These are the edition's working notes, published as they were written. They record, work by work, where Migne's plate is defective or the reading uncertain: the printed form, what the English does with it, and why. They are not a groomed apparatus. Where a note argues with itself, withdraws an earlier decision, or leaves a question open, that is the record of how the reading was actually reached, and it is left standing — a conjecture that is visible can be checked, and one that has been tidied away cannot.
The English never silently repairs the page. A construable but wrong reading is rendered literally and the conjecture is recorded here, never applied to the text. How the English is produced and checked →
Col. 0649A — ves ere (Genesis quotation)
Printed: Et factum est ves ere et mane dies unus.
Neither ves nor ere is a Latin word: this is broken type for vespere ("evening"; Gen. 1:5, factum est vespere et mane dies unus), split across a space with the p dropped. Bede's own gloss two clauses later reads quando dixit vespere, printed correctly, which settles the intended reading. Per Pattern 7 the non-word is carried into the English untranslated — "And there was ves ere and morning, one day" — inside the italic run Migne already gives the lemma.
Col. 0651A — quiquaginta (number list)
Printed: quinquaginta unum, quiquaginta duo, quinquaginta tria
quiquaginta is not a word: broken type for quinquaginta ("fifty") in the running count, the second n dropped. Every neighboring entry in the series prints quinquaginta correctly, so the intended reading ("fifty-two") is certain. Per Pattern 7 the non-word is carried into the English untranslated and in italics, the construable duo rendered normally: "fifty-one, quiquaginta two, fifty-three."
Note on Roman numerals / letter-names
Per the batch instruction, all Roman numerals and letter-names are kept verbatim as Migne prints them, including the non-standard additive forms the argument is about: VIIII (nine), XIIII (fourteen), XVIIII (nineteen), LXL (ninety), CCCC (four hundred), DCCCC (nine hundred), etc. These are NOT errors — the treatise is explaining a notation in which subtractive forms (IX, XIX, CM) are the alternative "as some would have it" (see the [n:] note at 0652B). Not emended, not normalized to modern subtractive numerals.