real word, so Pattern 12's wrap has no purchase; but what went wrong is the conjunction that governs the mood of the whole protasis — 7a⁗ question 3 — and a bare [sic:] would have parked the conditional inside the marker and let the two subjunctives read as a bald assertion ("thou offerest rightly and dividest not rightly"). Pattern 18 is scoped to exactly this class ("incoherence is not a defence where the word that went wrong is a negation or a correlative"), and its 11064 @1142D case is the mirror image (si for sic). The negation recte non dividas is carried in the English unaltered.

5c. 0023, col. 0461D — vitae for vittae

Printed: Labia ergo sponsae, quia verba comprimunt ne dissolute fluant, vitae comparantur. Quia vero per dilectionem Dei tinguntur, coccino assimilantur. Done: are compared to life [cj: vitae; read vittae, "a fillet"]. Why: the chapter's entire figure is the vitta coccinea of the lemma, and this very sentence is the summary restatement of it, paired with coccino assimilantur in the next clause. The same sentence in its first form, eight lines earlier, prints the word correctly: Labia sponsae vittae comparantur quia sicut vitta constringit crines. "Compared to life" is fluent, false, and exactly the Pattern 18 shape (a single-letter slip yielding a confident wrong reading rather than a visible hole — the 11064 @1141B carons/carens hazard).

5d. 0023, col. 0463B — convivium for convicium

Printed: nec invidet, nec convivium respondet, nec conviciati aliquo modo nocet Done: nor does he answer a banquet [cj: convivium; read convicium, "a reproach"]. Why: "answer a banquet" is grammatical English and plainly not what Richard wrote; the same clause ends nec conviciati … nocet, and the sentence before speaks of stultitiam conviciantis. The root is printed correctly twice within fifteen words of the defect.

6. [sic:] — carried type

6a. 0021, col. 0457C — possis

Printed: maxime si aliquid ibi annexum sit, quod delectare humanitatem possis. Done: especially if something be annexed there which might be able to delight [sic: possis] his humanity. Why: possis is second person singular stranded in a relative clause whose subject is aliquid — the 11632 ama/sternis class (Pattern 12's test 1: a real word with no grammatical slot, which therefore cannot be carried by any English). Per 7a⁗ question 1 the modal force is supplied in plain words beside the marker so the clause keeps a predicate.

6b. 0021, col. 0457C — benegnitas

Printed: cordis levitas, naturalis benegnitas, prosperitas, vel orta aliqua causa laetitiae Done: natural [sic: benegnitas], prosperity, or some arisen cause of gladness. Why: metathesis of benignitas; not a word, so Pattern 7 has nothing to render and the run is carried untranslated. 7a⁗ checks all pass — the marked run is one item in a list of subjects, and the clause keeps its verbs and its (absent) negation. The bare adjective "natural" left standing beside the marker is the intended cost. Note that benignitatem is printed correctly at 0460A in 0022, which is the corroboration.

6c. 0024, col. 0465C — efficians

Printed: quia erat hostia sufficiens pro omnibus, sed non efficians Done: because he was a victim sufficient for all, but not [sic: efficians]. Why: efficians is not a Latin form (for efficiens, in the scholastic sufficiens/efficiens pair — Christ's sacrifice sufficient for all, efficient not for all). Carried untranslated. ⚠ 7a⁗ question 2 was the live risk here and it is answered: the negation non sits outside the marker and is rendered ("but not"), because the whole doctrinal point of the sentence is the denial. Had the marker taken non efficians entire, the English would have said Christ's sacrifice was efficient for all, which the next sentence explicitly denies (Non enim omnes salvos fecit).

7. Notes and citations — verbatim, including the ones that are wrong

All 19 [n:] markers in the range pass through verbatim with contents untranslated, in Migne's order and position (verified 1:1 against the Latin twins). Four of them are mis-bound or inconsistently abbreviated. No correction was made in the text and none is proposed — the note contents are Migne's citations, and refDisplay policy keeps what he printed.

• 0020 @0452A: (Cant. III) on a lemma from Cant. 4:1. Chapter III is where the preceding chapters' lemmata came from (chunk 0005 quotes Cant. 3 with the same note form), so this looks like a running-citation carried one verse too far rather than a fresh error. 0021–0024 all read (Cant. IV) correctly for the same chapter.
• 0022 @0460D: (II Cor. XVIII) for 2 Cor 12:10. 2 Corinthians has thirteen chapters. Almost certainly XII with a doubled minim.
• 0024 @0463D: (Can. IV) — Can. not Cant., the only such abbreviation in the range.
• 0024 @0465A: (Job XXXIII) for ossa quae tecta fuerant nudantur — Job 33:21 is ossa illius quae tecta fuerant nudabuntur, so the chapter is right and only the tense differs (see §8c).

⚠ Per the runbook's known-false-positives list, none of these is reported as a finding; they are logged here only so the indexer's unparsed/refKey pass has the analysis in hand.

8. Passages that would not construe, or construe only awkwardly — rendered as printed

Pattern 7 governs all of these: the English is as close as the printed words allow, no marker, conjecture here only.

### 8a. 0020, col. 0452D — the missing full stop …quosdam per uberiorem dulcedinem sapientiae reficiens uberiora ergo sunt pascua in hoc monte. Migne prints no stop between reficiens and uberiora, so the participial clause runs straight into a new independent sentence. Pattern 8: never supply a mark the plate lacks. The English carries the run-on: "…refreshing some through the more abundant sweetness of wisdom more abundant therefore are the pastures on this mountain." Conjecture: a full stop after reficiens.

### 8b. 0020, col. 0454A–B — the stranded future perfect quandoque illo congrediente nobiscum, et nunc praevalente, nunc superato proficit oratio, et manus in orando remissius fuerint sublevatae, ita ut experiatur anima has vicissitudines… fuerint sublevatae has no protasis to attach to; the sentence needs a si (or quandoque … cum) before manus. Rendered literally ("and the hands in praying shall have been lifted up more slackly") and left. Deliberately not given a [cj:]: what is missing is a whole word Migne does not print anywhere in the sentence, so there is no printed word for the gloss to open on — Pattern 18's verbatim-in-the-twin guard cannot be satisfied (contrast 7561 @0648, where the gloss could open on the printed solum).

### 8c. 0021, col. 0456C — spiritum commotioni, et igni non inesse Dominum spiritum is accusative where the parallel datives commotioni/igni require spiritui. English nouns carry no case, so there is no exponent for the defect (Pattern 9's gender-mismatch logic applies unchanged): rendered "says that the Lord is not present in spirit, and in commotion, and in fire". The negation non inesse is carried. Marked here so a later sweep does not churn it.

### 8d. 0021, col. 0458B — sapientiam in horum vacuitate scribunt "…and write wisdom in the emptiness of these." scribunt is a real word in a real slot, and the clause construes; it simply says something odd for a passage about the shorn sheep grasping and discerning. Conjecture: sciscunt or scrutantur. Rendered as printed, no marker — the English does not assert anything false, only something obscure, which is Pattern 18's declined class ("merely uncertain stays in the crux").

### 8e. 0022, col. 0460B — Virtutes enim, cum omnes, sint pares The comma after omnes breaks cum omnes sint pares in the middle. Both marks are preserved (Pattern 8) and the English mirrors the break: "For the virtues, since all, are equal, cannot all be exercised equally." Reads oddly; the plate reads oddly.

### 8f. 0022, col. 0461A — Si vero imo, quia frequentius in venialibus labitur… Si vero imo has no apodosis and imo has no construction. Rendered "But if rather, because both the weak and the strong slip more frequently into venial sins…". The whole sentence is the least construable in the range. No marker: imo is a real word occupying a real (if unintelligible) slot, and the conjecture would have to supply a clause, not a word.

### 8g. 0022, col. 0459C–D and 0460A — two anacolutha, both carried unde contingit ut iracundus, etiamsi bono zelo moveatur, amaritudo naturalis se misceat — nominative iracundus stranded before a new subject amaritudo. Rendered as printed. Si quis levis fuerit aut remissus plusquam debeat, ille rigorem districte, iste clementiam exsequetur dissolute — ille/iste need two antecedents and levis aut remissus gives only near-synonyms, so ille rigorem answers to nothing. Conjecture: rigidus (or severus) for levis, cf. tristis, vel rigidus aliquis in the next sentence. Declined for a [cj:] because "light" is not a false assertion, only a mismatched one.

### 8h. 0022, col. 0461B — a supplied and quae et in se, et in aliis fructificant fetus spirituales generant — asyndeton with no mark printed. Rendered "bear fruit [and] beget spiritual offspring", the supplied word bracketed per the corpus's existing convention (~95 instances of bracketed supplied English). No punctuation was invented (Pattern 8).

### 8i. 0024, col. 0464C — noxium ruborem et salubrem convertens Rendered literally, "converting the hurtful redness and the healthful one". The sense the sentence needs is in salubrem ("into a healthful one"), which is what the surrounding argument states twice (ruborem rubore commutat; rubens per poenitentiam quae rubuit per culpam). A one-word preposition is missing rather than mis-set, so as at §8b there is no printed word to hang a [cj:] on.

### 8j. 0024, col. 0464C — lowercase prudenter after a full stop Migne prints …oblivioni tradat. prudenter itaque sponsa…. The English capitalizes ("Prudently therefore the bride…"): sentence-initial capitalization is English orthography, not a textual reading, and the Latin twin preserves the plate. Logged, not marked.

### 8k. 0024, col. 0465C — antequam sustinet novit Indicative sustinet where the temporal clause wants sustineret. Construes as printed and is rendered so ("before he undergoes it"). Pattern 9 family; no marker.

### 8l. 0024, col. 0464D — latent virtutes, sed dum pulsatur adversis, detegitur Plural virtutes latent followed by singular detegitur; the subject slides to anima. English "they lie hidden … it is uncovered" carries the slide rather than smoothing it to "they are uncovered", which would have been a silent repair with no exponent left on the page.

9. Fixed vocabulary — followed, and the places it cost something

The brief's table was followed without exception: sponsa = the bride · sponsus = the Bridegroom (0464B, capitalized) · meditatio = meditation · compunctio = compunction · mens = mind · anima = soul · affectus = affection · quies = stillness (0454A quiete → "in stillness"; 0454D quies mentis → "the stillness of the mind"; 0456A a quiete mentis → "from the stillness of the mind"). lectulus/lectus do not occur in this range.

Terms this range had to fix that the table does not cover. Recording them because CAPUT XVII–XVIII are built on them and the merge step will need to reconcile with neighbouring agents:

9a. Etymological play kept in Latin — 0023, col. 0461C

Dilectio haec Dei lectio, vel Dei electio dici potest. No English trio shares a root with "love", so the words stand in italic Latin with a gloss apiece: "This dilectio may be called Dei lectio, a reading of God, or Dei electio, a choosing of God." This is translation-style.md § Song of Songs case 2 (the stylus/epistylium and murenulae precedents) — an English word sharing no root would make the gloss explain nothing. The following sentences then work the play out (Legit enim Deum … Eligit etiam Deum), and those are translated normally.

9b. caprae / capreae — one English, deliberately

Migne's lemma has caprarum; his exposition then shifts to capreae at 0452B and keeps it (0452B ×2, 0452C, and again at 0461B in 0022, capreae istae). caprea and capra are used interchangeably in medieval Latin, and Richard nowhere argues from the difference — so this is Pattern 9 (attested spelling variation, no defect) combined with Song §case 3 (printed Latin effectively identical, no gloss depends on it): rendered "goats" throughout, which also keeps the lemma hook the exposition repeatedly reaches back for ("These goats, namely holy meditations, come up from mount Galaad"). Inventing an English distinction ("goats" vs "roes") would have made Richard mark a difference he does not mark. Logged because it is a judgement against the visible variation in the twin.

9c. dispice rendered "despise" — 0023, col. 0463A

Migne prints et dispice ignorantiam proximi (Vulg. despice). Rendered "despise", not as the other verb dispicere ("discern"), and no [var:] fired. Two reasons: dispicio for despicio is ordinary medieval e/i orthography (Pattern 9, "attested medieval spellings are correct Latin"), and Richard's own next sentence adjudicates it on the page — despicit quoque ignorantiam proximi, id est contemnit. Where the author glosses the word himself, our marker would be telling the reader something he has already been told (the 8715 declining class in Pattern 18).

9d. Non-material scripture divergences left unmarked

• 0023 @0462B, Prov. 10:19 — Migne Qui moderatur labia prudentissimus est; Vulg. qui autem moderatur labia sua prudentissimus est. Dropped possessive, no sense change.
• 0024 @0465A, Job 33:21 — Migne ossa quae tecta fuerant nudantur (present); Vulg. nudabuntur (future). Not italicized in Migne — it is woven into Richard's own sentence (Et secundum Job…), i.e. reported rather than quoted, so Pattern 14 does not reach it.
• 0024 @0465D, Isa. 53:5 — Migne quodque contritus est propter scelera nostra; Vulg. attritus est. Again indirect (quodque…), unitalicized, and contritus/attritus is not a sense change ("crushed"/"bruised"). Rendered "crushed".
• 0022 @0459A, Heb. 4:12 and 0024 @0466D, Job 16:21 (Cum verbosi sint amici ad Deum stillat oculus ejus) are adapted into Richard's own syntax with no italics and no [n:] in the Heb. case. Translated as printed; no marker, per the register rule that scripture arrives woven.

10. Mechanical checks run on this range

• Column anchors: 0020 = 14 · 0021 = 14 · 0022 = 10 · 0023 = 10 · 0024 = 13. Latin-vs-English sequence diffed anchor by anchor, identical in every chunk. colFirst/colLast match the frontmatter in all five.
• [n:] count and contents: 5 · 3 · 3 · 4 · 4, matching each chunk's noteCount; contents diffed against the Latin twin, byte-identical and in order. No [nt:] — every note in the range is a bare citation, none is editorial prose (Pattern 15 judged by content: the longest is four characters plus a numeral).
• Guillemets: zero in the Latin, zero in the English, in all five chunks (the work has none, per the brief). No bracketed variants introduced.
• [sic:] / [cj:] contents confirmed as verbatim substrings of the Latin twin; [var:] contents confirmed absent from the Latin twin (the Pattern 14 mirror test).
• ## heads: 1:1, one per chunk, label and italic summary both translated. Roman numerals kept (CHAPTER XVI–XX) following the already-shipped 0005, which prints ## CHAPTER IV. — within-work consistency over the 11064 spelled-out precedent.
• Em-dashes: zero across the five chunks (seven were present in draft and were replaced with commas or a colon where the punctuation carried the sense equally; none was removed at the cost of restructuring a faithful sentence).
• verify-english.mjs 11550 reports no error against any of 0020–0024.

11. Left unresolved

1. 0022 @0461A, Si vero imo… (§8f) is the one sentence in the range I cannot make say anything. It is rendered as closely as the printed words allow and escalated rather than adjudicated.
2. 0021 @0456C, interdum ascendit ad Dei amorem — in a series of transitive operations of the Holy Spirit (Convertit … mentem · Movet mentem, et incitat), ascendit is almost certainly accendit, "kindles [the mind] to the love of God"; cf. accendit et humiliat eleven lines later at 0457A, and incitant et accendunt at 0456A. Declined for a [cj:] on the strict Pattern 18 bar (the English "he ascends to the love of God" is theologically odd but is not a claim Richard is arguing against). ⚑ Flagged for adjudication: if the bar is meant to reach this shape, the marker is a one-line addition. The same judgement was made and declined at 0457C (hanc plenius ascendit cordis levitas, same verb, same probable slip) — the two should be ruled together.
3. 0021 @0457A, Talis scientia animam non instat — instat takes the dative, so accusative animam is stranded; the sense and the 1 Cor 8:1 echo (scientia inflat, answered by sed accendit et humiliat) both want inflat, "does not puff up". Rendered literally, "does not press upon the soul". Declined for [cj:] for the same reason as (2), though it is the closest call in the range: the shape is 10703 @1126B's (a real word leaving a stranded case), which did earn a marker. Ruled together with (2), please.
4. 0024 @0464C (§8i) and 0020 @0454A–B (§8b) are both missing-word defects with no printed word for a [cj:] to open on. If a convention is ever wanted for that shape, these two are clean specimens.

Range: src/latin/11550/0025.md–0029.md → src/english/11550/0025.md–0029.md. Columns 0467B–0481A (PL 196). Format per entry: column · printed reading · what was done · why.

Anchor/note parity, checked against frontmatter and the Latin twin: 0025 15 anchors / 14 notes · 0026 11 / 5 · 0027 11 / 1 · 0028 9 / 2 · 0029 10 / 3. All match 1:1.

1. Scripture divergences from the received text (Pattern 14 / 7a″)

Marked [var: …]

0467A/B (0025) · Sicut turris David collum tuum, quae aedificatur cum propugnaculis (Cant. 4:4). The Vulgate reads quae aedificata est cum propugnaculis. Migne prints the present passive aedificatur, "is built." Rendered as printed ("which is built"), marked [var: Vulg. aedificata est, "has been built"]. Material, and Richard's own exposition depends on it: the tower is a constructio … et cumulatio bonorum operum, augmentum gratiae, and in quo omnis aedificatio constructa crescit et proficit — an ongoing building, not a finished one. The perfect would flatten the gloss.

0476B/C (0028) · Vado ad montem myrrhae, et collem thuris (Cant. 4:6). The Vulgate reads vadam ad montem myrrhae, et ad collem thuris. Migne prints the present Vado, "I go." Rendered as printed, marked [var: Vulg. vadam, "I will go"]. The lemma is Christ's announcement of his coming to the soul, and the whole chapter glosses it as an arrival already under way (ad hanc Christus merito divertit, ad hanc venit), so the tense is not indifferent.

0477B (0028) · radix eorum aperta est secus aquas [n: (Job XXIX)] (Job 29:19). The Vulgate has Radix mea aperta est secus aquas — Job speaking of himself. Migne prints eorum, third-person plural, agreeing with Richard's subject corda bonorum. Rendered as printed ("their root"), marked [var: Vulg. radix mea, "my root"]. Whether this is Richard adapting the quotation to his sentence or a plate reading is exactly the question Pattern 14 forbids us to adjudicate in the text; both readings are on the page now.

0481A (0029) · Omne quod non fit ex fide … peccatum est [n: (Rom. XIV)] (Rom 14:23). The Vulgate reads omne autem quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Migne prints non fit ex fide, "is not done of faith." Rendered as printed, marked [var: Vulg. non est ex fide, "is not of faith"]. Material here specifically, because Richard's gloss is about acts done against conscience (qui hoc contra talem conscientiam faceret), and the printed fit is the word his gloss hangs on.

Divergences checked and deliberately NOT marked

Each of these is a compression, a truncation, or a woven allusion rather than a change of sense, so [var:] would be noise (Pattern 14 fires on sense).

• 0470D–0471A (0026) · Mille clypei pendent ex ea (Cant. 4:4b) — verbatim Vulgate. Named in the launch prompt; checked word by word; no divergence. Likewise omnis armatura fortium where it re-enters the exposition at 0472A and 0473B.
• 0473C/D (0027) · Duo ubera tua sicut duo hinnuli capreae gemelli qui pascuntur in liliis, donec aspiret dies, et inclinentur umbrae (Cant. 4:5 + 4:6a) — verbatim Vulgate, except that Migne runs 4:5 into the first half of 4:6 as one lemma. A lemma boundary, not a wording divergence. donec aspiret dies is the Vulgate's own word: rendered literally, "until the day breathe," not "till the day break."
• 0478D (0029) · Veni de Libano, sponsa mea; veni de Libano, veni and Coronaberis de capite Amana, de vertice Sanir et Hermon (Cant. 4:8) — verbatim Vulgate as far as they go. The second lemma stops before the Vulgate's de cubilibus leonum, de montibus pardorum; Richard nonetheless glosses those words (in quibus leones et pardi habitant), so the truncation is Migne's typography, not a variant.
• 0478A (0028) · Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te (Cant. 4:7) — verbatim Vulgate.
• 0467B Non ego … sed gratia Dei mecum (1 Cor 15:10) drops the Vulgate's autem; 0469B Panis ejus in utero vertetur (Job 20:14) drops illius; 0470C Erit Omnipotens (Job 22:25) for Eritque; 0473B Cum lapidibus regionum pactum tuum (Job 5:23) drops the opening Sed; 0467D Elegit suspendium anima mea (Job 7:15) drops quam; 0471A Glorietur humilis in exaltatione sua (Jas 1:9) drops autem frater. All compressions that leave the sense intact.
• 0473A inter lapides commoratur [n: (Job VIII)] — the Vulgate has the future commorabitur (Job 8:17). Woven into Richard's own sentence (sicut in Job legitur) rather than set off as a quotation; tense only; no marker.
• 0476C quae sursum sunt, ubi Christus est, et haec sapiens, non quae supra terram (Col 3:1–2) prints supra terram for the Vulgate's super terram; 0477A in morem hortorum for Deut 11:10's in hortorum morem. Unnoted, woven allusions; word order and preposition only.

⚠ Lemma re-quotation drift inside 0027, logged and NOT normalized. The lemma prints qui pascuntur in liliis, and the exposition re-quotes it three ways: Hi autem pascuntur inter lilia · Inter quae pascuntur hi gemelli · Hi quoque hinnuli pascuntur in liliis (0476B). The English follows each occurrence as printed ("among the lilies" throughout, since English inter/in + ablative of place both give "among" here), so the printed variation is visible on the Latin side and no gloss depends on the difference. No marker: Pattern 14 is for scripture quoted as scripture, and two of the three are Richard's own prose.

⚠ [n: (Job XXX)] at 0468D is attached to pugnare ex pharetra … hastam vibrare, which is Job 39:23 (super ipsum sonabit pharetra, vibrabit hasta), not Job 30. Note contents are verbatim per the sacred-marker rule; recorded here only so the indexer's refDisplay/refKey split has the observation. No correction, no marker.

2. Defective type carried through — [sic: …] (Patterns 7, 10, 12) with the 7a⁗ check

For each, the English clause was read with the marker's contents deleted, and the verb / negation / conjunction supplied in plain words beside the marker where the quarantine took it.

0467B (0025) · augmentum gratiae et perfecta dilectis Dei et proximi. dilectis (dat./abl. pl. of dilectus) has no slot: the series needs a nominative singular governed by perfecta. Conjecture dilectio, "love," near-certain. Carried as perfect love [sic: dilectis] of God and of neighbor — the noun's sense supplied beside the marker per 7a⁗ q1, since deleting the run would leave the series without its third member.

0471B (0026) · tantum erga cum potentiora sunt. erga cannot govern cum; neither fragment stands alone, so the whole run is carried per Pattern 10. Conjecture erga eum, "toward him." Rendered so much the more powerful are they [sic: erga cum], and the vices have strength to assail him — predicate and referent both survive outside the quarantine (ad impugnandum eum follows in the same sentence), so nothing needed supplying.

0472B (0026) · quae exhibent arma inquitatis peccato. inquitatis is not a word (for iniquitatis; cf. Rom 6:13). Carried, with the sense supplied beside it: which they yield as arms of iniquity [sic: inquitatis] unto sin.

0474C (0027) · Per lilia quae nitent et odotem habent. odotem is not a word (for odorem). Carried, sense supplied: which shine and have fragrance [sic: odotem]. Note that odorem recurs correctly twice in the same sentence (odorem virtutum) and again at 0474C (bono odore), which is what makes the conjecture certain.

0477C (0028) · ut sicut sibi ad omnibus gratiam postulat. ad + ablative omnibus; conjecture ab omnibus, "from all." The whole run is carried, and because a preposition is a force-carrier (7a⁗-b) the sense is supplied beside it: as she asks grace for herself from all [sic: ad omnibus].

0478C (0028) · dum etiam hanc malorum memoria decora, et … nulla elatio maculat. decora is a real adjective but has no slot: hanc is accusative and the parallel clause has a finite maculat. Conjecture decorat. The marked run was the clause's only predicate, so the verb is supplied beside it per 7a⁗ q1: while the memory of her evils even adorns [sic: decora] her.

0480C (0029) · Sed si contritio interveveniat, veniale est. interveveniat is not a word (dittographic -ve-; for interveniat). The marked run was the protasis's only verb, so it is supplied beside the marker: But if contrition intervene [sic: interveveniat], it is venial.

0480D (0029) · quia pot isset se ad faciendum sollicitum exhibui se. ⚠ Two word-division defects in one clause — the 7a⁗-b shape, and the most dangerous site in this range. pot isset is potuisset split across a space; exhibui se is exhibuisse split so that the ending detaches as the real word se (which also duplicates the genuine se earlier in the clause). Both runs are carried whole per Pattern 10, spacing included. Quarantining them takes out the clause's only finite verb and its only infinitive at once, leaving "because he … solicitous for the doing" with no predicate whatever; so both senses are supplied in plain words beside the markers: because he could have [sic: pot isset] shown himself [sic: exhibui se] solicitous for the doing, and so, at the time of doing, not have omitted it. The argument this closes (culpable omission is imputable because the man could have been diligent) is destroyed outright if either verb is left inside the quarantine.

3. Dittography — [d: …] (Pattern 11)

0470D–0471A (0026) · Si enim fundatae fuerint virtutes in anima, perfecte se despicit, et vere humilis est, minus laeditur vel gravatur, robur non habent contra hanc vitia, seu tentamenta, et qui perfecte se despicit, et vere humilis est, minus laeditur vel gravatur, si contemptus habeatur.

Migne sets the run perfecte se despicit, et vere humilis est, minus laeditur vel gravatur twice, across the 0471A column break — a compositor's eye-skip of a whole clause, not a doubled word. Both occurrences are rendered (Pattern 7); the marker annotates provenance only.

⚠ The marker is on the FIRST occurrence, not the second, and that is deliberate. Pattern 11 wraps "the repeated occurrence … not the original," and here the copy that belongs to the sentence is the second: it carries its own subject (et qui…) and its own conditional tail (si contemptus habeatur), while the first copy interrupts the apodosis robur non habent contra hanc vitia. Marking the second would have annotated the grammatically integrated clause and left the relative qui with no predicate on the page — the 7a⁗ hazard applied to a [d:]. Nothing is removed either way; the choice is only about which copy the tooltip attributes to the plate. Flag for the merge step in case the work settles a different convention for a clause-length doubling.

4. [cj: …] — the printed word is real and the faithful English misleads (Pattern 18)

0471C (0026) · ut tentatus sive a carnis concupiscentia, sive gula, sive voluntate propria, sed propinquorum affectu, vel carnali aliquo motu. sed is a perfectly good conjunction, so Pattern 12 has nothing to wrap and Pattern 7 renders it — and the English then reads "or by his own will, but by affection for kinsfolk," which breaks a sive … sive … sive series in the middle and makes the fourth member contrast with the first three instead of joining them. This is the correlative class the 2026-08-15 extension of Pattern 18 rules in. Additive gloss, Migne's word first: but [cj: sed; read sive, "or"] by affection for kinsfolk.

0475C/D (0027) · adeo ut si ipsi miseri non clament, ista auribus tuis non insonent. Rendered literally, the page says that if the wretched do not cry out their miseries do not sound in the Virgin's ears — and Richard's very next sentence denies it: Non possunt haec ante te silere, nec auditum tuum latere, followed by nec possis miserias scire, et non subvenire. The whole passage argues that misery reaches her whether or not it is voiced (Habet enim miseria clamorem, et vallis haec lacrymas). The printed word that went wrong is a negation, which is precisely where incoherence is not a defence, so the gloss is additive and the negation is still carried in the English: these things sound not in thine ears [cj: non insonent; read insonent, "they do sound"]. Per 7a, no word was translated as its opposite and nothing was smoothed; the contradiction stands on the page with the conjecture beside it.

5. Passages rendered as printed that will not fully construe (Pattern 7, no marker)

0467D (0025) · ut carnaliter esse fortes desinant et spiritualiter convalescant ita dum de se desperant … — no punctuation between convalescant and ita. Nothing supplied (Pattern 8); the English runs on identically.

0467D (0025) · Qui enim fortes fuerat in quaerendis terrenis, fortes fiant … — singular fuerat under a plural Qui … fortes, then plural fiant. English does have an exponent here, so the mismatch is preserved visibly rather than smoothed: "For he who had been strong in seeking earthly things, let them become strong…". No marker: the words are real, they occupy their slots, and the defect is visible in our English as it is in the Latin.

0470A (0025) · super has roboratur et firma consistit anima in miraculis non solidatur vel fundatur — Migne prints no mark between anima and in miraculis, so two clauses run together. Neither supplied nor deleted (Pattern 8); the English reads "…stands firm in miracles she is not made solid or grounded, but…". Conjecture: a full stop or semicolon after anima.

0470D (0025) · Quoties ergo tentationibus inimici resistimus cumque confutamus — cumque is a real word and can be read "and when," which is how it is rendered ("and when we confute them," tentationibus supplying the object). Conjecture eumque, "and him," which the following retorquetur in eum supports. Not marked: the word occupies a slot and renders in place, so Pattern 12's own boundary keeps it out (a real word merely wrong is rendered as ordinary English).

0471A (0026) · humilitatem exaltationis intelligit — rendered literally, "understands the humility of exaltation." Conjecture humilitatem exaltationem, "understands humility to be exaltation," which is what the antithesis (de contemptu vel abjectione gloriatur + Jas 1:9) wants. Left as printed; no marker (both words real, both in slot).

0472A (0026) · In qua turri omnis armatura fortium esse adjungitur — the construction has no clean English; rendered word-for-word, "In which tower all the armor of the strong is added to be," i.e. the verse adds the clause omnis armatura fortium to the tower. Flagged for the merge in case a later hand finds a better literal.

0472C (0026) · quorum laudibus dum afflictus fuerit aliquis — afflictus ("afflicted") in a sentence about being flattered into losing self-knowledge; conjecture afflatus, "puffed up." Rendered as printed. Declined for Pattern 18: the word is neither a negation nor a correlative, and "afflicted by their praises" is odd rather than a false assertion (the 8195 asyndeton boundary).

0476D–0477A (0028) · Pro hac expandit manus suas ad Deum, et animam suam sicut terram sine aqua, carnalis videlicet humoris hanc gratiam anima sitire sicut terra quae est sine humore solet aquam desiderare, unde velociter exaudiri meretur — anacoluthon: the Ps 142:6 allusion loses its verb, and the infinitive sitire hangs with no governing verb. Rendered as closely as the printed words allow (sine aqua … carnalis videlicet humoris taken as "without water, namely of carnal moisture"), with nothing supplied. Every word is real, so no marker.

0477C (0028) · Quae si se denique sic dilatet et expandat, ut … desideret, et poscat. — a protasis with no apodosis; the sentence simply stops. Rendered as printed, no terminal repair (Pattern 8). The following Nonne tanto largius …? is probably the intended apodosis, put as a question.

0479B (0029) · Ubi enim a carnalibus cordis vasa vacua non fuerit — singular fuerit with plural vasa. Rendered with a normal English plural ("the vessels of the heart have not been empty"), because forcing the disagreement ("the vessels … hath not been") would read as our own error on a page where the Latin faces it. Logged as a number mismatch; ⚠ marked so a later sweep does not churn it — this is the boundary case between Pattern 9 (normalize where English has no exponent) and the 11632 @0304A ruling (mark where rendering hides the defect), and it was decided for Pattern 9 because the disagreement is between a subject and its copula and the Latin twin shows it plainly.

0476A/B (0027) · quia et Dei contemplatione satiantur nobis occurrunt charitate — no mark between satiantur and nobis. Nothing supplied; the English runs together identically.

6. Fixed vocabulary — followed, with the tensions logged

• fortis/fortitudo = "strong"/"strength" throughout, including the lemma's omnis armatura fortium at 0472A/0473B ("all the armor of the strong"), not "of valiant men." Chapters XXI–XXII are one continuous argument about fortitudo — fortes in gratia · manu fortis · in robur transire virile · firmos ac fortes — and Douay's "valiant" would break the hook the whole exposition hangs on at exactly the point Richard is glossing.
• propugnacula = "bulwarks" (0025, four occurrences). Richard's gloss is strictly defensive and offensive at once — quibus se contra hostes defendat, et ex quibus hostes impugnet et feriat — so the word had to be a fortification a defender fights from, not a mere battlement. "Bulwarks" carries both; "battlements" and "parapets" carry only the first.
• clypei = "shields" (0026, and 0468D in 0025 where the enemy clypeum ei opponit). Fixed across both chunks deliberately: the same noun is the bride's ornament in the lemma and the devil's weapon in the exposition, and Richard is playing on that. "Bucklers" (Douay) would have broken the pair, and the neighbouring jaculo non perforatur / in hostem jacula mittamus ("dart") needed to stay distinct from it.
• hinnuli capreae = "fawns of a roe", mother and young kept distinct, because the whole of chapter XXIII turns on the distinction: hinnuli capreae, id est Ecclesiae and gemelli sunt capreae, id est Christi a quo pariter capiunt et sugunt lac — the caprea is the one suckled from, the hinnuli are the ones who ad lac currunt. A modern Bible's "two young roes" collapses them into one animal and the gloss stops working. gemelli is kept as a separable apposition ("twins") for the same reason: Richard glosses it on its own (quia eadem doctrina reficiuntur utrique).
• lectus = "bed" at 0472A (nunquam lecti suavitate oblectati). This range contains no lectulus, so the load-bearing diminutive pair is not exercised here; recorded so the merge can see the range was checked for it.
• sponsa = "the bride" (0478D, sponsa mea → "my bride"); amica mea = "my love" (0478A). Both per the table.
• quies = "stillness" at 0479B (non praestat quietem; super humilem et quietum requiescit → "the humble and the still"), per the table, even though "rest"/"quiet" would read more naturally in a sentence about satiety. Logged as a place the table was followed against the ear.
• ⚠ pietas = "tenderness" — a choice this range had to make, and the merge should ratify or overrule it. Chapter XXIII (0027) uses pietas ~10 times of the Virgin's disposition, in explicit distinction from misericordia ("mercy," ~12 times), compassio ("compassion"), and piis ("the pious," 0475B). Rendering pietas as "mercy" or "piety" would either collide with misericordia or import the wrong sense; "tenderness" keeps all four separable (pietatis lac → "the milk of tenderness" beside misericordiae lacte → "the milk of mercy"). The chapter head De pietate bonorum is translated to match ("On the tenderness of the good"). This is the one term in the range whose choice reaches beyond it — if pietas appears elsewhere in 11550 rendered otherwise, this is the drift to reconcile at merge.

7. For the merge step

⚠ 0029's lemma repeats the prologue's. Veni de Libano, sponsa mea; veni de Libano, veni (Cant. 4:8) at 0478D is the same verse the work's prologue takes as its lemma (chunk 0001, per the launch brief). Chunk 0001's English was deliberately not consulted, per the instruction and per the within-work reconciliation being the merge's job, not the translator's. The reading here is straight off the printed Latin of 0029, which is verbatim Vulgate. If 0001 prints the same Latin, the two Englishes should be reconciled at merge; if it prints different Latin, they must not be.

Other items to check across the whole work at merge:

• pietas (section 6, last item) — the only genuinely work-wide vocabulary decision made here.
• fortium in the Cant. 4:4 lemma ("the armor of the strong") — chunks outside this range that re-quote the same lemma must agree.
• the [d: …] placement convention for a clause-length doubling (section 3).
• 0472A's esse adjungitur rendering (section 5).

Range: src/latin/11550/0030.md–0034.md → src/english/11550/0030.md–0034.md. Columns 0481B–0491A (PL 196). Format per entry: column · printed reading · what was done · why.

Anchor/note parity, counted in the body only and checked against the Latin twin and the frontmatter: 0030 6 anchors / 1 note · 0031 7 / 2 · 0032 4 / 2 · 0033 9 / 2 · 0034 14 / 4. All match 1:1 and in order. EN:LA word ratio 1.39 / 1.45 / 1.49 / 1.47 / 1.50. Zero guillemets in the Latin, zero supplied in the English. Zero em-dashes.

0030 repeats 0029's ## CAPUT XXV head with (cont.) — runbook known-false-positive 7. The head is translated exactly as 0029 has it and the (cont.) marker is carried untranslated.

0. GARDEN VOCABULARY, fixed here for chunks 0035–0037 and 0047 (0487D onward)

Cant. 4:12–14 opens at 0487D in this range and the exposition runs on into the next agent's chunks. These are the choices; they are recorded here because nothing else carries them across the merge.

0a. Other vocabulary settled in this range

• mammae = "paps" · ubera = "breasts". Cant. 4:10 sets the two words side by side and 0033 glosses each in turn (Duae mammae duplex est compassio … Haec ubera habet quando … Cujus ubera pulchriora vino), so one English word for both would erase a distinction the page makes. ubera = "breasts" matches 0027 (Cant. 4:5, Duo ubera tua), which is why mammae took the other word rather than the reverse. ⚠ Merge note: if a later agent renders mammae as "breasts" anywhere, the pair collapses; this is the one term in the range most likely to drift.
• favus distillans = "a honeycomb dropping", fronted as Migne fronts it, because the gloss repeats the whole phrase as its subject (Favus distillans sunt labia devotae animae).
• pietas = tenderness, misericordia = mercy, compassio = compassion, discretio = discretion, notitia = acquaintance — all per the ratified table; all three of the first group occur inside two sentences at 0485D–0486A and the distinction is Richard's argument there.
• pardi = leopards (matching 0029), including leopardorum at 0484B.
• candidatio kept in italic Latin at 0484A (de Libano vocatur, id est de candidatione), per ratified item 3. ⚠ Merge conflict, flagged not resolved: 0029 renders the same word into English at 0478D ("Lebanon is called whitening or a making white"). Both are defensible — 0016 and this chunk keep the Latin, 0029 translates it — but the work should not do both. Recommend sweeping 0029 to the Latin form, since the ratified rule names candidatio.

1. Scripture divergences from the received text (Pattern 14 / 7a″)

Criterion applied, stated so it can be checked: [var: …] fires where the quotation is marked as a quotation (italic and/or an [n: …] locator) and the divergence changes the sense. A woven allusion in Richard's own running prose, with neither italics nor a locator, is logged below and left unmarked — the calibration round 1 used at cruces-0025.

Marked [var: …]

0481A/B (0030) · sol non occidit super iracundiam ejus [n: (Ephes. IV)] (Eph. 4:26). The Vulgate reads sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram — a jussive addressed to the hearers, "let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Migne prints the indicative occidit and the singular ejus, turning a command into a statement of fact. Rendered as printed ("the sun does not go down upon his wrath"), marked [var: Vulg. sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram, "let not the sun go down upon your wrath"]. Material, and the gloss depends on it: Richard's id est Christus identifies the sun with Christ, which only works of a statement, not of a precept — the precept has no third party to be identified. Both readings are now on the page.

0484C (0032) · In mundum hunc ego veni, ut qui non vident videant, et qui vident caeci fiant [n: (Joan. IX)] (John 9:39). The Vulgate reads In judicium ego in hunc mundum veni. Migne drops In judicium entirely and reorders the rest. Rendered as printed, marked [var: Vulg. In judicium ego in hunc mundum veni, "For judgment I am come into this world"]. An omitted phrase, not a compression: the whole point of the verse in John is the judgment, and Richard's gloss substitutes a different purpose for it (Pro hoc illuminando ad nos venit).

0488D/0489A (0034) · Radix mea aperta est super aquas [n: (Job XXIX)] (Job 29:19). The Vulgate reads secus aquas, "beside the waters." Migne prints super. Rendered as printed ("above the waters"), marked [var: Vulg. secus aquas, "beside the waters"]. ⭐ This is the second divergence in this work at the same verse and they are different ones: 0028 @0477B prints radix eorum aperta est secus aquas (marked [var:] there for eorum), while this site keeps mea and changes the preposition. The two sites together are evidence about Migne's copy-text that neither carries alone, so both markers are wanted.

Divergences checked and deliberately NOT marked

The five named Song lemmata were read word by word against the received text. Four of the five are verbatim Vulgate; the fifth diverges only in punctuation.

• 0482C/D (0031) · Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te (Cant. 4:7) — verbatim Vulgate. The lemma-internal negation (macula non est in te) is carried exactly as printed, "and there is no spot in thee," and the whole chapter is built on it (ut nec maculam habuerit, sine omni macula). Note this lemma was already quoted at 0478A in chunk 0028 and agrees there too.
• 0484C (0032) · Vulnerasti cor meum, soror mea, sponsa; vulnerasti cor meum in uno oculorum tuorum, et in uno crine colli tui (Cant. 4:9) — verbatim Vulgate, including both singulars. Rendered "with one of thine eyes" and "with one hair of thy neck," and the number is the hinge of the exposition: hoc uno solo oculo, id est contemplatione unica et singulari · Unus crinis colli est unica cogitatio. A plural anywhere in the English would silently dissolve the chapter.
• 0485C (0033) · Quam pulchrae sunt mammae tuae, soror mea sponsa, pulchriora sunt ubera tua vino, et odor unguentorum tuorum super omnia aromata (Cant. 4:10) — verbatim Vulgate except punctuation: the Vulgate exclaims (mammae tuae, soror mea sponsa!), Migne prints a comma. Punctuation follows the plate (Pattern 8), so the English is not exclaimed. Not a [var:].
• 0486C (0033) · Favus distillans labia tua, sponsa; mel et lac sub lingua tua, et odor vestimentorum tuorum sicut odor thuris (Cant. 4:11) — verbatim Vulgate.
• 0487C/D (0034) · Hortus conclusus, soror mea sponsa, hortus conclusus, fons signatus, emissiones tuae paradisus malorum punicorum cum pomorum fructibus (Cant. 4:12–13) — verbatim Vulgate, with the two verses run into one lemma (a lemma boundary, not a variant; same treatment as 0027's 4:5+4:6a). The doubled hortus conclusus is Migne's and the Vulgate's, and Richard argues from the repetition, so it is not a dittography and takes no [d: …].
• 0490B/C (0034) · Fistula, inquit, et cinnamomum cum universis lignis Libani (Cant. 4:14) — verbatim as far as it goes. The inquit stands inside the quoted words and stays there (Pattern 5), with no guillemets supplied.
• 0489D/0490A (0034) · Emittit enim cyprum, cum nardo et crocum (Cant. 4:13b–14a). The Vulgate reads Cypri cum nardo, nardus et crocus. Migne puts the nouns in the accusative to govern them by emittit and does not repeat nardus. Declined: the case is the author's weave into his own sentence, and the dropped second nardus changes nothing — the exposition glosses Nardus and Crocus separately in the next two sentences either way.
• 0483A (0031) · Invenisti gratiam apud Deum [n: (Luc. I)] (Luke 1:30) drops the Vulgate's enim; 0490C/D (0034) · Aemulamini charismata meliora [n: (I Cor. XII)] (1 Cor. 12:31) drops autem. Both declined — connective particles dropped when a clause is lifted out, the class cruces-0025 already declined for 1 Cor. 15:10 and Job 20:14.
• 0485D/0486A (0033) · Visitans speciem tuam non peccabis (Job 5:24) — verbatim Vulgate, and unitalicized in Migne, so unitalicized here.
• 0488B (0034) · Ita qui parva negligit paulatim decidit [n: (Eccli. XIX)] (Sir. 19:1). The Vulgate reads Qui negligit modica, paulatim decidet. Declined: parva for modica is the same sense, and the present for the future is Richard's woven syntax, not a claim about the verse.
• 0487B (0033) · Job 20:17, reported indirectly (de quibus in Job legitur, quod eos hypocrita et fictus non videbit). Not a quotation of words at all — hypocrita et fictus is Richard's subject, and the Vulgate's torrentis is simply not in his sentence. Nothing to mark.
• ⚠ 0489A (0034) · ut videat voluntatem Domini (Ps. 26:4). The Vulgate reads ut videam voluptatem Domini, "that I may see the delight of the Lord"; Migne prints voluntatem, the will. The sense changes and the gloss depends on the printed word — per cujus impletionem ad illam perveniat, "by the fulfilling of which she may come to it," which can be said of a will and not of a delight. Declined nonetheless, and this is the one decline in the range I would not defend hard: the whole psalm verse is woven into Richard's own third-person prose with no italics and no [n: …], which is precisely the class round 1 declined. Recorded here so the merge can promote it in one edit if the criterion is widened. Companion woven allusions in the same paragraph, all declined and all unmarked: Ps. 28:9 (in quo dicunt omnes cives illius gloriam), Ps. 57:5–6 (the deaf asp), Ps. 147:13 (confortatae sunt serae portarum), Isa. 1:18, Col. 3:5 (which drops libidinem), Luke 9:23, Rom. 8:6, Prov. 31:10 (mulier ista fortis cujus pretium procul est), Luke 11:21, Cant. 8:6 at 0484D, Luke 2:35 and Job 25:5 at 0483D, Gen. 27:27 and Exod. 16:31 at 0486D–0489D.

2. [cj: …] fired (Pattern 18, within the ratified negation/correlative bar)

2.1 · 0481A/B (0030) · Ira enim non est mortalis quando aliquis movetur circa proximum voluntate et consensu nocendi ei… — a negation has fallen out and the sentence now asserts what Richard spends two chapters denying: that anger with the will and consent to harm the neighbor is not mortal. His own next sentence supplies the missing word: Simile est de omnibus aliis motibus citra voluntatem, et consensum faciendi contra dilectionem Dei et proximi; and 0482A settles it outright, cum eis ita consentit aliquis … tunc primum mortaliter peccat. The printed clause's own reason — quia tantum primos motus iracundiae incurrit, "because he incurs only the first motions of wrath" — describes the case without consent. Rendered as printed, glossed: with the will and consent [cj: voluntate et consensu; read sine voluntate et consensu, "without the will and consent"]. Fires under ratified item 7 (the wrong word is a negation) and under the 7561 precedent that a dropped word is glossable, because the gloss opens on words Migne did print. A second conjecture is possible — deleting non from non est mortalis — and is weaker: citra voluntatem in the following sentence points at the ablative phrase, not the verb.

2.2 · 0484A (0031) · per munditiae fetorem — "through the stench of cleanness," in a list of the reasons men are a Deo separatis. Richard's own gloss of the same mountain, twelve lines earlier in 0030 at 0482B, reads Sanir, id est fetentes per immundam vitam, and 0029 at 0479D has those who stink through uncleanness. Rendered as printed, glossed: through the stench of cleanness [cj: munditiae; read immunditiae, "of uncleanness"]. ⚠ The judgment call, named so it can be overruled: I treated a lost privative im- as a negation, which is what brings it inside the ratified bar. The near-misses that bar declines (spem for sepem, effectum for affectum) are lookalike substitutions that do not invert a claim; this one inverts it, and the founding case of Pattern 18 is itself munde/mundo. If the merge reads the bar more narrowly, the marker comes out and this entry stays as a census candidate.

3. [sic: …] fired (Pattern 12) — all four confirmed against the corpus

Method per ratified item 6: grepped all 5,276 PL TEI files (87M words) with word boundaries. Each of these four forms occurs exactly once in the entire corpus — this work, this site. The corpus is its own control, and a hapax is not an attested medieval spelling (so Pattern 9's exemption does not reach them).

3.1 · 0485A (0032) · gaudium quod tibi emavi atque praeparavi — emavi is not a Latin form (emo → emi). Carried untranslated with the sense supplied beside it per 7a⁗: the joy which I purchased [sic: emavi] for thee and prepared. Conjecture: emi, "I bought" — Christ has just said pretium tuum fui, and 0485A closes praemium ero, so the commercial metaphor is explicit. 7a⁗ check: the clause keeps a second predicate (praeparavi), no negation, no conjunction inside the marker.

3.2 · 0486D (0033) · Hujus ordor floris est sicut odor agri pleni — ordor for odor, four words before a correct odor in the same clause. Carried with the sense beside it: The odor [sic: ordor] of this flower is as the odor of a full field. The chapter's whole second half is an argument about odor (odor unguentorum, odor thuris, boni odoris famam), so leaving the English without the word was not an option.

3.3 · 0489A (0034) · Hunc ergo hortum sic conclusum fons signarus irrigat — signarus for signatus, and the very next clause prints fontem itaque signatum correctly. Carried with the sense beside it: a sealed [sic: signarus] fountain waters. ⚠ This one sits inside the work's central image: it is the second member of the Cant. 4:12 lemma, so a bare quarantine would have taken the seal out of the sentence that introduces the seal.

3.4 · 0490C/D (0034) · junguntur, quis dum carnem a lascivia restringimus — quis for quia. A real word with no grammatical slot (a nominative interrogative stranded before a dum clause and a consequens est main clause), so it keeps the marker under the 11632 ruling, test 1. The conjunction it swallowed governs the whole sentence, so 7a⁗ question 3 requires the force in plain words: because [sic: quis] while we restrain the flesh from wantonness….

3.5 · 0490D (0034) · Primi parentes terestrem habebant paradisum — terestrem for terrestrem, a hapax in the corpus. Carried untranslated: The first parents had a [sic: terestrem] paradise. No sense supplied beside it, because the same sentence's post hanc coelestem habituri carries the contrast; the reader loses nothing but a word he can see is broken.

4. Declined [cj:] sites — census candidates, per ratified item 7

Each is a real printed word whose faithful English is awkward or wrong-footed, and none is a negation or a correlative, so none is glossed in the text.

1. 0487D (0034) · virtutum plantaria, et spiritualium studiorum gemina — read germina, "shoots," which is exactly what 0490D prints in the parallel phrase (virtutes scilicet et spiritualium germina studiorum) and what 0488C prints at germina virtutum suffocat. gemina is a real word and this chapter is saturated with it (De gemina conclusione, gemina concussione, gemina sollicitudine, gemina dulcedo), so the alternative reading is that gemina is adjectival, "twofold," modifying plantaria across the comma. Rendered on the adjectival reading with a supplied noun in brackets — "the seedlings of the virtues, and the twin [seedlings] of spiritual studies" — because the twin-things-of-studies reading yields nothing at all. Declined: not a negation, and two conjectures compete.
2. 0483C (0031) · si pulchra fuerit quam splendorem lucis in se suscepit — two accusatives, no relative subject; read quae. Rendered "if she was fair who received into herself the splendor of light." A case slip, not a negation.
3. 0484D (0032) · Illa igitur cogitatio, et in illorum apertura oculum cordis defigens aperis hunc… — a nominative cogitatio with a second-person verb aperis; read cogitatione. Rendered as closely as the printed words allow ("That thought therefore, and fixing the eye of the heart upon the opening of them, thou openest this one…").
4. 0486B (0033) · quantum ipse novit perfecte compati et subvenire — masculine ipse where the subject through the whole sentence is the sponsa; read ipsa. Rendered "he himself" as printed, which makes God the measure of her advance. Note this is not the Pattern 9 gender exemption: English has an exponent here (he/she), so choosing "she" would have been a silent repair, not a normalization.
5. 0490D (0034) · Hanc paradisus arborum profert et emittit — Hanc accusative with paradisus nominative in the same phrase; read paradisum (Migne treats paradisus as feminine three sentences later, Haec est paradisus in qua, and that is attested medieval usage — Pattern 9, no marker). Rendered "This paradise of trees she brings forth and sends forth."
6. 0483A (0031) · sed has ignotas et notas, ad omnes denique homines, ad hos omnes charitas ejus dilatata fuit — has has no governing preposition or verb (read ad has). Rendered as printed, anacoluthon included.
7. 0488A (0034) · Per silentium enim excolit in profectu et justitia — excolit transitive with no object; read the passive excolitur, "is cultivated," which the next clause's cultus justitiae supports. Rendered actively as printed.
8. 0486C (0033) · judicio praecellere et boni odoris famam meretur anteferre — active anteferre where the sense wants the passive anteferri. Rendered actively.

5. Passages that will not construe — rendered as closely as the printed words allow

5.1 · 0486B/C (0033), the longest one · hujus suavitatis fragrantiam, et unctionis spiritualis quam tam benigne afficitur ad omnes, condolet, gemit, orat et subveniri cupit in naribus superni sponsi, suavis omnium virtutum, operibus redolet, et placere cognoscitur. Two accusatives (fragrantiam, unctionis … ) with no governing verb; quam where the sense wants the ablative qua; suavis omnium virtutum left without a noun to agree with (an odor is probably lost). Rendered clause by clause with the accusatives promoted to the subject of est … in naribus, which is the least invention the printed words permit. No word was added and none dropped. Flagged because a later reader will suspect our English before he suspects the plate, and it is the plate.

5.2 · 0482B/C (0030) · Horum leonum, seu pardorum habitatio sunt iniqui, quorum perversos mores et peccata dum boni non imitantur, sed fugiunt, et interdum tales exemplo et doctrina ad bonum convertunt. De his montibus et cubilibus … coronantur — the dum clause never reaches its main verb, because Migne closes the sentence with a full stop after convertunt and starts a new one whose subject silently shifts to boni. Preserved exactly (Pattern 8: never delete a printed stop): the English hangs where the Latin hangs. The negation non imitantur is carried.

5.3 · 0484B (0031) · Quae beata, dum ab eorum cordibus quos … deceperat, meritis et intercessione sua liberavit, de cubilibus seu montibus … coronari perhibetur — ab eorum cordibus with an accusative object quos gives "she freed from their hearts those whom he had deceived," which is what is printed; the antecedent of eorum is the lions of the preceding sentence. Rendered literally, with tectus ("covered over") kept as the printed nominative describing the deceiver.

5.4 · 0486D (0033) · ita dulcia et suavia erant quae proferebant, vel docebant ad hujusmodi flores pervolat — two clauses fused, with Migne's comma the only mark available. The comma is kept and no colon or stop supplied (Pattern 8), so the English reads as the anacoluthon it is.

5.5 · 0484B (0031) · nullum locum rependi — not a defect, and it looks like one. rependi here is the gerund of repere, "to creep" (rep- + -endi), not a form of rependere, "to repay." Rendered "no place of creeping," of the devil in the Virgin's breast. Logged so that a later sweep does not "fix" it into a repayment. The whole phrase is a corpus hapax, which is what made it worth checking rather than assuming.

6. Pattern 9 items — no markers, logged so no later sweep churns them

Hierusalem (0491A) · coelestem/coelestis passim · paradisus as a feminine noun (0490D, 0491A) · nardus with de quo and crocus with quae, both gender mismatches with no English exponent (0490A) · communicari used for communicare (0482A, attested) · the abbreviation B. Virgo at 0483D, expanded to "the blessed Virgin" (Pattern L5: the sentence's grammar contains the whole word).

7. Two smaller notes

7.1 · 0481C (0030) · praepropere, laute, nimis ardenter, studiose — Gregory's five modes of gluttony (Moralia XXX), which the tradition lists as praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose. Migne's setting yields four members, with nimis absorbed into ardenter. Rendered as four, "over-hastily, sumptuously, too ardently, with studied care." No marker: nothing is broken type and nothing asserts a falsehood; a dropped comma is not a defect class we mark. Logged because the count is a real datum about this plate.

7.2 · 0481D (0030) · sicut dicit Augustinus, nullum peccatum adeo peccatum veniale est… — the Augustine quotation is introduced with a comma and Migne prints no quotation marks of any kind. No guillemets supplied (Pattern 6: « » is his, and he has none here) and no straight quotes either, since the boundary of the quotation is not determinable from the page. The comma stands.

Range: 0035–0039, cols 0491B–0503A, CAPUT XXX–XXXIII (0039 is the (cont.) of XXXIII). Round 2 agent. Ratified decisions of chunks 0000–0029 followed throughout and not reopened.

Marker totals for this range: 4 [var:] · 5 [sic:] · 1 [cj:] · 0 [ed:] · 0 [d:] · 0 [nt:]. (Four [sic:] are itemized in §1; the fifth, 0037's acquisitio, is in §5.1 with the construing problem it belongs to.) Declined [cj:] census candidates: 7 (§4).

0. Garden vocabulary — my choices, for the merge

The garden field runs across 0030–0039 and was worked by two agents in parallel. Mine:

1. [sic:] — carried type (4)

1.1 ⛔ 0035 @0491A (lemma), Fons nortorum for Cant. 4:15 Fons hortorum — the range's principal defect

Migne's lemma opens the chapter with Fons nortorum. nortorum is not a Latin word; the defect sits on the lemma's own governing genitive, so this is Pattern 12 with the 7a⁗-b care (a word-division-class hole exactly the size of a lexeme, and the lexeme is the one that makes the fountain a fountain of gardens).

What I did. Fountain [sic: nortorum] of gardens, well of living waters, which flow with a rush from Lebanon [n: (Cant. IV)]. The carried run takes no second italic marker because it sits inside the already-italic lemma (Pattern 10's nested-italics clause), and "of gardens" stands outside the quarantine in plain English so the garden is not lost to the reader — without it the chapter's fountain has nothing to water and CAPUT XXX loses its connection to the hortus conclusus of CAPUT XXIX.

The corroboration is dense and internal, and does not need a plate read.

• hortus is set correctly 14 times in chunk 0034 alone (7 × hortus incl. hortus conclusus, 4 × hortum, 2 × horto, 1 × horti).
• 0035 itself prints Isti sunt horti et sunt conclusi nine lines below the defective lemma.
• 0036's own lemma prints perfla hortum meum correctly; 0037 prints in hortum suum, in hortum meum, hortum meum conclusum, hortulanus.
• Corpus control (the Pigmen method, ratified item 6): across the full PL TEI (5,276 files) Fons hortorum occurs in 61 files, and nortorum occurs in one file — this one, this site. The corpus is its own control.

Conjecture: hortorum, certain.

1.2 0035 @0491B — exerescere for excrescere

Fons iste non cessat ebullire, et erumpere ad Dei amorem, ad proprium exerescere, et dilatari ad proximi dilectionem. Not a word; carried in italics. 7a⁗ checked: the clause's predicate is non cessat + three surviving infinitives, the negation is outside the marker and carried ("does not cease"), no conjunction swallowed — so no sense had to be supplied beside it. Conjecture excrescere, "to grow", near-certain: the very next sentence prints sed perfectissime et ad plenum semper excrescit.

1.3 0035 @0492A — sed ipse … debilitantur

sed ipse fervore spirituali, et amore boni debilitantur in pugna et enervantur. A nominative singular ipse against plural debilitantur, with plural daemones as the only possible subject. Marked, not rendered, on Pattern 12's ruled test (2): English "they themselves" has an exponent for number and would therefore hide the disagreement — a silent repair of exactly the 11632 @0304A shape. 7a⁗ checked: the verb (debilitantur), the sed, and both ablatives survive outside the marker. Conjecture ipsi.

⚠ Boundary note for the merge: Pattern 9 exempts gender mismatches because English has no exponent. Number is not gender. If the merge decides ipse/ipsi is a Pattern 9 item after all, the demotion is one edit and the English then reads "but they themselves are weakened"; I judged marking the safer direction.

1.4 0038 @0499C — Et item egitur for legitur

Et item egitur: Quod Spiritus sanctus auferet se a cogitationibus… Not a word. 7a⁗ question 1 applies and was answered: the marked run was the clause's only predicate, so the sense stands beside it in plain words — And again it is written [sic: egitur]: — rather than leaving a citation formula with no verb. Conjecture legitur, certain (the formula sicut in Job legitur / sicut scriptum est recurs five times in 0037–0038).

2. [var:] — Migne's scripture against the received text (4)

The whole set was formed by reading each named lemma word against the received text first, then grepping the full PL TEI for the reading as a control. Counts below are files/occurrences in that corpus.

2.1 0036 @0493D — Cant. 4:16 fluent for fluant · FIRED

Surge, aquilo, et veni, auster; perfla hortum meum, et fluent aromata illius.

One letter, and it is the mood: a jussive subjunctive becomes a future indicative. Corpus: fluant aromata illius 40 ×, fluent 31 × — so the reading circulates widely and is not a one-off of this plate; that is a fact about transmission, not a reason to suppress the divergence from the received text (Pattern 14 forbids speculating about why two readings differ).

Fired, and Richard's own gloss is why. He reads the clause as consequence, not wish: Tunc… fluunt aquae gratiae per hortum animae (0494A), et cum minus fluerent haec aromata, non minus habebantur (0494B), Fluunt tunc aromata virtutum tanta utique ubertate (0494C), Fluunt tunc ita virtutum aromata, ut… (0494D). The English must therefore read "shall flow", and a reader who knows "let the spices flow" has to be told the plate does not say it.

⭐ This is the same clause, the same divergence, and the same ruling as 11632 @0401D (Philip of Harveng, cruces-0090 §2f) — an independent range in a different Song commentary fired here too, on the same reasoning from the commentator's own glosses. Two commentaries reaching the same call from their own plates is the strongest evidence this range produced that the threshold is set right. Per the §Song ruling the two Englishes are not harmonized; they happen to agree because both plates agree.

2.2 0038 @0497D — Cant. 5:1 Comedite, amici, et inebriamini · FIRED

Migne drops the middle member of a three-part invitation: received Comedite, amici, et bibite, et inebriamini, carissimi. Corpus: the bibite forms dominate heavily; the bare two-member form is rare.

Fired, because a dependent gloss hangs on the missing member and then reinstates it. Richard's exposition is built as eating-for-friends / drinking-for-dearest: Amicos igitur cibo… Deus pascit. Charissimos vero plenius reficit et potat, imo abundantiore gratia etiam inebriat… De inebriatione vero loqui formido (0500A–B). So the plate has lost the very verb whose gloss occupies the whole second half of the chapter, and a reader collating the two would think Richard had invented potat. (charissimi/carissimi is Pattern 9 spelling — no marker.)

2.3 0038 @0498A — Isa. 55:2 argumentum for argentum · FIRED

Appendunt enim argumentum hujus non in panibus et laborem suum non in saturitate.

The corpus prints the verse seven times and every one reads appenditis argentum … non in panibus, et laborem vestrum non in saturitate. Two changes, weighed separately:

• appendunt / suum for appenditis / vestrum is Richard's own weave into third person (his subject is mali), which the Register's scripture rule protects and no marker touches.
• argumentum for argentum is material: "silver" becomes "argument", and the page then says the wicked weigh out the argument of Scripture not in bread — fluent, and not what Isaiah says.

⚠ Pattern 18 was considered and is wrong here, on the ruled boundary: the divergence sits inside a quoted scripture (the [n: (Isai. LV)] is on the clause), which is Pattern 14's territory. 7561 @0664 is the governing precedent — modio for medio in Deut. 13:1, the identical shape (one letter, real word, fluent and false inside a quotation), ruled into Pattern 14 on 2026-08-15.

2.4 0038 @0498C — Job 29:24 non credebant mihi · FIRED (the weakest of the four)

Corpus: ridebam ad eos, non credebant 9 ×, with the added dative mihi in two files only, this one and 21392. Fired because a gloss depends on the object: Richard's frame both before and after is about believing God himself — Si vero rideat ad eos, non ei credunt … Non itaque cito, vel temere ridenti Deo credunt boni. Without mihi the verse says only that they did not believe; with it, it says they did not believe him, which is the reading the gloss needs.

⚠ If the merge trims one marker from this range, trim this one. It is a pronoun-class addition and the ratified threshold is suspicious of pronoun-equivalence. I fired it on the dependent-gloss half of the test, not the sense half. The English rendering ("did not believe me") is what is printed and stands either way.

3. [cj: …] fired — 1

3.1 0038 @0498D — qua for quam in a non tam … quam correlative

et tamen non tam ex frumento, qua ex adipe frumenti saturantur

qua is a perfectly good Latin form, so Pattern 12 has nothing to wrap and Pattern 7 renders it — and the English then asserts nothing, because the correlative that binds the two members has been weakened into a relative. Rendered additively per Pattern 18:

not so much from the wheat, whereby [cj: qua; read quam, "as"] from the fat of the wheat

This is inside the ratified narrow bar (brief item 7 / Pattern 18's 2026-08-15 widening): the wrong word is a correlative, the same class as 11064 @1142D's si for sic. The next sentence's whole point is the contrast (etiam mystica et interna percipientes — they get the adeps, not the plain frumentum), so the incoherence is not a defence.

4. Declined [cj:] — named census candidates, NOT in the text (7)

Recorded per ratified item 7. I did not widen the bar. Each is a real Latin word rendered literally in the running text; the conjecture lives only here.

5. Passages that would not construe, and printed punctuation preserved

1. 0037 @0495C — de acquisitio ab ea fructu virtutum. Ablative absolute wanting acquisito; nominative acquisitio has no slot (Pattern 12 test 1), so it is marked, and 7a⁗ keeps the participle's sense outside the quarantine: "the fruit of the virtues acquired [sic: acquisitio] by her". Also settled here: the subject of gratuletur is read as the Bridegroom, on the strength of ab ea (a reflexive a se would be expected if the bride were the subject) and of the next sentence, Novit enim quod congaudeat nostro profectui.
2. ⚠ 0037's head prints ## CAPUT XXXII with NO closing period, where all 41 other heads in the work print one. Pattern 8: preserved, never supplied. The English head reads ## CHAPTER XXXII On the coming of Christ… with no period after the numeral and none supplied anywhere. Do not "tidy" this at merge.
3. 0036 @0494D — a full stop inside a list. ut vix unquam ex ore ejus sonus detractionis. scurrilitatis verbum, sermo inanis gloriae, invidiae vox audita fuerit — the printed period breaks a four-member asyndetic list and the next word is lower-case. Preserved exactly, period and lower case both (Pattern 8: never delete a mark the plate prints). The English reads "…the sound of detraction. a word of scurrility, speech of vainglory, the voice of envy;".
4. 0037 @0497C — sicut scriptum est Beati mundo corde, with no colon, where the same formula takes a colon four other times in my range. Preserved: no colon supplied.
5. 0037 @0497D — cum quaedam vident vana et divinant, mendacia, vident visiones fallaces. The comma-isolated mendacia construes with nothing. Rendered in place ("and divine, lies, they see deceitful visions"); no marker, since every word is a word and in a slot.
6. 0036 @0494D — Judicabat enim se unquam nullius utilitatis hominem pasci. unquam without a governing negation (nullius is adjectival to utilitatis). Rendered literally: "a man ever of no usefulness". Both words carried; negation fidelity intact.
7. 0038 @0500B — et hoc ad mensam filiorum et potum non admittar vel accedam. Bare hoc for propter hoc / ob hoc. Rendered "and for this I shall not be admitted…"; the negation non is carried and governs both verbs, as printed.
8. 0035 @0493B–C — nusquam otiose … nunquam … sine fructu. Both negatives carried ("Nowhere dost thou approach this fountain idly, never dost thou return from it without fruit"), including the mild oddity of nusquam where sense wants nunquam. No marker: nusquam is a word in a slot.

6. Divergences weighed and declined — so the absence of a marker is evidence

Recorded because a [var:] not fired is data too (Pattern 14's non-retroactivity means silence must not be read as agreement unless someone says so).

7. Fixed vocabulary followed against my own judgment

1. ferculum kept in italic Latin at all four occurrences in 0038 (@0498A tot fercula; @0499D Ferculum enim est quaelibet meditatio and cum hoc ferculo refectus es; @0500A quando fercula divinitas infert), per ratified item 3. The tension, stated: here the word is not Solomon's litter of Cant. 3:9 but a dish of food, and plain "dish" or "course" would render it cleanly. I followed the ruling anyway, and I think it is right on its own merits and not only by fiat: Richard's sentence Ferculum enim est quaelibet meditatio, quia pascit mentem is verbatim the feeding gloss (quae pascit et reficit) that the ratification says the Latin has to keep, so the Latin word is what carries chapter XXXIII back to chapter XXI. An English "dish" here would silently cut that thread.
2. quies / quiesco — the ratified split applied once, and it went to "stillness". 0038 @0501B closes the chapter Ad hunc modum orandi sive meditandi conor, et suaviter quiesco, cum adhuc pertingo. This is the mind's contemplative quiet in a sentence about a method of prayer, not the rest of the blessed, so: "and I am sweetly still" (not "I rest"). Site logged as ratified item 2 requires. No eschatological requies occurs in my range.
3. Etymological glosses stay in Latin, with the sense beside them — the candidatio precedent, extended to the three name-interpretations in 0035: Gerare enim interpretatur incolatus visio, Libanus qui interpretatur candidatio, aquae Jordanis, qui interpretatur descensus eorum, plus 0036's unde aquilo aquas ligans dicitur. In each the Latin stands italic and an English sense follows in the clear ("incolatus visio, the seeing of a sojourning"; "aquas ligans, the binder of waters"). The etymologies are the argument; an English-only rendering would make Richard's derivations explain nothing, and a Latin-only one would leave the reader out.
4. pietas = tenderness (0036 @0494D pietatis visceribus, @0495B viscera pietatis; 0037 @0495D pietati divinae), never "piety" or "mercy", per ratified item 5. misericordia → mercy and miserationes → mercies stay separate (0039 @0502D, 0038 @0501A).

8. For the merge — three things to check across the seams

1. ⭐ 0039's lemma is the SECOND exposition of Cant. 5:2 in this work. Ego dormio, et cor meum vigilat here; chunk 0002 already expounded it in the reported form dormit, sed cor ejus vigilat. Per the brief I did not consult 0002's English — 0039 is translated from the Latin in front of me. The two are different Latin (indicative 1st person vs. 3rd person with sed), so they should read differently; what the merge must check is that the English of the shared words agrees within the work (I have "I sleep, and my heart waketh"), since one-voice-within-a-work is a required step and only the merge can see both.
2. [sic: nortorum] carries no asterisks because it sits inside the italic lemma. If a later pass normalizes marker contents to italic, this one must be left alone or the nested asterisks will break the lemma's italic run.
3. Chapter numbering seam. My range runs CAPUT XXX, XXXI, XXXII (no period), XXXIII, XXXIII (cont.). Heads follow the plate's numeral form per ratified item 4 — "CHAPTER XXX." etc. — and the (cont.) marker on 0039 is left untranslated and unaltered per runbook false-positive 7.

9. Mechanical checks run

• Column anchors: 10 / 7 / 10 / 14 / 7 — identical sequence to the Latin twins, verified by diff; colFirst/colLast match frontmatter in all five.
• Notes: 3 / 1 / 6 / 11 / 1 in the body, [n:] contents verbatim, no [nt:] (every note in this range is a bare citation).
• Frontmatter copied verbatim from each Latin chunk; ## head count 1:1.
• Guillemets: 0 in the Latin, 0 in the English (the work has none).
• Em-dashes: 0 in my five chunks, including inside markers.
• node scripts/verify-english.mjs 11550 → verify OK, no findings in 0035–0039.
• EN/LA word ratio: 1.46 / 1.61 / 1.47 / 1.57 / 1.52 (0036's is inflated by its [var:] content, which is stripped from the real ratio).

Range: src/latin/11550/0040.md–0044.md → src/english/11550/0040.md–0044.md. Columns 0503B–0514D (PL 196), CAPUT XXXIV–XXXVIII. Format per entry: column · printed reading · what was done · why.

Anchor / note / question-mark parity, each counted in the body only and checked against the Latin twin: 0040 9 / 2 / 2 · 0041 10 / 7 / 0 · 0042 6 / 1 / 0 · 0043 11 / 3 / 1 · 0044 11 / 2 / 0. All match 1:1. Zero guillemets on either side, as everywhere in this work. EN/LA word ratio 1.44–1.52.

0. The descriptio sponsi — the member-by-member vocabulary fixed at the head, per the brief

This range is the catalogue of the Bridegroom's members (Cant. 5:3–14), so each concrete noun was fixed deliberately, with the hook Richard's gloss hangs on named. These are the choices a merge must ratify, because chunks outside the range re-quote several of them.

1. Scripture divergences from the received text (Pattern 14 / 7a″)

Every named lemma word in the launch prompt was collated word by word against the Vulgate, and, where memory was not enough, against the full PL TEI corpus as its own control (the method ratified in brief item 6: file counts across 5,276 files).

Marked [var: …]

0503C (0040) · et venter meus intumuit ad tactum ejus (Cant. 5:4). Vulgate: intremuit, "trembled." Migne prints intumuit, "swelled." Corpus control: venter meus intremuit occurs in 31 files, venter meus intumuit in one — this one. Rendered as printed ("my belly swelled"), marked [var: Vulg. intremuit, "trembled"]. Material, and the gloss is on the other side of it: Richard's own exposition of this very lemma ends quo tangatur et accendatur ad amorem, et contremiscat, et metuat (0503D) — he is expounding a trembling that the printed lemma no longer contains.

0506B (0041) · Ascendet homo ad cor altum, et exaltabitur Deus [n: (Psal. LX)] (Ps 63:7). Vulgate: Accedet homo ad cor altum. Corpus control: Accedet/accedet homo ad cor altum 46 files, Ascendet 3. Rendered as printed ("Man shall ascend"), marked [var: Vulg. Accedet homo, "man shall come"]. Dependent gloss, immediately: Quantum enim homo ad Deum ascendit, tantum eum sublimem … invenit. The whole point is ascent, and the Vulgate's accedet would not supply it.

0506B (0041) · Quaesivi sapientiam, et ipsa longius recessit a me [n: (Eccle. VII)] (Eccl 7:24). Vulgate: Dixi: Sapiens efficiar, et ipsa longius recessit a me. Corpus control: Quaesivi sapientiam, et ipsa longius occurs in no other file; Sapiens efficiar in 15. Rendered as printed, marked [var: Vulg. Dixi: Sapiens efficiar, "I said, I shall be made wise"]. Material: the chapter is about seeking (Quaesivit sponsa per se dilectum), and the printed substitution puts the argument's own verb into the proof-text.

0507B (0041) · Invenerunt me vigiles qui circumierunt civitatem (Cant. 5:7). Vulgate: custodes qui circumeunt civitatem. Corpus control: custodes qui circum- 11 files, vigiles qui circum- 2. Rendered as printed ("The watchmen who went about the city"), marked [var: Vulg. custodes qui circumeunt, "the keepers who go about"]. ⚠ The tell is in Richard's own next sentence, which re-quotes the lemma as invenerunt eam custodes, qui circumierunt civitatem — the gloss word and the lemma word differ on the same page. The English keeps them different (watchmen / keepers) so the reader can see it without the apparatus; custodes murorum at 0507C is "keepers of the walls" to stay with the gloss.

0511C (0043) · sitivit anima mea ad Deum fontem vivum [n: (Psal. XLI.)] (Ps 41:3). Vulgate: ad Deum fortem vivum, "the strong living God." Rendered as printed ("after God, the living fountain"), marked [var: Vulg. fortem, "the strong living God"]. Dependent gloss: the sentence introducing it is dulce poculum de illo fonte vivo hauriunt, et ipsum fontem sitiunt — Richard's image is drawn out of the divergent word itself. ⚠ Recorded for the record: fontem is the dominant PL transmission of this verse (40 files against 7 for fortem), so the marker names the Vulgate as witness and asserts nothing about how the reading got here (Pattern 14's "never speculate").

Divergences checked and deliberately NOT marked

Each was collated and declined under ratified item 1 ([var:] fires on sense or a dependent gloss — never on pronoun-equivalence or spelling). Listed because the census is the deliverable.

• 0503A/B (0040) · Exui me tunica mea, quomodo induar illa? (Cant. 5:3). Vulgate: Exspoliavi me tunica mea. Corpus control: Exspoliavi me 36 files, Exui me tunica 11 — a broadly transmitted variant, not this plate's. Same sense (put off / strip off), and the gloss hangs on tunica (Tunica terrenum indumentum est), not on the verb. No marker. Lavi pedes meos … inquinabo illos is verbatim Vulgate.
• 0504A (0040) · manus meae distillaverunt myrrham (Cant. 5:5) for Vulg. stillaverunt, and its mirror at 0512D (0044) · lilia stillantia myrrham primam (Cant. 5:13) for Vulg. distillantia. ⚠ A matched pair, worth the merge's attention: the same plate loses the prefix in one verse and gains it in the other. Both are intensive/simple forms of one verb, so the sense does not move ("dripped down" / "dropping"), and Richard glosses the myrrh, never the dripping. No markers; logged as a pair because taken together they look like compositor's practice rather than copy-text. digiti mei pleni myrrha probatissima is verbatim Vulgate (14 files agree).
• 0507D (0042) · ut annuntietis ei (Cant. 5:8) for Vulg. nuntietis. Near-even in the corpus (12 files / 14) and Richard's gloss re-quotes it as illi nuntient — but nothing turns on the compound. No marker.
• 0510B (0043) · super rivos aquarum (Cant. 5:12) for Vulg. rivulos. ⚠ The strongest near-miss in the range, and it was declined on the ratified threshold. The diminutive is genuinely lost, and this work does treat diminutives as load-bearing (lectulus, adolescentulae) — but nothing in the exposition hangs on the smallness of the streams (the hawk's shadow works in a stream of any size), and rivos is the majority PL reading of the verse (33 files against 21). Firing here would widen [var:] toward spelling-and-form, which item 1 closes. If the merge decides the diminutive class is per se material in this work, this is the site to revisit.
• 0512A (0044) · Genae ejus sicut areolae (Cant. 5:13) for Vulg. Genae illius (17 files / 3). Pronoun equivalence, explicitly declined by ratified item 1 (tenui illum/eum).
• 0506C (0041) · Anima mea liquefacta est, ut dilectus locutus est (Cant. 5:6). The Vulgate leaves the subject unexpressed; ut dilectus locutus est stands in 18 PL files against 3 for ut locutus est. An explicit subject, no change of sense. No marker.
• 0509B/0514B (0042, 0044) · Dilectus meus candidus, et rubicundus, electus ex millibus · Caput ejus aurum optimum · Comae ejus sicut elatae palmarum, nigrae quasi corvus · Manus ejus tornatiles aureae, plenae hyacinthis · Venter ejus eburneus, distinctus sapphiris · Qualis est dilectus tuus ex dilecto, o pulcherrima mulierum … quia sic adjurasti nos — every one verbatim Vulgate**, collated word by word. Named here because the brief named them: a checked lemma with no divergence is part of the census.
• Woven prose allusions, unmarked because they are Richard's own sentences and not scripture quoted as scripture (Pattern 14's boundary, and 7561 @0664's): 0503D Vitam enim et misericordiam tribuit ei … custodivit spiritum ejus (Job 10:12, first person in the Vulgate, third here); 0504C non invenitur sapientia … in terra suaviter viventium (Job 28:13); 0505A sciens abundare, et penuriam pati (Phil 4:12); 0506D fiunt ei lacrymae ejus panes die ac nocte (Ps 41:4); 0509A Nullus enim similis ei in legislatoribus and millibus millium (Dan 7:10); 0511A declaratio sermonum Dei (Ps 118:130, Vulg. tuorum); 0514D eorum conversatio in coelis est (Phil 3:20, Vulg. nostra — and the same verse is quoted in the first person, correctly, at 0511B).

Citations whose [n: …] locator does not fit the text quoted

Note contents are verbatim per the sacred-marker rule; recorded only so the indexer's refDisplay/refKey split has the observation. No correction, no marker (runbook false positive 2).

• 0506D (0041) · [n: (I Cor. XII)] on Paul's stimulus carnis — the place is 2 Cor 12:7–9.
• 0506B (0041) · [n: (Psal. LX)] on Ascendet homo ad cor altum — Ps 63:7.
• 0511C (0043) · [n: (Psal. XLI.)] — Ps 41:3, correct; the trailing period inside the note is Migne's and is reproduced.
• 0506B (0041) · (Job XXXVII) is printed as a bare parenthesis inside the italic quotation, not as one of Migne's numbered notes, and the frontmatter's noteCount of 7 confirms it is not counted. Carried exactly where and as it stands (Job 37:4, correctly).

2. Defective type carried through — [sic: …] (Patterns 7, 10, 12) with the 7a⁗ check

Two sites in the whole range. For each, the English clause was read with the marker's contents deleted and the verb / negation / governing word confirmed to survive outside the quarantine.

0506C (0041) · emoliescunt fortia. emoliescunt is not a word (for emollescunt, "grow soft"). Corpus control: emoliescunt occurs in one file — this one; emollescunt in 2. Carried in italics, and because the marked run was the clause's only predicate (7a⁗ q1) the sense stands in plain English beside it: hard things are softened [sic: emoliescunt]. The conjecture is near-certain from the same sentence's mollescunt eight words later.

0510C (0043) · ne nos scandalizet, et in errorem subtilitate nox a perducat. ⚠ A word-division defect — the 7a⁗-b shape. nox a is noxia split across a space (agreeing with subtilitate: "by harmful subtlety"). The whole broken run is carried per Pattern 10, spacing included, including the fragment a which is itself a real Latin word. Quarantining it takes out an adjective, not a force-carrier: the clause keeps its ne, its subjunctive perducat and its object in errorem outside the marker, so the negative-purpose force is intact — but the adjective's sense is supplied beside the marker anyway, because "by subtlety" alone would make the right eye's own subtlety the danger: lest it scandalize us and lead us into error by harmful [sic: nox a] subtlety. noxia/noxium occurs correctly four times elsewhere in this work (0015, 0020, 0023, 0034) and once more in this very chunk (noxium reputandum, 0510D), which is what makes the reading certain.

Checked and NOT marked — the pigment- family, per the brief's warning. Every occurrence in the range was read character by character: 0044 prints pigmentariis ×4 (once in the lemma, three times in the gloss), Pigmentarii ×1, pigmentum ×1. All six are whole words. No truncation of the 0431C Pigmen kind anywhere in 0040–0044. Likewise quiquid (twice at 0510D) takes no marker: it stands in 40 PL files, so it is an attested spelling and Pattern 9 governs.

3. [cj: …] — the printed word is real and the faithful English misleads (Pattern 18)

0503D and 0504A (0040) · amplius ignoscit ad dilectionem Dei et proximi · magis ad hoc ignoscit. ignoscit ("pardons") is a real verb, so [sic:] has nothing to wrap; but ignoscere cannot govern ad + accusative, and the sense the passage requires is ignescit, "catches fire" — the chapter is about being kindled (accendatur ad amorem in the same sentence, Accenditur etiam ad mortificandum just below, and the chapter head is Quomodo gratia … accendit). Corpus control: ignescit stands in 60 PL files, ignoscit ad amorem in none. she pardons the more [cj: ignoscit; read ignescit, "catches fire"] unto the love of God and of neighbor (and identically at 0504A). ⚠ This follows an already-shipped precedent inside the work, and that is the reason it was applied rather than declined. Chunk 0004 (0414C, fervens amplius ignoscit) is live with exactly this gloss. The site is not obviously inside the ratified [cj:] bar (item 7: negations and correlatives), so if the merge decides to withdraw it, all three sites must be withdrawn together** — 0004, 0503D, 0504A. Two Englishes for one defect in one work is the drift the within-work reconciliation step exists to prevent.

Named [cj: …] census candidates — declined, per ratified item 7 (do not widen the bar)

• ⭐ 0511D (0043) · Unde juxta fluenta haec resident, quia hanc quietem mentis nondum habent. The one site in this range I would put to Wilson. Two sentences earlier Richard has equated the sitting with the stillness — sessio haec juxta fluenta requiem eorum significat, sedere enim quiescentis est — so of the imperfect, who by his own statement have no stillness of mind, the page now says they DO sit. Conjecture: a dropped non (non resident), which is glossable under Pattern 18's 7561 @0648 clause (the gloss opens on the word Migne did print). It is the negation class, where item 7 says incoherence is no defence — and it was still declined, because the alternative reading is live: juxta (beside, not upon) may itself be the concession, the imperfect being at the margin of the floods without being washed in the streams. Where a reading is merely uncertain it stays in the crux. Rendered exactly as printed, with no repair anywhere in the English.
• 0505B (0040) · Digiti vero sponsi pleni sunt myrrha probatissima. The fingers under discussion are the bride's throughout the lemma (digiti mei) and throughout the gloss (discrete … agit omnia, cor suum), so sponsae is expected. Rendered as printed ("the fingers of the Bridegroom"); declined — a genitive slip is neither a negation nor a correlative.
• 0512C (0044) · in triumphante rubent speciali decore per areolam. Conjecture aureolam, the martyr's aureole* — which is the standard reward-word for martyrs in the triumphant Church, and which is what "a special comeliness" is waiting for. areolam is a real word and the lemma's own word (areolae aromatum*), so the page reads "blush … through the garden-bed," which is odd rather than false. Rendered as printed; declined. ⚠ Recorded prominently because a reader will trip here and the conjecture is strong.
• 0504B (0040) · et melior acta plus sibi vilescit. Conjecture facta, "made better." acta is a real participle and occupies its slot; rendered "being made better." Declined.
• 0511A (0043) · et munditia terrena et carnalis. In a list of what spiritual consolation makes bitter and cheap, "earthly and carnal cleanness" is the opposite of the argument; conjecture immunditia, "uncleanness." Rendered as printed. Declined: not a negation in Migne's type but a missing prefix on a real word, and item 7's near-miss list (spem for sepem, effectum for affectum) is exactly this shape.
• 0511D (0043) · ut cum spiritu coeperint carne consumment* (Gal 3:3, woven). Active consumment for the Vulgate's passive consummemini/consummentur*. Rendered "they consummate in the flesh." Declined (voice, not negation — item 7's explicit scope note).
• 0510A (0043) · dum innumeris tribulationis angustatur. tribulationis (genitive singular) where tribulationibus is wanted by innumeris. Rendered as closely as the printed words allow ("straitened by innumerable tribulation"), nothing supplied. Declined — a case ending, no marker class fits.

4. Passages rendered as printed that will not fully construe (Pattern 7, no marker)

• 0505C (0041) · Ita haec minima, nisi rescindantur, non dignatur dilectus ita venire ad animam… — haec minima is left hanging with no case-relation to dignatur. Rendered word for word ("So these least things, unless they be cut away, the beloved does not deign so to come…"); nothing supplied.
• 0505D (0041) · et quasi per ostium a quo se prius minus plene visitatam, et quasi per foramen tactam cognoverat — anacoluthon: the quasi per ostium clause has no verb of its own and a quo points back to the beloved across it. Rendered as printed; a comma stands where the sense breaks (no dash supplied, per the em-dash rule).
• 0506D (0041) · sed eum non exaudit ad voluntatem — the object pronoun is masculine where the soul (ea, illi on both sides of it) is the one not heard. Latin gender/reference has no English exponent here without choosing a referent, so the printed pronoun is rendered as printed ("he does not hear him according to his will"). Pattern 9 family; ⚠ marked so a later sweep does not churn it.
• 0503C (0040) · ampliori gratia visitat cor ejus penetrans, et ampliori lumine gratiae eum illustrans — masculine eum for neuter cor. Rendered with English "it." Pattern 9, no marker.
• 0509B (0042) · Nam fulgens ut humanis oculis, et a viventibus in carne videri non possit. — fulgens with no copula and ut with no ita. Rendered as printed ("For shining, so that it cannot be seen by human eyes, and by those living in the flesh"), nothing supplied.
• 0509B (0042) · quia hoc caput ejus, hoc principale ejus hoc, sublime quod videri non potest. — the third hoc is followed by a comma that belongs before it. Punctuation preserved exactly (Pattern 8); not treated as dittography, because hoc … hoc … hoc is ordinary anaphora and only the comma is misplaced.
• 0512B (0044) · Hi pretiosum pigmentum fidelibus composuerunt. dulce poculum, spirituales videlicet sententias… — Migne prints a full stop followed by a lowercase word, breaking one sentence in two. Neither the stop deleted nor the capital supplied (Pattern 8, both halves of it): the English reads "…for the faithful. a sweet draught, namely…".
• 0514D (0044) · the chunk ends sed eorum conversatio in coelis est with no terminal punctuation. Not supplied; the English stops where the plate stops.
• 0512B (0044) · Magna intus dulcedo, quae mortem amarissimam, dulcorabat. — Migne's comma between object and verb has no position in an English sentence whose word order differs; it is the one printed mark in the range that could not be placed. Logged rather than silently normalized. (Sentence-level marks are all preserved.)
• 0512B (0044) · Magnus in eis ardebat ignis amoris quos sic ad tormenta inflammabat — the relative agrees with the martyrs, not with its antecedent ignis. Rendered "which so inflamed them unto torments," keeping both the fire as subject and the men as object.
• 0504D (0040) · per malam custodiam egerit lupus lanam — Richard's illud vulgare quod dicitur, a proverb, not scripture: rendered literally ("through bad keeping the wolf has carried off the wool") and left unquoted, since Migne marks it neither with guillemets nor italics (Pattern 6 — we do not supply marks he does not print, and " " was declined here because the proverb runs into his own syntax).
• 0507C (0041) · quas ardentibus effecit, id est amantibus effectibiles fecit — effectibiles is a regularly formed medieval coinage (-bilis) and occurs in one other PL file; it renders in place ("made effectual for those who love"), so no marker (Pattern 12's own boundary: a real word renders as ordinary English).

5. Fixed vocabulary — followed, with the tensions logged

• quies/requies — the ratified split was exercised hard in 0043, and the seam is real here. Eschatological → "rest": videant requiem illam quia bona (0511B), futuram requiem desiderant (0511B), Quam requiem nequaquam per contemplationem viderent (0511B). Contemplative → "stillness": si non requiem mentis haberent (0511B), sessio haec … requiem eorum significat, sedere enim quiescentis est (0511C), quietem mentis et puritatem cordis (0511C), hanc quietem mentis nondum habent (0511D), requies mentis acquiritur (0512A). ⚠ Note that one sentence carries both (Quam requiem … si non requiem mentis haberent), which is the clearest evidence yet that the distinction is in the Latin and not our drift.
• vacare = "to be at leisure" at 0514C (ut suae libidini vacent → "that they are at leisure for their own lust"), per the table, even though "give themselves over to" reads better. Logged as a place the table was followed against the ear.
• meditari = "meditate" (0514D, superna meditantur et sapiunt); compunctio = "compunction" (0503B); affectus = "affection" throughout 0503B and 0511D–0512A (dulcis affectus, vitiosis affectibus); discretio = "discretion" (0504B, 0505B, 0514A); mens = "mind", anima = "soul" kept separable everywhere, including where they alternate in one sentence (0503C, 0511A).
• sponsa = "the bride", sponsus = "the Bridegroom" (capitalized: 0512B in facie sponsi, 0514C Venter autem sponsi, and 0505B's defective Digiti vero sponsi), dilectus = "the beloved" throughout. No lectulus, lectus, amica mea, adolescentulae, ferculum, reclinatorium, malum granatum, vitta, propugnacula, clypei or hinnuli capreae occur in this range — recorded so the merge can see it was checked.
• Hierusalem → "Jerusalem" (0503B, 0507D, 0508A ×3), per Pattern 9 and the five shipped chunks that already spell it so. No marker.
• Pattern 17 exercised twice in one lemma-and-answer pair (0507D–0508B): Adjuro vos, filiae Hierusalem is plural → "I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem"; the daughters' reply quia sic adjurasti nos is singular to the bride → "that thou hast so adjured us." Interroga patrem tuum … annuntiabit tibi (Deut 32:7, 0507D) is singular → "Ask thy father… he will declare to thee." ⚠ In that same verse Migne prints no punctuation between tibi and majores tuos, so the English carries none either ("declare to thee thy elders") — the Vulgate's colon was not supplied.

6. For the merge step

⚠ 0042's adjuration repeats the lemma expounded at chunk 0009. Adjuro vos, filiae Hierusalem, si inveneritis dilectum meum, ut annuntietis ei, quia amore langueo (Cant. 5:8) at 0507D is the same verse chunk 0009 takes (per the launch brief), with a different continuation and a different exposition. Chunk 0009's English was deliberately not consulted, per the instruction; this rendering is straight off the printed Latin of 0042. If 0009 prints the same Latin, the two Englishes should be reconciled at merge (within a work: one voice); if it prints different Latin — and note that Migne's annuntietis here is not the Vulgate's nuntietis — they must not be.

Other items this range hands to the merge:

1. The descriptio sponsi table in §0 — comae = locks · elatae = upraised boughs · spatulae kept Latin · areolae = garden-beds (never "little beds", against lectulus) · probatissima = most approved · tornatiles = turned on the lathe · pigmentarii = perfumers (following shipped 0010–0011). Chunks 0045–0047 continue the catalogue (crura, species, guttur) and should extend this list rather than restart it.
2. The [cj: ignoscit] decision (§3) — three sites now, one of them already live in chunk 0004. Withdraw all three or keep all three.
3. 0511D's possible dropped non (§3, starred) — the one site in the range that wants Wilson's own ruling; nothing was repaired in the text pending it.
4. The stillantia/distillaverunt prefix pair (§1) — two lemmata in one work moving in opposite directions; if the merge sees the same pattern elsewhere in 11550 it is worth a note in the work's front matter, since it bears on how much of this plate's scripture is copy-text and how much is compositor.
5. The rivos/rivulos declined marker (§1) — the one place where the ratified [var:] threshold and this work's load-bearing-diminutive habit pull against each other.

Richard of St Victor, Explicatio in Cantica canticorum. Round 2, closing range of the work. Format per chunk: column · printed reading · what I did · why.

0. Vocabulary choices recorded up front (the descriptio sponsi catalogue closes here)

These are the concrete nouns the gloss hangs on in 0045–0046, and the closing chapter's already-ratified Latin-in-italic terms.

1. 0515A, crura = "legs." Not "shanks" or "thighs." The whole gloss is that these are the men qui circumeunt infirmos visitantes — who go about visiting the sick, whose door lies open to the traveler, who pergunt to others and rectos gressus pedibus suis faciunt. The English must be the limb one walks on, and the columnae marmoreae / rectus / erectus / infractus chain ("upright," "erect," "unbroken") has to stay visibly a chain about standing straight. "Legs" carries both; "thighs" carries neither.
2. 0518B–0520B, guttur = "throat." The lemma word of CAPUT XL and it is glossed thirteen times in one chapter (guttur sponsi est internus sapor ejus … suavissimum guttur ejus praedicare possunt … guttur ejus per quod divinitatis verba processerunt). Richard needs the one organ that both tastes and speaks, and "throat" is the only English noun that does. "Voice," "palate," and "mouth" each break one half of the double gloss.
3. 0518B ff., sapor = "savor," gustus = "taste," suavitas/dulcedo = "sweetness," suavis/dulcis = "sweet." ⚠ Merge item: suavitas and dulcedo collapse onto one English word here, and they stand side by side at 0519B (illius suavitatis gustus, dulcedinis illius praelibatio → "the taste of that sweetness, the foretaste of that sweetness"). Preserving the pair would need an invented distinction, so I let them collapse — this follows the work as already shipped (25 "sweet" / 29 "sweetness" in chunks 0000–0029), and the lemma hook suavissimum = "most sweet" is what actually has to survive. Also for the merge: chunks 0000–0029 print both "savor" (9×) and "savour" (5×); I used American "savor" throughout. One spelling needs picking at reconciliation.
4. 0516A–0517A, species = "beauty." Kept against "appearance," because the gloss is a chain — species ejus ut Libani → bene species dicuntur → speciosum forma prae filiis hominum → speciem deformitatis speciosam → singulariter species Christi prae omnibus speciosa. "Appearance" makes speciosa unrelated to species; "beauty"/"beautiful" keeps the hook. ⚠ The seam: at 0521A the same word is the technical per speciem against per fidem (2 Cor 5:7), where "beauty" is simply wrong, and I rendered "by sight" there. Two senses of one word two columns apart; both are in the Latin, neither is drift. Logged so a merge sweep does not flatten them.
5. 0516B, candidatio left in italic Latin (nec tantum est candidus, sed etiam candidatio) — ratified item 3, and it matches 0016/0443B, which already keeps it. The adjacent candidus is translated ("white"), which is what makes the untranslated noun legible as the word Richard is coining on.
6. 0522C, ferculum left in italic Latin (veri Salomonis singulare ferculum) — ratified item 3, no re-opening. 0522D, reclinatorium = "reclining-place" — same ruling.
7. 0521A, the quies split, one site each way in a single paragraph. quiesce post laborem → "rest after labor" (the inheritance the Bridegroom is calling her into: eschatological). In sinistra quievisti → "In the left hand thou hast been still" (the present life's contemplative quiet, set against the dextera still to come). The ratified split holds and the two senses are eight words apart. Logged as the site the brief asks for.
8. Pattern 17. CAPUT XL addresses one soul (comprehendas … praedicabis … judicabis) → thou throughout; o filiae Hierusalem (0520D) and Hujus pulchritudinem cogitate are plural → no archaism. CAPUT XLI is the Bridegroom to one soul → thou; CAPUT XLII's tu quisquis es in jubilo, tecum sit Deus, vere surrexisti are all singular → thou/thee.

1. [var: …] — Vulgate divergences

1a. ⛔ 0522B — the work's last lemma, and it diverges. MARKED.

Printed: Quae est ista quae ascendit, et transiens deserta? [n: (Cant. III)]

Three forms of one question are now in evidence, and this work prints two of them:

What I did: rendered the printed participle — "and crossing the deserts" — and marked [var: Vulg. Cant. 8:5 de deserto, "out of the desert"; Cant. 3:6, which the note cites, per desertum, "through the desert"].

Why it fires (sense, not spelling, per ratified item 1): de deserto makes the desert the place she is leaving; the printed transiens deserta makes it the place she is passing through, and turns a prepositional phrase into a second finite-force participle governing a plural accusative. The note's own citation (Cant. III) matches neither reading exactly, so the divergence cannot be resolved by supposing Migne quoted the other verse.

⚠ And the reason it is printed this way is almost certainly the verse form, which the brief could not have known: CAPUT XLII is not prose — it is a rhymed Marian rhythmus, and deserta is a rhyme word: deserta · operta · referta (…et transiens deserta? / Quo tendit aut quid portendit floribus operta? / Papae, furem non offendit opibus referta). The rhyme scheme runs the whole chapter (Holoferni · spernis · sternis; Hebraea · Judaea · ea; Deus · Judaeus · Sadducaeus). So the divergence is metrically motivated, and the participle is load-bearing on the poem, not on an exposition. Per Pattern 14 I state the two readings and do not speculate in the marker — the reasoning lives here.

⚠ Note for whoever collates further: Richard does not gloss this lemma at all. CAPUT XLII never expounds transiens deserta; it simply proceeds into the litany. So the divergence turns on the sense of the lemma itself and on nothing downstream — which is why it is marked once, at the lemma, and nowhere else.

1b. Lemma words checked and found to AGREE with the received text — no marker

Every named lemma word and every italic re-quotation in the range, collated:

• 0515A · Cant. 5:15 · Crura ejus columnae marmoreae, quae fundatae sunt super bases aureas. Vulgate: Crura illius columnae marmoreae quae fundatae sunt super bases aureas. The only difference is ejus for illius — declined, no marker: same referent, identical sense, nothing in the gloss hangs on it. This is exactly the ratified tenui illum/tenui eum case.
• 0516A · Cant. 5:15 · Species ejus ut Libani. Agrees (Vulg. species eius ut Libani).
• 0517D · Cant. 5:15 · Electus ut cedri. Agrees.
• 0515C · Isa. 51:23 · Incurvare, ut transeamus. Agrees.
• 0515D · Job 9:25 · Dies mei velociores fuerunt cursore, fugerunt, et non viderunt bonum. Agrees word for word, negation included.
• 0517C · Luc. 1:28 · gratia plena. Agrees.
• 0518B · Cant. 5:16 · Guttur illius suavissimum, et totus desiderabilis. Agrees word for word — including illius, where 0515A printed ejus in the same verse. Recorded because the inconsistency is Migne's and is now visible in our two chunks.
• 0519B · Eccli. 24:29 · Qui edunt me adhuc esurient … et qui bibunt me adhuc sitient. Agrees.
• 0521A · Cant. 5:1 · Veni in hortum meum, soror mea sponsa. Agrees. The unitalicized re-quotations later in the same chapter — Messui myrrham meam cum aromatibus meis (0521C) and Comedi favum cum melle meo, bibi vinum meum cum lacte meo (0522A) — are the continuation of Cant. 5:1 and both agree exactly. ⚠ Merge note: this lemma repeats chunk 0037's. Per instruction I did not consult 0037's English. Reconcile the two renderings at merge; mine is "Come into my garden, my sister, my bride."

1c. Unmarked, unitalicized scripture — divergences noted, all declined

None of these is a marked lemma; all are Richard's own woven allusions, and Pattern 14 governs citations. Recorded so a later collator does not re-discover them:

• 0515A · Matt. 10:41. Printed mercedem prophetae recipiet; Vulg. accipiet. Declined: synonym, no gloss depends on it.
• 0515B · Ps. 10:3–4. Intendunt … arcum Scripturae, et parant sagittas suas in pharetra sua, ut sagittis suis sagittent in obscuro rectos corde — Richard's own adaptation of intenderunt arcum, paraverunt sagittas suas in faretra, with arcum Scripturae and sagittis suis added. Deliberate rewriting, not a divergent citation. Declined.
• 0517B · Apoc. 12:1. illud signum magnum in coelo, mulier amicta sole — abridged from signum magnum apparuit in caelo, mulier amicta sole, and the luna sub pedibus ejus half is quoted separately at 0517C. Declined.
• 0523A · Luc. 1:28 in verse. Ave, Maria, gratia plena; tecum sit Deus for Dominus tecum. Declined, and the reason is 1a's reason: the line is a rhyme (Deus · Judaeus · Sadducaeus) inside a rhythmus, not a cited proof-text, and it carries no [n:]. Rendered "may God be with thee."

2. [sic: …] — carried type

Both confirmed the way ratified item 6 says to confirm one: grep the full PL TEI (5,276 files) and let the corpus be its own control.

1. 0519D · comprenhendere for comprehendere (ut clare videre non possint, et spiritualia comprenhendere). CONFIRMED and marked. comprenhend- occurs across the whole PL TEI in one file — this one, this site. Intrusive n. 7a⁗ check: the marked run is the clause's only infinitive, so the English supplies the sense beside the marker — "and comprehend [sic: comprenhendere] spiritual things" — not a bare hole.
2. 0520C · desirabilis for desiderabilis (qui etiam desirabilis est in membris suis). Marked, and here is the full evidence, which is weaker than case 1 and should be seen: desirabil- occurs 6 times in the whole PL TEI (5× desirabilis, 1× desirabilem) across six files, this one among them — so it is not unique to this plate, and Pattern 9's "reserve carry-through for forms unique to this plate" cuts against marking it. I marked it anyway on two grounds: (a) desirabilis is not an attested medieval orthography, it is haplography of -de-, so Pattern 9's actual test (is the form in the lexica?) fails; (b) the same sentence prints desiderabilis correctly four times within thirty words and desirabilis once, which is a compositor slipping, not a scribe's convention. 7a⁗ check: the run is the clause's predicate adjective, so the sense stands in plain words beside the marker — "who is also desirable [sic: desirabilis] in his members." If a later reviewer prefers Pattern 9 here, the fix is to drop one marker and change nothing else; the English already reads correctly with it removed.

No [d: …], no [ed: …], no [cj: …] anywhere in the range.

3. Declined [cj: …] — census candidates, recorded not glossed

The bar (ratified item 7) glosses only where the wrong word is a negation or a correlative. None of these is. All rendered literally per Pattern 7; all named here so the census has them.

1. 0515A · cum Tobia pergunt ad indigenas — "they go with Tobias to the natives." Almost certainly indigentes, "the needy": the whole sentence is about dividing one's means unicuique … prout possunt, and Tobit's alms are to the poor, not to the indigenous. This is the range's largest single sense-shift from one letter-run, and it is still declined — not a negation, not a correlative. Rendered "to the natives."
2. 0522A · qui hic experte cognovit — "who here knew by experience." The sentence is built on 1 Cor. 13:12 (ut cognoscat perfecte, et sicuti cognitus est), where the Vulgate's contrast to perfect knowing is ex parte, "in part" — so a fused ex parte → experte is the obvious reading, and fused word-division is a documented shape (Pattern 10, interra, vovistvirum). Declined, and it does not even reach Pattern 10: the corpus control shows experte is a real word in the PL, the ablative of expers (a ferina legumque experte vita, 6843; nationes experte sunt sevitiam, 9481), so it is not the non-word class, and medieval experte as an adverb of expertus is defensible in a chapter that elsewhere writes experientia docente (0520B). Rendered as the adverb.
3. 0517C · et si tantum quantum Christus — see §4.1; a possible dropped negation, declined, and the reason it is declined rather than glossed is that the missing word is not printed wrong, it is absent, which [cj:] cannot address.
4. 0518D · quia adhuc ex faece carnalitatis accessit — "because it has thus far drawn near out of the dregs of carnality." accessit where the argument wants a verb of not yet having departed (recessit). Declined; rendered literally.
5. 0522D · a toto refulgens aurea — "golden, shining from the whole." Possibly auro for a toto, or a genitive lost. See §4.4. Declined.

4. Passages that will not construe — rendered as literally as the printed words allow

1. 0517C · Exaltata est haec beata quasi cedrus, sublimata est sicut Christus, et si tantum quantum Christus, Christus minimus fuit in regno coelorum… Rendered "…has been made lofty like Christ, and if as much as Christ: Christ was the least in the kingdom of heaven…" The clause has no apodosis and, as printed, concedes what the paragraph goes on to deny — the chapter closes Sublimis igitur Maria, sed sublimior Christus, "Mary is lofty, but Christ loftier." A dropped non (et si non tantum quantum Christus, "though not as much as Christ") would make the whole paragraph construe and would make its last sentence follow. Per the negation-fidelity rule I did not supply it: the contradiction is the finding. ⚠ This is the crux in the range I would most want a second reader on.
2. 0521D · Cujus passionis gustus amore mihi sapiunt, sed confectum ex illa redemptionis humanae aromate suavi me reficit, nec martyrum myrrha, nec confessorum aromata haec gaudia percepissent, si non mortis meae myrrha percepisset. Rendered literally, including all three negatives and the singular percepisset against plural percepissent — "neither the myrrh of the martyrs nor the spices of the confessors would have perceived these joys, if the myrrh of my death had not perceived them." confectum is taken as a neuter substantive ("that which is confected out of it"); gustus … sapiunt is plural against singular passionis gustus. Nothing emended.
3. 0519B · Hic bonitas Dei tenuis gustus est in futuro satietas. Rendered "Here the goodness of God is a slender taste, in the future satiety." The nominative bonitas where the contrast wants a genitive (bonitatis Dei tenuis gustus, "a slender taste of the goodness of God"), and no punctuation between the halves. Rendered as printed; not marked (Pattern 9 — a case ending with no English exponent once the phrase is Englished).
4. 0522C–D · haec est veri Salomonis singulare ferculum et turris eburnea, a toto refulgens aurea tota delectabilis, haec est in quo se reclinat rex… Rendered "…and the ivory tower, golden, shining from the whole, wholly delightful; this is she in whom the king reclines himself…" Two things printed here and neither emended: a toto (see §3.5), and in quo (masculine/neuter) referring to the feminine haec — a Pattern 9 gender mismatch with no English exponent, since English "whom" carries no gender. No marker, no crux churn.
5. 0522C · Singularis ferus, rex est Assuerus, Esther magni nominis. Rendered as printed, asyndeton included. Singularis ferus is Ps. 79:14's boar, i.e. the devil, and belongs logically with the Aman/Mardochai lines before it rather than with Assuerus; the verse form licenses the ellipsis. Nothing supplied.
6. 0523A · translator non sic ventilat, fides allegat ita quod regnet jam cum Deo! Rendered "the translator does not so winnow it, faith so alleges, that she now reigns with God!" translator in a chapter de assumptione is presumably the one who translates her (carries her over — cf. arca foederis … magno translata jubilo three lines earlier), and ventilat "winnows/fans" resists any reading I can defend. The negation is carried as printed. Not emended, not marked.
7. 0523A–0524A · Ave, Maria, gratia plena; tecum sit Deus. Corruptionis nostrae quam somniat Judaeus. Tabescat in fallacia seductor Sadducaeus: nam vere surrexisti. Corruptionis nostrae is a hanging genitive governed by nothing printed; rendered as the fragment it is ("Of our corruption, which the Jew dreams"). The rhyme (Deus · Judaeus · Sadducaeus) is intact across it, so whatever the genitive depended on stood in the same line, not in a lost one. ⛔ I am NOT reporting the 0523A → 0524A band gap as a defect — that is known false positive #1 (band marks are positional, not four per column), and the only admissible signal, text broken across an anchor, is absent: the [0524A] anchor falls between Sadducaeus: and nam vere surrexisti, which construes cleanly across it. The syntactic break sits mid-paragraph, two sentences earlier. Recorded here as an observation only, with no [ed:] and no tei-patch.
8. 0518B–C · consolatio spiritualis, quae suaviter gustantes expertos afficiunt. Plural afficiunt on a compound subject (fine), but gustantes expertos is two accusative plural participles in asyndeton. Rendered "which sweetly affect those who taste and have experience of them." Nothing emended.
9. 0518C · Si enim bonitatem Dei cogitando comprehendas, et ad saporem ejus pertingens, … praedicabis. Anacoluthon in the Latin (a subjunctive protasis, then a participle, then a future indicative apodosis). Carried through as printed rather than regularized.
10. 0522B · nam favus mellis mihi erant dulces in moribus et operibus. Singular favus with plural erant. Rendered "for the honeycomb of honey were to me those sweet in manners and in works." Pattern 9 territory; no marker.

5. Interjection kept in Latin

0522B · Papae (Papae, furem non offendit opibus referta). Kept as Papae! in italic Latin. It is the Greek-derived exclamation of astonishment; every English equivalent I could reach for ("Strange!", "Wonder of wonders!", "Ah!") is a guess about the poem's tone rather than a rendering of a word, and inventing tone inside a rhymed sequence is the kind of silent editorial hand Pattern 7 exists to forbid. Flagged for Wilson as a genuine open call — if the house prefers interjections Englished, this is a one-word change and the only site in the range.

6. Structural findings for the resume note

1. ⚠ The work has 42 chapters, not 41. Chunk 0047 carries two ## heads, CAPUT XLI. Sponsus sponsam invitat ad haereditatem suscipiendam. at the top and CAPUT XLII. De assumptione Mariae, et ejus laudibus. at col. 0522B. Both reproduced 1:1 in place, both translated (label + italic summary) per the ratified head rule; both print a closing period, so both take "CHAPTER XLI." / "CHAPTER XLII." Confirmed against the frontmatter heads[], which also lists two.
2. ✅ The last column anchor of the work is [0524A], matching the manifest's colLast for 11550 (0405A–0524A). Verified against src/latin/11550/manifest.json.
3. ✅ The work closes cleanly, and it closes twice over. CAPUT XL ends with a full doxology (…ad quam nos perducere dignetur Jesus Christus sponsus Ecclesiae, qui vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum. Amen.) at 0520D — which reads like the end of the commentary proper. CAPUT XLI then expounds Cant. 5:1 in the Bridegroom's own voice, and CAPUT XLII is a rhymed Marian rhythmus on the Assumption ending in a prayer (…ut tecum valeamus perpetue gaudere, Amen.) at 0524A. No mid-sentence break, no colophon, no printed Explicit. The two Amens are worth a line in the resume note: the last two chapters read like an appended Marian coda to a commentary that had already signed off, and the byline caution recorded for 11545 (prologue Richard's, body Walter's) suggests somebody should eventually ask whose coda it is. That is an attribution question, not a translation one — I did not act on it.
4. Register note on CAPUT XLII, and it is the one thing a reader of this chapter must know: it is verse, not prose — rhymed, accentual, in Migne printed as a continuous paragraph. I translated it as prose (house register; no rhyme attempted, no line breaks introduced, the paragraph reproduced 1:1) but the rhyme is what explains the chapter's ellipses, its asyndeton, and both of its scripture divergences (§1a, §1c). If the front end ever sets verse as verse, this chapter is the corpus's candidate.