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 1379C — Arseniotes ("a certain Arseniotes"), the heretic the treatise refutes. Proper name / by-name of uncertain reference; kept in the Latin form, not anglicized or identified.
- col 1382A — Inline scripture citation
(Job, X, 20-22)printed as a running-text tail inside the italic quotation, NOT as an[n:]note. Per translation-style.md Pattern 4 (typographic trigger: citation surviving into the chunk body as running text), tagged as an inline fons:[f: (Job, X, 20-22)], locator kept verbatim Latin. It is a scripture locator but the typography, not the source-class, governs the tag; flagging here because it is the one comment-vs-locator/[f:]judgment in the work.
- col 1384A — Printed:
et non potius a dibus Joannis?dibus is not a Latin word: broken type for diebus ("days"), which is the certain intended reading — the same phrase is printed intact as a diebus Joannis Baptistae two lines above, in the very lemma this sentence is arguing about. Per Pattern 7 the non-word is carried into the English untranslated and in italics: "and not rather from the dibus of John?" An earlier draft rendered the conjecture ("from the days of John"); that has been withdrawn. Not emended in the Latin either.
- col 1384A — Editorial lacuna note Hic deest folium unum ("Here one leaf is missing"), set by Migne between two rows of ellipsis dots. Kept as an italic editorial note in the English, translated, with the surrounding ellipses preserved.
- col 1384C — Note
[n: (Luc. XXVII, 37)]for "Wheresoever the body shall be, thither shall the eagles also be gathered together." The verse is Luke XVII, 37 (Luke has only 24 chapters); "XXVII" is an error in Migne's own citation. Reproduced VERBATIM in the note per the marker rule — not corrected.
<!-- corpus-polarity-sweep 2026-07-28 --> ## Corpus polarity sweep — 2026-07-28
Blind Opus read of the Latin/English pair for sense-reversing defects (one word or one letter asserting the opposite of what the context requires). 1 site(s). Migne's defects are recorded here and rendered literally in the English; our own errors were fixed in place. Full context: data/sweeps/corpus-polarity/REPORT.md.
1382A — dropped-word (migne, medium confidence)
Printed: An forte praedictum chasma inter bonos et malos objectum non locorum spatia, sed actorum dirimit merita? Mirum autem et valde mirum, si tenes ita. Nam et Job, cui similis in terra non erat, ad poenalia loca iturum se esse clamabat…
Conjecture: 'nisi tenes ita' (or 'si non tenes ita') — 'a wonder, and a very great wonder, UNLESS you hold it so'; the printed 'si' has lost the negative element (ni-/non)
As printed, the author calls it astonishing that the reader should hold the chasm to divide merits and not places — but everything that follows argues for exactly that position, introduced by an explanatory 'Nam': 'Nam et Job, cui similis in terra non erat, ad poenalia loca iturum se esse clamabat' (Job, the best man on earth, said he would go to the places of punishment), and then flatly 'Absit autem ut illic Abraham et Job loca disjungerent, quos hic fides et opera inseparabiliter conjunxerant' ('far be it that PLACES should have separated Abraham and Job there, whom faith and works had joined inseparably here'). A 'Nam' clause cannot supply the ground for a proposition the author has just called a great wonder to hold; it supplies the ground for holding it. With 'nisi', the sequence reads straight: it would be a wonder if you did not hold so — for Job… and far be it that places separated them.