{"slug":"stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-csel:stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1","title":"Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis","title_source":"Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis","author":"Augustine","genre":"other","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:16:02Z","cost_usd":0.03808},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-csel:stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-csel","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev/blob/master/data/data/stoa0040/stoa014a/stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":88,"english_words":21057,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":86595,"commentary_units":484,"commentary_kinds":10,"derived_notes":3,"ambiguities":113,"work_notes":6,"external_links":2,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis is a summary composed by Augustine of Hippo shortly after the Conference of Carthage in 411 CE. It condenses the official proceedings of the three-day debate between Catholic and Donatist bishops, presided over by the imperial commissioner Marcellinus. Augustine selects and arranges arguments to highlight Catholic coherence and Donatist inconsistency, making the work a partisan document rather than a neutral record. The text survives in a single manuscript tradition, with earliest witnesses from the 9th–10th centuries, and the CSEL edition (1900) remains the standard critical text. It was used by medieval canonists and cited in Gratian’s Decretum.","historical_context":"The Breviculus was composed by Augustine in 411–412 CE, immediately after the Conference of Carthage (411 CE), a formal disputation between Catholic and Donatist bishops convened by the imperial commissioner Marcellinus. The conference aimed to resolve the Donatist schism, which had divided North African Christianity since the early 4th century. Augustine, as a leading Catholic bishop, produced this summary to provide a concise, authoritative account of the Catholic position. The work presupposes the official gesta (proceedings) and follows their chronological order. The text survives in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witnesses dating from the 9th–10th centuries, and was transmitted through medieval canon law collections, including Gratian’s Decretum. The CSEL edition (1900) remains the standard critical text, though it lacks a full apparatus of variants or a translation. The work is a breviculus (summary), not a verbatim transcript, and reflects Augustine’s partisan selection and arrangement of arguments.","significance":"The Breviculus is a key source for understanding the Catholic–Donatist controversy and the role of state-sponsored conferences in late antique Christianity. It provides insight into Augustine’s rhetorical strategies and theological arguments, while also serving as a model for later medieval polemics and canon law. Its use in Gratian’s Decretum underscores its lasting influence on ecclesiastical jurisprudence.","timeline":[{"date":"311–312 CE","event":"Donatist schism begins in North Africa following the persecution of Diocletian."},{"date":"411 CE","event":"Conference of Carthage between Catholic and Donatist bishops, presided over by Marcellinus."},{"date":"411–412 CE","event":"Augustine composes the Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis."},{"date":"9th–10th centuries","event":"Earliest surviving manuscript witnesses of the Breviculus."},{"date":"c. 1140 CE","event":"Gratian’s Decretum cites the Breviculus."},{"date":"1900 CE","event":"CSEL edition of the Breviculus published, becoming the standard critical text."}],"relations":[{"work":"Gesta Collationis Carthaginensis","relation":"The official proceedings of the Conference of Carthage, which Augustine summarizes and interprets in the Breviculus.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Decretum Gratiani","relation":"Medieval canon law collection that cites the Breviculus.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Contra Cresconium","relation":"Another anti-Donatist work by Augustine, complementing the Breviculus.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Epistula ad Donatistas","relation":"Augustine’s letter addressing Donatist positions, related to the same controversy.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Donatist Martyr Acts","relation":"Lost Donatist sources that provide an alternative perspective, now only known through Catholic refutations.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Augustine of Hippo","label":"Augustine of Hippo","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo","reason":"Provides background on the author and his role in the Donatist controversy."},{"key":"wikipedia:Donatism","label":"Donatism","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism","reason":"Contextualizes the schism and the conference."}],"cautions":["The exact date of composition is not explicitly stated; it is inferred as 411–412 CE based on the work’s reference to the Conference of Carthage.","The text survives in a single manuscript tradition, with earliest witnesses from the 9th–10th centuries, leaving gaps in the transmission history.","The Breviculus is a partisan summary, not a neutral record; Donatist positions are reported through a Catholic lens, and independent Donatist sources are lost."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000544,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:16:01Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin CSEL","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev/blob/master/data/data/stoa0040/stoa014a/stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0040.stoa014a.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":88,"translated":88,"commentary_passages":88,"commentary_units":484,"english_words":21057,"source_letters":86595,"commentary_kinds":10},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine composed the Breviculus shortly after the Conference of Carthage (411 CE) to summarize the Catholic position against the Donatists. The work presupposes the official proceedings and likely dates to 411–412.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives in a single manuscript tradition, with the earliest witnesses dating from the 9th–10th centuries. The CSEL edition (1900) remains the standard critical text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Breviculus was used by medieval canonists and polemicists as a concise record of the Catholic–Donatist debate. It was cited in Gratian’s Decretum and later conciliar acts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not include a full apparatus of manuscript variants or a translation. Readers seeking a diplomatic transcription or English version must consult other resources.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is a summary (breviculus) of the longer proceedings, not a verbatim transcript. Augustine selects and arranges arguments to highlight Catholic coherence and Donatist inconsistency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine’s summary is a partisan document, not a neutral record. The Donatist positions are reported through a Catholic lens; independent Donatist sources are lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: other in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 88 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"3 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-csel — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":88},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"COLLATIO PRIMI DIEI.\n\nCum catholici episcopi et partis Donati iussu imperatoris disputando inter se gestis apud tribunum et notarium Marcellinum cognitorem habitis contulissent, multum prolixa eorundem gestorum est facta conscriptio, quamuis posset totum multo breuius agi. sed qui causam bonam non se habere sciebant, id egerunt primum quantum potuerunt, ut nec ipsa collatio fieret et ut prorsus causa ipsa non ageretur. sed quia hoc obtinere minime potuerunt, id effecerunt multiplicitate gestorum, ut quod actum est non facile legeretur. unde uisum est isto breuiario cuncta complecti, ut ad signa numerorum, quae et in isto breuiculo et in ipsis gestis annotantur, sine difficultate quisque inueniat quod uoluerit.\n\nIngressis itaque utrisque partibus primo loco recitatum est rescriptum imperatoris, quo iussit collationem inter memoratos episcopos fieri, ut superstitionem manifesta ratio confutaret.","english":"Collation of the First Day.\n\nWhen the Catholic bishops and those of the Donatist party, by order of the emperor, had conferred with each other in disputation, the proceedings being held before the tribune and notary Marcellinus as cognitor, a very lengthy transcription of those same proceedings was made, although the whole matter could have been conducted much more briefly. But those who knew they did not have a good cause first did what they could to prevent the conference itself from taking place and the case itself from being heard at all. But since they were utterly unable to obtain this, they brought it about, by the multiplicity of the proceedings, that what was done could not be easily read. Hence it seemed good to embrace everything in this breviary, so that by means of the numerical signs, which are noted both in this breviary and in the proceedings themselves, anyone may find without difficulty what he wishes.\n\nWhen both parties had entered, the rescript of the emperor was first recited, by which he ordered the conference to be held between the aforementioned bishops, so that manifest reason might refute superstition.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"collatio","severity":"info","text":"The Collatio of 411 CE was a formal conference between Catholic and Donatist bishops, presided over by the imperial commissioner Marcellinus. Augustine later produced this breviary to summarize the official proceedings (gesta).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor denotes the imperial official appointed to hear and judge the case. Marcellinus, as tribune and notary, acted in this capacity, a role distinct from a modern judge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"breuiarium","severity":"info","text":"Breuiarium (breviary) here means a concise summary or abridgment, not a liturgical book. Augustine uses it to refer to his own digest of the conference proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"collatio primi diei","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks the first of three days of the conference. The breviary follows the chronological order of the original gesta, with numerical signs for cross-reference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"superstitio","severity":"info","text":"Augustine labels Donatism as superstitio, a term used by the imperial rescript. This reflects the Catholic characterization of the Donatist position as irrational and requiring refutation by manifesta ratio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'partis Donati' could mean 'the party of Donatus' or 'the Donatist party'; the translation follows the latter as conventional."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Secundo loco recitatum est edictum ipsius cognitoris, quod per prouinciam misit, ut conuenirentur utriusque partis episcopi et intra diem Calendarum Iuniarum conferendi causa congregarentur Carthagine. in eo edicto basilicas sine iussione imperatoris reddidit Donatistis, qui se pollicerentur esse uenturos, ut eo modo eos ad conferendum etiam beneficiis inuitaret. in eodem etiam edicto obtulit eis, ut alium quem uellent cum illo iudicem constituerent, iurauitque se hoc iudicaturum quod ueritas suasisset, et cetera quae ad exhortationem congregationis illorum eodem continentur edicto.\n\nTertio loco recitatum est alterum cognitoris edictum, quod proposuit iam praesentibus apud Carthaginem utriusque partis episcopis, qui locus et qui modus collationis futurus esset, supradicto die itidem commemorato et constituto, et admonuit ut ei pars utraque rescriberet, utrum placerent quae comprehendit edicto.","english":"Secondly, the edict of the same cognitor was read out, which he sent throughout the province, so that the bishops of both parties might assemble and gather at Carthage for the purpose of the conference within the day before the Kalends of June. In that edict, he restored the basilicas to the Donatists without the emperor’s command, who promised that they would come, so that in this way he might invite them to the conference even by benefits. In the same edict, he also offered them that they might appoint with him another judge whom they wished, and he swore that he would judge what truth would suggest, and the other things which are contained in that same edict for the exhortation of their assembly.\n\nThirdly, the other edict of the cognitor was read out, which he published when the bishops of both parties were already present at Carthage, concerning what place and what manner the conference would be, the aforementioned day being likewise recalled and appointed, and he admonished that each party should write back to him whether the things which he included in the edict pleased them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Secundo loco recitatum est edictum","severity":"info","text":"The passage follows a clear sequential structure: 'secondly' and 'thirdly' mark the reading of two edicts by the cognitor Marcellinus, continuing the narrative of the first day of the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"basilicas sine iussione imperatoris reddidit Donatistis","severity":"info","text":"Marcellinus restored basilicas to the Donatists without imperial authorization, a conciliatory gesture to encourage their participation in the conference, reflecting the political and legal tensions between the Catholic and Donatist parties.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The term 'cognitor' refers to the imperial commissioner or judge appointed to oversee the conference, here Marcellinus, who acted as the official cognitor in the proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"intra diem Calendarum Iuniarum","severity":"info","text":"The conference was set to convene by the day before the Kalends of June (May 31), a specific date in the Roman calendar, indicating the precise timing of the events described.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et cetera quae ad exhortationem congregationis illorum eodem continentur edicto","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine summarizes the edict's content with 'and the other things,' leaving details unspecified; the full text of the edict is not preserved in this passage, so the reader must rely on Augustine's selective account.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'basilicas sine iussione imperatoris reddidit Donatistis' might imply Marcellinus acted independently, but the extent of his authority or any subsequent imperial approval is not clarified here."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Quarto loco, cum partis Donati episcopi exigerent proponi sibi ab aduersariis, qua causa fuissent congregati, cognitor distulit, ut ex ordine prius omnia recitarentur, quae ante diem collationis acta fuerant. et recitata est notoria Donatistarum, in qua dixerunt non sibi placere quod in edicto suo posuit, ut hi soli ex episcopis conuenirent ad collationis locum, quos ad ipsam causam peragendam ceteri delegissent, qui omnes triginta sex complebantur, decem et octo hinc et decem et octo inde, id est septeni, qui inter se disputarent, et alii septeni, qui concilio, si opus esset, adhiberentur, et alii quaterni, qui. gestis custodiendis et conscribendis praeessent; sed petiuerunt se omnes potius qui uenerant adesse debere, ut eorum numerus appareret, dicentes quod eos aduersarii paucos esse mentiti sint. ibi dixerunt ita se omnes uenisse usque ad grauissimos senes, ut hi soli deessent, quos aduersa ualetudo corporis impedisset, et cetera quae ipsa notoria continentur.","english":"Fourthly, when the bishops of the Donatist party demanded that their opponents state the reason why they had been assembled, the cognitor postponed the matter, so that everything which had been done before the day of the conference might first be recited in order. And the Donatists’ notification was read out, in which they said that they were not pleased with what he had placed in his edict, namely that only those bishops should come to the place of the conference whom the rest had chosen to conduct the case itself, who numbered thirty-six in all, eighteen on each side—that is, seven to debate among themselves, another seven to be summoned to the council if need be, and another four to preside over the preservation and transcription of the records; but they requested that all who had come should rather be present, so that their number might be apparent, claiming that their opponents had falsely said they were few. There they said that all had come, even the most gravely aged, so that only those were absent whom ill health of body had prevented, and the other things which that notification contains.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quarto loco","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks the fourth procedural step in the narrative sequence of the conference, following the earlier 'secundo' and 'tertio' steps in the Breviculus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"notoria","severity":"info","text":"Notoria is a late Latin term for a formal notification or written statement submitted to a court or official, here the Donatists' response to the cognitor's edict.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The cognitor was the imperial commissioner (Marcellinus) appointed to preside over the 411 Conference of Carthage, with authority to regulate procedure and issue edicts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"septeni ... alii septeni ... alii quaterni","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists object to the pre-arranged delegation of 36 bishops (18 per side) divided into three groups: 7 debaters, 7 advisors, and 4 record-keepers, preferring all present bishops to attend.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"grauissimos senes","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'grauissimos senes' (most gravely aged) may be rhetorical exaggeration by the Donatists to emphasize their full attendance; the exact number of absentees due to illness is not specified.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'quaterni' could mean 'four each' (i.e., four per side) or simply 'four in total'; the translation adopts the latter, but the text is ambiguous."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Quinto loco recitatae sunt litterae catholicorum quas rescripserunt cognitori, sicut edicto commonuerat, insinuantes consentire se ad omnia, quae illo edicto fuerant ordinata. in eisdem litteris etiam se obstrinxerunt et polliciti sunt, si in parte Donati ueritas eis demonstraretur ecclesiae, non se illic episcopalem honorem quaesituros, sed consilium eorum secuturos pro salute christiana; si autem in sua communione potius ueritas ostenderetur ecclesiae, honores episcopales eis non se negaturos, et hoc a se fieri bono pacis, ut intellegerent hi quibus hoc praestaretur, quod in eis catholici non christianam consecrationem, sed humanum detestarentur errorem. quodsi plebes duos in una ecclesia episcopos ferre non possent, utrisque de medio recedentibus singuli constituerentur episcopi ab eis episcopis ordinandi, qui in suis plebibus singuli inuenirentur. in eisdem litteris commemorata est etiam causa Maximianistarum, ex quibus a se damnatis propter pacem partis Donati quosdam in honoribus integris susceperunt et ab eis datum in sacrilegQ schismate baptismum non resciderunt, et cetera quae in memoratis litteris continentur.","english":"Fifthly, the letter of the Catholics was read aloud, which they had written back to the cognitor, as he had urged by edict, indicating that they consented to all that had been arranged in that edict. In the same letter they also bound themselves and promised that if the truth of the Church were shown to them in the Donatist party, they would not seek episcopal honor there, but would follow their counsel for the sake of Christian salvation; but if, on the contrary, the truth of the Church were shown to be rather in their own communion, they would not deny episcopal honors to them, and this they would do for the sake of peace, so that those to whom this was granted would understand that the Catholics detested in them not Christian consecration, but human error. And if the congregations could not bear two bishops in one church, with both withdrawing, single bishops would be appointed, to be ordained by those bishops who were found singly in their own congregations. In the same letter the case of the Maximianists was also mentioned, from whom, after they had been condemned by them, for the sake of the peace of the Donatist party they received some in their intact honors and did not rescind the baptism given in the sacrilegious schism, and the other things contained in the aforementioned letter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quinto loco recitatae sunt","severity":"info","text":"This unit marks the fifth sequential reading in the conference proceedings, continuing the narrative pattern of the Breviculus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitori","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor refers to the imperial official presiding over the conference, likely the proconsul or a delegate, who had issued the edict mentioned.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Maximianistarum","severity":"info","text":"The Maximianists were a Donatist splinter group; Augustine here accuses Donatists of inconsistency by readmitting their condemned members and recognizing their baptisms.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"bono pacis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'for the sake of peace' reflects Augustine's argument that Catholic offers of episcopal honors were concessions for unity, not endorsements of Donatist doctrine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"in sacrilegQ schismate","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'sacrilegQ' which is an abbreviation or corruption; the intended word is likely 'sacrilego' (sacrilegious), as rendered in the English draft.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the cognitor is not specified in this passage; the reading assumes a standard imperial official."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Sexto loco recitatum est etiam edictum ipsius cognitoris, quod proposuerat cum supradicta notoria Donatistarum et supradictis litteris catholicorum, insinuans populo, quae illi pars utraque rescripserit.\n\nSeptimo loco recitatae sunt litterae catholicorum ad cognitorem datae, quibus Donatistarum notoriae responderunt, concedentes eis quod petierant, ut uniuersi qui uenerant praesentes essent in eo loco ubi erat futura collatio, cum tamen illic ex catholicis episcopis illi soli adessent, quos edicto suo cognitor definierat, ut, si aliquis tumultus existeret, quod catholici ualde metuebant, non illis imputaretur qui paucissimi adessent, sed eis potius qui multitudinem suam praesentem esse uoluissent. in eisdem litteris etiam tota ipsa causa comprehensa est, ut ostenderetur ecclesia catholica non esse pars Donati, sed illa potius, quae per totum mundum fructificaret et cresceret incipiens ab Hierusalem secundum sacram scripturam, et quia nihil ei praeiudicarent, quicumque in ea mali fuissent diuino in fine iudicio separandi, et quia nec in ipsum Caecilianum maiores eorum aliquid probare potuerunt, qui iudiciis ecclesiasticis et maxime imperatoris, apud quem ab eis fuerat accusatus, innocens inuentus et pronuntiatus est.","english":"Sixthly, the edict of the cognitor himself was read aloud, which he had posted together with the aforementioned notoria of the Donatists and the aforementioned letter of the Catholics, informing the people what each party had replied in writing.\n\nSeventhly, the letter of the Catholics given to the cognitor was read aloud, by which they responded to the notoria of the Donatists, granting them what they had requested, that all who had come should be present in the place where the conference was to be held, although on the Catholic side only those bishops were present whom the cognitor had defined in his edict, so that, if any disturbance arose—which the Catholics greatly feared—it would not be imputed to those who were very few in number, but rather to those who had wished their multitude to be present. In the same letter the whole case itself was also included, to show that the Catholic Church was not the party of Donatus, but rather that which fructifies and grows throughout the whole world beginning from Jerusalem according to sacred scripture, and that no prejudice was caused to it by any who were evil within it, to be separated at the final divine judgment, and that not even against Caecilian himself were their predecessors able to prove anything, since he was found and declared innocent by ecclesiastical judgments and especially by the emperor, before whom he had been accused by them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sexto loco ... Septimo loco","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues the sequential reading of documents at the conference, numbered sixth and seventh, following the pattern of the previous passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"notoria","severity":"info","text":"Notoria is a late Latin term for an official notice or memorandum, here used for the Donatists' written statement to the cognitor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The cognitor was the imperial commissioner (Marcellinus) appointed to preside over the 411 Conference of Carthage, with authority to judge the dispute between Catholics and Donatists.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ab Hierusalem secundum sacram scripturam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes the Lukan account of the Church spreading from Jerusalem (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4) and the patristic argument that the Catholic Church is the universal Church growing from the apostolic see.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Caecilianum","severity":"info","text":"Caecilian was the bishop of Carthage whose ordination in 311 sparked the Donatist schism; Augustine repeatedly argues that his innocence was established by imperial and ecclesiastical judgments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"tota ipsa causa comprehensa est","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine's summary of the Catholic letter's content is highly compressed and tendentious; the actual letter likely contained more detailed scriptural and historical arguments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'notoria' is a neuter plural form used as a feminine singular; the exact document referred to is not independently preserved."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"et quia de iussionibus imperatorum, quae pro catholica constituuntur, solent facere inuidiam, commemoratum est etiam de sancta scriptura reges decreuisse in regno suo grauissimas poenas eis, qui blasphemassent deum; commemorata etiam causa Maximianistarum, quos et iudiciis ipsi publicis insectati sunt et ex quibus damnatis quosdam in honoribus integris susceperunt nec ab eis in schismate datum baptismum destruxerunt, quod eos, quibus dilationem dederunt Maximiano communicantibus, dixerunt illius contagio non fuisse pollutos, et cetera quae eisdem litteris continentur..haec autem omnia ideo ibi commemorata sunt, ne forte, si secum cogitassent Donatistae et uiderent, quam malam causam haberet pars Donati, ad hoc noluissent omnes qui uenerant ingredi locum collationis, ut pax atque unitas fieret.\n\nOctauo loco cum cognitor inquisisset, utrum, sicut a catholicis uidebat, ita etiam a parte Donati electi iam essent qui susceptam causam peragerent, responsum est a parte Donati, quod iam esset acta a catholicis causa, antequam esset confligentium statuta persona, propter illas catholicorum litteras quae totam causam breuiter continebant. deinde instare coeperunt, ut prius ageretur de tempore de mandato de persona de causa, tunc ad negotii merita ueniretur.","english":"and because they are accustomed to make invidious complaints about the imperial decrees that are established for the Catholic Church, it was also recalled from sacred scripture that kings in their own kingdoms had decreed the gravest penalties for those who blasphemed God; the case of the Maximianists was also recalled, whom they themselves had prosecuted in public courts and from among those condemned they received some in their intact honors and did not destroy the baptism given by them in schism, because they said that those to whom they had granted a delay while communicating with Maximian were not polluted by his contagion, and the other matters contained in that same letter. All these things were recalled there lest, if the Donatists should reflect and see how bad a case the party of Donatus had, they might be unwilling for all who had come to enter the place of the conference, so that peace and unity might be achieved.\n\nEighthly, when the cognitor inquired whether, as he saw from the Catholics, so also from the party of Donatus, representatives had already been chosen to conduct the case that had been undertaken, it was answered by the party of Donatus that the case had already been conducted by the Catholics before the person of the disputants was established, because of that letter of the Catholics which briefly contained the whole case. Then they began to insist that first there should be a discussion about the time, the mandate, the person, and the case, and then the merits of the matter would be reached.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Maximianistarum","severity":"info","text":"The Maximianists were a Donatist splinter group that broke away in the late 4th century. Augustine here notes the Donatists' inconsistent treatment of them, prosecuting some in public courts while later receiving others back without requiring rebaptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"de sancta scriptura reges decreuisse ... grauissimas poenas eis, qui blasphemassent deum","severity":"info","text":"Augustine likely alludes to Old Testament precedents for royal punishment of blasphemy, such as Leviticus 24:16 or the actions of King Josiah (2 Kings 23). The reference supports the Catholic use of imperial decrees against heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Octauo loco","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks the eighth procedural step in the conference narrative, following the pattern of numbered stages (septimo, octavo) that structure Augustine's account of the Collatio of 411.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor refers to the imperial commissioner presiding over the conference, Flavius Marcellinus, appointed by Emperor Honorius to adjudicate the dispute between Catholics and Donatists.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"de tempore de mandato de persona de causa","severity":"info","text":"These four points (time, mandate, person, case) were standard legal preliminaries in Roman court procedure. The Donatists insisted on settling these before addressing the substantive religious issues.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"haec autem omnia ideo ibi commemorata sunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's editorial comment suggests he is summarizing the Catholic letter's contents rather than reporting the exact sequence of the conference. The phrase 'ibi' refers back to the letter, not to the conference proceedings themselves.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'dilationem' (delay) in the context of the Maximianists is ambiguous: it may refer to a procedural postponement granted to those who had communicated with Maximian, or to a period of grace before excommunication."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"et cum cognitor interlocutus esset nihil de causa esse mutilatum et rursus inquisisset, utrum de constituendo numero disputantium edicto eius paritum fuerit, quia per hos oporteret agi omnia quae agenda essent, coeperunt Donatistae agere de tempore, quoniam causa ipsa agi non posset, quia dies praeterisset. quarto decimo enim Calendarum Iuniarum die completi fuerant quattuor menses ex die edicti cognitoris, quod ad prouinciam miserat, sicut interrogatum respondit officium. et quoniam inter quattuor menses agi causam praeceperat imperator, ideo diem iam transisse dicebant et petebant, ut tamquam in contumaces catholicos sententia proferretur, quasi catholici absentes essent aut Donatistae aliquando ad agendam causam illis absentibus intrauissent aut admoniti catholici uel euocati defuissent. ista ergo calumniose et tergiuersatorie, quae nec in foro iure agerentur, dicebant, nolentes ut aliquid ageretur. sed ad hoc eis respondit ipse cognitor, quod in Calendas lunias pars utraque consenserit, quamuis etiamsi quaelibet pars adhuc usque non occurrisset, duos alios menses superesse potuisse, quos imperator adiunxit trinis edictis fuisse seruandos.","english":"And when the judge had declared that nothing of the case had been mutilated, and had again inquired whether his edict regarding the establishment of the number of disputants had been complied with—since through them all matters that needed to be conducted were to be handled—the Donatists began to argue about the time, because the case itself could not be conducted, since the day had passed. For on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June, four months had been completed from the day of the judge’s edict, which he had sent to the province, as the office replied when questioned. And because the emperor had ordered that the case be conducted within four months, they said that the day had already passed, and they demanded that sentence be pronounced against the Catholics as though they were contumacious, as if the Catholics were absent, or as if the Donatists had ever entered to conduct the case in their absence, or as if the Catholics, when warned or summoned, had failed to appear. Therefore, they were saying these things in a calumnious and evasive manner—things that would not even be done lawfully in a court—unwilling for anything to be conducted. But to this the judge himself replied that both parties had agreed on the Kalends of June, and that even if either party had not yet appeared up to that point, the two additional months which the emperor had added could have been preserved by three edicts.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The term 'cognitor' refers to the imperial judge presiding over the conference, distinct from a private arbitrator.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Calendarum Iuniarum","severity":"info","text":"The Kalends of June is June 1. The fourteenth day before the Kalends of June is May 19.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"quattuor menses","severity":"info","text":"The four-month limit for the case was set by imperial decree, likely the same edict that summoned the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"tergiuersatorie","severity":"info","text":"Augustine characterizes the Donatists' procedural objection as evasive, framing their legal maneuver as a delaying tactic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"contumaces","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists sought a default judgment against Catholics for contumacy, a standard legal procedure for non-appearance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"trinis edictis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'trinis edictis' likely refers to three successive edicts required to summon an absent party before a default judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact date of the judge's edict is not specified; the four-month count is calculated from that edict, not from the imperial decree."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Nono loco, quoniam cognitor superius dixerat de tempore praescribere, ut causa non ageretur, non episcopalis, sed forensis potius esse obiectionis, inuenit occasionem pars Donati, qua diceret nihil ergo secum agi publico iure debere, sed tantum diuinis scripturis. unde cum quaesisset cognitor, quid utrique parti de hac re placeret, responsum est a catholicis, ut iuberet mandatum catholici concilii recitari, ubi electis disputatoribus agendi modus iniunctus est: ibi posse melius apparere, quod non forensibus tergiuersationibus, sed magis diuinis testimoniis ageretur. et aliquamdiu conflictio producta est, cum catholici instarent recitari mandatum, illi autem recusarent. sed postea remotis omnibus moratoriis contentionibus recitari mandatum cognitor iussit.\n\nDecimo loco mandatum catholici concilii recitatum est, quo electis ad disputandum episcopis catholicae ecclesiae est iniuncta defensio aduersus criminationes Donatistarum.","english":"Ninthly, because the judge had earlier said that to plead a time limit, so that the case would not be heard, was an objection not of an episcopal but rather of a forensic nature, the Donatist party found an occasion to say that therefore nothing should be conducted with them by public law, but only by divine scriptures. When the judge asked what each party thought about this, the Catholics answered that he should order the mandate of the Catholic council to be read, where the method of proceeding was enjoined upon the chosen disputants: that it could better appear there that the case was being conducted not by forensic evasions, but rather by divine testimonies. And for some time a conflict was prolonged, with the Catholics insisting that the mandate be read, while the others refused. But afterwards, with all delaying contentions removed, the judge ordered the mandate to be read.\n\nTenthly, the mandate of the Catholic council was read, by which the defense against the accusations of the Donatists was enjoined upon the bishops of the Catholic Church chosen for the disputation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The term 'cognitor' refers to the imperial judge presiding over the conference, a role distinct from an ecclesiastical arbiter. Augustine emphasizes that the judge's earlier remark about time-limit objections being 'forensis' rather than 'episcopalis' frames the legal character of the proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"mandatum catholici concilii","severity":"info","text":"The 'mandate of the Catholic council' is a procedural document from the Catholic bishops' pre-conference meeting, authorizing specific disputants and the method of debate. Its recitation here counters Donatist claims that only scripture should govern the proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nono loco ... Decimo loco","severity":"info","text":"Augustine organizes the Breviculus by numbered sections ('Nono loco', 'Decimo loco'), each summarizing a distinct phase of the conference. This structure aids clarity but may compress or omit details of the actual debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"conflictio producta est","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'conflictio producta est' (a conflict was prolonged) is vague; Augustine does not specify the duration or exact arguments of this delay. The summary likely telescopes a longer exchange into a single sentence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin does not specify how long the 'aliquamdiu' (for some time) lasted, nor the precise content of the Donatists' refusal to have the mandate read."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"hoc mandato iterum, sicut in superioribus litteris, breuiter tota causa comprehensa est, prius ut causa ecclesiae, quae toto sicut promissa est terrarum orbe diffunditur, a causa Caeciliani, qualiscumque illa fuisset, sic distingueretur, ut ostenderetur malos in ecclesia, qui uel ignorantur uel pro unitate pacis tolerantur a bonis, non eis ad mala consentientibus obesse non posse similitudinibus euangelicis et exemplo prophetarum et ipsius domini Christi et apostolorum et episcoporum et iudicio ipsorum etiam Donatistarum propter Maximianistas, deinde ipsius Caeciliani causa non mala fuisse certis documentis demonstraretur, quibus et ipse et ordinator eius Felix Aptugnensis, quem in concilio suo criminosius accusauerunt, probaretur esse purgatus, et cetera quae mandato eodem continentur siue de baptismo siue de persecutione, quae solet catholicis obicere pars Donati. nam commemorata ibi est iterum, sicut in superioribus litteris, causa Maximianistarum, qua demonstrarentur Donatistae suo iudicio cuncta diluisse, quae obicere catholicis uel de baptismo uel de persecutione uel de communionis contagione consueuerunt. adiectum est etiam, ut, si qua etiam nunc episcopis catholicis morarum interponendarum gratia uoluissent crimina obicer.e, propter finiendam quae prius urgeret causam audienda et discutienda postea differrentur.","english":"In this mandate again, as in the earlier letter, the whole case is briefly summarized: first, that the case of the Church, which is spread throughout the whole world as promised, should be distinguished from the case of Caecilian, whatever it might have been, so that it might be shown that evil men in the Church, who are either unknown or tolerated for the sake of the unity of peace by the good, cannot harm those who do not consent to their evils, by means of evangelical similitudes and the example of the prophets and of the Lord Christ himself and of the apostles and of bishops and by the judgment of the Donatists themselves concerning the Maximianists; then, that the case of Caecilian himself was shown by certain documents not to have been evil, by which both he and his ordainer, Felix of Aptunga, whom they had accused more criminally in their council, were proved to have been cleared; and the other things contained in that same mandate, whether concerning baptism or concerning persecution, which the Donatist party is accustomed to object to the Catholics. For the case of the Maximianists is again recalled there, as in the earlier letter, by which the Donatists were shown to have refuted by their own judgment everything that they are accustomed to object to the Catholics concerning baptism or concerning persecution or concerning the contagion of communion. It was also added that, if even now the Catholic bishops should wish to interpose delays by bringing charges, for the sake of ending the case that was first pressing, those charges should be heard and discussed later.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc mandato","severity":"info","text":"This passage summarizes the Catholic mandate presented at the conference, mirroring the structure of the earlier letter (in superioribus litteris) and recapitulating the key arguments: distinction of the Church's case from Caecilian's, defense of Caecilian, and refutation of Donatist objections via the Maximianist schism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Maximianistas","severity":"info","text":"The Maximianists were a Donatist splinter group that broke away in the late 4th century. Augustine repeatedly uses their case to argue that the Donatists themselves tolerated schismatics, undermining their claim to purity and their objections against the Catholics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"similitudinibus euangelicis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'evangelical similitudes' refers to parables or analogies from the Gospels, such as the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt 13:24-30), used by Augustine to argue that evil within the Church does not harm the good who do not consent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"exemplo prophetarum et ipsius domini Christi et apostolorum","severity":"info","text":"This alludes to biblical precedents for tolerating sinners within a community, e.g., the prophets' association with sinful Israel, Christ's parables, and Paul's tolerance of false brethren (cf. Gal 2:4-5). Augustine uses these to defend Catholic practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"causa Caeciliani","severity":"info","text":"Caecilian was the bishop of Carthage whose ordination by Felix of Aptunga (allegedly a traditor) sparked the Donatist schism. Augustine argues here that Caecilian and Felix were cleared by documents, a claim contested by Donatists; this passage reflects the ongoing polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"causa ecclesiae, quae toto sicut promissa est terrarum orbe diffunditur","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'as promised' (sicut promissa est) is ambiguous: it may refer to the Church's catholicity as prophesied in Scripture (e.g., Ps 22:28, Rom 10:18) or to the promise of the Donatist conference itself. The Latin allows both readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'sicut promissa est' could mean 'as promised' by Scripture or 'as promised' in the context of the conference mandate; the translation adopts the former, but the latter is possible.","The clause 'si qua etiam nunc episcopis catholicis morarum interponendarum gratia uoluissent crimina obicere' is syntactically compressed; the sense is that if Catholic bishops wished to interpose delays by bringing charges, those charges would be deferred."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"hoc autem, id est ut tota causa et superioribus litteris et isto mandato comprehenderetur, eo consilio a catholicis factum est, ne forte, si, ut fama iactabat, aliquas moratorias praescriptiones Donatistae ingerere conarentur et forsitan non permissi ab ipsa collatione resilirent, (non) acta licet breuiter ecclesiae catholicae causa in conscriptione gestorum legenda remaneret, quam timuisse intellegerentur et ideo noluisse conferre.\n\nUndecimo loco, cum cognitor interlocutus esset in mandato catholicorum magis diuina testimonia quam forensia uincula esse prolata, et iussisset etiam subscriptiones omnium recitari, conflictus exortus [est] et aliquamdiu productus est, cum Donatistae exigerent eorum praesentiam, qui mandato subscripserant, obicientes, quod eis suppositis qui episcopi non fuerint potuissent fallere cognitorem, quo praesente subscripsisse legebantur, et quod antiquis cathedris alios episcopos addiderint, ut numerus augeretur. catholici autem ne sui praesentarentur resistebant, uerentes ne illi tumultum aliquem praepararent, per quem prorsus abrumperetur ipsa collatio, quam fieri Donatistae nolle omnino uidebantur, maxime quando de tempore, quasi iam causa lapsa esset et audiri non posset, praescribere uoluerunt.","english":"This, however—that is, that the whole case should be comprehended both in the earlier letters and in this mandate—was done by the Catholics with the intention that, if, as rumor alleged, the Donatists should attempt to introduce some delaying exceptions and, perhaps not permitted to do so, should withdraw from the conference itself, the case of the Catholic Church, albeit briefly, would remain in the written record of the proceedings to be read, and they would be understood to have feared it and therefore to have been unwilling to confer.\n\nIn the eleventh place, when the judge had pronounced that in the mandate of the Catholics more divine testimonies than forensic bonds had been brought forward, and had also ordered the subscriptions of all to be recited, a conflict arose and was prolonged for some time, as the Donatists demanded the presence of those who had subscribed to the mandate, objecting that persons who were not bishops could have been substituted for them and could deceive the judge, in whose presence they were recorded as having subscribed, and that they had added other bishops to the ancient sees in order to increase the number. The Catholics, however, resisted that their own people be produced, fearing that the Donatists might prepare some disturbance by which the conference itself would be completely broken off, which the Donatists seemed altogether unwilling to have take place, especially when they wished to plead a prescription based on time, as if the case had already lapsed and could not be heard.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"moratorias praescriptiones","severity":"info","text":"A legal term for delaying objections or exceptions intended to postpone proceedings. Augustine uses it to characterize Donatist tactics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The judge presiding over the conference, likely the imperial official Marcellinus, appointed by Emperor Honorius to adjudicate the dispute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Undecimo loco","severity":"info","text":"This marks the eleventh sequential event in Augustine's summary of the conference proceedings, following the pattern of numbered sections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"antiquis cathedris","severity":"info","text":"Refers to ancient episcopal sees. Donatists accused Catholics of inflating their numbers by adding bishops to sees that historically had none.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"praescribere","severity":"info","text":"A legal term for raising a prescription or time-bar defense, claiming the case could no longer be heard due to lapse of time.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"non","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has '(non)' in parentheses, indicating a textual uncertainty. The sense requires the negative for the clause to mean the Catholic case would remain in the record.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact nature of the 'moratorias praescriptiones' is not specified; Augustine may be summarizing Donatist legal maneuvers broadly.","The phrase 'non permissi ab ipsa collatione resilirent' could be read as either the Donatists not being permitted to withdraw or their withdrawal being prevented by the judge."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"quem tumultum ideo putabantur nondum fecisse, quia, si fieret, uidebant non posse imputari catholicis, qui paucissimi aderant, sed sibi potius, quorum praesens fuerat multitudo. sed uoluntati eorum cedentibus catholicis, ut omnes qui subscripserant ingrederentur, apparuit postea hoc ideo uoluisse Donatistas, quia existimabant non conuenisse Carthaginem tot catholicos quot subscriptiones ostendebantur. hoc autem propterea credidisse putati sunt, quia catholici non ea pompa qua illi Carthaginem fuerant ingressi et ob hoc eos paucos uenisse suspicabantur.\n\nDuodecimo loco ingressis episcopis catholicis, quorum praesentia petebatur, omnes singillatim recitati et in medium procedentes a Donatistis recogniti sunt uel uicinis suis uel cum quibus in uno loco erant, et quicumque recitabantur catholici episcopi ex his locis, ubi non erat pars Donati, satis et ipsis Donatistis notum erat se ibi non habere collegas uel communionem suam et esse illic catholicos uel quos nouerant uel de quibus audierant in suae uicinitate regionis. ita factum est, ut omnino nullius catholici recitaretur subscriptio, de cuius praesentia dubitarent.","english":"they were thought not yet to have made such a disturbance, because, if it were made, they saw it could not be imputed to the Catholics, who were very few in attendance, but rather to themselves, whose multitude was present. But when the Catholics yielded to their will, so that all who had subscribed might enter, it later became apparent that the Donatists had wanted this because they believed that so many Catholics as the subscriptions showed had not assembled at Carthage. They were thought to have believed this because the Catholics had not entered Carthage with the same pomp as they had, and for this reason they suspected that few of them had come.\n\nIn the twelfth place, when the Catholic bishops whose presence was requested had entered, they were all recited one by one and, coming forward, were recognized by the Donatists either by their neighbors or by those with whom they were in one place; and whenever Catholic bishops from those places where the Donatist party did not exist were recited, it was sufficiently known even to the Donatists themselves that they had no colleagues or communion there, and that there were Catholics there whom they either knew or had heard of in the vicinity of their region. Thus it came about that no Catholic’s subscription was recited at all concerning whose presence they doubted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"quem tumultum ideo putabantur nondum fecisse","severity":"info","text":"The clause explains the Donatists' restraint from causing a disturbance, attributing it to their awareness that blame would fall on them, not the few Catholics present.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Carthaginem","severity":"info","text":"Carthage was the site of the 411 Conference, a key event in the Donatist controversy, where Catholic and Donatist bishops debated under imperial authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Duodecimo loco","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks the twelfth procedural step in the conference narrative, indicating Augustine's systematic ordering of events.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"subscriptio","severity":"info","text":"In this context, 'subscriptio' refers to the signed list of attending Catholic bishops, which the Donatists challenged as potentially fraudulent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"pompa","severity":"info","text":"The contrast between Catholic and Donatist entries into Carthage echoes Augustine's earlier critique of Donatist pride in external display, as seen in his other anti-Donatist works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"recogniti sunt","severity":"info","text":"The recognition of bishops by neighbors or co-locals underscores the procedural emphasis on verifying presence, a point later cited in Catholic polemics as proof of good faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'putabantur nondum fecisse' leaves unclear whether the Donatists' restraint was strategic or merely anticipated by observers; the text adopts the latter reading."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"sane cum uentum esset ad nomen Uictoriani Mustitani catholici episcopi et in medium procedens respondisset se habere contrarios duos, Felicianum in ciuitate Mustit-ana et Donatum in loco Turrensi, exegerunt catholici, ut actis constaret Felicianum in communione esse Primiani; ipsum enim inter alios cum Maximiano damnauerant damnatorem Primiani et ordinatorem ipsius Maximiani, quem postea in integro honore receperant nec destruxerant baptismum in eis, quos in Maximiani schismate baptizauerat. sed ad interrogationem catholicorum respondere noluerunt, dicentes non debere hoc ab eis exigi, et cum iterum pressius exigeretur, dixerunt iam internae actionis hoc esse. et secundum eos interlocutus est cognitor, ut hoc quod coeptum fuerat ageretur et illud, si opus esset, postea quaereretur. in ipsa autem diocesi Mustitana apparuit et ipsos episcopum alium antiquae cathedrae addidisse, quod inani inuidia catholicis obiecerant; hoc et. in aliis locis eos fecisse postea declaratum est.","english":"Now when it came to the name of Victorianus, Catholic bishop of Musti, and he came forward and replied that he had two opponents, Felicianus in the city of Musti and Donatus in the place of Turres, the Catholics demanded that it be recorded in the acts that Felicianus was in communion with Primianus; for they had condemned him, together with others, as a condemner of Primianus and an ordainer of Maximianus himself, whom they later received back in full honor and did not destroy the baptism in those whom he had baptized in the schism of Maximianus. But they refused to answer the Catholics' question, saying that this ought not to be demanded of them, and when it was demanded more insistently, they said that this was a matter of internal action. And the judge, in accordance with them, interposed that what had been begun should be proceeded with, and that matter, if necessary, should be inquired into later. In the diocese of Musti itself, it also appeared that they themselves had added another bishop to an ancient see, which they had charged against the Catholics with empty malice; and it was later declared that they had done this in other places as well.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Maximianist schism (c. 393–394) involved a breakaway group led by Maximianus against Primianus of Carthage. The Donatists later readmitted Maximianists without rebaptizing their converts, a precedent Augustine uses to argue against Donatist exclusivism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"internae actionis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'internae actionis' (internal action) refers to ecclesiastical discipline or internal church proceedings, distinct from public judicial inquiry. The Donatists invoke it to avoid answering about Felicianus's status.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage follows a pattern of Catholic procedural demands and Donatist evasions, culminating in the judge's interlocution. The final sentence introduces a new charge—Donatist multiplication of bishops—which will be developed later.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The 'ancient see' (antiquae cathedrae) refers to a bishopric with historical continuity. The Donatists had accused Catholics of irregularly creating multiple bishops in one see; here Augustine turns the charge back on them.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's Breviculus was used in later anti-Donatist polemic and in medieval canon law collections, where the procedural details of the Collatio of 411 were cited as a model for episcopal hearings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Donatus in loco Turrensi' is uncertain; he may be a Donatist bishop of Turres, but the text does not specify his see's status."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Tertio decimo loco recensitis et recognitis praesentibus catholicis qui subscripserant cognitor obtulit potens, ut considentes potius agerent quam stantes. Donatistae autem recusauerunt, gratias tamen agentes, quod talibus senibus obtulisset consessum, et in ea recusatione multa dicentes in laudem suam et in laudem ipsius cognitoris, quae legat qui uoluerit in conscriptione gestorum. pertinet enim ad rem, quomodo quem sic laudauerunt, ut dicerent honorificum iustum reuerentem benignum, causam tamen, propter cuius actionem tam multi conuenerant, apud eum agi nolebant.\n\nQuarto decimo loco mandatum etiam Donatistarum prolatum et recitatum est breuiter factum, ut hi quos elegerant agerent uelut aduersus traditores et persecutores suos. recitata sunt etiam eorum nomina, cum hoc catholici fieri petissent, ut constaret, utrum apud Carthaginem praesentes subscripserint. sed Donatistae multo instantius hoc ut fieret cognitori extorserunt, ut eorum quoque numerus appareret, quod se magna intentione uelle monstrabant. in ea sane recitatione inuenti sunt quidam, pro quibus absentibus alii subscripserunt. inuentus est etiam unus, qui cum suo nomine recitato non responderet, dixerunt eum in itinere esse defunctum. et cum quaererent catholici, quomodo potuerit apud Carthaginem subscribere qui fuerat in itinere defunctus, illi diu fluctuauerunt perturbati et nescientes quid responderent.","english":"In the thirteenth place, after the Catholics present who had subscribed were listed and identified, the judge offered them the opportunity to sit while conducting the proceedings rather than stand. But the Donatists refused, though giving thanks that he had offered a seat to such elderly men, and in that refusal they said many things in praise of themselves and of the judge himself, which anyone who wishes may read in the written record of the proceedings. For it is relevant to the matter how they praised him in such a way as to call him honorable, just, reverent, and kind, yet they were unwilling to have the case, for the sake of which so many had assembled, conducted before him.\n\nIn the fourteenth place, the mandate of the Donatists was also produced and read, drawn up briefly so that those whom they had chosen might act as if against traitors and their persecutors. Their names were also read, after the Catholics had requested this be done, to establish whether they were present at Carthage and had subscribed. But the Donatists much more insistently wrung it from the judge that this be done, so that their number too might appear, which they showed they wanted with great eagerness. In that reading, indeed, some were found for whom others had subscribed in their absence. One was also found who did not respond when his name was read, and they said he had died on the journey. And when the Catholics asked how he could have subscribed at Carthage if he had died on the journey, they wavered for a long time, troubled and not knowing what to answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The judge presiding over the conference; here the term denotes the imperial commissioner (Flavius Marcellinus) appointed to adjudicate the dispute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"consessus","severity":"info","text":"The offer of a seat (consessus) was a gesture of respect; the Donatists' refusal to sit while conducting proceedings reflects their stance of moral superiority and rejection of procedural compromise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Tertio decimo loco","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured by sequential numbering (thirteenth and fourteenth places), mirroring the official acts of the conference and emphasizing procedural order.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"mandatum","severity":"info","text":"The Donatist mandate, a brief document authorizing their representatives, is read aloud; the incident of a deceased subscriber highlights the Donatists' procedural embarrassment, a point Augustine exploits in his polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"in itinere esse defunctum","severity":"caution","text":"The claim that a subscriber had died en route is reported without verification; the Donatists' confusion suggests possible fabrication, but the text does not resolve the factual status.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the deceased subscriber and the circumstances of the subscription remain unclear; the Donatists' explanation is contested by the Catholics."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"nam primo dixerunt non de ipso, sed de alio fuisse suggestum. et cum catholici putassent de alio, id est de clerico, eos dicere, qui pro mortuo subscribere potuit, quaesitum est, utrum clericus suo nomine an illius pro mortuo subscripserit. sed postea responderunt ipsum quidem subscripsisse praesentem, cum octauo Calendas Iunias mandatum fieret, sed quoniam aeger subscripserat, remeantem ad propria in itinere defecisse. quo audito catholici petierunt superiora eorum uerba recitari, ut ipsa uarietas deprehensa claresceret. quod cum factum fuisset et appareret, quaesiuit cognitor, utrum saltem sub dei testificatione firmarent eum fuisse Carthagini, quando praesentes praesentibus mandauerunt ut subscriberent. ubi uehementius perturbati responderunt: quid, si se alius pro eodem opposuit? hanc eorum falsitatem deprehensam iudicio dei relinquens iussit cetera nomina recitari, quibus recitatis quaesiuit de numero episcoporum partis utriusque. respondit officium nomina Donatistarum episcoporum esse ducenta septuaginta nouem annumeratis etiam illis, pro quibus absentibus alii subscripserant, computato et illo defuncto. catholicorum autem omnium praesentium nomina esse constitit ducenta octoginta sex.","english":"For first they said that it had been suggested not about him, but about another. And when the Catholics thought they were speaking about another, that is, about a cleric, who could have subscribed for a dead man, it was asked whether the cleric subscribed in his own name or in that of the dead man. But afterwards they answered that he himself indeed subscribed while present, when the mandate was made on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, but since he had subscribed while ill, returning to his own people he had died on the journey. Upon hearing this, the Catholics asked that their earlier words be recited, so that the detected inconsistency might become clear. When this had been done and it became apparent, the judge asked whether at least they would affirm under the testimony of God that he was at Carthage when those present gave a mandate to those present to subscribe. At this, they were more vehemently disturbed and answered: What if someone else put himself forward in his place? Leaving this detected falsehood of theirs to the judgment of God, he ordered the rest of the names to be recited. When these had been recited, he asked about the number of bishops on each side. The office replied that the names of the Donatist bishops were two hundred and seventy-nine, including also those for whom others had subscribed in their absence, and counting also the deceased one. But the names of all the Catholics present were established to be two hundred and eighty-six.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"octauo Calendas Iunias","severity":"info","text":"The date 'eighth day before the Kalends of June' corresponds to 25 May. This is a standard Roman dating formula used in the official acts of the Conference of Carthage (411).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor is the official title of the imperial judge presiding over the conference, Flavius Marcellinus. The term denotes a legally appointed commissioner with authority to investigate and decide.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative of the thirteenth procedural point, detailing the Donatists' contradictory testimony about a deceased bishop and the judge's decision to refer the detected falsehood to divine judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The events described belong to the third session of the Conference of Carthage, held on 8 June 411. The mandate referred to was made on 25 May, shortly before the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's Breviculus is an epitome of the official Gesta Collationis, intended to provide a clear, authoritative account of the Catholic victory. The detected falsehood here is presented as evidence of Donatist bad faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'alius' (another) is ambiguous: the Catholics initially think it refers to a cleric, but the Donatists later imply it could be someone who impersonated the deceased bishop."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"uiginti enim non subscripserant, qui tamen suam exhibentes praesentiam et in medium procedentes, nisi quos infirmitas corporis illic apud Carthaginem tenuit, praesentibus gestis se mandare et consentire professi sunt. in loco ergo collationis, hoc est in thermis Gargilianis, quia ipse postea locus placuerat, ex his catholicis, qui mandato subscripserant et qui praesentes gestis mandauerant, hi soli defuerunt, qui illic apud Carthaginem incommoda ualetudine tenebantur. ex his autem, quorum nomina Donatistarum subscriptio continebat, non solum illi deerant, quos apud Carthaginem aegrotare responderant, sed etiam illi, pro quibus absentibus, id est apud Carthaginem non constitutis, alii subscripserant. quoniam itaque se Donatistae de numerositate iactabant, excepto eo, quod catholicos plures uenisse Carthaginem constitit, dictum est a catholicis alios episcopos centum uiginti non uenisse Carthaginem, quod quidam eorum senectute, quidam infirmitate, quidam diuersis necessitatibus (sint) impediti.","english":"For twenty had not subscribed, who nevertheless, presenting themselves and coming forward, except those whom bodily infirmity detained there at Carthage, professed in the presence of the official record to commit themselves and give consent. Therefore, at the place of the conference, that is, in the Gargilian Baths, because that place had later been agreed upon, of those Catholics who had subscribed to the mandate and who had committed themselves in the presence of the official record, only those were absent who were detained at Carthage by inconvenient health. But of those whose names the Donatists’ subscription contained, not only were those absent whom they had answered were ill at Carthage, but also those for whom, being absent, that is, not present at Carthage, others had subscribed. Since, therefore, the Donatists were boasting about their numbers, apart from the fact that it was established that more Catholics had come to Carthage, it was said by the Catholics that one hundred and twenty other bishops had not come to Carthage, because some of them were hindered by old age, some by infirmity, some by various necessities.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"uiginti enim non subscripserant","severity":"info","text":"The opening clause clarifies that twenty Catholic bishops had not signed the mandate but still participated by declaring consent in person before the official record.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"in thermis Gargilianis","severity":"info","text":"The Gargilian Baths in Carthage served as the venue for the 411 Conference; the name is a topographical detail specific to this historical event.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Donatistae de numerositate iactabant","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists claimed numerical superiority, but the Catholics countered that many of their own bishops were absent due to age, illness, or other necessities, not lack of support.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quoniam itaque se Donatistae de numerositate iactabant","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a rhetorical pivot: Augustine uses the Donatist boast to introduce the Catholic rebuttal about the 120 absent bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"in loco ergo collationis, hoc est in thermis Gargilianis, quia ipse postea locus placuerat","severity":"info","text":"The venue was chosen after the initial meeting place; this note indicates a procedural decision made during the conference's organization.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quod quidam eorum senectute, quidam infirmitate, quidam diuersis necessitatibus (sint) impediti","severity":"caution","text":"The parenthetical 'sint' is a supplied verb; the manuscript may have omitted it, but the sense is clear: the bishops were hindered by various causes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact number of absent Donatist bishops is not specified; the text only notes that some were ill and others absent with proxies."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"quod cum audissent Donatistae, responderunt etiam suos multo plures non uenisse Carthaginem et multas esse apud se cathedras uiduatas episcopis, cum in sua notoria, quam cognitori dederant, apertissime dixerint usque adeo se omnes uenisse Carthaginem, ut nec grauissimos senes aetas et labor potuerit deterrere, eosque solos non uenisse, quos aduersa ualetudo in suis sedibus uel in itinere tenuisset. sane propter cathedras, quas episcopis uacuas apud se esse dixerunt, responsum est etiam a catholicis sexaginta esse, quibus successores episcopi nondum fuerant ordinati. ac per hoc in istis utriusque partis subscriptionibus et falsitates in Donatistis constitit fuisse deprehensas et eorum numerum episcoporum minorem, quandoquidem soli aegroti non uenerant Carthaginem, pro quibus tamen in itinere aegrotantibus alii subscripserant. et omnium nomina cum ipsis etiam, pro quibus alii subscripserant, ducenta septuaginta nouem subscriptio continebat, neque ullo modo credibile fit multo plures quam centum uiginti, hoc est tertiam partem omnium eorum in suis sedibus aegrotasse potuisse et ideo non uenisse Carthaginem.","english":"When the Donatists heard this, they replied that many more of their own had not come to Carthage and that many of their sees were widowed of bishops, although in their petition, which they had given to the commissioner, they had stated most openly that they had all come to Carthage to such an extent that not even the most grievous old men had been deterred by age and exertion, and that only those had not come whom ill health had detained in their own sees or on the journey. With regard to the sees which they said were vacant of bishops among them, it was also replied by the Catholics that there were sixty for which successors as bishops had not yet been ordained. And by this, in the subscriptions of both parties, it was established that falsehoods had been detected among the Donatists and that their number of bishops was smaller, since only the sick had not come to Carthage, for whom, however, others had subscribed while they were ill on the journey. And the subscription contained the names of all, including even those for whom others had subscribed, two hundred and seventy-nine, and it is in no way credible that many more than one hundred and twenty, that is, a third part of all of them, could have been sick in their own sees and therefore not have come to Carthage.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"notoria","severity":"info","text":"The term 'notoria' refers to a formal petition or notification submitted to the cognitor (commissioner) by the Donatists, distinct from the official acts of the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cathedras uiduatas episcopis","severity":"info","text":"'Cathedras uiduatas episcopis' (sees widowed of bishops) is a metaphor for vacant episcopal sees, a point of contention about the Donatists' claim of numerical strength.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"subscriptionibus","severity":"info","text":"Subscriptions were signed lists of bishops present or represented; the Donatists' claim that many more were absent is contradicted by their own earlier statement that all but the sick had come.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ac per hoc","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ac per hoc' (and by this) introduces Augustine's logical conclusion that the Donatists' falsehoods were exposed and their episcopal number was smaller than claimed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ducenta septuaginta nouem","severity":"info","text":"The number 279 (Catholic subscribers) is used to argue that the Donatists' claim of 120+ sick bishops is implausible, a key point in Augustine's polemical arithmetic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact number of Donatist bishops absent due to illness is disputed; Augustine argues it cannot exceed 120, but the Donatists claimed many more."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Quinto decimo loco egressis omnibus, qui iam superfluo praesentes erant, et remanentibus eis, quos necessarios utrique delegerant, in perendinum diem collatio dilata est utrorumque consensu, quoniam dies praesens iam uidebatur emensus.\n\nCOLLATIO SECUNDI DIEI.\n\nPrimo loco, cum die intermisso ad memoratum locum, sicut placuerat et constitutum fuerat, conueniretur, obtulit consessum iterum cognitor, deprecans ut fieret. et mox catholici consederunt, Donatistae autem recusauerunt. in qua recusatione inter cetera id quoque dixerunt, quod scriptum sibi esset cum talibus non sedere. ad hoc catholici, ne morae fierent, tunc non responderunt, sed opportuniore loco in tertii diei collatione. tunc ergo etiam ipse cognitor stando se cogniturum esse respondit.\n\nSecundo loco recitata est notoria, quam pridie dederant petentes, ut sibi mandatum catholicorum ederetur, quo considerato possent in diem constitutum instructi adesse, eo quod exceptores cum conscriptione gestorum occurrere non ualerent, et responsio cognitoris in eandem notoriam, qua iussit fieri quod petebant.","english":"On the fifteenth point, when all who were already superfluously present had left, and only those whom both sides had chosen as necessary remained, the conference was adjourned to the next day but one by the consent of both parties, since the present day seemed already spent.\n\nCONFERENCE OF THE SECOND DAY.\n\nFirst point: when, after the intervening day, they had assembled at the aforementioned place, as had been agreed and arranged, the commissioner again offered the session, requesting that it take place. And immediately the Catholics sat down, but the Donatists refused. In this refusal, among other things, they also said that it was written for them not to sit with such persons. To this the Catholics, to avoid delays, did not then reply, but did so at a more opportune point in the conference of the third day. Then, therefore, the commissioner himself replied that he would conduct the hearing standing.\n\nSecond point: the notice was read out which they had given the previous day, asking that the mandate of the Catholics be published, so that, having considered it, they could be prepared and present on the appointed day, since the notaries could not keep up with the transcription of the proceedings, and the commissioner’s response to that same notice, by which he ordered that what they asked for be done.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quinto decimo loco","severity":"info","text":"The phrase marks the fifteenth procedural point in the conference, indicating a structured record of the proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The cognitor is the imperial commissioner presiding over the conference, a role distinct from a judge in ecclesiastical matters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"notoria","severity":"info","text":"A notoria is a formal written notice or petition submitted to an official, here requesting the publication of the Catholic mandate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"scriptum sibi esset cum talibus non sedere","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists likely allude to passages such as Psalm 1:26 or Acts 8:20, but the exact reference is unspecified; the phrase reflects their refusal to share seating with the Catholics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"perendinum diem","severity":"info","text":"The conference was adjourned to the next day but one (perendinum diem), i.e., after a one-day interval, leading to the second day of the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Collatio Secundi Diei","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks the beginning of the second day's proceedings in the official record, a structural division preserved in the transmitted text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural reference for the Donatists' refusal to sit with the Catholics is not specified in the text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Tertio loco cum quaesisset cognitor, quid etiam de subscriptionibus responderent, id est utrum eis placeret quod edicto proposuerat, ut prosecutionibus suis quisque subscriberet, et respondissent catholici iam se in hoc consensum suum litteris expressisse, illi se multum moueri dixerunt, quod hoc consuetudo non haberet. et cum cognitor interrogasset, utrum eis sufficerent quot dati fuerant gestorum conscribendorum ex utraque parte custodes, dilationem petere coeperunt, ut sibi conscripta gesta ederentur et tunc responderent. hic ortus est diuturnus conflictus cum eis, cum consensus eorum, quo placuerat ut illo die res ageretur, saepe recitaretur ex tabulis. et cum se notas ignorare dicerent, petentes ut prius eis ederentur gesta conscripta, cognitor iussit, ut, quod eorum notarii exceperant, perlatis codicibus, qui signati custodiebantur, eis recitaretur, ne contra suum consensum uenirent. cumque et ipsi saepe de gestorum editione causarentur, quod exceptores non occurrissent gesta conscribere, etiam hoc eis responsum est, quod notoria sua ideo se petisse dixerant edi sibi catholicorum mandatum, ut ad praesentem diem instructi occurrerent, quia exceptores occurrere cum gestorum editione non possent. ubi non inuenientes quod dicerent uoluerunt iterum praescriptionem diei refricare, de qua fuerat eis satis superque responsum et inde iam fuerat primo die transitum.","english":"Thirdly, when the judge asked what they also had to say about the subscriptions—that is, whether they agreed with what he had proposed in his edict, that each party should subscribe to their own pleadings—and the Catholics had replied that they had already expressed their consent in writing, the others said that they were greatly troubled because this was not customary. And when the judge asked whether the number of guardians for recording the proceedings given from each side sufficed for them, they began to seek an adjournment, so that the written proceedings might be given to them and they could then reply. Here arose a lengthy conflict with them, as their consent, by which it had been agreed that the matter would be conducted on that day, was often read out from the tablets. And when they said they were ignorant of the notes, asking that the written proceedings be given to them first, the judge ordered that what their notaries had taken down be read to them from the delivered codices which were kept sealed, lest they go against their own consent. And when they themselves often complained about the publication of the proceedings, saying that the recorders had not come to write the proceedings, this also was answered to them: that they had said they had asked for their own notice to be given to them—that is, the Catholic mandate—so that they might come instructed to the present day, because the recorders could not come with the publication of the proceedings. When they found nothing to say, they wished again to revive the objection about the day, concerning which they had already been answered more than enough, and from which they had already moved on on the first day.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"subscriptionibus","severity":"info","text":"The judge's question about subscriptions refers to the requirement that each party sign their own pleadings, a procedural point Augustine highlights to show Donatist obstruction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor denotes the imperial judge presiding over the conference, likely the official Marcellinus, appointed to adjudicate the dispute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gestorum conscribendorum custodes","severity":"info","text":"Guardians for recording proceedings were appointed from each side to ensure accurate transcription, a common practice in late antique ecclesiastical councils.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Tertio loco","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks the third point of the second day's conference, following the pattern of sequential procedural disputes that structure Augustine's account.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"praescriptionem diei refricare","severity":"info","text":"Augustine emphasizes the Donatists' repeated attempt to revive the objection about the day, a tactic he presents as disingenuous and already resolved.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"notoria sua","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'notoria sua' is ambiguous: it may refer to the Donatists' own notice or to the Catholic mandate; Augustine's interpretation favors the latter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'notoria sua' (their own notice) is unclear; Augustine interprets it as the Catholic mandate, but the Latin could refer to a Donatist document."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"sed tunc eis catholici etiam ad hoc responderunt, quod non solum in edicto cognitoris Calendarum Iuniarum dies constitutus legeretur, sed etiam ipsi octauo Calendas Iunias suum mandatum conscripsissent, cum iam transisset dies, quo dicebant agi debuisse causam, id est quarto decimo Calendas Iunias. dictum est etiam ipsum Primianum ad Calendas Iunias se pollicitum occurrere. quae omnia ideo a catholicis dicta sunt, quod audierant eos etiam in populo suo de hac re inuidiose locutos; et tamen inter haec omnia illi in petenda dilatione uehementissime perstiterunt. quod cum uidissent catholici ad hoc eos diu nugari, ut gesta multis uerbis onerarentur, petierunt cognitorem, ut eis quam petebant dilationem concederet. et concessa est sex dierum dilatio respondentibus exceptoribus, quando editio gestorum posset occurrere, et illis promittentibus, cum gesta edita fuerint, se suis prosecutionibus subscripturos.","english":"but then the Catholics also responded to this, that not only was the day of the Kalends of June set in the judge’s edict, but they themselves had written their mandate on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, after the day on which they said the case ought to have been heard—that is, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June—had already passed. It was also said that Primian himself had promised to appear at the Kalends of June. All these things were said by the Catholics because they had heard that the Donatists were speaking maliciously about this matter among their own people; and yet, amid all this, they persisted most vehemently in seeking a postponement. When the Catholics saw that they were wasting time with many words, so as to burden the records with much verbiage, they asked the judge to grant them the postponement they were seeking. And a postponement of six days was granted, with the notaries responding as to when the publication of the records could take place, and with the Donatists promising that, when the records were published, they would subscribe to their own pleadings.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Calendarum Iuniarum","severity":"info","text":"The Kalends of June (June 1) is the date set in the judge's edict. The Catholics wrote their mandate on the eighth day before the Kalends (May 25), after the Donatists' preferred date (May 19, the fourteenth day before the Kalends) had passed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mandatum","severity":"info","text":"Mandatum here refers to a formal written instruction or commission authorizing representatives to act in the conference, a standard legal document in late antique court proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"dilationem","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists' request for a postponement (dilatio) was a procedural tactic to delay proceedings. The Catholics eventually agreed to it to prevent the Donatists from further burdening the records with lengthy speeches.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quae omnia","severity":"info","text":"This passage summarizes the Catholics' counterarguments against Donatist complaints about the date, then narrates the concession of a six-day postponement, forming a transition in the narrative of the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"inuidiose locutos","severity":"info","text":"Augustine reports that the Donatists spoke maliciously (inuidiose) about the date issue among their own people, reflecting the polemical context of the work, which aims to discredit Donatist claims.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact nature of the 'mandate' (mandatum) is not specified—whether it was a legal proxy or a written statement of position.","The phrase 'respondentibus exceptoribus' could mean the notaries responded about the timing of publication, but the subject is ambiguous."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"COLLATIO TERTII DIEI.\n\nTertio die collationis, id est sexto Idus Iunias, ingressis partibus primo loco utrum edita eis gesta fuerint cognitor inquisiuit. respondit officium se ante diem quam promiserat edidisse, quod ex utriusque partis cautionibus probaretur. et recitatae sunt cautiones, quibus constitit catholicos accepisse gesta octauo Idus Iunias hora diei quinta, Donatistas autem eodem die tertia.\n\nSecundo loco cum cognitor iussisset principale negotium iam proponi, dictum est a catholicis olim se agere uelle principale negotium et hoc esse, ut crimina, quae solent Donatistae dicere in ecclesiam toto orbe diffusam, si possent, probarent. responsum est a Donatistis, ut prius quaereretur qui essent qui agerent, ut morae fierent de discussione personarum. de qua re cum diu confligeretur, catholicis recusantibus et ut remotis superfluarum morarum tergiuersationibus ad causam ueniretur uehementer instantibus, contra Donatistae obnixissime contendebant, ut personae discuterentur, et flagitabant, ut exprimerentur qui petissent ab imperatore istam fieri collationem.","english":"COLLATION OF THE THIRD DAY.\n\nOn the third day of the collation, that is, the sixth day before the Ides of June, when the parties had entered, the judge first inquired whether the proceedings had been published to them. The office replied that it had published them before the day it had promised, which would be proved from the cautions of both parties. And the cautions were read out, by which it was established that the Catholics had received the proceedings on the eighth day before the Ides of June at the fifth hour of the day, and the Donatists on the same day at the third hour.\n\nSecondly, when the judge had ordered the principal matter to be set forth, it was said by the Catholics that they had long wished to take up the principal matter, and that this was, that the charges which the Donatists were accustomed to bring against the Church spread throughout the whole world should, if possible, be proved by them. The Donatists replied that it should first be inquired who were the ones who were acting, so that delays might be made by the discussion of persons. After a long conflict on this matter, with the Catholics refusing and vehemently insisting that, once the tergiversations of superfluous delays were removed, the case should be reached, the Donatists on the contrary contended most obstinately that the persons should be discussed, and demanded that it be expressed who had asked the emperor for this collation to be held.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"COLLATIO TERTII DIEI","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks the beginning of the third day's proceedings, following the pattern of the first two days in the Breviculus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"sexto Idus Iunias","severity":"info","text":"The third day corresponds to 8 June 411, the date of the actual conference in Carthage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The cognitor is the imperial judge presiding over the collation, here Flavius Marcellinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cautiones","severity":"info","text":"Cautiones are formal written undertakings or receipts, here proving the delivery of the official proceedings (gesta) to each party.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"discussione personarum","severity":"info","text":"The Donatist demand to discuss persons (personae) was a procedural tactic to delay the hearing of the substantive case, a point Augustine repeatedly criticizes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"tergiuersationibus","severity":"caution","text":"The term tergiversationes (evasions) is used by Augustine to characterize Donatist procedural delays; the reading is secure but the rhetorical charge is partisan.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise content of the cautiones is not given; only their effect is stated."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"uolebant enim, ut constaret catholicos esse petitores, ut ex forensi iure possent discutere personas petitorum, cum iam in actione prima recitatum fuisset catholicorum mandatum, ubi se ostendebant non petitores esse, sed defensores aduersus crimina, quae illi eorum communioni obicere solent; cum ipsi prius exegerint, ut ecclesiae causa non forensibus formulis, sed magis diuinarum scripturarum testimoniis ageretur, confessique fuerint lecto catholicorum mandato scripturis sanctis eos ecclesiae causam firmare uoluisse, seque ex eadem diuinae legis auctoritate uicissim acturos esse promiserint. tunc ergo quasi obliti, quid exegerint et quid etiam ipsi polliciti fuerint, cum de ecclesiae criminatione et purgatione catholici proposuissent agi oportere, coeperunt personas quaerere petitorum, ut eas possent ex forensi iure discutere. contra ergo catholici resistebant et propter praescindendas moras, quas eos et praeparare audierant et innectere iam uidebant, perseueranter instabant, ut ecclesiae causa potius ageretur. in conflictu peruentum est, ut imperatoris praeceptum, quo collationem iussisset fieri, legeretur, ut eo modo petitorum persona constaret. uidebatur enim et cognitori, ne quid Donatistis etiam de ipso iure forensi ueluti iusta poscentibus negaretur, prius petitorum constituendas esse personas.","english":"For they wished it to be established that the Catholics were the petitioners, so that they could, by forensic law, challenge the persons of the petitioners, although in the first action the mandate of the Catholics had already been recited, wherein they showed themselves not to be petitioners, but defenders against the charges which those men are accustomed to bring against their communion; especially since they themselves had previously demanded that the case of the Church be conducted not by forensic formulas, but rather by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, and had confessed, after the reading of the Catholic mandate, that they wished to confirm the case of the Church by the holy Scriptures, and had promised that they would in turn act on the same authority of the divine law. Then, therefore, as if forgetful of what they had demanded and what they themselves had also promised, when the Catholics had proposed that the accusation and purgation of the Church ought to be dealt with, they began to seek the persons of the petitioners, so that they could challenge them by forensic law. Against this, therefore, the Catholics resisted, and for the sake of cutting short the delays, which they had heard them preparing and already saw them weaving, they persistently insisted that the case of the Church rather be conducted. In the conflict, it came to the point that the emperor’s decree, by which he had ordered the collation to be held, was read, so that in this way the person of the petitioners might be established. For it seemed even to the judge that, lest anything be denied to the Donatists as if they were justly demanding it even with regard to forensic law itself, the persons of the petitioners should first be established.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"petitores","severity":"info","text":"Petitores (petitioners) is a forensic term for the party initiating a legal action. The Donatists sought to force the Catholics into this role to challenge their standing under Roman law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"forensi iure","severity":"info","text":"Forensic law (ius forense) refers to Roman civil procedure, which the Donatists attempted to invoke despite earlier agreement to base the debate on Scripture.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage narrates a procedural conflict on the third day of the collation, contrasting the Donatists' forensic tactics with the Catholics' insistence on scriptural argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The events occur on the third day of the collation (6 June 411), after the reading of the Catholic mandate in the first action.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's account here defends Catholic procedural consistency, a key point in later anti-Donatist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text does not specify whether the judge's decision to read the imperial decree was made independently or under Catholic pressure."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"praecepto ergo imperiali recitato collationem petisse catholicos declaratum est eamque esse concessam. tunc Donatistae etiam preces, quibus ab eis illa collatio petita est, postulare coeperunt. hic cum eis ipse cognitor responderet in pragmatico rescripto preces inseri non solere, ad id se conuerterunt, ut mandatum catholicorum, quo mandauerant peti. ab imperatore collationem, eosdemque legatos, quos ad hoc impetrandum miserant, sibi ederent atque proderent, asserentes discutere se debere quae mandata sunt, atque ibi inuenire posse [mandata catholicorum] quae de illis imperatori locuti sunt. hoc cum intellegerent catholici ad hoc inquiri, ut inuenirentur occasiones, quibus prolixi temporis morae ac dilationes ingererentur, asserebant omnino quod peterent ad causam non pertinere, quandoquidem collationem ab eis petitam ipse imperator apertissime ostenderet, qui cognitorem dederat, ut superstitionem manifesta ratio confutaret, et uehementer urgebant, ut remotis omnibus morarum interpositionibus et aliarum interponendarum inquisitionibus id potius ageretur, quod ea collatione agi ab imperatore praeceptum est, quam et petitam ab illo et concessam esse constabat.","english":"Therefore, when the imperial order was recited, it was declared that the Catholics had sought the conference and that it had been granted. Then the Donatists also began to demand the petitions by which that conference had been requested by them. At this point, when the judge himself replied to them that in a pragmatic rescript it was not customary to insert petitions, they turned to demanding that the mandate of the Catholics, by which they had mandated that the conference be sought from the emperor, and the same legates whom they had sent to obtain this, be produced and disclosed to them, asserting that they ought to examine what had been mandated, and that there they could find what had been said about them to the emperor. When the Catholics understood that this was being investigated in order to find occasions for introducing delays and postponements of lengthy time, they asserted that what they were seeking was entirely irrelevant to the case, since the emperor himself had most clearly shown that the conference had been sought by them, in that he had appointed a judge so that manifest reason might refute superstition, and they vehemently urged that, with all interpositions of delays and inquiries into other matters to be interposed set aside, what ought rather to be done was that which the emperor had ordered to be done in that conference, which it was established had been both sought from him and granted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"collationem petisse catholicos declaratum est","severity":"info","text":"The judge's recitation of the imperial order establishes that the Catholics were the petitioners, a key point in the procedural dispute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"pragmatico rescripto","severity":"info","text":"A pragmatic rescript is an imperial response to a petition, often not including the original petition text; the judge cites this as a reason for not producing the Donatists' petitions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"mandatum catholicorum","severity":"info","text":"The Catholic mandate was a formal authorization for legates to petition the emperor; the Donatists sought it to find grounds for delay.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc cum intellegerent catholici","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from the judge's ruling to the Catholics' perception of Donatist tactics, highlighting the procedural maneuvering.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"superstitionem manifesta ratio confutaret","severity":"info","text":"Augustine frames the conference as a rational refutation of Donatist superstition, a theme echoed in his other anti-Donatist works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"mandata catholicorum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'mandata catholicorum' is repeated in the Latin; the bracketed repetition in the edition may be a scribal or editorial gloss.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'mandata catholicorum' appears twice; the second instance may be an explanatory gloss or a scribal repetition.","The phrase 'superstitionem manifesta ratio confutaret' could be read as Augustine's editorial comment rather than a verbatim Catholic statement."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Inter haec etiam de catholico nomine, apud quos potius esset, pauca ab utraque parte inuicem dicta et obiecta sunt, et iussum est principali causae potius reseruari. et post aliquanta identidem cum catholici nominis facta mentione dicerent Donatistae apud se potius esse catholicam, interlocutus est cognitor se interim sine cuiusquam praeiudicio non posse aliter appellare catholicos, quam eos appellauit imperator a quo cognitor datus est, illos autem, quanto magis se esse catholicos dicerent, tanto magis iam causam ipsam remotis morarum interpositionibus agere debere, in qua probare possent se potius esse catholicos. hic Donatistae post tantas moras et tot interlocutiones cognitoris contra eos prolatas, exigentis ut causa potius ageretur atque testantis de legatorum personis uel mandato, quod eis iniunctum est, nec ad causam aliquid pertinere nec sibi aliquid ut hinc requireret fuisse praeceptum, dixerunt, ut, si in legatis uel mandato quod eis datum est manifestando noluissent catholici obtemperare iudicatis, saltem hoc responderent, utrum loco petitorum consisterent, multum mirantibus catholicis, cur eos Donatistae dixerunt in edendo legatorum mandato non parere iudicatis, cum potius contra ipsos tam multis interlocutionibus cognitor pronuntiauerat.","english":"Meanwhile, regarding the name \"Catholic\" and with whom it more properly belonged, a few things were said and objected by each side in turn, and it was ordered that this be reserved rather for the main issue of the case. And after some time, when mention was again made of the Catholic name and the Donatists said that the Catholic Church was rather with them, the judge interposed that, for the time being and without prejudice to anyone, he could not call Catholics otherwise than the emperor, by whom the judge was appointed, had called them; but that the more they claimed to be Catholics, the more they ought to proceed with the case itself, removing all delays, in which they could prove that they were rather the Catholics. At this point, after so many delays and so many interlocutory rulings of the judge issued against them, demanding that the case rather be conducted and testifying that neither the persons of the legates nor the mandate which had been given to them pertained to the case, nor had he been instructed to inquire into this, the Donatists said that, if the Catholics were unwilling to comply with the judge's orders regarding the disclosure of the legates or the mandate given to them, at least they should answer this: whether they stood in the place of the petitioners. The Catholics greatly wondered why the Donatists said that they were not obeying the judge's orders in producing the mandate of the legates, when the judge had rather pronounced so many interlocutory rulings against them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The cognitor was a Roman imperial judge appointed to hear a specific case, here by Emperor Honorius. His authority derived from the emperor, which explains his deference to imperial terminology for 'Catholic'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"catholicus","severity":"info","text":"The term 'catholicus' (Greek καθολικός, 'universal') was claimed by both sides in the Donatist controversy. Augustine's usage reflects the imperial and Nicene identification of the Catholic Church with the communion recognized by the emperor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"inter haec","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative interlude summarizing procedural exchanges about the name 'Catholic' and the judge's rulings, before the Donatists' final demand about the petitioners' status.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"pragmaticum rescriptum","severity":"info","text":"A pragmatic rescript was an imperial response to a petition, often not including the original petition text. This explains the judge's earlier refusal to insert petitions, referenced in the previous passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"multum mirantibus catholicis","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine's narrative voice here expresses surprise at the Donatists' claim that Catholics disobeyed the judge, but the text is one-sided; the Donatist perspective on the interlocutory rulings is not preserved.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"sine cuiusquam praeiudicio","severity":"info","text":"The judge's phrase 'without prejudice to anyone' indicates that his use of 'Catholic' for the imperial party was procedural, not a final judgment on the merits of the claim.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'inter haec' is vague about the exact sequence of exchanges; the passage summarizes multiple procedural moments.","The Donatists' demand about 'loco petitorum' (place of petitioners) is not fully explained; it may refer to a legal status in the conference proceedings."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"interrogauerunt ergo catholici, quibus iudicatis non paruerint, et Donatistis ad hoc non respondentibus interlocutus est cognitor, ad illud, quod de loco petitoris Donatistae quaesierant, catholici responderent. et responderunt se hoc proponere, ut crimina, quae solent Donatistae communioni eorum obicere, uel probentur uel diluantur, ut possit Donatistarum separatio uel defendi uel corrigi. tunc cognitor cum responsionem a Donatistis exigeret, responderunt Afros, qui se catholicos dicerent, alienam causam uelle defendere, hoc est totius orbis ecclesiam, de qua sibi nihil debere praeiudicari, cum inter Afros hoc negotium uentiletur, et expectare potius ecclesiam transmarinam, ut qui uicerint ipsi ad eam pertinere uideantur et ipsi habeant catholicum nomen; sed in fine prosecutionis suae rursus de persona petitoris ut sibi responderetur postulauerunt. hic catholici ad utrumque breuiter responderunt, et quia de personis iam primo et secundo iudicio quaestio fuerit terminata, et quia ecclesiae toto orbe diffusae, cui testimonium perhibet scriptura diuina, ipsi, non Donatistae communicant, unde catholici merito et sunt et uocantur. Donatistae autem responderunt non catholicum nomen ex uniuersitate gentium, sed ex plenitudine sacramentorum institutum, et petiuerunt, ut probarent catholici sibi communicare omnes gentes.","english":"The Catholics therefore asked by whose judgment they had not obeyed, and when the Donatists did not respond to this, the judge ruled that the Catholics should answer the point which the Donatists had raised about the petitioner’s status. And they answered that they were proposing this, so that the charges which the Donatists usually bring against their communion might either be proven or refuted, so that the Donatists’ separation might either be defended or corrected. Then, when the judge demanded a response from the Donatists, they answered that the Africans who called themselves Catholics wished to defend someone else’s case, that is, the Church of the whole world, about which nothing ought to be prejudged against them, since this matter was being debated among Africans, and that they rather awaited the overseas Church, so that whoever won would seem to belong to it and would hold the Catholic name; but at the end of their speech they again demanded that they be answered concerning the petitioner’s status. Here the Catholics briefly responded to both points: that the question of persons had already been settled in the first and second hearings, and that they, not the Donatists, were in communion with the Church spread throughout the whole world, to which divine Scripture bears witness, whence they are deservedly both called and are Catholics. The Donatists, however, responded that the name “Catholic” was instituted not from the universality of nations, but from the fullness of the sacraments, and they demanded that the Catholics prove that all nations were in communion with them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The cognitor is the judge presiding over the conference; here he intervenes to direct the Catholics to answer the Donatists' point about the petitioner's status.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"catholicum nomen","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists argue that the name 'Catholic' derives from the plenitudine sacramentorum (fullness of the sacraments), not from universality of nations, a distinctive theological claim.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"ecclesiam transmarinam","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists appeal to the overseas (transmarine) Church, likely meaning churches across the Mediterranean, especially Rome, to avoid being judged by African Catholics alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"rursus de persona petitoris","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists return to the procedural issue of the petitioner's status, creating a circular argument that the Catholics must address again.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cui testimonium perhibet scriptura diuina","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics claim divine Scripture bears witness to the Church spread throughout the world, likely alluding to passages like Acts or Pauline epistles on the universal Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"plenitudine sacramentorum","severity":"info","text":"Augustine elsewhere refutes this Donatist etymology of 'Catholic' in his letters and treatises, emphasizing universality over sacramental fullness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'cognitor' could be read as 'judge' or 'commissioner'; the context supports a presiding official.","The phrase 'de loco petitoris' is ambiguous: it may refer to the petitioner's legal standing or his geographical origin; the translation takes it as status."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"quod catholici cum gratissime acciperent et peterent, ut hoc probare permitterentur, rursus illi de mandato illo, quod legatis iniunctum edi sibi petiuerant, quaestionem refricare coeperunt et a causa ecclesiae, quae iam in medium discutienda peruenerat, iterum resilire, modo mandatum supradictum petendo, modo de petitoris persona ut constaret instando, modo ut' de his ipsis quae petierant iudicaret cognitor exigendo, de quibus iam totiens fuerat interlocutus et eos illa frustra petere pronuntiauerat.\n\nSed cognitor, quamquam uiderentur non recte petere edi sibi mandatum, quod legatis iniunctum est, quia, id quod sufficiebat ad causam, collationem petitam concessamque constabat, non ei tamen uidebatur iniuste illos petere, ut petitoris persona constaret.","english":"The Catholics received this most gratefully and asked to be permitted to prove it. Again, however, they [the Donatists] began to revive the question concerning that mandate which they had demanded be read to them as imposed upon the legates, and again to recoil from the case of the Church, which had already come forward to be examined in the middle of the proceedings—now by demanding the aforementioned mandate, now by insisting that the person of the petitioner be established, now by demanding that the judge rule on these very things which they had petitioned, concerning which he had already so often made an interlocutory pronouncement and declared that they were seeking them in vain.\n\nBut the judge, although it might seem that they were not right to demand that the mandate imposed upon the legates be read to them—because what was sufficient for the case, namely that the conference had been requested and granted, was established—nevertheless did not consider it unjust for them to ask that the person of the petitioner be established.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"quaestionem refricare coeperunt","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists repeatedly revive the same procedural issue, a tactic Augustine portrays as evasive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor denotes the judge presiding over the conference, here the imperial official Marcellinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"modo ... modo ... modo","severity":"info","text":"The triple 'modo ... modo ... modo' structure emphasizes the Donatists' shifting and repetitive procedural demands.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"mandatum","severity":"info","text":"The mandate was the written instruction given to the Donatist legates; its content was disputed and its production repeatedly demanded.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ut' de his ipsis","severity":"caution","text":"The text has 'ut' de his ipsis' with an apostrophe, likely a scribal error for 'ut de his ipsis'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact nature of the 'mandatum' and why its reading was contested is not fully explained here."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"catholici autem uidentes, quod iam sibi fuerat antea nuntiatum et hoc eorum intentione satis intellegebant, non ob aliud Donatistas personas quaerere petitorum, nisi ut liceret eis personarum discussione longissimas temporum et dilationum moras ingerere, quoniam uehementer nolebant, ut perueniretur ad causam, in qua se nihil habere quod dicerent, sicut res ipsa uel sero postea patefecit, plenissime sciebant: hoc ergo uidentes catholici noluerunt personam suscipere petitorum, asserentes non se obicere crimina sed obiecta defendere, quae cum defendissent et falsa esse demonstrassent, consequenter eos apparere qui sint et quanta iniquitate se ab unitate diuiserint. hic Donatistae asserebant, quocumque modo etiam de ipsis criminibus quae uellent diluere ultro catholici cogerent sibi aduersarios respondere, petitorum eos habere personam. sed catholici respondebant ad hoc se petisse collationem, non ubi obicerent diluenda sed ubi obiecta diluerent, quoniam et mandatum Donatistarum aduersus traditores et persecutores factum erat et uerba Primiani, quando prius a catholicis de collatione conuentus est, crimen eis eum obicere testabantur, ubi dixerat: indignum est ut in unum conueniant filii martyrum et progenies traditorum, et quamuis tunc conferre noluisset, postea tamen in iudicio praefectorum se audiri et discuti uelle dixerat.","english":"The Catholics, however, seeing what had already been reported to them beforehand and understanding well enough from their intention that the Donatists sought the persons of the petitioners for no other reason than to be allowed, by the discussion of persons, to introduce the longest delays of time and postponements—since they vehemently did not want the case itself to be reached, in which they had nothing to say, as the matter itself, even if late, afterwards fully revealed—the Catholics, therefore, seeing this, refused to take upon themselves the role of petitioners, asserting that they were not bringing charges but defending charges brought against them, and that when they had defended them and shown them to be false, it would consequently appear who they were and with how great iniquity they had separated themselves from unity. At this point the Donatists asserted that in whatever way, even concerning the very charges which the Catholics wished to refute, if the Catholics voluntarily compelled their adversaries to respond, they held the role of petitioners. But the Catholics replied that they had sought the conference for this purpose, not to bring charges to be refuted, but to refute charges brought against them, since both the mandate of the Donatists against the traditors and persecutors had been made, and the words of Primianus, when he was first summoned by the Catholics concerning the conference, testified that he was bringing a charge against them, where he had said: \"It is unworthy that the sons of martyrs and the offspring of traditors should meet together,\" and although he had then refused to confer, he had afterwards said in the court of the prefects that he wished to be heard and examined.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"petitorum","severity":"info","text":"The term 'petitorum' (petitioners) is a legal-procedural designation. The Donatists sought to force the Catholics into this role to delay proceedings; the Catholics refused, arguing they were defendants, not accusers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"collationem","severity":"info","text":"The 'collatio' (conference) of 411 CE at Carthage was a formal disputation between Catholics and Donatists, presided over by the imperial commissioner Marcellinus. The procedural maneuvering described here reflects the high stakes of the debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"filii martyrum et progenies traditorum","severity":"info","text":"Primianus’s phrase 'sons of martyrs and offspring of traditors' echoes the Donatist self-identification as heirs of the martyrs of the Diocletianic persecution, contrasting with Catholics they accused of being traditores (those who handed over scriptures).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"catholici autem uidentes ... hoc ergo uidentes catholici","severity":"info","text":"Augustine uses an anaphoric repetition ('catholici autem uidentes ... hoc ergo uidentes catholici') to emphasize the Catholics’ awareness of Donatist delaying tactics, framing the procedural dispute as a key narrative turning point.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"mandatum Donatistarum","severity":"info","text":"The 'mandatum' (mandate) of the Donatists was a document outlining their accusations against Catholics. Its repeated invocation in the conference proceedings is noted by Augustine as a central point of contention, later cited in anti-Donatist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'petitorum' could be interpreted as either 'of the petitioners' (genitive plural) or 'of the plaintiff' (genitive singular), but the context of procedural roles supports the plural reading."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"quem eorum de collatione consensum tenentes catholici hoc ut fieret ab imperatore petiuerant.\n\nTunc iussit eos cognitor obiecta a se crimina iam probare nec de petita collatione personam petitoris ostendi, si etiam utrique petisse probarentur. hic Donatistae identidem petere coeperunt, ut de persona pronuntiaret. et pronuntiauit cognitor dicens, si collationem pars utraque petiuisset, eum esse petitorem qui crimina obiceret. et exegerunt Donatistae, ut probaretur a catholicis, utrum collationem utrique petiuerint. ubi cognitor cum dixisset: hoc catholici probare debebunt, ortus est iterum moratorius conflictus de catholico nomine et Donatistarum et Caecilianistarum. deinde obtulerunt catholici gesta habita in iudicio praefecturae, quibus probarent etiam Donatistas collationem petisse. quae cum iussisset cognitor recitari, rursus illi ad praeterita redierunt et de his ut pronuntiaret cognitor flagitare coeperunt, de quibus totiens pronuntiauerat, id est de persona et de mandato legatorum, quod sibi ut ederetur totiens superfluo postulauerant. hoc autem agebant, quantum intellegebatur, timentes, ne gesta praefectoria legerentur, ubi suam causam quibusdam inconsideratis et temerariis responsionibus uulnerauerant.","english":"holding to their agreement concerning the conference, the Catholics had petitioned the emperor that this be done.\n\nThen the judge ordered them to prove the crimes they had already alleged, and not to use the person of the petitioner to block the requested conference, if both sides were proved to have petitioned for it. At this point the Donatists began again to ask that he rule on the person. And the judge ruled, saying that if both sides had petitioned for the conference, the one who alleged the crimes was the petitioner. And the Donatists demanded that the Catholics prove whether both sides had petitioned for the conference. When the judge said, “The Catholics will have to prove this,” a delaying conflict arose again over the name “Catholic” as used by the Donatists and the Caecilianists. Then the Catholics produced the official records of a hearing before the prefect’s court, by which they could prove that the Donatists too had petitioned for the conference. When the judge ordered these to be read aloud, they again returned to earlier matters and began to demand that the judge rule on those points on which he had already ruled so many times—that is, on the person and on the mandate of the legates, which they had so often and superfluously demanded be produced. And they were doing this, as was understood, because they feared that the prefect’s records would be read, in which they had damaged their own case by certain thoughtless and reckless responses.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The term 'cognitor' refers to the imperial judge presiding over the conference, a role distinct from a mere arbiter. Augustine uses it to emphasize the legal authority of the proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"gesta praefectoria","severity":"info","text":"The 'prefect's records' (gesta praefectoria) refer to official minutes from a hearing before the praetorian prefect, a high imperial court. These records contained damaging admissions by the Donatists, which they feared would be read aloud.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"moratorius conflictus","severity":"info","text":"Augustine characterizes the Donatists' repeated demands for rulings on the person and mandate as a 'delaying conflict' (moratorius conflictus), highlighting a pattern of procedural obstruction that structures this narrative passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"catholico nomine et Donatistarum et Caecilianistarum","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'the name Catholic as used by the Donatists and the Caecilianists' is ambiguous: it may refer to a dispute over which party rightfully claimed the title 'Catholic', or to the Donatists' pejorative use of 'Caecilianist' for their opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"collationem","severity":"info","text":"The conference (collatio) of 411 CE was a landmark event in the Donatist controversy, and Augustine's Breviculus was composed shortly afterward to defend the Catholic position. This passage reflects the procedural maneuvering that characterized the actual hearing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'cognitor' (judge) is not specified here; it was Marcellinus, but Augustine does not name him in this passage.","The exact content of the prefect's records (gesta praefectoria) is not detailed, only that they contained damaging responses by the Donatists."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"diu itaque conflictatum est ab eis et maxime cum ipso cognitore, cum ipsi peterent edi sibi mandatum legatis iniunctum aut pronuntiaret eos hoc superfluo petiuisse, ille autem et pronuntiasse se diceret et pronuntiaret hoc omnino ad praesens non pertinere iudicium, ubi declararetur imperialibus litteris, quid petitum esset quidue concessum. et tandem aliquando ad iussum eius coeperant gesta praefectoria recitari. quorum gestorum cum dies et consules fuissent recitati, continuo rursus Donatistae interruperunt et eadem illa praeterita poscere coeperunt. sed cum cognitor interloqueretur debere gesta recitari, ut de petitoris persona constaret, illi contra ab initio coeperunt dicere esse gesta priora, quae deberent potius recitari. contra a catholicis dictum est ideo illos nolle, ut gesta praefectoria legerentur, quod in eis prosecutiones proprias formidarent.","english":"For a long time, therefore, they struggled, and especially with the judge himself, as they demanded that the mandate given to the legates be read out to them, or that he declare that they had asked for this superfluously; but he said that he had already declared, and did declare, that this did not pertain at all to the present judgment, where it would be made clear by the imperial letters what had been asked and what had been granted. And finally, at his order, they began to recite the praefectorial records. When the date and consuls of these records had been read out, the Donatists immediately interrupted again and began to demand those same past matters. But when the judge interposed that the records ought to be recited so that the identity of the petitioner might be established, they on the contrary began from the start to say that there were earlier records, which ought rather to be recited. On the Catholic side it was said that they were unwilling for the praefectorial records to be read because they feared their own statements in them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"diu itaque conflictatum est ab eis","severity":"info","text":"The passive periphrastic 'conflictatum est' indicates prolonged struggle; the Donatists are the agents ('ab eis'), but the judge is the main opponent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"'Cognitor' here refers to the imperial judge presiding over the conference, a technical term for a judicial official in late Roman law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gesta praefectoria","severity":"info","text":"'Gesta praefectoria' are official records of proceedings before the praetorian prefect, a key source for the legal history of the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"et tandem aliquando","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'et tandem aliquando' marks a narrative turning point: after prolonged obstruction, the judge compels the reading of the praefectorial records.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"prosecutiones proprias formidarent","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'prosecutiones' may mean 'statements' or 'prosecutions'; the English draft takes it as 'statements', but the sense could be that the Donatists feared their own legal arguments would be exposed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'prosecutiones proprias' is ambiguous: it could mean 'their own statements' or 'their own prosecutions' in the legal sense."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Obtulerunt ergo Donatistae gesta proconsularia et uicariae praefecturae, ubi catholici petierant eos actis municipalibus conueniri, ut collatione utrorumque facta error de medio tolleretur, longe antequam ipsam collationem ab imperatore petiuissent, et his gestis catholicos uolebant ostendere loco assistere petitorum, quia illic eos dixerant haereticos multa contra diuinas leges humanasque committere. contra hoc catholici dicebant ideo se etiam tunc flagitasse collationem, ut contra eorum crimina pro ecclesia responderent. itaque petiuerunt saepius. ut, si ea gesta recitanda essent, quae priora esse constaret, illa potius legerentur, ubi Donatistae primitus causam Caeciliani ad imperatorem Constantinum per Anullinum proconsulem accusando miserunt, recitatisque gestis, quae ipsi proferebant, non sunt recitata illa, quae apud praefectos habita iam coeperant 'recitari. et coepit esse conflictus, ut, si propterea gesta quae Donatistae protulerant praelata sunt gestis quae a catholicis prolata fuerant, quia priora reperta sunt, ut ipsa potius recitarentur, saltem post ipsorum recitationem recitarentur etiam illa longe priora, ubi eos appareret in hac tota causa quae agebatur primitus accusatores extitisse per proconsulem apud imperatorem.","english":"Therefore the Donatists offered the proconsular and vicarial records, in which the Catholics had requested that they be summoned by municipal records, so that by a conference of both sides the error might be removed, long before they themselves had sought that conference from the emperor; and by these records they wished to show that the Catholics were in the position of petitioners, because in them they had called them heretics committing many things against divine and human laws. Against this the Catholics said that they had even then demanded a conference in order to reply on behalf of the Church against their charges. And so they repeatedly requested that, if those records were to be read which were found to be earlier, those should rather be read in which the Donatists had first sent the case of Caecilianus to the emperor Constantine through the proconsul Anullinus by way of accusation; and after the records which they themselves produced had been read, those which had been held before the prefects and had already begun to be read were not read. And a conflict began, so that if for this reason the records which the Donatists had produced were preferred to the records which had been produced by the Catholics because they were found to be earlier, and those were read instead, at least after their reading there should also be read those far earlier records in which it would appear that in this whole case which was being conducted they had originally been accusers through the proconsul before the emperor.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"gesta proconsularia et uicariae praefecturae","severity":"info","text":"These are official court records (gesta) from the proconsular and vicarial (deputy prefectural) courts, used as legal evidence in the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"collatione","severity":"info","text":"Collatio here refers to the formal conference between Catholic and Donatist bishops, not a general discussion; it is the central event of the work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Anullinum proconsulem","severity":"info","text":"Anullinus was proconsul of Africa in 312–313 CE; he forwarded the Donatists' initial accusation against Caecilianus to Emperor Constantine, a key early step in the schism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"et coepit esse conflictus","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a narrative pivot: the procedural dispute over which records to read escalates into a formal conflict, structuring the legal argument of the passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"longe antequam ... longe priora","severity":"info","text":"Augustine emphasizes chronological priority: the Donatists' earlier records (from 312–313) should have been read before the Catholics' later ones, to show the Donatists as original accusers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"recitatisque gestis, quae ipsi proferebant, non sunt recitata illa","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin syntax is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the Donatists' or Catholics' records were read first; the translation follows Augustine's intended sequence but the text may be corrupt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'recitatisque gestis, quae ipsi proferebant' could refer to either party's records; the reading taken is that the Donatists' records were read, but the Catholics' earlier ones were not."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"ista ergo ne recitarentur uehementer Donatistae obluctabantur multis et multiplicibus prosecutionibus resistentes, sicut ebluctati fuerant et extorserant, ne illa praefectoria legerentur. in hac autem obluctatione saepe repetebant illud iam detritum et tot interlocutionibus cognitoris repulsum de mandato legatorum sibi edendo. repetebant etiam quaestionem, quae fuerat iam ante transacta, utrum testimoniis legis an publicis gestis catholici agere mallent, et dicebant, ut, si testimonia diuinae legis eligerent, facerent omnium legum publicarum gestorumque iacturam, si autem publicis legibus et gestis agere potius uellent, omitterent diuina documenta. et tamen, si hoc eligerent catholici, ut publicorum gestorum documentis potius agerent, dicebant se Donatistae nec hoc permissuros, ut ea quae a catholicis offerebantur gesta legerentur, eo quod haberent ualidam temporis praescriptionem, illam scilicet de qua eis fuerat sufficienter et a catholicis et ab ipso cognitore responsum, quia ipsam causam lapsam et agi iam non posse dicebant, quia dies transierat, quo menses quattuor complerentur.","english":"Therefore the Donatists vehemently resisted the recitation of these records, opposing with many and manifold arguments, just as they had struggled and extorted that the prefectorial records not be read. In this struggle they often repeated that already worn-out argument, repelled by so many interlocutions of the judge, about the mandate of the legates being produced by them. They also repeated the question, which had already been settled before, whether the Catholics preferred to proceed by testimonies of the law or by public records, and they said that if the Catholics chose testimonies of divine law, they would forfeit all public laws and records, but if they preferred to proceed by public laws and records, they would abandon divine testimonies. And yet, if the Catholics chose to proceed by the evidence of public records, the Donatists said they would not permit even those records offered by the Catholics to be read, because they had a valid prescription of time, namely that about which they had been sufficiently answered both by the Catholics and by the judge himself, since they said that the case itself had lapsed and could no longer be pursued, because the day had passed on which the four months would be completed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praefectoria","severity":"info","text":"The adjective 'praefectoria' (from praefectorius) refers to records issued by a praefectus, likely the praetorian prefect. This contrasts with the 'proconsular and vicarial records' mentioned in the previous passage, indicating a hierarchy of official documents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"'Cognitor' denotes the judge presiding over the conference, here Marcellinus. The term emphasizes his role as an official investigator (cognitio) rather than a traditional magistrate, reflecting the legal procedure of the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"temporis praescriptionem","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists invoke a 'prescription of time' (praescriptio temporis), a legal defense that a case is barred because a statutory period has expired. Here they claim the four-month deadline for the conference had passed, a procedural tactic Augustine repeatedly refutes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"obluctatione","severity":"info","text":"Augustine frames the Donatist resistance as a 'struggle' (obluctatio), using the same verb (obluctari) for their opposition to reading both the prefectorial and the municipal records. This repetition underscores the procedural deadlock.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"iam detritum","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'iam detritum' (already worn-out) is Augustine's dismissive characterization of the Donatist argument about the legates' mandate. The reader should note this is a partisan description, not an objective summary of the legal point.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'sicut ebluctati fuerant et extorserant' is ambiguous: it may mean the Donatists had previously struggled and extorted (i.e., forced) that the prefectorial records not be read, or that they had been struggled against and had extorted. The translation takes the former reading."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"uehementer enim eos timere apparebat, ne gesta legerentur, quibus doceretur a maioribus eorum Caecilianum apud imperatorem primitus accusatum et deinde iudiciis et ecclesiasticis et imperialibus absolutum atque purgatum, hoc est ne ipsa causa omnino propter quam uentum fuerat ageretur, ubi se euidentissime superari posse sentiebant. sic autem nolebant et timebant, ut hoc etiam confiteri cogerentur, dicentes quod sensim, id est paulatim inducerentur in causam et ad causae interna deducerentur, quod utique optare deberent, si non de inanibus et moratoriis praescriptionibus, sed de ipsius causae ueritate confiderent.\n\nContra ergo catholici cum uehementer conarentur, ut ad causam perueniretur, quo eos prorsus nolle peruenire cernebant, respondebant tamen iterum atque iterum eisdem ipsis, quae illi totiens iam transacta repetebant.","english":"They clearly feared greatly that the records might be read, by which it would be shown that their ancestors had first accused Caecilianus before the emperor, and that he had then been acquitted and cleared by both ecclesiastical and imperial judgments—that is, that the very case for which they had come might be fully heard, where they felt they could most evidently be defeated. Yet they were so unwilling and afraid that they were even compelled to confess this, saying that they were being gradually, that is, little by little, drawn into the case and led into its inner details—which they ought to have desired, if they trusted not in empty and delaying objections, but in the truth of the case itself.\n\nTherefore the Catholics, while they earnestly strove that the case might be reached—since they saw that the Donatists absolutely did not want to reach it—nevertheless responded again and again to the very same points which the Donatists kept repeating as if already settled.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"gesta","severity":"info","text":"The term 'gesta' refers to the official court records of the proceedings, which the Donatists feared would reveal the historical acquittal of Caecilianus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Caecilianum","severity":"info","text":"Caecilianus was the bishop of Carthage whose controversial consecration in 311 sparked the Donatist schism; his acquittal by both ecclesiastical and imperial courts is a central point of contention.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"praescriptionibus","severity":"info","text":"'Praescriptionibus' here denotes legal objections or preliminary pleas aimed at avoiding the main issue, a technical term from Roman law used by Augustine to characterize Donatist tactics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Contra ergo catholici","severity":"info","text":"This passage contrasts the Donatists' fear of the case being heard with the Catholics' persistent efforts to bring the case to trial, highlighting the narrative's adversarial structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"sensim","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's use of 'sensim' (gradually) and its gloss 'paulatim' reflects his rhetorical strategy to expose Donatist evasion, a point later cited in anti-Donatist polemics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'a maioribus eorum' could mean 'their ancestors' or 'their elders'; the translation takes it as ancestors, consistent with the historical context of the Caecilianus affair."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"et quoniam duo erant quae in medium uenerant, unum de editione mandati, quod legatis iniunctum est, alterum, utrum diuinis testimoniis an gestis publicis catholici agere mallent, de mandati illius editione et catholici responderunt non ad eos neque ad praesentem causam omnino pertinere, et ipse cognitor quod saepius pronuntiauerat iterum pronuntiauit, legatorum personam et mandatum quod susceperunt omnino se non posse discutere et ab eo quod sibi iniunctum est non debere discedere, quandoquidem satis apparebat imperialibus litteris, quibus iudex huic causae fuerat constitutus, collationem ab imperatore concessam. de illo autem altero, ubi quaerebant quid eligerent catholici, utrum diuina documenta an gesta publica, saepius catholici responderunt, si Donatistae hominum crimina non obicerent, quae uelut traditoribus obicere consueuerunt, sed tantummodo id quaereretur, quae uel ubi esset ecclesia, nihil se acturos publicis gestis, sed scripturarum diuinarum tantummodo testimoniis, si autem in illa hominum accusatione et criminatione persisterent, quia et ipsi ista nisi talibus gestis demonstrare non possent, sine dubio et catholicos huiusmodi crimina gestis publicis defensuros; aliter enim ista nec accusari poterant nec defendi.","english":"And since there were two matters that had come up—one concerning the publication of the mandate which had been entrusted to the legates, and the other, whether the Catholics would prefer to proceed by divine testimonies or by public records—regarding the publication of that mandate, the Catholics replied that it did not pertain to them nor to the present case at all, and the judge himself, as he had pronounced more often, pronounced again that he could not at all examine the person of the legates and the mandate they had undertaken, and that he ought not to depart from what had been entrusted to him, since it was sufficiently evident from the imperial letters by which the judge had been appointed for this case that the conference had been granted by the emperor. But concerning the other matter, where they were asking what the Catholics would choose—whether divine documents or public records—the Catholics replied more than once that if the Donatists did not bring charges of crimes against men, which they were accustomed to hurl as if against traditors, but only sought what or where the Church was, they would do nothing with public records, but only with the testimonies of the divine Scriptures; but if they persisted in that accusation and crimination of men, because they themselves could not demonstrate such things except by such records, without doubt the Catholics would also defend such crimes by public records; for otherwise such things could neither be accused nor defended.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mandatum","severity":"info","text":"Mandatum here refers to the written instructions or commission given to the Donatist legates, a formal document authorizing their representation at the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor denotes the judge or presiding officer of the conference, here the imperial official Marcellinus, who repeatedly declines to adjudicate the legates' mandate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"collationem ab imperatore concessam","severity":"info","text":"The conference was authorized by Emperor Honorius, as evidenced by imperial letters appointing the judge; this legal basis limited the judge's scope to the emperor's grant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"duo erant quae in medium uenerant","severity":"info","text":"Augustine structures the passage around two procedural issues: the mandate's publication and the choice between divine testimonies and public records, each resolved separately.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"si Donatistae hominum crimina non obicerent","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics condition their procedural choice on the Donatists' approach: if no personal accusations are made, they will rely solely on Scripture; otherwise, they will use public records.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"aliter enim ista nec accusari poterant nec defendi","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine's logic implies that personal crimes (e.g., traditio) require public records for proof, but the text does not specify which records or how they were authenticated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'editione mandati' could mean either the publication or the reading aloud of the mandate; the translation takes it as 'publication'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"haec eis saepius et a catholicis et ab ipso cognitore repetita et inculcata sunt, multis et uariis modis multarum prosecutionum illis ad eadem redeuntibus et eadem repetentibus, ne ageretur causa et ne gesta legerentur, quae iam in manibus esse cernebant. sed aliquando uicit cognitor tam longas obstinationes et iussit recitari, quae a catholicis data sunt, et coepit tandem agi causa, propter quam tot episcopi partis utriusque conuenerant. quod mirabiliter factum est, ut, cum Donatistae propterea quaererent petitoris personam, ne perueniretur ad causam, ipsa inquisitio petitoris subito in medium mitteret causam.\n\nTertio ergo loco haec acta sunt. lecta est relatio Anullini proconsulis ad imperatorem Constantinum; quam quaerentibus Donatistis unde prolata sit, catholici responderunt in archiuo proconsulis, si dubitarent, esse quaerendum. in qua relatione euidentissime continetur ipsos primitus ad imperatorem Constantinum per memoratum proconsulem ea quae Caeciliano crimina obiciebant accusando misisse. qua perlecta Donatistae quaerere coeperunt, quem sibi catholici dicerent patrem. quibus cum ab eis esset responsum secundum euangelium, ubi scriptum est: n e uobis dicatis patrem in terra; unus est enim pater uester deus, etiam hoc audito nihilominus quaerere coeperunt, utrum eis Caecilianus pater esset an mater.","english":"These things were repeated and impressed upon them more often, both by the Catholics and by the judge himself, in many and various ways, with many of their speeches returning to the same points and repeating the same things, so that the case would not be conducted and the proceedings would not be read, which they saw were already in hand. But at length the judge overcame such long obstinacies and ordered that what had been given by the Catholics be recited, and the case for which so many bishops of both sides had assembled finally began to be conducted. This happened in a remarkable way, so that, while the Donatists were seeking the person of the petitioner in order to prevent reaching the case, the very inquiry into the petitioner suddenly brought the case into the open.\n\nTherefore, these things were done in the third place. The report of Anullinus the proconsul to the Emperor Constantine was read; and when the Donatists asked from where it had been produced, the Catholics replied that it should be sought in the proconsul's archive, if they doubted. In this report it is most clearly contained that they themselves had first sent accusations to the Emperor Constantine through the aforementioned proconsul, charging Caecilianus with crimes. When this had been read, the Donatists began to ask whom the Catholics called their father. When it was answered to them according to the Gospel, where it is written: \"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for your only father is God,\" even after hearing this, they nonetheless began to ask whether Caecilianus was their father or their mother.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Tertio ergo loco haec acta sunt","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks the third stage of the proceedings, following the earlier narrative of the judge's intervention. It structures Augustine's account of the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"relatio Anullini proconsulis","severity":"info","text":"Anullinus was proconsul of Africa in 312–313 CE. His report to Constantine initiated the imperial investigation of the Donatist controversy, as recorded in Augustine's sources.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nolite dicere patrem in terra; unus est enim pater vester deus","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Matthew 23:9, where Jesus instructs not to call anyone on earth 'father.' Augustine adapts it to counter the Donatists' genealogical argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"petitoris personam","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists sought to identify the petitioner (Caecilianus) to delay the case. Augustine notes the irony that this inquiry itself brought the case to light.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"quod mirabiliter factum est","severity":"info","text":"Augustine presents the judge's eventual success as providential, a theme in his anti-Donatist writings that emphasizes divine order in the church's legal victory.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'n e uobis dicatis patrem in terra' is a corruption or abbreviation of the biblical text; the intended verse is Matthew 23:9."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"cum iam dictum fuisset a catholicis nec patrem sibi eum esse nec matrem, sed fratrem siue bonum si bonus esset, siue malum si malus esset, quia et malus propter sacramenta communia frater esset, hinc aliquanto diutius conflixerunt Donatistis eadem repetentibus et catholicis eadem respondentibus. nam et hoc obiecerunt Donatistae, quomodo diceret apostolus: et si multos paedagogos habetis in Christo, sed non multos patres; in Christo enim Iesu per euangelium ego uos genui, et responsum est a catholicis hoc honorificentiae causa dictum propter euangelicum mysterium, quod dispensabat apostolus; nam patrem ad fidem salutemque aeternam non esse nisi deum. neque enim posset contrarium Christo apostolus loqui, ut, cum ille diceret: ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra; unus enim pater uester deus, contra apostolus tamquam resistens uerbis Christi patrem se diceret eorum, quibus annuntiauerat euangelium, nisi esset utique distinguendum, quid diuinae gratiae, quid humanae honorificentiae causa diceretur.","english":"When it had already been stated by the Catholics that he was for them neither father nor mother, but brother—whether good if he were good, or bad if he were bad, because even a bad man, on account of the common sacraments, would be a brother—the Donatists contended over this for some time, repeating the same points, and the Catholics responding with the same answers. For the Donatists also objected this: how the Apostle could say, \"And if you have many pedagogues in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.\" And the Catholics responded that this was said as a matter of honorificence on account of the evangelical mystery which the Apostle was administering; for the father in faith and eternal salvation is none other than God. For the Apostle could not speak contrary to Christ, since when He said, \"Do not call yourselves father on earth; for your one father is God,\" the Apostle, as if resisting Christ's words, would call himself the father of those to whom he had announced the Gospel, unless it were certainly to be distinguished what is said by way of divine grace and what by way of human honorificence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et si multos paedagogos habetis in Christo, sed non multos patres; in Christo enim Iesu per euangelium ego uos genui","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists cite 1 Corinthians 4:15, where Paul calls himself a father in Christ. Augustine’s Catholic respondents distinguish this as honorific, not literal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra; unus enim pater uester deus","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics counter with Matthew 23:9 (or a variant), where Jesus forbids calling anyone on earth father. Augustine insists Paul cannot contradict Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"paedagogos","severity":"info","text":"The Latin paedagogos (Greek loan) means ‘tutors’ or ‘guides’, not ‘fathers’. The Donatists use it to argue for spiritual paternity, which the Catholics reject.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"honorificentiae causa","severity":"info","text":"The Catholic response invokes a rhetorical distinction: Paul’s self-description as father is honorific, not ontological. This reflects Augustine’s broader anti-Donatist argument that sacramental unity does not imply personal merit.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hinc aliquanto diutius conflixerunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a prolonged exchange within the conference, where both sides repeat their positions. The judge’s role in overcoming obstinacy is noted in the preceding narrative.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et si multos paedagogos habetis in Christo","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin quotation of 1 Corinthians 4:15 is paraphrased and may not match the Vulgate exactly. Augustine’s text likely reflects an Old Latin version; the exact wording is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin quotation of Matthew 23:9 is not verbatim from the Vulgate; it may be a paraphrase or from an Old Latin version. The phrase 'ne uobis dicatis patrem in terra' is not standard."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"Quaesierunt etiam quis ordinauerit Augustinum, nescio quas, sicut iactabatur, calumnias praeparantes. ubi cum eis intrepide responderet a Megalio se ordinatum, qui tunc fuerit primas episcoporum in Numidia ecclesiae catholicae, et urgeret instanter, ut iam proferrent quae praeparauerunt, ut ibi etiam calumniosi demonstrarentur, illi intentionem in aliud detorserunt, redeuntes ad Caeciliani personam, quam dicebant catholici ecclesiae non obesse, etiamsi uera eius crimina monstrarentur, et tamen etiam ipsa non posse uera monstrari.\n\nTunc itaque Donatistae protulerunt litteras, quas ab uniuerso concilio suo se accepisse dicebant, quibus responderetur mandato catholicorum, quod primo die actionis fuerat allegatum et die sequenti, antequam ad secundam actionem die tertio ueniretur, data notoria Donatistae edi sibi poposcerant, ut instructi possent ad cognitionem uenire. et fortasse propter has litteras diligenter scribendas etiam ipsa secunda actione dilationem petiuerunt, quae illis sex dierum concessa est. quarto itaque loco haec acta sunt. lectae sunt supradictae litterae Donatistarum, quibus conati sunt respondere mandato catholicorum, quod gestis primae actionis insertum est.","english":"They also inquired who had ordained Augustine, preparing, as they boasted, some calumnies of unknown nature. When he answered them fearlessly that he had been ordained by Megalius, who was at that time the primate of the Catholic Church in Numidia, and pressed them urgently to bring forth what they had prepared, so that even there they might be shown to be slanderers, they twisted their intention elsewhere, returning to the person of Caecilian, whom the Catholics said did not harm the Church even if his true crimes were shown, and yet even those could not be shown to be true.\n\nThen the Donatists produced a letter, which they said they had received from their entire council, in reply to the mandate of the Catholics, which had been cited on the first day of the proceedings and which, on the following day, before the second session came on the third day, the Donatists had demanded be published to them by a notice, so that they might come to the hearing informed. And perhaps it was for the sake of carefully writing this letter that they also sought a delay for the second session itself, which was granted them of six days. So these things were done in the fourth place. The aforementioned letter of the Donatists was read, in which they attempted to reply to the mandate of the Catholics, which was inserted into the records of the first session.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Quaesierunt etiam quis ordinauerit Augustinum","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists' inquiry about Augustine's ordination is a procedural challenge, aiming to undermine his authority by questioning the legitimacy of his consecrator.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Megalio","severity":"info","text":"Megalius was the Catholic primate of Numidia who ordained Augustine in 391. His status as a recognized Catholic bishop was crucial to Augustine's defense against Donatist claims of invalid ordination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quarto itaque loco haec acta sunt","severity":"info","text":"This marks the fourth stage of the second session's proceedings, following the reading of the Catholic mandate, the Donatist request for a delay, and the granting of six days.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"sex dierum concessa est","severity":"info","text":"The six-day delay between the first and second sessions (from day 1 to day 3, with the letter prepared in the interim) reflects the procedural pace of the conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"notoria","severity":"info","text":"A notoria is a formal written notice or demand, here used by the Donatists to request publication of the Catholic mandate for their preparation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nescio quas, sicut iactabatur, calumnias praeparantes","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine's phrase 'some calumnies of unknown nature' is rhetorical; the exact content of the Donatists' planned accusations is not specified in the text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise nature of the Donatists' calumnies against Augustine is not disclosed; the text only reports their boast.","The identity of the 'entire council' (uniuerso concilio suo) of the Donatists is not further specified here."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"cui mandato non eos potuisse respondere inueniet, qui utraque legere et considerare uoluerit: primum quia testimonia ex lege et prophetis et psalmis et apostolicis atque euangelicis litteris deprompta, quibus ostenditur ecclesia catholica per totum mundum diffundi incipiens ab Hierusalem, unde in propinqua et longinqua crescendo etiam in Africam uenit et in alia loca et ciuitates, per quas primitus dilatata est, in quibus multae ecclesiae ad ipsam unicam pertinentes apostolico labore fundatae sunt, quibus Donatistas non communicare manifestum est, non solum non pertractare, sed omnino nec attingere uoluerunt, nec aliquod testimonium in tam prolixa epistula sua proferre ausi sunt de scripturis sanctis, quo assererent ecclesiam partis Donati esse praedictam et praenuntiatam, sicut tam multa catholici protulerunt pro ecclesia cui communicant, quae incipiens ab Hierusalem toto orbe diffunditur. has ergo partes testimoniorum tantorum cum omnino non attigissent, sed tamquam in illo mandato catholicorum, cui respondere uidebantur, dicta non fuerint praeterissent, illud ostendere temptauerunt prolatis multis testimoniis diuinarum scripturarum, quod ecclesia dei non cum malorum hominum commixtione futura praedicta sit.","english":"Anyone who wishes to read and consider both documents will find that they were unable to respond to that mandate: first, because they refused not only to discuss but even to touch upon the testimonies drawn from the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Apostolic and Gospel writings, by which it is shown that the Catholic Church spreads throughout the whole world, beginning from Jerusalem, whence it came, growing into nearby and distant places, even into Africa and into other places and cities through which it was first extended, in which many churches belonging to that one Church were founded by apostolic labor, and with which it is clear that the Donatists do not communicate; nor did they dare to produce in their own rather lengthy letter any testimony from the Holy Scriptures by which they might assert that the church of the party of Donatus was foretold and foreannounced, just as the Catholics produced so many for the Church with which they communicate, which, beginning from Jerusalem, spreads throughout the whole world. Therefore, since they had not touched upon these parts of such great testimonies at all, but had passed them over as if they had not been spoken in that mandate of the Catholics to which they seemed to be responding, they attempted to show, by producing many testimonies from the divine Scriptures, that the Church of God was not foretold as being mixed with evil men.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine contrasts the Catholics' use of scriptural testimonies with the Donatists' failure to respond, framing the Donatists as evasive and the Catholic position as biblically grounded.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"testimonia ex lege et prophetis et psalmis et apostolicis atque euangelicis litteris","severity":"info","text":"Augustine refers to the Catholic use of testimonies from the Law, Prophets, Psalms, and Apostolic and Gospel writings, a standard fourfold division of Scripture in early Latin Christianity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ecclesia catholica per totum mundum diffundi incipiens ab Hierusalem","severity":"info","text":"The Catholic claim of worldwide diffusion from Jerusalem counters the Donatist claim to be the true church confined to Africa, a central point in the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mandato","severity":"info","text":"The 'mandate' (mandatum) refers to the Catholic position statement to which the Donatists were supposed to respond; Augustine argues they evaded it entirely.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non solum non pertractare, sed omnino nec attingere uoluerunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine accuses the Donatists of refusing even to touch upon the Catholic scriptural proofs, implying deliberate avoidance of the central issue.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ecclesia dei non cum malorum hominum commixtione futura praedicta sit","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists argued from Scripture that the true church would not be mixed with evil men, a key tenet of their rigorist ecclesiology, which Augustine refutes elsewhere.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'mandato' could refer to a specific written document or to the general Catholic position; the reading taken is the latter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"et tamen postea cum ad euangelicam similitudinem uenissent, quam catholici in mandato suo posuerant de retibus in mare missis, quibus congregari dixit dominus omnia genera piscium et bonos a malis in litore, hoc est in fine saeculi separari, etiam ipsi fassi sunt in ecclesia esse permixtos saltem occultos malos, zizania uero inter triticum non in ecclesia, sed in ipso mundo permixta dixerunt, quoniam dominus ait: ager est hic mundus. de area sane, cui paleam catholici dixerant usque ad tempus uentilationis admixtam, tamquam omnino in euangelio nihil tale scriptum sit, exponere similitudinem istam ne conati quidem sunt, sed quasi hoc a se ipsis catholici dixerint, eam tantummodo reprehenderunt uelut ex testimonio Hieremiae prophetae, qui ait: quid paleis ad triticum?, non attendentes unde hoc ille dixisset. non enim aiebat de ecclesia, sed de diuinis prophetarum uisionibus et humanis somniis, ne ullo modo compararentur. illam quoque similitudinem de ouibus et haedis, qui simul pascuntur et in saeculi fine segregabuntur, quam inter alias catholici ex euangelio posuerant, omnino attingere noluerunt. neque enim poterant illic dicere etiam haedos a pastoribus in communibus pascuis ignorari, sicut dixerant inter retia pisces malos in mari a piscatoribus non uideri.","english":"and yet afterwards, when they came to the evangelical similitude which the Catholics had placed in their mandate, concerning nets cast into the sea, by which the Lord said all kinds of fish are gathered and the good are separated from the bad on the shore, that is, at the end of the world, they themselves admitted that in the Church there are at least hidden evil men mixed in, but they said that the tares are mixed with the wheat not in the Church, but in the world itself, because the Lord says: the field is this world. As for the threshing-floor, to which the Catholics had said the chaff is mixed until the time of winnowing, since nothing of the sort is written in the Gospel, they did not even attempt to explain that similitude, but as if the Catholics had said this on their own, they merely criticized it, citing the testimony of the prophet Jeremiah, who says: what have the chaff and the wheat in common?—not considering the context in which he said this. For he was not speaking about the Church, but about the divine visions of the prophets and human dreams, so that they might in no way be compared. Likewise, the similitude of the sheep and the goats, which graze together and will be separated at the end of the world, which the Catholics had placed among others from the Gospel, they refused to touch at all. For they could not say there that even the goats are not recognized by the shepherds in the common pastures, as they had said that among the nets the bad fish in the sea are not seen by the fishermen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"retibus in mare missis, quibus congregari dixit dominus omnia genera piscium et bonos a malis in litore","severity":"info","text":"The parable of the dragnet (Mt 13:47-50) is cited, where fish are sorted on the shore, interpreted as the final separation at the end of the world.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"zizania uero inter triticum non in ecclesia, sed in ipso mundo permixta dixerunt, quoniam dominus ait: ager est hic mundus","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists invoke the parable of the tares (Mt 13:24-30) to argue that the field (world) contains both wheat and tares, not the Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"quid paleis ad triticum?","severity":"info","text":"Jeremiah's rhetorical question (Jer 23:28) is used by the Donatists to reject the chaff-wheat analogy, but Augustine notes they ignore its original context contrasting divine visions with human dreams.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"de area sane, cui paleam catholici dixerant usque ad tempus uentilationis admixtam","severity":"info","text":"The threshing-floor and winnowing metaphor (cf. Mt 3:12) was a common patristic image for the Church's tolerance of sinners until final judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"illam quoque similitudinem de ouibus et haedis... omnino attingere noluerunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine notes the Donatists' selective engagement: they avoid the sheep-and-goats similitude (cf. Mt 25:32-33) because it undermines their claim that evil is unrecognized in the Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"etiam ipsi fassi sunt in ecclesia esse permixtos saltem occultos malos","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists concede the presence of hidden evil in the Church, a significant admission in the controversy over the purity of the Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'similitudinem' could refer to a parable or a figurative comparison; the translation 'similitude' is retained.","The phrase 'de area sane' may be read as ironic ('as for the threshing-floor, of course') or simply transitional."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Item cum catholici in mandato suo, uolentes ostendere toleratos a bonis in ecclesia malos nec bonos malorum contagione pollutos, commemorassent exempla prophetarum et ipsius domini Christi et apostolorum et post haec etiam bonorum episcoporum et iudicium ipsorum quoque Donatistarum, qui quosdam suorum in Maximiani schismate positos negauerunt Maximiani contagione pollutos, illi in suis litteris ad haec respondere conati de prophetis et de domino Christo et apostolis quodcumque dixerunt, de episcopis autem et Maximianistis siluerunt. in episcopis enim premebantur auctoritate Cypriani, cuius uerba ex epistula eius prolata catholici in suo mandato posuerunt, quibus manifestissime ostendebatur et praecepisse, ut pro unitate in ecclesia mali tolerarentur nec propter ipsos ecclesia relinqueretur, et quosdam collegas suos etiam ipsum, a quorum malis moribus longe abhorrebat et de quorum factis pessimis non tacebat, in ecclesia tolerasse. huius ergo auctoritate oppressi Donatistae cum de prophetis et domino Christo et apostolis aliquid dixissent ad hoc tamen, non tolerandos in ecclesia permixtos malos, de episcopis omnino nihil dicere uoluerunt.","english":"Again, when the Catholics in their mandate, wishing to show that the wicked are tolerated by the good in the Church and that the good are not contaminated by the contagion of the wicked, had recalled the examples of the prophets and of the Lord Christ Himself and of the apostles, and after these also of good bishops and the judgment of the Donatists themselves, who denied that some of their own placed in the schism of Maximianus were polluted by the contagion of Maximianus, they in their letters attempted to respond to these things concerning the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles, whatever they said, but concerning the bishops and the Maximianists they were silent. For in the bishops they were pressed by the authority of Cyprian, whose words from his letter, which the Catholics had placed in their mandate, most clearly showed that he had both commanded that for the sake of unity the wicked should be tolerated in the Church and that the Church should not be abandoned on account of them, and that he himself had tolerated in the Church certain colleagues of his, from whose evil morals he was far removed and about whose worst deeds he was not silent. Therefore, oppressed by this authority, the Donatists, although they had said something concerning the prophets and the Lord Christ and the apostles to the effect that the wicked mixed in the Church should not be tolerated, wished to say nothing at all concerning the bishops.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Maximiani schismate","severity":"info","text":"The schism of Maximianus was a Donatist internal split (c. 393–394) in which a faction in Carthage elected Maximianus as bishop against the Donatist primate Primianus. Augustine uses the Donatists' own toleration of Maximianists to argue against their rigorist position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cypriani","severity":"info","text":"Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) was a third-century bishop and martyr. The Donatists revered him, but Augustine cites Cyprian's letters to show that even Cyprian tolerated wicked colleagues for the sake of church unity, undermining Donatist exclusivism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"siluerunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine highlights the Donatists' silence on the bishops and Maximianists as a rhetorical point: their selective response concedes the Catholic argument by omission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"contagione","severity":"info","text":"Contagio ('contagion') is a key term in Donatist ecclesiology, implying that contact with sinners spiritually pollutes the pure. Augustine argues that the good are not contaminated by tolerating the wicked.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"auctoritate Cypriani","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's use of Cyprian's authority was influential in later Catholic ecclesiology, supporting the view that the church can contain sinners without losing its holiness, a position affirmed in anti-Donatist and later anti-heretical polemics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'in mandato suo' could refer to the Catholic or Donatist mandate; context shows it is the Catholic mandate. The phrase 'quodcumque dixerunt' is vague, meaning 'whatever they said' but implying it was insufficient."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"et tamen etiam de Iuda traditore et de his, quos Paulus tolerauit per inuidiam Christum annuntiantes, ipse Cyprianus sic intellexit, sic scripsit, quemadmodum ea catholici in suo mandato posuerunt, quod et dominus ludam ad exemplum malorum in ecclesia tolerandorum pertulerit et Paulus eos, de quibus talia dixit, non extra, sed intra ecclesiam sustinuerit. de Maximianistis autem quid responderent, cum adhuc homines uiuerent, de quibus possent apertissime facillimeque conuinci? proinde ad illud, quod in mandato suo catholici dixerant, eosdem Maximianistas a Donatistis per iudicia publica basilicis pulsos, utcumque respondere conati sunt non se criminaliter accusasse aut ad communionem suam inuitum aliquem coegisse, sed res suas uel suorum ciuiliter repetisse, obliti quod Primianus aliquando dicendum apud acta mandauit: illi auferunt aliena, nos intermittimus ablata. ad illa uero, quae de Maximianistis in catholicorum mandato dicta sunt, quod a se damnatos in integro honore susceperint, quod Maximiani socios ab illo pollutos esse negauerint, quod baptismum ab eis in schismate datum approbare potius quam rescindere atque iterare maluerint, nec leuiter respondere temptauerunt, sed illa omnia miro quodam silentio, tamquam dicta non fuerint, transierunt.","english":"And yet, even concerning Judas the traitor and those whom Paul tolerated as they proclaimed Christ amid envy, Cyprian himself understood and wrote in the same way as the Catholics placed it in their mandate: that the Lord endured Judas as an example of the wicked to be tolerated in the Church, and that Paul sustained those about whom he spoke such things not outside, but within the Church. But regarding the Maximianists, what would they answer, when men were still alive by whom they could be most openly and easily convicted? Accordingly, to that which the Catholics had said in their mandate—that the same Maximianists had been driven from their basilicas by the Donatists through public judgments—they attempted to respond somehow, not that they had accused them criminally or had forced anyone invited to their communion, but that they had civilly reclaimed their own property or that of their people, forgetting that Primian had once ordered it to be stated in the records: \"They take away others' property; we refrain from what has been taken.\" But to those things which were said about the Maximianists in the Catholics' mandate—that they had received those condemned by themselves in full honor, that they had denied that Maximian's associates were polluted by him, that they had preferred to approve rather than rescind and repeat the baptism given by them in schism—they did not even lightly attempt to respond, but passed over all those things with a certain remarkable silence, as if they had not been said.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Maximianistis","severity":"info","text":"The Maximianists were a Donatist splinter group that broke away in the late 4th century, led by Maximian. Their condemnation and later readmission by the Donatists is a key point in Augustine's argument against Donatist claims to purity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"de Iuda traditore","severity":"info","text":"Augustine refers to the example of Judas Iscariot as a biblical precedent for tolerating wicked members within the Church, citing Cyprian's interpretation that aligns with Catholic teaching.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Paulus tolerauit per inuidiam Christum annuntiantes","severity":"info","text":"This likely alludes to Paul's tolerance of opponents who preached Christ out of envy, possibly referencing Philippians 1:15-17 or similar passages where Paul acknowledges rivals within the Christian community.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Primianus","severity":"info","text":"Primian was the Donatist bishop of Carthage from 391 to c. 412, a central figure in the Donatist controversy. His recorded statement about property disputes is cited here to highlight Donatist inconsistency.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ad illa uero, quae de Maximianistis in catholicorum mandato dicta sunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage contrasts the Donatists' partial response to property claims with their complete silence on three theological points: readmission of condemned schismatics, denial of pollution, and approval of schismatic baptism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"miro quodam silentio","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's rhetorical emphasis on the Donatists' 'remarkable silence' underscores their inability to defend their practice, a theme that would be influential in later anti-heretical polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'per inuidiam' could mean 'out of envy' (as translated) or 'through hostility,' but the sense of toleration amid opposition is clear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"De ipso etiam baptismo, quod in illo mandato a catholicis dictum est apostolum de quibusdam dixisse: ueritatem in iniquitate detinent, ut ostenderetur fieri posse, ut non destruenda ueritas in destruenda iniquitate teneatur, aut non intellexerunt aut id, quod ipsi intellexerant, ne ab aliis intellegeretur, uerbis suis obscurare uoluerunt, dicentes hoc apostolum de gentilium errore dixisse, quasi ad rem pertineat de quorum errore dixerit, cum tamen ostenderit posse ueritatem in iniquitate detineri, ut, haec duo cum in uno homine inuenta fuerint, et approbetur ueritas et iniquitas corrigatur, sicut catholica facit, cum agnoscit in Donatistis et amplectitur sacramenti ueritatem, detestatur autem in eis et corrigit haereticam iniquitatem. et illud, quod a catholicis in mandato dictum est, non ideo destruendum baptismum Christi, quia eum etiam haeretici tradunt, sicut non ideo negandus est Christus, quia eum etiam daemones confitentur, similiter aut non intellexerunt aut obscurare uoluerunt, dicentes catholicos contra martyres locutos, non tamen exprimentes quos martyres dicerent, dicentes etiam eos daemoniis uelle communicate haereticis communicetur quando eorum anathematur iniquitas, quamuis in eorum consecratione inuentus baptismus non destruatur, sicut anathematur iniquitas daemonum, quamuis in eorum confessione auditum nomen domini non negetur.","english":"Concerning baptism itself, that in that mandate it was said by the Catholics that the apostle spoke of certain persons: \"they hold the truth in iniquity,\" to show that it can happen that truth is held without destroying iniquity, they either did not understand, or they wished to obscure with their own words what they themselves had understood, lest it be understood by others, saying that the apostle said this about the error of the Gentiles, as if it matters about whose error he spoke, since he nevertheless showed that truth can be held in iniquity, so that, when these two are found in one man, the truth is approved and the iniquity corrected, as the Catholic Church does when it recognizes in the Donatists and embraces the truth of the sacrament, but detests in them and corrects heretical iniquity. And that which was said by the Catholics in the mandate, that the baptism of Christ is not to be destroyed because even heretics administer it, just as Christ is not to be denied because even demons confess him, they likewise either did not understand or wished to obscure, saying that the Catholics spoke against the martyrs, yet not expressing which martyrs they meant, and also saying that they wish to communicate with demons when communion is held with heretics whose iniquity is anathematized, although the baptism found in their consecration is not destroyed, just as the iniquity of demons is anathematized, although the name of the Lord heard in their confession is not denied.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ueritatem in iniquitate detinent","severity":"info","text":"Augustine alludes to Romans 2:20-21, where Paul speaks of those who hold truth but act unjustly. The phrase is not a direct Vulgate quotation but a theological paraphrase.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mandato","severity":"info","text":"Mandato refers to the written statement or brief presented by the Catholic party at the Collatio of 411. Augustine repeatedly cites this document as the basis for his arguments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Collatio","severity":"info","text":"The Breviculus is Augustine's summary of the 411 Conference of Carthage, where Catholic and Donatist bishops debated. This passage reflects the Catholic argument that Donatist baptism is valid but their schism is sinful.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"et illud","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as a two-part rebuttal: first, the Catholic use of Paul's phrase about truth in iniquity; second, the analogy of heretical baptism to demonic confession of Christ. Each part accuses Donatists of misunderstanding or obscuring.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut non ideo negandus est Christus, quia eum etiam daemones confitentur","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of demons confessing Christ appears in Augustine's earlier works (e.g., Contra Epistulam Parmeniani) and is a standard Catholic argument: validity of a rite does not depend on the minister's worthiness.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"dicentes etiam eos daemoniis uelle communicate","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin syntax is compressed: 'dicentes etiam eos daemoniis uelle communicate' could mean either that Catholics wish to communicate with demons or that Donatists accuse Catholics of this. The context supports the latter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'dicentes etiam eos daemoniis uelle communicate' is ambiguous: it may report a Donatist accusation that Catholics wish to share communion with demons, or it may be Augustine's own statement. The translation adopts the former reading.","The identity of 'martyres' in the Donatist objection is unspecified; it likely refers to Donatist martyrs, but Augustine does not clarify."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"De persecutionibus etiam, quas perpeti se queruntur, multa in suis litteris posuerunt nec tamen respondere ausi sunt ad illud, quod in mandato catholicorum dictum est, quod ipsi primitus apud Constantinum imperatorem accusauerunt Caecilianum, qui de imperatorum legibus conqueruntur, (in) inuidiam catholicorum exaggerantes siue mortes, quas eorum circumcelliones sibimet ipsis inferunt, siue omnia, quae non pro communione Donati, sed pro sceleribus, quibus uiolenter saeuiunt nefarieque uiuunt, per leges publicas disciplinasque patiuntur, sicut etiam de oppido Bagaitano commemorasse ausi sunt, ubi manifestatum est, quanta mala commiserint et quam minora perpessi sunt.\n\nAd illud quoque in catholicorum mandato, quod dictum est de purgatione et absolutione Caeciliani et Felicis Aptugnensis, de quorum criminibus apud imperitos solebant catholicis magnam inuidiam concitare, cum illic tota causa propter quam uenerant uersaretur, nihil omnino respondere in tam prolixis litteris uoluerunt, quia et in eo quod dicebant et diuinis testimoniis uelut astruebant, non esse malos in ecclesia tolerandos, sed ab eis recedendum propter contagium peccatorum, ita se dicere demonstrabant, ut tamen ignoratis peccatis alienis neminem maculari posse faterentur.","english":"Concerning the persecutions also, which they complain of suffering, they set forth many things in their letters, yet they did not dare to respond to that which was said in the mandate of the Catholics: that they themselves first accused Caecilian before the Emperor Constantine, they who complain of the laws of emperors, exaggerating to the discredit of the Catholics either the deaths which their Circumcellions inflict upon themselves, or all things which they suffer through public laws and disciplines not for the communion of Donatus, but for the crimes with which they violently rage and wickedly live, as they also dared to recall concerning the town of Bagai, where it was made manifest how great evils they committed and how much lesser things they suffered.\n\nTo that also in the mandate of the Catholics, which was said concerning the purgation and absolution of Caecilian and Felix of Aptunga, concerning whose crimes they were accustomed to stir up great ill-will against the Catholics among the ignorant, when the whole cause for which they had come was there being debated, they wished to make no response at all in such lengthy letters, because even in that which they said and seemed to support with divine testimonies—that the wicked are not to be tolerated in the Church, but that one must withdraw from them on account of the contagion of sins—they showed themselves to speak in such a way that they nevertheless confessed that no one can be stained by the unknown sins of others.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Bagaitano","severity":"info","text":"The town of Bagai (Bagaitano) in Numidia was a Donatist stronghold where violent clashes occurred; Augustine references it to highlight Donatist violence and their lesser suffering.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"Circumcelliones","severity":"info","text":"Circumcelliones were radical Donatist ascetics known for violent acts, including self-inflicted deaths; Augustine uses the term to discredit Donatist claims of persecution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Caecilianum","severity":"info","text":"Caecilian was the Catholic bishop of Carthage whose ordination sparked the Donatist schism; his purgation and absolution were central to the dispute, as noted here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Felix Aptugnensis","severity":"info","text":"Felix of Aptunga was a bishop involved in Caecilian's ordination; Donatists accused him of traditio, and his absolution was contested in the Catholic mandate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative of Donatist evasions, listing two unaddressed Catholic points: the Donatist accusation of Caecilian before Constantine, and the purgation of Caecilian and Felix.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's argument here reflects the Catholic strategy of turning Donatist claims of persecution back on them, a common polemical trope in anti-Donatist writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'in inuidiam catholicorum exaggerantes' could be read as 'exaggerating to the discredit of the Catholics' or 'exaggerating the ill-will of the Catholics'; the translation takes the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"hoc enim et de malis piscibus dixerant, quod, sicut illos latentes in fluctibus quamuis iam inter retia non uident piscatores, sic latentes malos in ecclesia nesciunt sacerdotes et ab eis ideo minime polluuntur. nec tamen uel leuiter uel tenuiter in tam prolixis et tanta dilatione accepta conscriptis litteris probare conati sunt, quod maxime in mandato catholicorum commemoratum est, ut probarent non solum uera esse crimina Caeciliani, nam hoc parum est, sed etiam ecclesiae, quae per omnes gentes usque ad terrae terminos dilatatur, ea probari et innotescere potuisse, ut consequenter saltem secundum ipsos posset cognitorum peccatorum contagione maculari.\n\nCum itaque litterae Donatistarum recitatae fuissent, uoluit cognitor, ut etiam quae catholici recitanda dederant legerentur. sed Donatistae ad ea quae scripserant ut responderetur flagitare coeperunt, quod et catholici magis uolebant, ne illae litterae sic manerent, quasi eis non potuerit responderi. incipientibus ergo catholicis respondere Donatistae interrumpere et obstrepere coeperunt, ne perpetuus respondentis sermo decurreret, sicut eorum litterae nullo interpellante. fuerant recitatae.","english":"For they had also said about the bad fish, that just as fishermen do not see those hiding in the waves, even though they are already within the nets, so priests do not know the wicked hiding in the Church and are therefore not polluted by them. Yet in such lengthy letters, written with so much time allowed, they did not even lightly or faintly attempt to prove what was especially recalled in the mandate of the Catholics: that they should prove not only that the charges against Caecilian were true—for that is little—but also that the Church, which is spread throughout all nations to the ends of the earth, could have had those charges proved and made known, so that consequently, at least according to them, it could be stained by the contagion of known sins.\n\nWhen, therefore, the letters of the Donatists had been read aloud, the judge wished that what the Catholics had given to be read should also be read. But the Donatists began to demand that a response be given to what they had written, which the Catholics also wanted more, lest those letters remain as if they could not be answered. So, as the Catholics began to respond, the Donatists began to interrupt and shout them down, so that the continuous speech of the respondent could not proceed, just as their own letters had been read aloud with no one interrupting.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"malis piscibus","severity":"info","text":"The 'bad fish' analogy is a Donatist argument: as fishermen cannot see bad fish hidden in waves, so priests are not polluted by hidden sinners in the Church. Augustine counters that this fails to address the Catholic mandate about proving Caecilian's crimes were known to the universal Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"'Cognitor' here refers to the judge presiding over the conference, likely the imperial official Marcellinus, appointed by Emperor Honorius to adjudicate the dispute between Catholics and Donatists in 411.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Cum itaque litterae Donatistarum recitatae fuissent","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a shift from reporting the Donatists' written arguments to describing the procedural conflict at the conference: the judge's attempt to read Catholic documents is interrupted by Donatist demands for immediate response, leading to disorder.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"interrumpere et obstrepere coeperunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's depiction of Donatist disruption at the conference became a standard trope in Catholic polemic, portraying Donatists as unwilling to engage in orderly debate and thus implicitly acknowledging the weakness of their case.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ne perpetuus respondentis sermo decurreret","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'ne perpetuus respondentis sermo decurreret' may reflect Augustine's rhetorical framing rather than a verbatim transcript; the Breviculus is a summary, and the exact sequence of interruptions is shaped to highlight Donatist obstruction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text does not specify which Catholic documents the judge wished to read, nor the exact nature of the Donatist interruptions beyond general shouting."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"uolentibus ergo catholicis diuina testimonia, quae ipsi posuerant, et ea, quae illi commemorauerant, ostendere quemadmodum essent accipienda, ne inter se deprehenderentur esse contraria, cum essent utraque diuina et utique consona, non dissona esse deberent, primitus de areae similitudine coeperunt dicere. tunc Donatistae interrumpentes dixerunt, quod de area non legeretur in euangelio scriptum. cumque expressius a catholicis locus euangelii commemoraretur, rursus interrumpendo dixerunt occultos malos dictos esse paleam postea uentilandam. inde inter strepitus et interruptiones eorum de zizaniis et tritico dissensio nata est propter mundi nomen, quod Donatistae nolebant intellegi ecclesiam, quia scriptum est: ager est hic mundus, et multa testimonia protulerunt. quibus sancta scriptura mundum non nisi malos commemorasset, sicuti est: qui dilexerit mundum, non est caritas patris in illo et cetera talia, ut quasi ex hoc ostenderent mundi nomine ecclesiam significari minime potuisse. contra catholici alia testimonia proferebant, quibus in bono mundi nomen esse positum ostenderetur, sicuti est: deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi et cetera huiusmodi, ubi ostenderetur ecclesia quoniam ipsa utique per Christum reconciliatur deo.","english":"When the Catholics, therefore, were willing to show the divine testimonies which they themselves had set forth, and those which the Donatists had recalled, how they ought to be understood, lest they be found to be contrary to each other, since they were both divine and certainly ought to be harmonious, not discordant, they first began to speak about the similitude of the threshing-floor. Then the Donatists, interrupting, said that the threshing-floor was not read as written in the Gospel. And when the Catholics more explicitly recalled the Gospel passage, the Donatists, again interrupting, said that the hidden wicked were called the chaff to be winnowed later. Thence, amid their clamors and interruptions, a disagreement arose about the tares and the wheat on account of the word \"world,\" which the Donatists refused to understand as the Church, because it is written: \"The field is this world,\" and they adduced many testimonies by which Holy Scripture had recalled \"world\" only in reference to the wicked, such as: \"He who has loved the world, the love of the Father is not in him,\" and other such things, so that from this they might show that the Church could by no means be signified by the name \"world.\" Against this, the Catholics brought forth other testimonies by which the name \"world\" was shown to be used in a good sense, such as: \"God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,\" and other things of this kind, by which it would be shown that the Church, since it is certainly reconciled to God through Christ, is meant.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"area","severity":"info","text":"The threshing-floor (area) is a biblical image for the Church, where wheat and chaff are mixed until winnowing; Augustine uses it to argue that the Church contains both good and bad until final separation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ager est hic mundus","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists cite 'The field is this world' (cf. Matthew 13:38) to argue that 'world' in parables refers to the world, not the Church, opposing Catholic interpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"qui dilexerit mundum, non est caritas patris in illo","severity":"info","text":"A scriptural citation (cf. 1 John 2:15? or similar) used by Donatists to show 'world' in a negative sense, supporting their claim that 'world' cannot mean Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi","severity":"info","text":"A Catholic proof-text (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19? or similar) where 'world' is reconciled to God, interpreted as the Church, to counter Donatist exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage narrates a shift from the threshing-floor analogy to a dispute over the term 'world' (mundus), showing how Donatist interruptions derailed the Catholic attempt to harmonize scriptural testimonies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's Breviculus records the Donatist tactic of interrupting Catholic exposition, a pattern that shaped the literary form of this summary of the 411 Conference.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural references for the citations are not given in the text; the phrases are paraphrased or loosely quoted, leaving their precise biblical source uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"et haec agebantur catholicis sermonem suum prosequendo perpetuare conantibus, illis autem ne id fieret perstrepentibus, cum suam responsionem non reseruarent, sicut catholici fecerant, cum eorum epistula legeretur, sed crebras contradictiones interponendo, ne catholicorum prosecutio imperturbata procurreret, impedirent.","english":"And these things were being done while the Catholics, by continuing their speech, were trying to carry it through without interruption, while the others, by making a din, were preventing this from happening, since they did not reserve their response, as the Catholics had done when their letter was read, but by interjecting frequent contradictions, they hindered the Catholics’ uninterrupted exposition from proceeding.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"haec agebantur","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'haec agebantur' (these things were being done) refers to the ongoing disruption described in the previous passage, where the Donatists prevented the Catholics from presenting their scriptural testimonies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"perstrepentibus","severity":"info","text":"'Perstrepentibus' (making a din) is a vivid term for the Donatists' disruptive shouting, contrasting with the orderly Catholic procedure of reserving responses until after a reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"cum suam responsionem non reseruarent","severity":"info","text":"This clause contrasts the Donatists' failure to reserve their response with the Catholics' earlier practice when the Donatist letter was read, highlighting a procedural asymmetry in the debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"catholicis sermonem suum prosequendo perpetuare conantibus","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics' attempt to continue their speech uninterrupted reflects the formal structure of the Collatio, where each side was to present its case without interruption, a rule the Donatists violated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"imperturbata procurreret","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'imperturbata procurreret' (uninterrupted exposition) may be a textual variant; the standard reading is 'imperturbata procurreret' but some manuscripts have 'imperturbata percurreret', which would mean 'run through without disturbance'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'perstrepentibus' could be interpreted as simply 'shouting' or more specifically 'making a clamorous noise', but the sense of disruption is clear.","The phrase 'imperturbata procurreret' is ambiguous due to possible textual variation; the intended meaning is that the Catholic exposition would proceed without being disturbed."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Flagitantibus itaque patientiam eorum catholicis et per multas cognitoris interlocutiones uix impetrantibus responderunt litteris eorum, ostendentes multis sanctarum scripturarum testimoniis et exemplis malos in ecclesia nunc sic esse permixtos, ut, quamuis debeat uigilare ecclesiastica disciplina ad eos non solum uerbis, sed etiam excommunicationibus et degradationibus corripiendos, tamen non solum in ea latentes nesciantur, sed plerumque propter pacem unitatis etiam cogniti tolerentur, sic ostendentes diuina testimonia consonare, ut et illa, quibus commendaretur ecclesia cum malorum commixtione, hoc tempus eius significarent, qualis est in praesenti saeculo, et illa testimonia, quibus commendatur non habere commixtos malos, illud eius tempus significarent, qualis uenturo saeculo in aeternum futura est; sicut nunc mortalis est, id est ex mortalibus hominibus constat, tunc autem immortalis erit, quando in ea nemo morietur; sicut ipse Christus isto tempore fuit pro illa mortalis, post resurrectionem autem iam non moritur et mors illi ultra non dominabitur, quod etiam ecclesiae suae in fine saeculi praestiturus est.","english":"Therefore, while the Catholics were demanding patience from them and, with difficulty, obtaining it through many interlocutions of the judge, they replied to their letter, showing by many testimonies of the holy scriptures and examples that the wicked are now so mixed in the Church that, although ecclesiastical discipline must be vigilant to correct them not only by words but also by excommunications and degradations, yet not only are they unknown while lying hidden in it, but often, for the sake of the peace of unity, they are tolerated even when known. Thus they showed that the divine testimonies are consistent, so that those testimonies by which the Church is commended as having a mixture of the wicked signify this time of hers, such as she is in the present age, and those testimonies by which she is commended as not having the wicked mixed in signify that time of hers, such as she will be in the future age, eternally; just as now she is mortal, that is, consists of mortal men, but then she will be immortal, when no one will die in her; just as Christ himself in that time was mortal for her sake, but after the resurrection he no longer dies and death will no longer have dominion over him, which he is also to bestow upon his Church at the end of the age.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Flagitantibus ... uix impetrantibus","severity":"info","text":"The ablative absolute clause describes the Catholics' difficult negotiation for patience, framing the Donatist response as concessive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitoris interlocutiones","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor refers to the judge presiding over the conference; interlocutiones are his procedural rulings or interventions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"excommunicationibus et degradationibus","severity":"info","text":"Degradationibus denotes deposition from clerical office, a disciplinary measure distinct from excommunication, reflecting late antique ecclesiastical penalties.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut ipse Christus ... post resurrectionem autem iam non moritur","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of Christ's mortality and resurrection (cf. Rom 6:9, 1 Cor 15:20-22) is used to typologically interpret the Church's two states.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ecclesia ... mortalis ... immortalis","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's distinction between the Church's present mixed state and future pure state became a key argument in Donatist controversy, echoed in later ecclesiology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'per multas cognitoris interlocutiones' could imply either the judge's repeated rulings or his frequent interruptions; the translation takes it as rulings obtained with difficulty."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"haec duo tempora ecclesiae, quae nunc est et qualis tunc erit, significata esse etiam duabus piscationibus, una ante resurrectionem Christi, quando mitti iussit retia nec sinistram nec dexteram nominans partem, ut nec solos malos nec solos bonos, sed commixtos bonis malos. intra retia suorum sacramentorum futuros doceret, post resurrectionem autem, quando iussit retia mitti in dexteram partem; ut post resurrectionem nostram bonos solos in ecclesia futuros intellegeremus, ubi ulterius haereses et schismata non erunt, quibus modo retia disrumpuntur. nam et euangelium non tacuit in prima piscatione commemorare retia esse disrupta et in nouissima dictum est: et cum tam magni essent pisces, retia non sunt disrupta. de tali ecclesia dictum esse quod per illam non erit transiturus incircumcisus et immundus; ad immundos enim pertinere schismaticas separationes, quae tunc non erunt, quia retia non sunt disrupta. hoc etiam significasse, quod coruus auis immunda exierit de arca et non redierit; quae tamen area exeunte coruo non utique omnibus immundis animalibus caiuit, sed in ea fuerunt et munda et immunda usque ad diluuium, sicut in ecclesia boni et mali usque ad saeculi finem. sed sicut non de immundis, sed de mundis animalibus Noe obtulit sacrificium, ita non ii qui mali sunt in ecclesia, sed ii qui boni sunt perueniunt ad deum.","english":"These two times of the Church—what it is now and what it will be then—are signified also by the two fishings: one before the resurrection of Christ, when He ordered the nets to be cast, naming neither the left nor the right side, so that He might teach that not only the bad nor only the good, but the bad mixed with the good, would be within the nets of His sacraments; and the other after the resurrection, when He ordered the nets to be cast to the right side, so that we might understand that after our resurrection only the good will be in the Church, where there will no longer be heresies and schisms, by which the nets are now torn. For the Gospel did not conceal that in the first fishing it records that the nets were torn, and in the last it is said: \"And although the fish were so large, the nets were not torn.\" It is of such a Church that it is said that through it no uncircumcised and unclean person will pass; for to the unclean belong the schismatic separations, which will not exist then, because the nets are not torn. This also signified that the raven, an unclean bird, went out of the ark and did not return; yet that ark, when the raven went out, did not of course lack all unclean animals, but in it there were both clean and unclean until the flood, just as in the Church there are good and bad until the end of the age. But just as Noah offered sacrifice not from unclean but from clean animals, so it is not those who are bad in the Church, but those who are good, who reach God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"duae piscationes","severity":"info","text":"Augustine interprets two fishing episodes from John 21:6-11, where the nets are torn in the first and intact in the second, as allegories of the mixed and purified Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"coruus auis immunda exierit de arca","severity":"info","text":"The raven leaving Noah's ark (Genesis 8:7) is used as a type for the departure of schismatics, while the ark retains both clean and unclean animals until the flood.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"retia disrumpuntur","severity":"info","text":"The tearing of the nets symbolizes the damage caused by heresies and schisms to the Church's unity, a key concern in Augustine's anti-Donatist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"incircumcisus et immundus","severity":"info","text":"These terms link ritual impurity (circumcision status) with moral and ecclesial impurity, equating schismatic separations with uncleanness that will be excluded from the eschatological Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"haec duo tempora ecclesiae","severity":"info","text":"The passage contrasts the present mixed Church (tempus mixtum) with the future purified Church after the resurrection, using paired fishing and ark typologies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Noe obtulit sacrificium","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's allegory of Noah's sacrifice (Genesis 8:20) from clean animals only reinforces his argument that only the good in the Church attain God, a theme echoed in later ecclesiology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text does not specify which Gospel verses are cited for the two fishings; the reference is to John 21:6-11, but the exact wording of the 'nets not torn' is paraphrased."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"De prophetis etiam, quia dixerant Donatistae in litteris suis non eos communicasse illis, in quos mala tanta dixerunt, responderunt catholici, quod unum templum fuerit quo uniuersi utebantur, nec quemquam prophetarum, qui tanta dixerunt in malos, constituisse sibi aliud templum sacrificia sacerdotes. et quod Donatistae in litteris suis posuerant testimonia scripturarum, quibus ostenderent ad peccata parentum etiam filios pertinere, cum hoc utique numquam recte intellectum sit nisi de iis filiis, qui parentum iniquitates imitarentur, responderunt catholici: cum tanta in illum populum et (tam) acerba dicta sint diuinis eloquiis, quae etiam ipsi in suis litteris commemorauerunt, ut quasi nullus illic remansisse uideretur bonus, non solum ibi fuerunt idem ipsi prophetae sancti, uerum etiam ex ipso populo exorti erant, quos ipse dominus in suae carnis aduentu laudabiles reperit, sicut fuerunt Zacharias et Helizabet et sicut Iohannes filius eorum, sicut Simeon senex et Anna uidua. unde apparet quam impie, quam calumniose obicerentur catholicis toto orbe diffusis crimina Caeciliani, cum Simeoni et Annae et ceteris talibus obici non possent crimina illius populi, in quo nati fuerant sacramentis eiusdem populi consecrati, quae crimina eidem populo non humana opinio, sed sermo diuinus obiecerat.","english":"Concerning the prophets also, because the Donatists had said in their letters that they did not communicate with those against whom they had uttered such great evils, the Catholics replied that there was one temple which all used, and that none of the prophets who had said such great things against the wicked had set up for themselves another temple, sacrifices, or priests. And as to what the Donatists had placed in their letters—testimonies of Scripture by which they showed that children also are implicated in the sins of their parents, although this has never been rightly understood except of those children who would imitate the iniquities of their parents—the Catholics replied: since such great and bitter things were said in the divine utterances against that people, which the Donatists themselves also recalled in their letters, so that it seemed as if no good person remained there, not only were those same holy prophets present there, but also from that very people there had arisen those whom the Lord Himself, at the coming of His flesh, found praiseworthy, such as Zacharias and Elizabeth and their son John, and such as Simeon the elder and Anna the widow. Hence it appears how impiously and slanderously the crimes of Caecilian were charged against the Catholics spread throughout the whole world, when the crimes of that people—in which they were born and consecrated with the sacraments of that same people, crimes which not human opinion but divine speech had charged against that people—could not be charged against Simeon and Anna and others like them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"De prophetis etiam","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the Catholic response to Donatist arguments, now addressing the prophets and the unity of worship, forming a parallel to the previous discussion of the two fishings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unum templum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'one temple' underscores the Catholic claim of a single, unified Church despite the presence of sinners, countering Donatist separatism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Zacharias et Helizabet ... Iohannes ... Simeon senex et Anna uidua","severity":"info","text":"These figures from Luke 1–2 (Zechariah, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Simeon, Anna) are cited as examples of righteous individuals from a sinful people, supporting the Catholic argument against inherited guilt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Caeciliani","severity":"info","text":"Caecilian was the bishop of Carthage whose consecration by Felix of Aptungi (allegedly a traditor) sparked the Donatist schism. The Donatists charged all Catholics with his crimes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"crimina illius populi ... non humana opinio, sed sermo diuinus obiecerat","severity":"info","text":"Augustine distinguishes between divine prophetic condemnation of a people and human accusations against individuals, a key argument in his anti-Donatist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'tam acerba dicta sint' is emended with '(tam)' in the edition; the sense is clear despite the textual uncertainty."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"commemoratum est etiam testimonium propheticum, ubi signati sunt, ne cum malis perirent, qui gemebant facinora quae fiebant in medio eorum, nec tamen corporaliter separati sunt.\n\nDeinde ibi commemoratum est, qualis separatio bonis hoc tempore ab impiis et malis fieri debeat, ne communicetur peccatis alienis, corde uidelicet et uitae morumque dissimilitudine, nec aliter intellegi debere quod scriptum est: exite de medio eorum, recedite inde, et immundum ne tetigeritis, id est: discernimini aliter uiuendo et immunditiae non consenseritis. ibi etiam opportunissimo loco responsum est Donatistis ad illud quod dixerant, cum eos peteret cognitor ut sederent, scriptum sibi esse ut cum talibus non sederent. dictum est enim a catholicis, cum eorum litteris responderent, non sic intellegendam esse separationem a malis hoc tempore, quemadmodum illi intellexerant, qui secum tamquam cum impiis non sederunt, quia scriptum est: non sedi in concilio impiorum, cum utique, si impios putarent, nec illud, quod in eodem psalmo consequenter prohibetur, tacere debuerunt. nam ibi sequitur: et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo. cum ergo illi intrassent cum eis quos impios putarent, quare non etiam sederunt, ut in utroque non corporalem, sed spiritalem consessum et ingressum deuitasse uiderentur?","english":"The prophetic testimony was also recalled, where those who groaned at the crimes committed in their midst, yet were not physically separated, were marked so that they would not perish with the wicked.\n\nThen it was recalled there what kind of separation the good ought to make from the impious and the wicked in this time, so as not to share in the sins of others, namely by heart and by dissimilarity of life and morals, and that what is written—\"Depart from their midst, withdraw from there, and do not touch the unclean\"—ought to be understood in no other way, that is: be distinguished by living differently and do not consent to impurity. There also, at a most opportune place, a response was given to the Donatists concerning what they had said, when the judge asked them to sit down, that it was written for them not to sit with such persons. For it was said by the Catholics, when they were replying to their letters, that separation from the wicked in this time is not to be understood as those had understood it, who did not sit with them as if with the impious, because it is written: \"I did not sit in the council of the impious,\" when, of course, if they considered them impious, they ought not to have kept silent about what is consequently forbidden in the same psalm. For there it follows: \"And I will not enter with those who do iniquitous deeds.\" Therefore, since they had entered with those whom they considered impious, why did they not also sit, so that in both respects they would seem to have avoided not a physical but a spiritual sitting and entering?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"exite de medio eorum, recedite inde, et immundum ne tetigeritis","severity":"info","text":"Augustine paraphrases a scriptural injunction (cf. Isa 52:11 LXX or a similar prophetic call) to separate from the impure, interpreting it as moral rather than physical separation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"non sedi in concilio impiorum","severity":"info","text":"A citation from Psalm 25:4 (LXX) or similar, used by Donatists to justify refusing to sit with the impious; Augustine argues it refers to spiritual, not physical, avoidance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo","severity":"info","text":"The following verse from the same psalm (cf. Ps 25:4 LXX) that Donatists ignored; Augustine uses it to show inconsistency in their physical avoidance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cum eos peteret cognitor ut sederent","severity":"info","text":"Refers to the 411 Conference of Carthage, where the imperial judge Marcellinus asked Donatist bishops to sit with Catholics; they refused, citing scriptural prohibition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"corde uidelicet et uitae morumque dissimilitudine","severity":"info","text":"Augustine defines 'separation' as internal (heart) and moral (dissimilarity of life), not physical, a key distinction in his anti-Donatist ecclesiology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ibi etiam opportunissimo loco responsum est","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a transition within the narrative to a specific rebuttal of Donatist exegesis, showing Augustine's rhetorical organization of the conference record.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural source of 'exite de medio eorum...' is not given; it may be a composite or paraphrase of prophetic texts (e.g., Isa 52:11).","The psalm cited ('non sedi in concilio impiorum') is not identified by number; likely Psalm 25 (LXX) but could be another."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"ibi commemorata est etiam causa Maximianistarum totiens iam illis obiecta, ubi et se et illos quibus dilationem dederunt in Maximiani schismate positos, eiusdem in damnatione Primiani socios, tamen illius contagio dixerunt non esse pollutos, qui Caeciliani criminibus orbem christianum usque ad terminos terrae perisse contenderent.\n\nAd haec Donatistae, cum ualidissimis scripturarum documentis et exemplo suo de Maximianistis respondere non possent, ad illud quod iam peractum fuerat redierunt, dicentes mundum non bene intellegi ecclesiam, in qua simul et triticum et zizania iussa sunt crescere, cum catholici et tot testimonia diuina iam commemorassent, quibus ostenderetur mundus etiam in bona significatione positus et in ea non nisi ecclesia posse intellegi et, quomodolibet acciperetur mundus, quando utrumque semen per mundum cresceret, non debere propter zizania totius mundi triticum deseri. cum ergo haec iam dicta fuissent et quaestio ipsa iam terminata uideretur, ad eam rursus summa inopia redierunt eadem per eadem replicantes, quaerentes quomodo potuerit diabolus in ecclesia seminare zizania, deinde calumniantes, quod duas ecclesias catholici dixerint, unam quae nunc habet permixtos malos, aliam quae post resurrectionem eos non esset habitura, ueluti non idem futuri essent sancti cum Christo regnaturi, qui nunc pro eius nomine cum iuste uiuunt tolerant malos.","english":"There also the case of the Maximianists was recalled, so often already thrown in their teeth, where both they themselves and those to whom they had granted a delay, though placed in the schism of Maximianus and associates of the same in the condemnation of Primianus, were nevertheless said by them not to have been polluted by that contagion—they who contended that the Christian world had perished to the ends of the earth because of the crimes of Caecilian.\n\nTo this the Donatists, since they could not respond with the strongest proofs from the Scriptures and their own example concerning the Maximianists, returned to that which had already been settled, saying that the world is not rightly understood as the Church, in which both wheat and tares are commanded to grow, although the Catholics had already cited so many divine testimonies by which it was shown that the world is also placed in a good sense and in that sense can only be understood as the Church, and that, however the world might be taken, when both seeds grow throughout the world, the wheat of the whole world should not be abandoned because of the tares. Therefore, when these things had already been said and the question itself seemed already concluded, they returned to it again out of extreme poverty, repeating the same things through the same, asking how the devil could have sown tares in the Church, and then slandering that the Catholics had spoken of two Churches—one which now has the wicked mixed in, another which after the resurrection would not have them—as if the saints who will reign with Christ were not the same ones who now, living justly for His name, tolerate the wicked.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Maximianistarum","severity":"info","text":"The Maximianists were a Donatist splinter group that broke away in the late 4th century over the readmission of the traditor bishop Primianus. Their case was a key argument for Catholics, showing that Donatists themselves tolerated schismatics without rebaptizing them.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"zizania","severity":"info","text":"The image of wheat and tares (zizania) growing together in the Church alludes to Matthew 13:24–30, a key text in the Donatist controversy. Catholics used it to argue that the Church must tolerate sinners until the final separation at the resurrection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"mundus","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists insisted that 'world' (mundus) in Scripture never means the Church, but only the impious. Augustine counters that mundus can have a good sense, as in 'the whole world' meaning the universal Church, citing testimonies from the prophets and Paul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ad haec Donatistae ... redierunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine structures the passage as a narrative of debate: the Donatists, unable to refute the Maximianist precedent, fall back on a previously settled argument about the meaning of 'world,' showing their rhetorical exhaustion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"duas ecclesias","severity":"info","text":"The Donatist charge that Catholics taught 'two Churches'—one mixed now, one pure after the resurrection—was a persistent misrepresentation. Augustine consistently denied this, insisting on the unity of the Church across time, as seen in his other anti-Donatist works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"eadem per eadem replicantes","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'repeating the same things through the same' may reflect Augustine's rhetorical frustration rather than a precise record of the debate. The passage summarizes a pattern of argument, not a verbatim transcript.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact scriptural testimonies cited by the Catholics are not specified in this passage; they are referenced only as 'tot testimonia diuina.'","The identity of 'those to whom they had granted a delay' among the Maximianists is left unclear; it likely refers to schismatics readmitted without rebaptism."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"Ad haec catholici responderunt etiam ipsos iam fuisse confessos esse in ecclesia uel occultos malos, et uicissim quaesierunt, quomodo eos in ecclesia diabolus seminauerit, quod illi, quasi fieri non posset, de zizaniis requirebant. repetierunt etiam catholici testimonium Cypriani, qui eandem euangelicam similitudinem non aliter intellexit, quam ut in ecclesia diceret esse zizania nec latere, sed cerni. contra quod testimonium illi omnino nihil ausi fuerant respondere, cum auctoritatem Cypriani tanti habeant, ut per illam conentur defendere, quod male de iterando baptismo sentiunt et faciunt. de duabus etiam ecclesiis calumniam eorum catholici refutarunt, identidem expressius ostendentes quid dixerint, id est non eam ecclesiam, quae nunc habet permixtos malos, alienam se dixisse a regno dei ubi non erunt mali commixti, sed eandem ipsam unam et sanctam ecclesiam nunc esse aliter, tunc autem aliter futuram, nunc habere malos mixtos, tunc non habituram; sicut nunc mortalem, quod ex mortalibus constaret hominibus, tunc autem immortalem, quod in ea nullus esset uel corpore moriturus; sicut non ideo duo Christi, quia prior mortuus postea non moriturus.","english":"To these things the Catholics responded that they themselves had already confessed that there were hidden evil persons in the Church, and they asked in turn how the devil sowed them in the Church, since the Donatists, as if it could not happen, were demanding proof from the parable of the tares. The Catholics also repeated the testimony of Cyprian, who understood that same evangelical similitude in no other way than to say that the tares are in the Church and are not hidden but are seen. Against that testimony the Donatists had dared to answer nothing at all, although they hold Cyprian’s authority so highly that they try to defend by it what they wrongly think and do about rebaptism. The Catholics also refuted their calumny about two Churches, showing again more clearly what they had said: that it was not the Church which now has evil persons mixed in that they had said was alien from the kingdom of God where there will be no evil persons mixed in, but that same one and holy Church itself is now one way and will be another way then, now has evil persons mixed in, then will not have them; just as now it is mortal, because it consists of mortal men, but then it will be immortal, because in it no one will be dying in body; just as there are not two Christs because the one who died earlier is later not going to die.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"zizania","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'zizania' (tares) refers to the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24–30), used here to argue that evil persons exist visibly within the Church, not hidden.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"zizania","severity":"info","text":"The parable of the tares (Matthew 13:24–30) is the evangelical similitude cited; Cyprian interpreted it as showing tares are seen in the Church, a key point in the Catholic argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cypriani","severity":"info","text":"Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) was a revered authority among Donatists, who used his writings to justify rebaptism; here Catholics turn his interpretation against them.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"de iterando baptismo","severity":"info","text":"The Donatist practice of rebaptizing converts from the Catholic Church was a central controversy; Cyprian had supported rebaptism, but Augustine argued his exegetical method was flawed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"de duabus etiam ecclesiis","severity":"info","text":"The charge of positing two Churches is refuted by distinguishing the Church’s present mixed state from its future pure state, using analogies of mortality and Christ’s resurrection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut nunc mortalem","severity":"info","text":"The analogy of the Church’s mortality (now mortal, later immortal) parallels Christ’s death and resurrection, reinforcing the unity of the Church across time.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'zizania' could refer to any weed; the translation 'tares' follows the Vulgate and patristic usage.","The phrase 'occultos malos' (hidden evil persons) may imply a concession by Donatists not fully recorded."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"dictum est etiam de homine exteriore et interiore, quae cum sint diuersa, non tamen dici duos homines: quanto minus dici duas ecclesias, cum idem ipsi, qui nunc boni tolerant permixtos malos et resurrecturi moriuntur, tunc nec mixtos malos habituri sint nec omnino morituri! de ipso quoque numero, quoniam Donatistae scripturarum testimonio unam ecclesiam commendauerunt uelut contra duas, quas catholicos affirmasse iactabant, responsum est a catholicis etiam multas ecclesias in scripturis inueniri dictas et septem . ad quas Iohannes scribit, quae tamen multae illius unicae membra esse intellegerentur, ut hinc appareret multo minus sibi debere obici duas, cum eandem ipsam unam dixerint non talem nunc esse, qualis in resurrectione futura esset, quandoquidem apostolicis litteris non obiciantur multae, ex quibus ipsa una constaret. ad haec Donatistae rursus eadem replicare non destiterunt, insuper adicientes et inuidiose iactantes, quod ecclesiam mortalem catholici dixerint, et ideo negantes eam mortalem esse, quia trinitas immortalis est, cuius gratia consecratur ecclesia, et quia Christus ideo pro ea mortuus sit, ut eam faceret immortalem; quasi catholici dixerint non eam fieri immortalem gratia dei et effuso pro ea sanguine saluatoris.","english":"It was also said about the outer and inner man, which, though they are different, are nevertheless not called two men: how much less should two churches be spoken of, when the very same persons who now, as good, tolerate the wicked mixed among them and, destined to rise again, die, will then have no wicked mixed among them and will not die at all! Regarding also the number, since the Donatists, by the testimony of the Scriptures, commended one church as if against two, which they boasted the Catholics affirmed, it was answered by the Catholics that many churches are also found spoken of in the Scriptures, and the seven to which John writes, which many, however, were understood to be members of that one unique church, so that from this it would appear that they ought much less to be charged with two, since they said that same one church is not now such as it will be at the resurrection, inasmuch as the apostolic letters are not charged with many, from which that one would consist. To these things the Donatists did not cease to repeat the same points, adding moreover and boastfully alleging, that the Catholics had called the church mortal, and therefore denying that it is mortal, because the Trinity is immortal, by whose grace the church is consecrated, and because Christ died for it in order to make it immortal; as if the Catholics had said that it does not become immortal by the grace of God and the blood of the Savior shed for it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"de homine exteriore et interiore","severity":"info","text":"The Catholic argument uses the distinction between outer and inner man (cf. 2 Cor 4:16) to analogize that diversity within a single entity does not justify positing two churches.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"septem . ad quas Iohannes scribit","severity":"info","text":"Reference to the seven churches in Revelation (Rev 1–3), cited by Catholics to show that Scripture speaks of many churches as members of one unique church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ecclesiam mortalem","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists object to calling the church mortal, arguing from the immortality of the Trinity and Christ’s death for the church; the Catholics clarify they meant the church becomes immortal through grace and Christ’s blood.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ad haec Donatistae rursus eadem replicare non destiterunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage concludes a cycle of debate: Catholics respond to Donatist objections, then Donatists repeat their points with added accusations, showing the repetitive structure of the collation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"quasi catholici dixerint non eam fieri immortalem","severity":"info","text":"Augustine reports the Donatist misrepresentation of Catholic teaching, a common rhetorical tactic in the Donatist controversy, later addressed in his other anti-Donatist works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'de homine exteriore et interiore' may echo Pauline language but is not a direct quotation; the exact scriptural source is ambiguous."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"sed tempora esse discernenda dixerunt, praesens uidelicet, quo moriuntur omnes sancti, sicut mortuus est ipse Christus, et futurum, quo resurgent et nullo morituro uiuent cum illo qui iam resurrexit.\n\nHaec inter eos cum agerentur et quamuis manifesta atque dilucida Donatistis certantibus superflua replicarentur, promisit cognitor de his se, quae satis audisset, extrema sententia iudicaturum et iussit illud agi potius, unde extiterit. prima causa discidii. tunc Donatistae urgere coeperunt, ut de his quae audisset primitus iudicaret. quod cum etiam catholici exigerent et ille in eo quod dixerat permaneret iuberetque illud agi potius, ut causa primi discidii monstraretur, petierunt catholici, ut quae offerebant recitarentur. quod cum fieri praecepisset, obnixius Donatistae resistere coeperunt et cogere, ut iam de cognitis iudicaret, eadem quae transacta fuerant repetentes et addentes, quod omnino iudicare de illa causa non deberet, quam uolebat agi recitatione eorum, quae a catholicis oblata fuerant recitanda, dicentes huius causae Christum iudicem esse debere et inuidiam facientes catholicis, quod hominem petiuerant iudicem, dicentes etiam solita de persecutionibus, quas perpeti uiderentur.","english":"But they said that the times were to be distinguished, namely the present, in which all the saints die, just as Christ himself died, and the future, in which they will rise again and, with none about to die, will live with him who has already risen.\n\nWhile these matters were being debated among them, and although they were obvious and clear, they were being needlessly repeated by the struggling Donatists. The judge promised that he would give a final judgment on what he had sufficiently heard, and he ordered that the matter from which the first cause of the schism arose should rather be pursued. Then the Donatists began to insist that he should first judge what he had heard. And when the Catholics also demanded this, and he persisted in what he had said and ordered that the cause of the first schism should rather be shown, the Catholics asked that what they were offering be read aloud. When he had ordered this to be done, the Donatists began to resist more strenuously and to compel him to judge what had already been heard, repeating the same things that had been transacted and adding that he ought not to judge at all in that cause which he wanted to be pursued by the reading of what the Catholics had offered to be recited, saying that Christ should be the judge of this cause, and casting blame on the Catholics for having sought a human judge, also saying the usual things about the persecutions which they seemed to suffer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"tempora esse discernenda","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists argue for a distinction between the present time (when saints die like Christ) and the future resurrection, a key point in their ecclesiology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"prima causa discidii","severity":"info","text":"The 'first cause of the schism' refers to the original dispute over the ordination of Caecilian in Carthage (c. 311–312), which the Donatists claimed was invalid due to traditor bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Haec inter eos cum agerentur","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from theological debate to procedural conflict in the conference, highlighting the judge's role and the Donatists' resistance to hearing Catholic evidence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"inuidiam facientes catholicis","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists accuse Catholics of seeking a human judge rather than Christ, a rhetorical move that Augustine elsewhere counters by arguing that human judgment is necessary for procedural order.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"'Cognitor' here denotes the imperial commissioner (Marcellinus) presiding over the 411 Conference, a legal term for a judge appointed to hear a case.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'extrema sententia' could mean 'final judgment' or 'ultimate decision,' but the context of the conference suggests a procedural ruling rather than a doctrinal one."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"ad hoc catholici responderunt nec de homine iudice postulato eos debere facere inuidiam, qui et de causa Maximianistarum iudicauerunt nec eam Christo iudici seruauerunt et ipsam Caeciliani causam primitus ad hominem, hoc est ad imperatorem Constantinum, accusantes miserunt, nec de persecutionibus, quod aliquid ab imperatoribus pro ecclesia catholici peterent, cum eorum circumcelliones ducibus clericis tam horrenda mala committerent. ubi frustra responderunt nihil hoc ad sacerdotes pertinere, cum clericis ducibus illi talia fecisse asserebantur.\n\nIbi etiam cum dictum esset, quod calce et aceto humanos oculos persecuti sint, in quo scelere diabolum crudelitate peruicerunt, qui hoc in sancti uiri carne non fecit quam in potestatem acceperat affligendam, hic Donatistae quaesierunt, utrum qui faciunt filii essent diaboli an qui patiuntur; quasi catholici aliud quam passiones suas dixerint immanissimas a clericis et circumcellionibus eorum. uerumtamen etiam hic non praetermiserunt catholici occasione oblata eis Maximianistas obicere et dixerunt secundum eorum sententiam meliores esse Maximianistas, quos apud tres uel eo amplius proconsules persecuti sunt; illi enim si passi sunt, isti fecerunt. et urgebant catholici ut responderent, utrum ex ipsis, quos damnauerunt et persecuti sunt, non susceperint Felicianum et utrum non eum habeant in collegio suo.","english":"To this the Catholics replied that they ought not to make invidia concerning a human judge demanded, who themselves had judged concerning the cause of the Maximianists and had not reserved it for Christ as judge, and had first sent the very cause of Caecilianus to a human being, that is to the emperor Constantine, by accusing it, nor concerning the persecutions, that the Catholics sought something from the emperors for the church, when their Circumcellions with clerical leaders were committing such horrible evils. Where they answered in vain that this pertained nothing to the priests, since those were said to have done such things with clerical leaders.\n\nThere also when it had been said that they had persecuted human eyes with lime and vinegar, in which crime they surpassed the devil in cruelty, who did not do this in the flesh of a holy man which he had received into his power to afflict, here the Donatists asked whether those who do are sons of the devil or those who suffer; as if the Catholics had said anything other than their own most savage sufferings at the hands of their clerics and Circumcellions. Nevertheless, even here the Catholics did not fail, with the opportunity offered them, to object concerning the Maximianists and said that according to their judgment the Maximianists were better, whom they had persecuted before three or more proconsuls; for if those suffered, these did. And the Catholics urged that they answer whether they had not received Felicianus from among those whom they had condemned and persecuted, and whether they did not have him in their own college.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"inuidiam","severity":"info","text":"Invidia here carries the technical rhetorical sense of 'odious accusation' or 'prejudice', not merely envy. The Catholics accuse the Donatists of hypocritically raising invidia about a human judge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Maximianistarum","severity":"info","text":"The Maximianists were a Donatist splinter group. The Catholics exploit the Donatists' own judgment against them to argue inconsistency in their rejection of secular authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"calce et aceto","severity":"info","text":"Lime and vinegar were used by Circumcellions to blind opponents. This atrocity is cited to contrast Donatist violence with their claim of suffering persecution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"circumcelliones","severity":"info","text":"Circumcellions were radical Donatist militants, often associated with agrarian unrest and violent acts, including blinding with lime and vinegar.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ibi etiam","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative of the conference, moving from the Catholics' rebuttal of Donatist objections to a specific atrocity story, then back to the Maximianist argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Felicianum","severity":"info","text":"Felicianus was a Maximianist bishop later received back into the Donatist communion. The Catholics use this to highlight Donatist inconsistency in condemning and then readmitting schismatics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'calce et aceto' could refer to a specific blinding method or a general torture; the text assumes the former.","The identity of the 'holy man' whose flesh the devil afflicted is not specified; likely a biblical or hagiographical reference."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"ad quod illi obiectum sicut semper omnino obmutescentes in aliud ierunt obiciendo catholicis, quod diabolum defendissent, quia dixerant eum sancti Iob oculis pepercisse, unde illum isti crudelitate uicissent. et susceperunt accusare diabolum uelut defensum a catholicis, dicentes eum magis crudeliter in carne Iob oculis pepercisse, ut manerent ad spectaculum uulneris, quod uniuerso corpori inflixerat. quod multum mirum est quare hoc pro magno dicere uoluerint, nisi forte ut intellegerentur pie fecisse, qui oculos in hominibus persecuti sunt, ne cruciarentur uidendo uulnera sua, quae ab eis per totum corpus acceperant.\n\nSed cum iterum Donatistae persecutiones quas patiuntur exaggerantes suorum quasdam mortes commemorarent in oppido Bagaiensi, responsum est a catholicis eos hoc passos esse, dum eorum uiolentiae resisteretur, quam et iudici inferre conati sunt. in illo oppido commemorauerunt catholici ab eis horrenda esse commissa, ita ut etiam basilica esset incensa et in ignem missi codices sancti, mortes autem illorum magis esse ex consuetudine quam habent, ut se ipsi praecipitent. cumque his Donatistae respondentes exaggerarent identidem uelut persecutiones quas paterentur, tamquam ex his fructibus.","english":"To this objection they, as always completely falling silent, turned to another matter by objecting to the Catholics that they had defended the devil, because they had said that he had spared the eyes of holy Job, whereby they had surpassed him in cruelty. And they undertook to accuse the devil as if defended by the Catholics, saying that he had more cruelly spared the eyes in Job's flesh, so that they might remain to witness the wound which he had inflicted on the whole body. It is very surprising why they wished to say this as something important, unless perhaps so that they might be understood to have piously done what they did, who persecuted the eyes in men, lest they be tormented by seeing their own wounds, which they had received from them throughout the whole body.\n\nBut when the Donatists again, exaggerating the persecutions they suffer, recalled certain deaths of their own in the town of Bagai, the Catholics replied that they had suffered this while resistance was being offered to their violence, which they had also attempted to inflict upon the judge. In that town, the Catholics recalled that horrible things had been committed by them, so that even a basilica had been burned and holy codices thrown into the fire, but that their deaths were more from the custom they have of throwing themselves headlong. And when the Donatists, responding to these things, again exaggerated, as it were, the persecutions they suffered, as if from these fruits.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Bagaiensi","severity":"info","text":"Bagai (mod. Ksar Baghai, Algeria) was a Donatist stronghold. The violence there, including the burning of a basilica and scriptures, is also recounted in Augustine's *Contra litteras Petiliani* and *Epistula* 185.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani","Augustine, Epistula 185"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"invidia","severity":"info","text":"The Latin *invidia* (here in the English draft as 'invidia' from the previous passage) denotes a rhetorical charge of ill-will or envy, not merely 'jealousy'. In Donatist polemic, it often accuses opponents of malicious persecution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ad quod illi obiectum ... in aliud ierunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the pattern of Donatist evasion: when refuted, they shift to a new accusation. The phrase 'sicut semper omnino obmutescentes' underscores the rhetorical trope of their silence before changing the subject.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Iob","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Job (Job 2:12) is used by the Donatists to argue that the devil's cruelty in sparing Job's eyes was worse than blinding, thus justifying their own blinding of opponents as merciful. Augustine elsewhere refutes this exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"codices sancti","severity":"info","text":"The burning of 'holy codices' (scriptures) by Donatists at Bagai is a charge of sacrilege. This incident is cited in later anti-Donatist literature as evidence of their extremism, e.g., in the *Donatistarum historia*.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"se ipsi praecipitent","severity":"caution","text":"The claim that Donatists habitually threw themselves to their deaths (suicide) is a Catholic polemical topos. While some Donatists did commit suicide in extremis, the generalisation here may exaggerate for rhetorical effect.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Augustine, De haeresibus"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'in aliud ierunt' could mean 'they went to another matter' or 'they went elsewhere'—the sense is clear as a shift in argument.","The phrase 'ex his fructibus' is elliptical; the English draft renders it 'as if from these fruits', but the exact referent of 'fructibus' (results? benefits?) is ambiguous."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"suos aduersarios malam esse arborem iactitantes et petentes identidem, ut de agro et zizaniis et de una et immortali ecclesia iudicaretur, contra autem catholici fructus eorum commemorarent schismata et rebaptizationes et quod ipsi primitus maiores suos apud imperatorem accusassent, atque in huiusmodi mutuis obiectis diu conflictio uersaretur, maluit cognitor haec omnia cohibere, promittens de his iudicium posteriore sententia, et recitari iussit, quod a catholicis oblatum iam legi coeperat et fuerat interruptum. sic peracta est causa ecclesiae, quam magnopere catholici curauerant a Caeciliani causa distinguere, quoniam ei non posset cuiuslibet praeiudicari criminibus, quae contra omnes humanas criminationes tot testimonia diuina meruisset. ex hoc iam coepit agi etiam causa Caeciliani.\n\nQuinto ergo loco haec acta sunt. recitatae sunt duae relationes Anullini proconsulis ad Constantinum impera-torem, una quae iam superius erat recitata, qua ostendit maiores Donatistarum, id est de parte Maiorini, dedisse sibi chartas criminum Caeciliani et postulasse Constantino mittendas seque illas memorato imperatori misisse, altera autem, qua ostendit ex eiusdem imperatoris iussione denos ex utraque parte ad agendam causam ut mitterent eos se conuenisse atque illos promisisse facturos.","english":"Their adversaries kept boasting that they were the good tree and repeatedly demanded that judgment be passed concerning the field and the tares and the one and immortal Church. The Catholics, on the other hand, recalled their schisms and rebaptisms and the fact that they themselves had first accused their own predecessors before the emperor. And while the conflict dragged on for a long time in mutual accusations of this kind, the judge preferred to restrain all these matters, promising a judgment on them in a later ruling, and ordered the reading of what the Catholics had already begun to have read and had been interrupted. Thus was concluded the case of the Church, which the Catholics had taken great care to distinguish from the case of Caecilian, since the Church could not be prejudged by the crimes of any individual, having merited so many divine testimonies against all human accusations. From this point, the case of Caecilian also began to be tried.\n\nIn the fifth place, then, these proceedings took place. Two reports of Anullinus the proconsul to the emperor Constantine were read out: one, which had already been read earlier, in which he showed that the Donatists' predecessors, that is, those of Maiorinus' party, had given him documents of accusations against Caecilian and had asked that they be sent to Constantine, and that he had sent them to the aforementioned emperor; the other, in which he showed that by order of the same emperor he had convened ten from each side to conduct the case, and that they had promised to do so.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"malam esse arborem iactitantes","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists boast of being the 'good tree,' a metaphor drawn from the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24–30), which they used to claim exclusive legitimacy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor refers to the imperial judge presiding over the conference, likely the proconsul or a delegate, who here restrains the mutual accusations and defers judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quinto ergo loco","severity":"info","text":"This marks the fifth session of the conference, as Augustine organizes the narrative sequentially; the phrase signals a new phase of proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Anullini proconsulis","severity":"info","text":"Anullinus was proconsul of Africa in 312–313 CE; his reports to Constantine document the initial Donatist accusations against Caecilian and the emperor's order for a hearing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"causa ecclesiae ... a Caeciliani causa distinguere","severity":"info","text":"Augustine insists the Church's case is distinct from Caecilian's personal guilt, a key argument in Catholic polemic against Donatist claims that a traditor bishop invalidated the whole Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"recitatae sunt duae relationes","severity":"info","text":"The second report is said to have been read here, but its content is not fully quoted; Augustine may summarize or rely on earlier citation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact content of the second report of Anullinus is not given; Augustine may assume the reader knows it from earlier in the work."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"tum deinde lectae sunt etiam litterae supradicti imperatoris ad episcopos datae, ubi eis causam Caeciliani iniunxit audiendam. atque inde ex ordine legi coepit etiam episcopale iudicium Miltiadis Romani episcopi et aliorum cum illo Gallorum et Italorum episcoporum in eadem urbe Romae factum, cuius iudicii prima parte, id est gestis primi diei recitatis, ubi accusatores Caeciliani qui missi fuerant negauerunt se habere quod in eum dicerent, ubi etiam Donatus a Casis Nigris in praesenti conuictus est adhuc diacono Caeciliano schisma fecisse Carthagine — de Carthaginis enim schismate exorta est aduersus ecclesiam catholicam pars Donati —, ubi etiam promiserunt idem aduersarii Caeciliani alio die se praesentaturos, quos causae necessarios subtraxisse arguebantur, et hoc mentiti ulterius ad iudicium accedere noluerunt: hac ergo iudicii parte recitata cum coepisset recitari, quid alio die gestum sit, interruperunt Donatistae et petere instantissime coeperunt, ut prius ea quae offerebant recitarentur, asserentes non esse ordinis, ut prius absolutio Caeciliani quem nondum accusauerant legeretur, et de hoc aliquanto diutius conflixerunt, cum catholici dicerent non debere interrumpi quod legi iam coeperat.","english":"Then the aforementioned emperor’s letter to the bishops was read, in which he entrusted them with hearing the case of Caecilianus. And from that point, the episcopal judgment of Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and of the other Gallic and Italian bishops with him, conducted in the same city of Rome, began to be read in order. When the first part of that judgment—that is, the proceedings of the first day—had been recited, in which the accusers of Caecilianus who had been sent denied that they had anything to say against him, and in which Donatus of Casis Nigris was also convicted in person of having made a schism at Carthage while Caecilianus was still a deacon—for from the schism of Carthage the Donatist party arose against the Catholic Church—and in which the same adversaries of Caecilianus also promised to produce on another day those whom they were accused of having withheld as necessary for the case, and then, having lied about this, refused to appear further for the judgment: when this part of the judgment had been recited, and the reading of what was done on the other day had begun, the Donatists interrupted and began to demand most insistently that what they were offering be read first, asserting that it was not proper for the acquittal of Caecilianus, whom they had not yet accused, to be read before that; and they argued about this for some time, while the Catholics said that what had already begun to be read should not be interrupted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Miltiadis Romani episcopi","severity":"info","text":"Miltiades was bishop of Rome from 311 to 314. He presided over the council that acquitted Caecilianus, a key event in the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatus a Casis Nigris","severity":"info","text":"Donatus of Casae Nigrae (or Casis Nigris) was a Donatist bishop, distinct from Donatus of Carthage. His schismatic activity while Caecilianus was still a deacon is cited here as the origin of the Donatist party.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hac ergo iudicii parte recitata cum coepisset recitari, quid alio die gestum sit","severity":"info","text":"Augustine structures the narrative to highlight the Donatists' interruption of the reading of the second day's proceedings, emphasizing their procedural objection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"episcopale iudicium Miltiadis","severity":"info","text":"The council of Miltiades in Rome (313 CE) preceded the Council of Arles (314 CE). The reading of its proceedings here occurs during the Collatio of 411 CE.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"negauerunt se habere quod in eum dicerent","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's account of the accusers' denial is a key piece of Catholic apologetic, used to argue that the Donatist case was baseless from the start.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'Donatus a Casis Nigris' may refer to a specific location (Casae Nigrae) in Numidia, but the exact identification is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"donec eiusdem iudicii omnia gesta terminarentur, illi autem e diuerso assererent ea quae interrumpebantur nec incipi debuisse ut legerentur, quoniam non competeret prius defendi hominem quam accusari. ad hoc catholici respondebant. cum causa schismatis a cognitore quaereretur, petisse ut illa legerentur quae oblata ,. fuerant ad legendum, cum ageretur de persona petitoris. duas itaque ob res illa uoluisse recitari, ut appareret eos primitus in hac causa hominem iudicem postulasse, qui faciebant catholicis inuidiam, quod in hac collatione homo cognitor residebat, et ut petitoris persona constaret, et quoniam legi coepta fuerant, non debere interrumpi, sed usque ad finem recitando perduci. inter haec cognitor cum hoc primo uoluisset quod a catholicis petebatur, ut ea quae recitari coeperant finirentur, postea tamen ei Donatistae extorserunt, ut ea quae ipsi offerebant dilatis illis legi permitterentur.","english":"until all the acts of that same judgment were concluded, while those on the other side asserted that what was being interrupted ought not to have even begun to be read, since it was not proper for a man to be defended before he was accused. To this the Catholics replied: when the judge inquired into the cause of the schism, they had asked that those documents be read which had been presented for reading, when the matter concerned the person of the petitioner. They had therefore wished those documents to be recited for two reasons: so that it might appear that those who were making the Catholics odious for having a human judge presiding in this conference had themselves originally demanded a human judge in this case, and so that the identity of the petitioner might be established; and since the reading had been begun, it ought not to be interrupted but should be carried through to the end by recitation. Amid these proceedings, the judge first wished what the Catholics requested—that what had begun to be recited be finished—but afterwards the Donatists extorted from him that what they themselves were offering be allowed to be read, with those other documents set aside.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"donec eiusdem iudicii omnia gesta terminarentur","severity":"info","text":"The phrase indicates the Catholic party's insistence on completing the reading of the entire judgment of Miltiades, a procedural point central to the dispute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor refers to the imperial commissioner presiding over the conference, a role distinct from a judge in an ecclesiastical court; the Donatists objected to a human judge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"schismatis","severity":"info","text":"The schism refers to the Donatist separation from the Catholic Church in North Africa, rooted in disputes over the consecration of Caecilianus and the legitimacy of traditores.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"duas itaque ob res","severity":"info","text":"Augustine structures the Catholic response around two reasons for reading the documents: to show the Donatists' prior demand for a human judge and to establish the petitioner's identity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"extorserunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's use of 'extorserunt' (extorted) reflects his polemical framing, portraying the Donatists as manipulating the judge to interrupt the Catholic reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"oblata ,. fuerant","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has a punctuation anomaly (',.') after 'oblata', likely a scribal or editorial insertion; it does not affect the sense but indicates a textual irregularity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact documents 'oblata' (offered) by the Catholics are not specified; they likely include the proceedings of the Council of Rome (313) and related correspondence."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Tunc Donatistae aliquantum praelocuti sunt, quod Mensurius, qui fuerat ante Caecilianum ecclesiae Carthaginiensis episcopus, tempore persecutionis tradiderit persecutoribus sanctas scripturas, et hoc ut probarent, legerunt eius epistulam ad Secundum Tigisitanum datam, qui tunc habebat primatum episcoporum Numidiae. in qua epistula uidebatur Mensurius uelut de suo crimine confiteri, qui tamen non scripserat se sanctos codices tradidisse, sed potius ne a persecutoribus inuenirentur abstulisse atque seruasse, dimisisse autem in basilica Nouorum quaecumque reproba scripta haereticorum, quae cum inuenissent persecutores et abstulissent, nihil ab illo amplius postulasse. uerumtamen quosdam Carthaginiensis ordinis uiros postea suggessisse proconsuli, quod illusi fuerant qui missi erant ad christianorum scripturas auferendas et incendendas, quia non inuenerant nisi nescio quae ad eas non pertinentia, ipsas autem in domo episcopi custodiri, unde deberent proferri et incendi; proconsulem uero ad hoc eis consentire noluisse. in eisdem etiam litteris lectum est eos, qui se offerrent persecutionibus non comprehensi et ultro dicerent se habere scripturas quas non traderent, a quibus hoc nemo quaesierat, displicuisse Mensurio et ab eis honorandis eum prohibuisse christianos.","english":"Then the Donatists spoke at some length, alleging that Mensurius, who had been bishop of the Carthaginian church before Caecilian, had handed over the holy scriptures to the persecutors during the time of persecution; and to prove this, they read his letter addressed to Secundus of Tigisi, who at that time held the primacy of the bishops of Numidia. In that letter, Mensurius seemed to confess his own crime, though he had not written that he had handed over the sacred codices, but rather that he had removed and preserved them so that they would not be found by the persecutors, and that he had left in the basilica of the Novi whatever worthless writings of heretics there were, which, when the persecutors found and carried off, they demanded nothing further from him. Nevertheless, certain men of the Carthaginian order later suggested to the proconsul that those who had been sent to seize and burn the Christians' scriptures had been deceived, because they had found only some things not pertaining to them, while the scriptures themselves were being kept in the bishop's house, from where they ought to have been brought out and burned; but the proconsul had refused to consent to this. In the same letter it was also read that those who, not having been arrested, offered themselves to the persecutors and voluntarily declared that they had scriptures which they would not hand over—though no one had asked them for these—had displeased Mensurius, and that he had forbidden Christians to honor them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Mensurius","severity":"info","text":"Mensurius was the bishop of Carthage before Caecilian, during the Diocletianic persecution (303–305). His handling of scripture surrender became a key point in the Donatist controversy, as they accused him of traditio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Secundus Tigisitanus","severity":"info","text":"Secundus of Tigisi was the primate of Numidia during the persecution. His role in judging alleged traditores, including Mensurius, is central to Donatist claims of a pure church lineage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"basilica Novorum","severity":"info","text":"The 'basilica of the Novi' (basilica Novorum) was a church in Carthage, possibly named after a location or a donor. Its mention here is specific to the hiding of heretical writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"proconsul","severity":"info","text":"The proconsul of Africa at the time of the persecution had authority over the seizure of Christian scriptures. The refusal to act on the suggestion to search the bishop's house indicates legal limits or political caution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Tunc Donatistae ... praelocuti sunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative unit within the Breviculus, summarizing Donatist testimony. It follows the pattern of reporting opposing arguments before Catholic rebuttals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"uidebatur ... confiteri","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine notes that Mensurius 'seemed' (uidebatur) to confess, but the letter's actual content is ambiguous. The Donatist reading is contested; the text does not definitively prove traditio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact nature of the 'reproba scripta haereticorum' (worthless writings of heretics) is unclear—whether they were Manichaean or other texts. The identity of the 'Carthaginiensis ordinis uiri' (men of the Carthaginian order) is also unspecified; they may have been municipal officials or clergy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"quidam etiam in eadem epistula facinorosi arguebantur et fisci debitores, qui occasione persecutionis uel carere uellent onerosa multis debitis uita uel purgare se putarent et quasi abluere facinora sua uel certe adquirere pecuniam et in custodia deliciis perfrui de obsequio christianorum. crimen tamen Donatistae non ingerebant Mensurio nisi de codicibus traditis; mentitum eum quippe dicebant, quod illi non fuerint codices sancti, et peccatum suum tegere uoluisse, quamuis et ipsam fictionem criminarentur. recitarunt etiam rescripta Secundi Tigisitani ad eundem Mensurium pacifice data, ubi et ipse narrauit in Numidia persecutores quae egerint et qui comprehensi et scripturas sanctas tradere nolentes et multa mala passi et grauissimis suppliciis excruciati et occisi sunt, eosque honorandos pro martyrii sui merito commendauit, laudans eos non tradidisse scripturas sanctas illius mulieris exemplo, quae duos exploratores in Hiericho, in quibus figurarentur duo testamenta, uetus et nouum, tradere persecutoribus noluit. quod quidem exemplum si sub hac figura est intellegendum, Mensurium potius adiuuabat. in suis enim litteris Mensurius reprehendebat eos qui scripturas sanctas, quamuis eas non traderent, se tamen habere faterentur, quod mulier illa non fecit; neque enim eos exploratores qui quaerebantur apud se esse confessa est, sed negauit.","english":"Some persons, even criminals and debtors to the treasury, were accused in the same letter, who, on the occasion of the persecution, either wished to be rid of a life burdensome with many debts, or thought to purge themselves and, as it were, wash away their crimes, or certainly to acquire money and enjoy luxuries in custody from the service of Christians. Yet the Donatists brought no charge against Mensurius except concerning the delivered codices; for they said he had lied, that those were not sacred codices, and that he had wished to conceal his sin, although they also condemned the falsehood itself. They also recited the peaceful replies of Secundus of Tigisis to the same Mensurius, where he himself related what the persecutors had done in Numidia, and who had been seized and, unwilling to deliver the holy scriptures, had suffered many evils and been tortured with the most severe punishments and killed, and he commended them as worthy of honor for the merit of their martyrdom, praising them for not having delivered the holy scriptures, after the example of that woman who, in Jericho, refused to hand over the two spies, in whom the two testaments, the Old and the New, were prefigured, to the persecutors. This example, if it is to be understood under this figure, rather supported Mensurius. For in his letter Mensurius reproached those who, although they did not deliver the holy scriptures, nevertheless confessed that they had them, which that woman did not do; for she did not confess that the spies who were sought were with her, but denied it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"fisci debitores","severity":"info","text":"Debtors to the imperial treasury (fiscus) were subject to severe penalties; during persecutions, some might feign Christianity to gain protection or material support from the Christian community.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"duos exploratores in Hiericho","severity":"info","text":"The story of Rahab hiding the two spies in Jericho (Joshua 2) is interpreted typologically: the spies prefigure the Old and New Testaments, and Rahab's denial of their presence is used as a model for refusing to hand over scriptures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quidam etiam in eadem epistula facinorosi arguebantur","severity":"info","text":"Augustine reports the Donatists' reading of Mensurius's letter, then counters their interpretation by noting that the example of Rahab actually supports Mensurius's position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Mensurium potius adiuuabat","severity":"info","text":"Augustine argues that the Donatists' own cited example (Rahab) undermines their case, since Mensurius condemned those who admitted to possessing scriptures without handing them over, whereas Rahab denied possession entirely.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"codicibus traditis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'delivered codices' refers to the act of handing over sacred books to persecutors during the Diocletianic persecution, a central charge in the Donatist controversy against traditores.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'criminals and debtors' mentioned in Mensurius's letter is not specified; Augustine reports the Donatists' reading without further clarification."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"scripsit etiam Secundus et ad se ipsum missos a curatore et ordine centurionem et beneficiarium, qui peterent diuinos codices exurendos, eisque respondisse: 'christianus sum et episcopus, non traditor,' et cum ab eo uellent aliqua ecbola aut quodcumque accipere, neque hoc eis dedisse exemplo Eleazari Macchabaei, qui nec fingere uoluit suillam carnem se manducare, ne aliis praeberet praeuaricationis exemplum. hae litterae Mensnrii et Secundi donec legendo terminarentur, catholici patienter audierunt, quamuis testati fuerint eas esse familiares nec ad causam ecclesiae pertinere.\n\nCognitor ergo commonens Donatistas, ut patientiae uicem redderent, iussit perlegi quae oblata a catholicis iam ex parte fuerant recitata. hic Donatistae poposcerunt, ut prius etiam legeretur quod de causa Caeciliani offerebant. hoc quoque sine ulla difficultate catholicis permittentibus et commendantibus, quam patienter hoc permitterent, ut hoc eis et illi rependerent, iussit quod offerebatur cognitor recitari. et recitatum est a Donatistis concilium ferme septuaginta episcoporum contra Caecilianum apud Carthaginem factum, ubi eum absentem damnauerunt, quod ad eos uenire noluerit tamquam a traditoribus ordinatus, et quia, cum esset diaconus, uictum afferri martyribus in custodia constitutis prohibuisse dicebatur.","english":"Secundus also wrote that a centurion and a beneficiarius had been sent to him by the curator and the municipal council, who demanded the divine codices to be burned, and that he had replied: 'I am a Christian and a bishop, not a traditor,' and that when they wished to take from him some scrap or anything at all, he did not give this to them either, following the example of Eleazar the Maccabee, who did not even wish to pretend to eat swine's flesh, lest he provide others with an example of prevarication. These letters of Mensurius and Secundus, until they were finished being read, the Catholics patiently heard, although they testified that they were private and did not pertain to the case of the Church.\n\nTherefore the judge, reminding the Donatists to return the favor of patience, ordered to be read through what had been offered by the Catholics and had already been recited in part. Here the Donatists demanded that what they were offering concerning the case of Caecilian be read first. This also, with the Catholics permitting it without any difficulty and commending how patiently they allowed this, so that the Donatists might repay them in turn, the judge ordered what was offered to be recited. And there was recited by the Donatists a council of nearly seventy bishops against Caecilian held at Carthage, where they condemned him in his absence, because he had refused to come to them as one ordained by traditors, and because, when he was a deacon, he was said to have forbidden food to be brought to the martyrs placed in custody.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"traditor","severity":"info","text":"A traditor is one who handed over sacred scriptures or vessels to imperial authorities during the Diocletianic persecution; the term is central to the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"background","lemma":"Eleazar Macchabaeus","severity":"info","text":"The reference is to Eleazar in 2 Maccabees 6:18–31, who refused to eat pork under torture, providing a model of resistance to apostasy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"beneficiarius","severity":"info","text":"A beneficiarius was a Roman soldier granted special privileges, often serving as an orderly or messenger; here, sent with a centurion to demand the burning of scriptures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from reading Donatist letters to the judge’s reciprocal demand for Catholic documents, then to the Donatists’ introduction of the council of seventy bishops against Caecilian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"concilium ferme septuaginta episcoporum","severity":"info","text":"This council, likely the Council of Carthage (c. 312), condemned Caecilian in absentia; Augustine elsewhere argues it was procedurally invalid and biased.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'ecbola' (from Greek ἐκβολή) is ambiguous: it may mean a scrap or excerpt of scripture, or a small portion of food; the translation adopts 'scrap' as a general term."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"nominati sunt etiam quidam collegae Caeciliani, qui traditores asserebantur publicis gestis, quae tamen gesta non legebantur. inter hos autem maxime Felix Aptugnensis acerbius accusatus est, ita ut fons malorum omnium diceretur. deinde sententiae a singulis dictae sunt, primitus a Secundo Tigisitano, qui eorum princeps fuit, deinde a ceteris, quibus expresserunt se Caeciliano et collegis eius non communicare. hoc itaque concilio recitato catholici responderunt illas litteras Mensurii et Secundi ad inuicem datas satis demonstrare pacatos, nihil postea criminis de facto Mensurii uel accusatum uel iudicatum; concilium uero, quod contra Caecilianum factum legerant, non quidem habere consulem et diem, sed hinc se nullum crimen obicere, quod magis neglegentiae quam fraudis esse potuerit.\n\nSed obtulerunt idem catholici aliud concilium sub eodem (Secundo) Tigisitano habitum in ciuitate Cirtensi, cuius consul et dies cum legeretur, Donatistae dixerunt nec consulem nec diem talia solere habere decreta. hic catholici responderunt illorum esse istum forsitan morem, qui concilia sua nollent in aliqua falsitate conuinci, catholicorum autem concilia consules et dies semper habuisse. deinde coepit identidem concilium quod catholici attulerant recitari, ubi Secundus quosdam, de quorum traditione audierat, et singillatim interrogabat et eos confessos a consessu remouebat.","english":"Also named were certain colleagues of Caecilianus, who were alleged to be traditores according to public records, which records, however, were not read. Among these, however, Felix of Aptunga was accused most bitterly, so that he was called the source of all evils. Then sentences were pronounced by each individually, first by Secundus of Tigisis, who was their president, then by the rest, by which they expressed that they would not communicate with Caecilianus and his colleagues. When this council was read, the Catholics replied that those letters exchanged between Mensurius and Secundus sufficiently showed them to be peaceful, and that afterwards no charge of crime concerning the deed of Mensurius was either accused or judged; but as for the council which had been held against Caecilianus, which they had read, it indeed lacked a consul and a day, but they did not bring any charge on this account, since this could have been due more to negligence than to fraud.\n\nBut the same Catholics offered another council held under the same Secundus of Tigisis in the city of Cirta, whose consul and day were being read, when the Donatists said that neither consul nor day were accustomed to be had by such decrees. Here the Catholics replied that this was perhaps the custom of those who did not wish their councils to be convicted of any falsehood, whereas the councils of Catholics had always had consuls and days. Then the council which the Catholics had brought began to be read again, where Secundus questioned certain men, about whose tradition he had heard, one by one, and removed those who confessed from the assembly.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"traditores","severity":"info","text":"The term 'traditores' refers to those who handed over sacred scriptures to Roman authorities during the Diocletianic persecution, a central accusation in the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Felix Aptugnensis","severity":"info","text":"Felix of Aptunga was a bishop accused of being a traditor; his condemnation at the Council of Cirta (c. 305) became a key point in Donatist claims against Caecilian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"concilium ... recitato","severity":"info","text":"The passage contrasts two councils: the Donatist council lacking a consul and day, and the Catholic council with proper dating, highlighting procedural disputes over record authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"sub eodem (Secundo) Tigisitano habitum in ciuitate Cirtensi","severity":"info","text":"This refers to the Council of Cirta (c. 305), presided over by Secundus of Tigisis, which preceded the formal Donatist schism and was later cited by Catholics to expose inconsistencies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"catholici responderunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine’s account here shapes later Catholic historiography, presenting Donatist councils as procedurally flawed and their accusations as based on unverified records.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quae tamen gesta non legebantur","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine notes that the public records alleging traditio were not read in court, implying the Donatist case relied on unsubstantiated claims; the reader should not assume these records existed or were authentic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'certain colleagues of Caecilianus' is not specified; they may include bishops later named in Donatist lists.","The phrase 'fons malorum omnium' (source of all evils) is a rhetorical accusation, not a formal charge.","The Donatist objection that 'neither consul nor day were accustomed to be had by such decrees' may reflect a genuine difference in record-keeping practices, not necessarily fraud."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"quod eo modo recitabatur, ut, cum ex Cirtensi concilio lecta esset confessio traditorum,.legeretur etiam de concilio Carthaginiensi nomen eius uelut traditores in Caeciliani causa damnantis. deinde uentum est ad ipsius Secundi Tigisitani a Purpurio Liniatensi crimen obiectum, cui Purpurio idem Secundus occisos ab eo in carcere Milei filios sororis eius obiecerat; ubi ille uicissim ei crimen traditionis obiecit, dicens detentum eum fuisse a curatore et ordine, ut scripturas daret, nec eum potuisse dimitti. nisi aliquid tradidisset. hoc autem quod ei obiecit Purpurius, detentum eum fuisse a curatore et ordine, ut scripturas daret. idem Secundus in litteris, quas Mensurio rescripserat, paene confessus est, ubi ait missum ad se fuisse a curatore et ordine centurionem et beneficiarium et a se scripturas petitas uel quaelibet ecbola, quae quidem se non tradidisse dixit; sed cum ipse illic commemorauerit tot martyres, qui cum tradere noluissent excruciati et occisi sunt, quomodo ipse detentus et conuictus et nolens aliquid tradere nihil pati et dimitti potuerit, nec Mensurio scripsit nec Purpurio respondit. non enim centurioni et beneficiario dixit se scripturas non habere, sed respondit se omnino non tradere.","english":"in such a way that it was recited that, after the confession of the traditores had been read from the Council of Cirta, his name was also read from the Council of Carthage as one of those condemning the traditores in the case of Caecilianus. Then it came to the charge brought by Purpurius of Limata against Secundus of Tigisis himself, to which same Purpurius Secundus had objected that he had killed his sister's sons in the prison at Milevis; whereupon he in turn charged him with the crime of tradition, saying that he had been detained by the curator and the municipal order so that he would hand over the scriptures, and that he could not have been released unless he had handed over something. But this charge which Purpurius brought against him—that he had been detained by the curator and the municipal order to hand over the scriptures—Secundus himself almost confessed in the letter he wrote back to Mensurius, where he says that a centurion and a beneficiarius had been sent to him by the curator and the municipal order, and that the scriptures or any kind of writings had been demanded from him, which indeed he said he did not hand over; but since he himself there commemorated so many martyrs who, when they refused to hand over, were tortured and killed, how he himself, detained and convicted and unwilling to hand over anything, could have suffered nothing and been released, he neither wrote to Mensurius nor answered Purpurius. For he did not say to the centurion and the beneficiarius that he did not have the scriptures, but replied that he would not hand them over at all.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Purpurius Liniatensis","severity":"info","text":"Purpurius of Limata (Liniatensis) was a Donatist bishop who accused Secundus of Tigisis of traditio during the Council of Cirta (c. 305).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"beneficiarium","severity":"info","text":"A beneficiarius was a Roman soldier or official granted special privileges, often serving as an assistant or messenger to a magistrate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"curatore et ordine","severity":"info","text":"The curator and ordo (municipal council) were local authorities in Roman cities; their involvement shows the official pressure on clergy during the Diocletianic persecution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine contrasts Secundus's letter to Mensurius with his silence on how he escaped persecution, highlighting a logical inconsistency in his defense.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage was used by Augustine to undermine the Donatist claim of a pure church, by showing their own leader Secundus was implicated in traditio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'curator' and the location of Milevis (Milevum) are not specified; the reading assumes standard Roman administrative roles."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"quod illi auditum quomodo illo dimisso renuntiare potuerint sine suo exitio, non apparet, praesertim quia idem Secundus non quoslibet infimos, sed etiam patres familias, cum hoc idem persecutoribus respondissent, crudelissimis mortibus dixit occisos. sed de hac re catholici nullum Secundo crimen obiecerunt, sed tantummodo quod ei Purpurius obiecit et propter quod pacem, ne schisma fieret, omnia illa deo dimittens cum traditoribus fecit, recitari uoluerunt, ut quales homines in absentem Caecilianum sententias dixerint appareret.\n\nHoc autem recitato petierunt catholici, ut etiam illa quae dilata fuerant legerentur, (inde asserentes posse monstrari, quid de Caeciliano gestum sit quidue sentiendum) de concilio Carthaginiensi, in quo lectum fuerat absentem Caecilianum a multis episcopis fuisse damnatum. (contra Donatistae catholicos urgebant, ut uerum esse faterentur) [hoc] illud concilium, quia catholici recitauerant relationes Anullini proconsulis, quibus appareret chartas criminum Caeciliani Constantino imperatori esse transmissas, quod utique agentes confirmauerunt a maioribus suis Caecilianum apud imperatorem accusatum.","english":"that it is not apparent how, after he was dismissed, they could have reported what they heard without their own destruction, especially since the same Secundus said that even heads of households, not just the lowliest, were killed by the most cruel deaths when they gave the same answer to the persecutors. But on this matter the Catholics brought no charge against Secundus, but only wished to have recited what Purpurius charged him with, and because of which, in order to prevent a schism, he made peace with the traditores, leaving all that to God, so that it might appear what sort of men had pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian.\n\nAfter this was recited, the Catholics asked that the matters which had been postponed be read as well, asserting that from them it could be shown what had been done concerning Caecilian and what was to be thought, from the Council of Carthage, in which it had been read that the absent Caecilian had been condemned by many bishops. (Against this, the Donatists pressed the Catholics to admit that that council was genuine, because the Catholics had recited the reports of the proconsul Anullinus, by which it appeared that the documents of the charges against Caecilian had been sent to the emperor Constantine, which the agents certainly confirmed, that their predecessors had accused Caecilian before the emperor.)","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Secundus","severity":"info","text":"Secundus of Tigisis was the primate of Numidia who presided over the Council of Cirta (c. 305) and later the Council of Carthage (312) that condemned Caecilian. His role in making peace with the traditores is a key point in Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"traditores","severity":"info","text":"Traditores (Latin: 'those who handed over') refers to Christians who surrendered sacred scriptures to Roman authorities during the Diocletianic persecution. The Donatists claimed that such persons were invalid as clergy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Purpurius of Limata","severity":"info","text":"Purpurius of Limata was a Numidian bishop accused of murder during the persecution. His charge against Secundus of Tigisis, mentioned here, was that Secundus had killed people who refused to hand over scriptures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Hoc autem recitato","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a transition in the narrative: after the recitation of the charge against Secundus, the Catholics request the reading of postponed materials from the Council of Carthage, shifting the focus to the condemnation of Caecilian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Anullinus","severity":"info","text":"Anullinus was the proconsul of Africa in 312–313 who forwarded the Donatist charges against Caecilian to Emperor Constantine. His reports (relationes) are cited here as evidence that the Donatists had initiated the imperial appeal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"contra Donatistae catholicos urgebant, ut uerum esse faterentur","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin syntax is compressed and the English draft supplies a parenthetical clarification. The sense is that the Donatists pressed the Catholics to admit the genuineness of the Council of Carthage, but the text may be read as a counter-argument embedded in the narrative.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'contra Donatistae catholicos urgebant' could be read as the Donatists urging the Catholics, or as a general statement of opposition; the English draft adopts the former reading."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"responsum est autem a catholicis illud Carthaginiense concilium sic non praeiudicare absenti Caeciliano, quemadmodum non praeiudicauit absenti Primiano concilium eorum, a quibus in Maximiani causa damnatus est, quoniam magis tenuit pars Donati, quod actum est postea pro Primiano, quam illius concilii auctoritatem, quo fuerat ante damnatus; sic ergo et in Caeciliani causa debere attendi quod postea gestum est. hic Donatistae de Maximiani causa coartati dixerunt nec causam causae nec personam praeiudicare personae. quam sententiam in ore habere solent omnes catholici, cum Donatistae aliorum crimina aliis obicientes suam separationem defenderent et orbem christianum nescio quibus Afrorum criminibus accusarent. nam et ista collatione totum quod egerant catholici, ut ecclesiae causam a causa Caeciliani distinguerent, asserentes in ecclesia permixtos malos non obesse bonis nec eos suis maculare peccatis, hoc utique egerant, ut nec causa causae praeiudicaret nec persona personae. quod ab aduersariis. dum aliud ageretur, uoce apertissima confirmatum est. sed cognitor cum quaesisset, quid de Carthaginiensi concilio catholici responderent, iterum responderunt non esse contemnendam similitudinem causae Primiani, quia et dominus Christus Iudaeos de factis eorum conuincens perducebat ad uerum.","english":"The Catholics replied that the Council of Carthage did not prejudice the absent Caecilian, just as the council of those who condemned Primian in the case of Maximian did not prejudice the absent Primian, because the Donatist party held more firmly to what was done later for Primian than to the authority of the council by which he had previously been condemned; thus, in the case of Caecilian as well, what was done later ought to be considered. Here the Donatists, pressed on the case of Maximian, said that neither does one case prejudice another case nor one person prejudice another person. This is a saying that all Catholics are accustomed to have on their lips when the Donatists, charging others with the crimes of still others, defended their own separation and accused the Christian world of some African crimes or other. For even in this conference, everything that the Catholics had done to distinguish the cause of the Church from the cause of Caecilian—asserting that evil men mixed in the Church do not harm the good nor stain them with their sins—they had done this precisely so that neither one case would prejudice another case nor one person another person. This was confirmed by the adversaries with the clearest voice, while something else was being discussed. But when the judge asked what the Catholics replied concerning the Council of Carthage, they answered again that the similarity of the case of Primian was not to be despised, because even the Lord Christ, convicting the Jews by their own deeds, led them to the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"nec causam causae nec personam praeiudicare personae","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists' maxim, that neither case nor person prejudices another, is quoted by Augustine as a concession that undermines their own position, since they had earlier used the Maximianist schism to argue for the invalidity of Caecilian's ordination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Carthaginiense concilium","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Carthage (c. 312) that condemned Caecilian is here contrasted with the later Donatist council that reinstated Primian, showing Augustine's argument that later actions override earlier ones in ecclesiastical judgments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"et dominus Christus Iudaeos de factis eorum conuincens perducebat ad uerum","severity":"info","text":"Augustine compares the Catholic argument from the Primian case to Christ's method of convicting Jews by their own deeds, a rhetorical strategy that aligns with patristic exegesis of Jesus' debates with Pharisees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"sed cognitor cum quaesisset","severity":"info","text":"The judge's intervention here marks a shift from the Donatist concession back to the Catholic response, structuring the narrative as a back-and-forth exchange typical of the conference proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"quam sententiam in ore habere solent omnes catholici","severity":"info","text":"Augustine notes that the Donatist maxim was commonly used by Catholics in anti-Donatist polemic, indicating its widespread reception as a standard argument for the Church's unity despite sinners within.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quod ab aduersariis. dum aliud ageretur, uoce apertissima confirmatum est","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has a period after 'aduersariis' that may be a scribal or editorial insertion; the sense is that the Donatists confirmed the Catholic point inadvertently while discussing another matter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quod ab aduersariis. dum aliud ageretur' could be read as a single clause ('what was confirmed by the adversaries while something else was being discussed') or as two separate statements; the edition's punctuation suggests a break, but the sense is clear from context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Deinde Donatistae longa prosecutione agebant, ut ex illius auctoritate Carthaginiensis concilii confirmaretur Caeciliani damnatio, quod ad tot sacerdotes uenire noluerit — quasi non et Primianus ad eos, a quibus damnatus est, cum eorum factionem cognosceret, simili uoluntate non uenerit —, et quod non expectauerit Caecilianus, ut princeps a principe ordinaretur, cum aliud habeat ecclesiae catholicae consuetudo, ut non Numidiae, sed propinquiores episcopi episcopum ecclesiae Carthaginis ordinent, sicut nec Romanae ecclesiae episcopum) ordinat aliquis episcopus metropolitanus, sed de proximo Ostiensis episcopus. hoc autem dicentes de sua consuetudine, quam nescio quando instituerunt, ecclesiae catholicae praeiudicare conabantur; quae consuetudo si antiqua esset, hoc ipsum obiecissent Caeciliano, quando eum absentem damnauerunt. dixerunt etiam scripsisse Optatum, quod Caecilianus dixerit: (si traditores sunt qui me ordinauerunt, ipsi ueniant et ordinent me.' quod quidem si dictum est, ideo dici potuit ad illos irridendos quibus hoc mandasse perhibetur, quoniam certus erat ordinatores suos non esse traditores. non enim ait: (quia traditores sunt', sed: (si traditores sunt', ut innocentia eorum probanda restaret ubi probari recte po-, tuisset.","english":"Then the Donatists argued at length, seeking to have Caecilian's condemnation confirmed by the authority of that Council of Carthage, on the grounds that he had refused to come before so many priests—as if Primian also had not, with similar willingness, failed to come to those by whom he was condemned, once he recognized their faction—and that Caecilian had not waited to be ordained by a primate, whereas the custom of the Catholic Church is otherwise, namely that the bishops of the church of Carthage are ordained not by the bishop of Numidia but by the nearer bishops, just as the bishop of the Roman church is ordained not by any metropolitan bishop but by the bishop of Ostia, who is nearby. In saying this, however, they were trying to prejudice the Catholic Church on the basis of their own custom, which I know not when they instituted; if that custom were ancient, they would have objected it to Caecilian himself when they condemned him in his absence. They also said that Optatus had written that Caecilian said: \"If those who ordained me are traditors, let them come and ordain me.\" But if this was said, it could have been said to mock those to whom he is reported to have given this instruction, since he was certain that his ordainers were not traditors. For he did not say: \"Because they are traditors,\" but: \"If they are traditors,\" so that their innocence would remain to be proven where it could rightly be proven.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Carthaginiensis concilii","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Carthage (ca. 312) condemned Caecilian for alleged traditio during the Diocletianic persecution. The Donatists appealed to its authority, but the Catholics argued it was invalid because Caecilian was absent and unrepresented.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Primianus","severity":"info","text":"Augustine draws a parallel between the Donatist treatment of Primian (condemned in absentia by Maximianists, later reinstated) and the Catholic case of Caecilian. The Donatists upheld Primian's later vindication, so consistency required them to accept Caecilian's similar position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Ostiensis episcopus","severity":"info","text":"The bishop of Ostia traditionally ordained the bishop of Rome, a practice Augustine cites to show that proximity, not metropolitan rank, governed ordination in the Catholic Church. This counters the Donatist claim that Caecilian should have been ordained by the primate of Numidia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Optatus","severity":"info","text":"Augustine refers to Optatus of Milevis, a Catholic writer (ca. 370), who recorded Caecilian's alleged conditional statement. Augustine uses this to argue that Caecilian's words were hypothetical, not an admission of guilt, and that the Donatists misrepresented them.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Deinde ... agebant","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative of the Donatist arguments, following the Catholic reply in the previous passage. Augustine structures the debate as a series of exchanges, each side responding to the other's points.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'princeps' (primate) is ambiguous: it could refer to the primate of Numidia or a more general metropolitan authority. Augustine's argument relies on the Catholic custom of ordination by nearby bishops, not a specific primate.","The source of the Donatist custom is left vague ('nescio quando instituerunt'), and Augustine does not specify whether it was a recent innovation or a misinterpretation of older practice."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"Ad haec et si qua alia prolixa prosecutione dixerunt, breuiter responderunt catholici non sufficere ad causam Caeciliani Carthaginiense concilium ipsos etiam iudicasse, 'qui eam ad imperatorem accusando miserunt, et sic demonstrarunt hoc potius esse spectandum, quod res peruenerit usque ad imperatoris sententiam, cui eandem causam mittendam duxerunt. hoc enim catholici instabant, ut omnibus morarum umbraculis amputatis illa potius legerentur, quibus lectis olim causa finita et Caeciliani innocentia manifestata luce clarius appareret. quae Donatistae ut legerentur omnino nolentes quidlibet aliud interponendo impediebant. nam cum cognitor quaesisset, utrum prius esset factum Carthaginiense concilium et postea missa fuerit ad imperatorem causa Caeciliani, dixerunt catholici, quoniam consulem et diem illud concilium non haberet, ad utrumque se respondere: quia, si prius causa ad imperatorem missa est, quo exitu terminata sit spectari oportere, si autem postea, nihilominus non istorum, sed illius iudicium esse quaerendum, quo eam post iudicium suum mittendam putarunt.","english":"To these and whatever else they said in a lengthy speech, the Catholics briefly replied that the Council of Carthage was not sufficient for the case of Caecilian, since they themselves had judged it, 'who sent the case to the emperor by accusing, and thus showed that what ought to be considered is rather the outcome to which the matter came, up to the emperor's sentence, to which they thought the same case should be sent. For the Catholics insisted that, once all the screens of delay were cut away, those documents should rather be read, by the reading of which the case had long ago been finished and the innocence of Caecilian appeared clearer than daylight. The Donatists, not wanting these to be read at all, hindered this by interposing anything else whatever. For when the judge asked whether the Council of Carthage had been held first and the case of Caecilian had been sent to the emperor afterwards, the Catholics said that, since that council had no consul and day, they would answer both ways: because, if the case was sent to the emperor first, the outcome by which it was terminated ought to be considered; but if afterwards, nonetheless the judgment not of these men but of that one was to be sought, by which they thought it should be sent after their own judgment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"morarum umbraculis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'morarum umbraculis' (screens of delay) is a rhetorical metaphor for procedural obstacles, likely drawn from legal or forensic language.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"'Cognitor' refers to the imperial judge or commissioner presiding over the hearing, a technical term in Roman legal procedure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Carthaginiense concilium","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Carthage (c. 312) was a gathering of Numidian bishops that condemned Caecilian; its authority was contested by the Catholics in the subsequent imperial inquiry.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"si prius ... si autem postea","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics present a disjunctive argument (if before / if after) to undermine the Donatist reliance on the Council of Carthage, showing that in either case the imperial judgment is decisive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"luce clarius","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'luce clarius' (clearer than light) is a common Latin idiom for evident truth, used here to assert Caecilian's innocence as manifest.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'qui eam ad imperatorem accusando miserunt' could be read as 'who sent the case to the emperor by accusing' or 'who, by accusing, sent it to the emperor'; the sense is that the council itself referred the matter to imperial judgment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"sed cum multa Donatistae insererent de consule et die, cur in suorum maiorum concilio non legeretur, ne hinc falsitatis arguerentur, et assererent hanc esse ecclesiasticam consuetudinem, ne dies et consules decretis episcoporum conscriberentur, legi uolentes etiam concilium Cypriani, ut hoc probarent, quia nihil aliud nisi morae quaerebantur — neque enim catholici in eo causam suam constituerant quando ad utrumque responderant, siue prius siue posterius esset illud concilium, quod contra Caecilianum apud Carthaginem fecerant —, iussit cognitor catholicis instantibus, ut ista potius quae dilata fuerant legerentur.\n\nTunc Donatistae aliam quaestionem interposuerunt morarum plenissimam, sed re uera in qua pro se laborare uoluerunt, si possent ostendere quod uolebant, illud scilicet Cirtense concilium falsum esse, ubi lectae fuerant confessiones traditorum inuicem sibi ignoscentium, ne schisma fieret, quia ipsi legebantur inter ceteros contra Caecilianum absentem sententias protulisse. hoc ergo falsum demonstrare conantes multa dixerunt, sed alia leuia esse ipsi iudicantes duo quaedam in ea quaestione multum commendauerunt et in eis multum immorati sunt: unum, quia contra ecclesiasticam consuetudinem ipsum Cirtense concilium diem et consulem haberet, alterum autem, quod persecutionis tempore non posset concilium congregari.","english":"But when the Donatists kept inserting many things about the consul and the day, why it was not read in the council of their own predecessors, lest they be accused of falsehood on this account, and they asserted that it was ecclesiastical custom that days and consuls not be written into the decrees of bishops, wanting even the council of Cyprian to be read to prove this, because nothing else was being sought but delays—for the Catholics had not placed their case in this, when they had responded to both, whether that council which they had held against Caecilian at Carthage was earlier or later—the judge ordered, at the insistence of the Catholics, that those matters which had been postponed be read instead.\n\nThen the Donatists interposed another question full of delays, but one in which they truly wished to labor on their own behalf, if they could show what they wanted, namely that the Council of Cirta was false, where the confessions of the traditors forgiving one another had been read, lest a schism occur, because they themselves were read among others to have pronounced sentences against the absent Caecilian. Therefore, trying to demonstrate this to be false, they said many things, but judging some of them to be trivial, they strongly commended two particular points in that question and dwelt on them at length: one, that contrary to ecclesiastical custom, the Council of Cirta itself had a day and a consul; the other, that a council could not be gathered during a time of persecution.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"concilium Cirtense","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Cirta (c. 305) was a gathering of Numidian bishops who reconciled traditors during the Diocletianic persecution. Its records were later used by Donatists to attack Caecilian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor denotes the imperial official presiding over the hearing, here likely the proconsul or a delegate, who had authority to order procedural matters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"morae","severity":"info","text":"Augustine frames Donatist procedural objections (consul, day, conciliar custom) as deliberate delays (morae), a rhetorical strategy to dismiss their arguments as obstructionist.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"concilium Cypriani","severity":"info","text":"The council of Cyprian likely refers to the Council of Carthage (256) under Cyprian, which did not record consular dates, used by Donatists to argue that such dating was uncanonical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Cirtense concilium falsum","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine reports Donatist claims that the Cirta council records were forged, but does not adjudicate the charge. The historicity of the council is debated; the records survive only in Donatist sources.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"ecclesiasticam consuetudinem","severity":"info","text":"The Donatist appeal to ecclesiastical custom against dating conciliar decrees reflects a known practice in early African councils, later abandoned; Augustine uses this to highlight their procedural nitpicking.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the cognitor is not specified; the text implies an imperial judge but does not name him.","The phrase 'concilium Cypriani' could refer to multiple councils under Cyprian; the context suggests the 256 Carthage council."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"exigebant ergo Donatistae a catholicis, ut uel alia concilia proferrent antiqua episcoporum, ubi ostenderent consules et dies etiam conscriptos, uel de ipsis sanctis scripturis tale aliquid recitarent. ubi catholici cum uiderent de re inanissima moras mirabiles et inexplicabiles interponi — quis enim eos hinc falsitatem crederet obiecturos, ubi ad maiorem diligentiam temporum attestatio praenotata legeretur, ne forte per hanc esset aliquando necessaria indagatio ueritatis? quis ergo eos crederet hoc obiecturos, ut praepararet antiqua concilia, quibus hanc consuetudinem demonstraret? aut quis tunc iret et uetusta ecclesiastica archiua reuolueret? —, cum hoc uiderent catholici, et in Miltiadis concilio diem et consulem demonstrabant et de ipsis sanctis scripturis commemorauerunt prophetas indicia antiquissimorum temporum suis litteris praenotasse, quoto anno cuius regis, quoto mense anni, quoto die mensis factum esset super eos uerbum domini. cognitor autem illud de die et consule obiectum contemnendum et remouendum existimans iussit gesta apud Miltiadem habita cetera recitari, et recitata sunt. quibus apparuit omnium qui tunc consederant episcoporum sententiis et ipsius Miltiadis Caecilianum absolutum atque purgatum, Donatum uero damnatam, qui praesens in prima fuerat actione conuictus, ille ille a Casis Nigris, quem praesentem fuisse tunc constitit.","english":"Therefore, the Donatists demanded from the Catholics that they either produce other ancient councils of bishops, where consuls and days were also recorded, or recite something of that kind from the holy Scriptures themselves. When the Catholics saw that extraordinary and inexplicable delays were being interposed over a most trivial matter—for who would believe that they would object to falsehood here, where a notation of times was read for greater diligence, lest perhaps through this a necessary investigation of the truth might sometimes be required? Who, then, would believe that they would object to this, so that ancient councils might be prepared to demonstrate this custom? Or who would then go and unroll ancient ecclesiastical archives?—when the Catholics saw this, they both demonstrated the day and consul in the Council of Miltiades and recalled from the holy Scriptures themselves that the prophets had prefixed indications of the most ancient times in their writings, in which year of which king, in which month of the year, on which day of the month the word of the Lord had come upon them. The judge, however, deeming that objection about the day and consul to be contemptible and to be removed, ordered the rest of the acts held before Miltiades to be recited, and they were recited. From these it appeared that, by the sentences of all the bishops who had then sat and of Miltiades himself, Caecilianus had been acquitted and cleared, but Donatus had been condemned—that Donatus from Casis Nigris, who had been present and convicted in the first hearing, and it was then established that he had been present.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"exigebant ergo Donatistae a catholicis, ut uel alia concilia proferrent antiqua episcoporum, ubi ostenderent consules et dies etiam conscriptos, uel de ipsis sa","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists demand that the Catholics produce either ancient councils with consular dates and days, or scriptural examples of such dating, as a test of the council's authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"in Miltiadis concilio diem et consulem demonstrabant","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Miltiades (313 AD) was a Roman synod that acquitted Caecilianus and condemned Donatus of Casae Nigrae, a key event in the Donatist schism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"prophetas indicia antiquissimorum temporum suis litteris praenotasse, quoto anno cuius regis, quoto mense anni, quoto die mensis factum esset super eos uerbum d","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics cite prophetic books (e.g., Jeremiah, Ezekiel) that date oracles by regnal year, month, and day, as precedent for recording consuls and days in church records.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor autem illud de die et consule obiectum contemnendum et remouendum existimans iussit gesta apud Miltiadem habita cetera recitari","severity":"info","text":"The judge dismisses the Donatist objection as trivial and orders the full acts of Miltiades' council to be read, resolving the procedural delay.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ille ille a Casis Nigris","severity":"info","text":"The repetition 'ille ille' emphasizes the identity of Donatus of Casae Nigrae, distinguishing him from other Donatist leaders and underscoring his personal condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'ille ille a Casis Nigris' may be a textual repetition for emphasis or a scribal error; the reading taken is emphatic identification."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Sed hoc recitato cum quaereretur a Donatistis, quid responderent ad illud Cirtense concilium, eo redierunt conantes falsum esse monstrare, cum dixerunt tempore persecutionis congregari non potuisse concilium. quod cognitor non contempsit et ualidum existimans a catholicis responsionem poposcit atque inter haec quaesiuit, unde probaretur tempus fuisse persecutionis. tunc Donatistae protulerunt martyrum gesta, ubi auditi et pro confessione passi sunt. iussit etiam cognitor computare officium et renuntiare consideratis utrisque consulibus et diebus, et qui de concilio Cirtensi et qui de gestis martyrum legebantur, quia dictum fuerat a catholicis post illorum martyrum passionem, unde persecutionis tempus probabatur, prope annum consecutum fuisse usque ad consulem et diem concilii Cirtensis. responsio autem computantis officii mensem interfuisse suggesserat. uoluerunt grgo catholici de tabulis tolli quod dixerant, ut hoc solum gesta retinerent quod officium responderat — hoc enim uerius esse crediderant —, sed Donatistae quod a catholicis dictum erat noluerunt de tabulis tolli, unde catholici non contenderunt, ut eorum in hoc calumniosus animus appareret.","english":"After this had been read out, when the Donatists were asked what they would reply to that Council of Cirta, they returned to the attempt to show it was false, saying that a council could not have been gathered during a time of persecution. The judge did not disregard this and, considering it valid, demanded a response from the Catholics, and in the midst of this asked how it could be proven that it was a time of persecution. Then the Donatists produced the acts of the martyrs, where they were heard and suffered for their confession. The judge also ordered the court office to calculate and report, after considering both sets of consuls and days—those read from the Council of Cirta and those from the acts of the martyrs—because the Catholics had said that after the passion of those martyrs, by which the time of persecution was proven, nearly a year had elapsed up to the consul and day of the Council of Cirta. However, the response of the calculating office suggested that a month had intervened. The Catholics therefore wished to have what they had said removed from the records, so that the proceedings would retain only what the office had responded—for they believed this to be truer—but the Donatists refused to have what the Catholics had said removed from the records, whereupon the Catholics did not contest it, so that the Donatists' malicious intent in this matter would be apparent.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Cirtense concilium","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Cirta (c. 305) was a gathering of Numidian bishops that elected Silvanus as bishop of Cirta; its legitimacy was disputed by Donatists, who claimed it could not have met during the Diocletianic persecution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"Cognitor here denotes the imperial judge presiding over the conference; in late Roman legal procedure, the cognitor heard evidence and rendered a decision, as Augustine describes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"eo redierunt conantes falsum esse monstrare","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a narrative return: the Donatists, after the reading of the Cirta council, revert to their earlier strategy of alleging forgery, creating a circular argumentative structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"prope annum ... mensem interfuisse","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics initially claimed nearly a year separated the martyrs' passion from the Cirta council, but the court office calculated only a month; this discrepancy became a point of contention.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"catholici ... noluerunt contenderunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine presents the Catholics' willingness to let the erroneous statement stand as a demonstration of Donatist malice, a rhetorical move that shapes the reader's view of Donatist procedural obstruction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"uoluerunt ... de tabulis tolli","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'de tabulis tolli' refers to erasing a statement from the official record (tabulae). The text implies the Catholics sought correction, but the Donatists blocked it; the exact legal mechanism is not detailed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'prope annum consecutum fuisse' is ambiguous: it could mean 'nearly a year had elapsed' or 'nearly a year had been reached'; the translation adopts the former. The office's calculation of 'mensem interfuisse' (a month had intervened) is also imprecise—whether a full month or part of a month is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"porro autem illud erat uerius quod catholici dixerant, officium autem in computando errans falsum renuntiauerat, quod postea conscripta et diligentius considerata gesta docuerunt, sicut potest probare quem libuerit legere et non piguerit computare. nam gesta martyrum, quibus ostendebatur tempus persecutionis, consulibus facta sunt Diocletiano nouies et Maximiano octies pridie Idus Februarias, gesta autem episcopalia decreti Cirtensis post eorundem consulatum tertio Nonas Martias, ac per hoc tredecim menses interesse inueniuntur, plures utique quam undecim, quos prius catholici minus diligenter computando responderant; sed officium ut falleretur et mensem interesse responderet, eundem consulatum putauit, 'post consulatum' autem non aduertit, ubi annus iam alius agebatur. proinde catholici tamquam ex uera officii responsione cogebantur ostendere tempore persecutionis illos undecim uel duodecim episcopos in domum priuatam conuenire potuisse, Donatistis instantibus, ut hoc ex aliis conciliis ostenderent, si aliquo tempore persecutionis facta episcoporum concilia reperire potuissent.","english":"But the truer account was what the Catholics had said, while the official, erring in his calculation, had made a false report, as the records, when later transcribed and more carefully examined, showed—as anyone who cares to read and is not too lazy to calculate can verify. For the martyrs’ acts, by which the time of the persecution was demonstrated, were dated to the consulship of Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximian for the eighth time, on the day before the Ides of February; the episcopal acts of the Council of Cirta, however, were dated to the third day before the Nones of March after the same consulship. And by this reckoning, an interval of thirteen months is found—more, indeed, than the eleven months which the Catholics had earlier answered, calculating less carefully. But the official, so that he might be deceived and answer that an interval of one month existed, thought it was the same consulship and did not notice the phrase “after the consulship,” where another year was already in progress. Consequently, the Catholics, on the basis of what seemed to be the true response of the official, were compelled to show that during the time of the persecution those eleven or twelve bishops could have assembled in a private house, while the Donatists insisted that they should demonstrate this from other councils, if they could find any councils of bishops held at some time during the persecution.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The consular dates given (Diocletian IX and Maximian VIII, pridie Idus Februarias) correspond to 17 February 304, a period of the Great Persecution. The Council of Cirta is dated to 5 March 305 (tertio Nonas Martias post consulatum), showing a thirteen-month gap.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"officium","severity":"info","text":"Here 'officium' refers to the administrative bureau or official responsible for recording and calculating consular dates, not a moral duty. Augustine contrasts its erroneous report with the more accurate later examination of the gesta.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage resolves the chronological dispute introduced earlier: the Catholic initial miscalculation (eleven months) is corrected to thirteen months, and the official's error is explained as a failure to note 'post consulatum' indicating a new year.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine invites readers to verify the calculation themselves ('sicut potest probare quem libuerit legere et non piguerit computare'), reflecting his rhetorical strategy of appealing to documentary evidence and rational scrutiny against Donatist claims.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'undecim uel duodecim episcopos' shows Augustine's uncertainty about the exact number of bishops at Cirta; the Donatists' insistence on a precise count may be part of their polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'officium' (which specific official or bureau) is not specified; Augustine treats it as a generic administrative error."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"quod catholici quoniam tunc inquirere et ad horam ueteres chartas in archiuis ecclesiasticis discutere non poterant, respondebant multo facilius duodecim homines in domum conuenire potuisse eo tempore, quo etiam congregationes plebium fieri solebant quamuis persecutione feruente, sicut ipsis gestis martyrum monstrabatur, qui confitebantur in passionibus suis se collectam et dominicum egisse. hoc autem catholici dixerant et antequam supputaret et responderet officium. dictum est etiam a catholicis episcopalia gesta illa Cirtensia, quae diligentia maiorum usque ad haec tempora seruari et inueniri potuerint, sic habenda, quemadmodum illae epistulae Mensurii et Secundi quas Donatistae recitauerunt. concilium quippe Carthaginiense, ubi absentem Caecilianum septuaginta damnauerunt, commemoratum est etiam a Miltiade habitum, ubi Caecilianus est absolutus. litterae uero illae Mensurii et Secundi nusquam alibi commemoratae dicebantur, unde nullo alio testimonio ueritas earum asserebatur, nec tamen ideo dicebant catholici falsas esse. dictum est etiam hoc a catholicis,' ut probarent Donatistae, si possent, tempore persecutionis sic ad se inuicem scripsisse episcopos, quemadmodum Mensurium et Secundum scripsisse proferebant.","english":"that the Catholics, since they could not at that time investigate and examine the old documents in the church archives on the spot, replied that it was much easier for twelve men to have gathered in a house at that time, when even congregations of the people were accustomed to be held, although the persecution was raging, as was shown by the very acts of the martyrs, who confessed in their passions that they had held a gathering and celebrated the Lord's day. This, however, the Catholics had said before the official calculated and replied. It was also said by the Catholics that those episcopal acts of Cirta, which the diligence of our ancestors had been able to preserve and discover down to these times, were to be regarded in the same way as those letters of Mensurius and Secundus which the Donatists recited. For the Council of Carthage, where seventy condemned the absent Caecilian, was also mentioned as having been held by Miltiades, where Caecilian was acquitted. But those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were said to be nowhere else mentioned, whence the truth of them was asserted by no other testimony, yet the Catholics did not on that account say they were false. It was also said by the Catholics that the Donatists should prove, if they could, that during the time of persecution bishops wrote to each other in the same way as they produced Mensurius and Secundus as having written.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"dominicum egisse","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'dominicum egisse' (celebrated the Lord's day) refers to the Eucharist or Sunday liturgy, a key point in Donatist claims that worship continued during persecution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"episcopalia gesta illa Cirtensia","severity":"info","text":"The 'episcopal acts of Cirta' likely refer to records of the Council of Cirta (c. 305), which dealt with traditores during the Diocletianic persecution, a central issue in the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"concilium Carthaginiense ... a Miltiade habitum","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Carthage (311) under Pope Miltiades acquitted Caecilian, a decision later upheld by the Council of Arles (314). Augustine contrasts this with the earlier Donatist council of 70 bishops that condemned him.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hoc autem catholici dixerant et antequam supputaret et responderet officium","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a narrative aside: Augustine notes that the Catholic argument was made before the official calculation, emphasizing the sequence of the debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"litterae uero illae Mensurii et Secundi nusquam alibi commemoratae","severity":"info","text":"Augustine’s argument that the letters of Mensurius and Secundus lack external corroboration reflects a standard Catholic tactic in the Donatist controversy: demanding independent verification of documents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'episcopalia gesta illa Cirtensia' could refer to specific acts of the Council of Cirta or to a broader collection of episcopal records from Cirta; the exact referent is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"quod non ideo dicebant catholici, ut hinc illas Mensurii et Secundi litteras falsas esse monstrarent, quae seu uerae seu falsae essent causae nihil officerent, sed ut hinc intellegerent Donatistae, quam uana tergiuersatione catholicos cogerent alia proferre concilia persecutionis tempore congregata, quia, si eis simili obstinatione diceretur: 'proferte et uos alias epistulas persecutionis tempore sic scriptas et missas, quae si aliquo modo deprehenderentur et codices occultati exigi possent, et ordo et curator et centurio et beneficiarius ad discrimen capitis peruenirent, qui Secundum tradere nolentem impunitum dimisisse prodebantur', nullo modo ad horam reperirent alias epistulas tempore per-. secutionis ab episcopis ad episcopos in tam longinqua terrarum similiter datas.","english":"They did not say this, the Catholics, in order thereby to show that those letters of Mensurius and Secundus were false—which, whether true or false, would in no way harm the case—but so that the Donatists might understand from this with what empty tergiversation they were compelling the Catholics to produce other councils gathered at the time of persecution, because, if it were said to them with similar obstinacy: 'Produce also other letters written and sent in such a manner at the time of persecution, which, if they were in any way discovered, and the hidden codices could be demanded, then the *ordo*, the *curator*, the *centurio*, and the *beneficiarius* would come to the peril of their lives—those who were proved to have let Secundus go unpunished when he was unwilling to hand over the scriptures'—they would in no way find at that hour other letters given in like manner at the time of persecution from bishops to bishops in such distant lands.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ordo","severity":"info","text":"The Latin term 'ordo' here refers to the municipal council or the order of decurions, a local governing body in Roman cities.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"curator","severity":"info","text":"'Curator' denotes a municipal official responsible for public works or finances, often appointed by the imperial government.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"beneficiarius","severity":"info","text":"'Beneficiarius' was a Roman soldier granted special privileges, often serving as an administrative assistant to a higher officer.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Secundum tradere nolentem impunitum dimisisse","severity":"info","text":"This refers to the Donatist claim that Secundus of Tigisis, a primate, failed to punish traditors during the Diocletianic persecution, a key point in the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quod non ideo dicebant catholici... sed ut hinc intellegerent Donatistae","severity":"info","text":"This passage uses a corrective structure ('not in order to... but so that') to clarify the Catholic argument, emphasizing rhetorical strategy over substantive proof.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"nullo modo ad horam reperirent","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ad horam' (at that hour) suggests an immediate, on-the-spot demand, highlighting the impracticality of the Donatist challenge rather than a categorical impossibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'codices occultati' could refer to hidden copies of the scriptures or to the letters themselves; the translation takes it as the former, but the context allows either."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"Cum ergo hinc diuturna conflictatio fieret, saepe repetentibus Donatistis non potuisse tempore persecutionis conoilium congregari ad episcopum ordinandum, quia in apostasia erat mundus nec erant quibus ordinaretur et cetera talia, catholicis autem respondentibus, quod et episcopi facile congregarentur tam pauci, ut nec concilium dici debeat, quando plebes congregabantur, sicut gesta martyrum testarentur, et erant sine dubio quibus ordinarentur episcopi, ipsae utique plebes quas tunc solitas congregari gesta martyrum loquebantur: haec cum assidue multis et uariis modis dicerentur et responderentur — nam et domum priuatam christianis congregandis praestitam constitit tempore persecutionis, sicut in quibusdam gestis martyrum legebatur, quia Donatistae dixerunt fieri non potuisse, ut illo tempore domum suam quisquam praeberet, et commemoratum est usque adeo non esse incredibile, quod in priuatam domum pauci illi episcopi persecutionis tempore conuenerunt, ut feruente persecutione etiam in carcere doceantur baptizati martyres et illic a christianis celebrata sacramenta, ubi christiani propter eadem sacramenta tenebantur inclusi —, inter haec ergo tandem aliquando saepe etiam cognitor interlocutus fieri potuisse illum conuentum ab episcopis, quando et plebes congregatae probabantur, compulit Donatistas, ut contra concilium iudiciumque Miltiadis, quo Caecilianus purgatus atque","english":"Therefore, when a lengthy dispute arose over this, with the Donatists repeatedly insisting that during the time of persecution a council could not have been gathered to ordain a bishop, because the world was in apostasy and there were no people for whom an ordination could be performed, and other such things, and with the Catholics responding that even so few bishops could easily have been gathered together that it should not even be called a council, when congregations were being gathered, as the acts of the martyrs testified, and there were undoubtedly people for whom bishops could be ordained, namely those very congregations which the acts of the martyrs said were customarily gathered at that time—when these things were being said and responded to repeatedly in many and various ways (for it was established that a private house was provided for gathering Christians during the time of persecution, as was read in certain acts of the martyrs, because the Donatists said it could not have happened that anyone would offer his house at that time, and it was recalled that it was so far from being incredible that those few bishops came together in a private house during the time of persecution, that during the height of persecution martyrs are shown to have been baptized in prison and the sacraments celebrated there by Christians, where Christians were held imprisoned on account of those same sacraments)—therefore, in the midst of these things, finally, after the judge had also repeatedly intervened that that gathering of bishops could have taken place, when congregations were proven to have been gathered, he compelled the Donatists to argue against the council and judgment of Miltiades, by which Caecilian was cleared and","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"concilium","severity":"info","text":"Augustine uses 'concilium' here to denote a formal gathering of bishops for ordination, a key point of dispute with the Donatists who argued such a gathering was impossible during persecution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"gesta martyrum","severity":"info","text":"The 'acts of the martyrs' are cited as evidence that Christian congregations met during persecution, countering Donatist claims. This refers to hagiographical records of martyr trials and deaths.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"domum priuatam","severity":"info","text":"The mention of a private house used for Christian gatherings during persecution reflects the historical reality of house churches in the pre-Constantinian period, a point Augustine uses to argue against Donatist claims of impossibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"inter haec ergo tandem aliquando","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a narrative turning point: after prolonged debate and judicial intervention, the judge compels the Donatists to address the council of Miltiades, shifting the focus of the dispute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"concilium iudiciumque Miltiadis","severity":"info","text":"The council of Miltiades (313 AD) was a key event in the Donatist controversy, where Caecilian was cleared. Augustine references it as authoritative, reflecting its later acceptance in Catholic tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"in carcere doceantur baptizati martyres","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'martyrs are shown to have been baptized in prison' may refer to specific martyr acts now lost or uncertain; the exact source is not identified in the text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in carcere doceantur baptizati martyres' is ambiguous: it could mean martyrs are shown to have been baptized in prison, or that they are taught there; the translation takes the former as more likely given the context of sacraments celebrated in prison."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"absolutus legebatur, si haberent aliquid dicerent, quoniam illic potius quam in illo Cirtensi concilio causa consisteret.\n\nTunc Donatistae ipsum Miltiadem coeperunt crimine traditionis arguere et dicere maiores suos propterea illius iudicium refugisse, quod traditor fuisset, quasi non etiam indicio eius assisterent et responderent se in Caecilianum non habere quod dicerent. sed tamen facto iudice intento, utrum de traditionis crimine Miltiadis aliquod iudicium uel publicum uel ecclesiasticum proferretur, ipsisque catholicis id ut probaretur expectantibus et exigentibus legerunt Donatistae gesta quaedam prolixissima apud praefectum, ubi nec praefectus ipse cuiusmodi esset apparebat nec locus legebatur ubi haec agebantur. sed gesta ipsa multos multa ecclesiastica tradentes longissima recitatione sonuerunt, ubi nomen Miltiadis omnino non sonuit. quibus peractis cum cognitor miraretur aliud promissum et aliud recitatum, illi adhuc eius patientiam deposcentes gesta alia recitarunt, in quibus legebatur Miltiades misisse diaconos cum litteris Maxentii imperatoris et litteris praefecti praetorio ad praefectum urbis, ut ea reciperent, quae tempore persecutionis ablata memoratus imperator christianis iusserat reddi.","english":"He was read out as acquitted, if they had anything to say, since the case rested there rather than in that Council of Cirta.\n\nThen the Donatists began to accuse Miltiades himself of the crime of traditio and to say that their predecessors had for that reason shunned his judgment, because he had been a traditor, as if they were not also present at his judgment and did not answer that they had nothing to say against Caecilianus. But nevertheless, with the judge intent, whether any judgment, either public or ecclesiastical, concerning the crime of traditio of Miltiades might be produced, and with the Catholics themselves waiting and demanding that it be proved, the Donatists read out some very lengthy proceedings before the prefect, where neither the prefect himself of what sort he was appeared, nor was the place read out where these things were done. But the proceedings themselves, with a very long recitation, resounded with many persons handing over many ecclesiastical items, where the name of Miltiades did not sound at all. When these were finished, and the judge wondered that one thing had been promised and another recited, they, still demanding his patience, recited other proceedings, in which it was read that Miltiades had sent deacons with letters of the Emperor Maxentius and letters of the Praetorian Prefect to the Prefect of the City, so that they might recover those things which, taken away during the time of persecution, the aforementioned emperor had ordered to be returned to the Christians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"traditio","severity":"info","text":"The Latin term 'traditio' (handing over) refers to the crime of surrendering sacred scriptures or vessels to imperial authorities during persecution, a central charge in the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Miltiades","severity":"info","text":"Miltiades was bishop of Rome (311–314 CE) and presided over the Lateran Council of 313 that judged Caecilianus, which the Donatists rejected, leading to the Council of Arles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Maxentius","severity":"info","text":"Maxentius was Roman emperor (306–312 CE) who issued an edict of restitution for Christian property after the persecution; his letters here are cited by Donatists to implicate Miltiades in traditio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"absolutus legebatur","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'absolutus legebatur' (he was read out as acquitted) refers to the reading of official records, a narrative device Augustine uses to contrast the Donatists' failure to produce evidence against Miltiades.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"gesta quaedam prolixissima","severity":"caution","text":"The 'gesta' (proceedings) cited by Donatists are described as prolix and lacking clear identification of the prefect or location, suggesting Augustine may be emphasizing their irrelevance or unreliability.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'praefectus' and the specific location of the proceedings are not specified in the text, leaving open whether these are genuine records or forgeries."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"et cum his quoque gestis nullum Miltiadis crimen et cognitori et catholicis defensoribus appareret, dixerunt Donatistae Stratonem diaconum, quem cum aliis Miltiades ad recipienda loca ecclesiastica miserat, superioribus gestis recitatum esse traditorem, et ideo uolebant etiam Miltiadem crimine traditionis aspergere, quod diacono illo non degradato uteretur. in prosecutione autem sua dixerunt Miltiadem tertium episcopum fuisse ab illo qui tunc erat, cum traditio illa facta esset. hic cognitor requisiuit, utrum saltem in illis traditionis gestis esset expressum, quod Straton diaconus fuerit, et recitatum est eum hortatorem uanissimae superstitionis appellatum, quod non solum ipse, sed etiam ceteri qui tradebant appellabantur. sed Donatistae responderunt a gentilibus persecutoribus in contumeliam religionis et diaconos et presbyteros ita uocitatos.","english":"and when in these proceedings as well no crime of Miltiades appeared either to the judge or to the Catholic advocates, the Donatists said that Straton, a deacon whom Miltiades had sent along with others to receive the ecclesiastical properties, had been read out in the earlier proceedings as a traditor, and therefore they wished to besmirch Miltiades himself with the crime of traditio, because he used that deacon without having deposed him. In their prosecution, however, they said that Miltiades was the third bishop from the one who was in office when that traditio had occurred. At this point the judge asked whether at least in those proceedings concerning the traditio it was stated that Straton was a deacon, and it was read out that he had been called an instigator of the most vain superstition, which was a name applied not only to him but also to the others who were handing over [the scriptures]. But the Donatists replied that the pagan persecutors had so called both deacons and presbyters as an insult to the religion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"traditio","severity":"info","text":"Traditio refers to the crime of handing over sacred scriptures to Roman authorities during the Diocletianic persecution. The Donatists accused Catholic bishops of this to delegitimize their authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Stratonem diaconum","severity":"info","text":"Straton is a deacon sent by Miltiades to reclaim church properties. The Donatists claim he was a traditor, and that Miltiades' use of him without deposition implicates Miltiades in the crime.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The judge (cognitor) intervenes to demand evidence that Straton was identified as a deacon in the earlier proceedings, highlighting the legalistic structure of the debate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"hortatorem uanissimae superstitionis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'instigator of the most vain superstition' was a pagan insult applied to Christians who handed over scriptures, used here to argue that the term did not specifically identify Straton as a deacon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatistae responderunt","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists' claim that pagans called both deacons and presbyters by this insult reflects their strategy to undermine the Catholic argument by appealing to historical usage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"tertium episcopum fuisse ab illo","severity":"caution","text":"The Donatists' claim that Miltiades was the third bishop from the traditor is ambiguous: it may mean third in succession or third in a list; the text does not clarify the exact chronology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'tertium episcopum fuisse ab illo' is ambiguous: it could mean Miltiades was the third bishop in succession from the traditor, or that he was the third bishop mentioned in the proceedings. The Latin does not resolve this.","The Donatists' response about pagan usage of 'hortator uanissimae superstitionis' is not verified by external sources; it may be a rhetorical claim."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"Ergo catholici responderunt, cum mirum non esset essetque in rebus humanis usitatissimum, ut non duo tantum, uerum etiam plures homines uno nomine uocarentur, fieri quidem potuisse, ut ille traditor Straton presbyter fuerit, iste autem alius Straton diaconus, quoniam Donatistae dixerant et diaconos et presbyteros hortatores uanissimae superstitionis a gentilibus appellari; quamquam omnes clericos isto contumelioso nomine gentiles appellare potuerint et multo esset incertius, cuius gradus clericus ille traditor fuerit; uerumtamen etiamsi eum diaconum fuisse posset ostendi, neque hoc esse incredibile aut mirum, cum ante paruum tempus in ipsa urbe Roma duo Petri diaconi fuerint. illud quoque additum est a catholicis, quia, etsi demonstraretur, quod omnino non demonstrabatur, eundem Stratonem diaconum tradidisse, quem postea Miltiades ad recipienda loca ecclesiastica cum aliis diaconis misit, non continuo Miltiadem isto crimine aspergi, quem potuit persecutio longe facere absentem, ut hoc omnino nesciret eumque innocentem putaret, quem nemo reum accusando monstraret. contra haec frustra Donatistae eadem per eadem diutissime clamauerunt.","english":"Therefore the Catholics responded that, since it was not surprising and was most common in human affairs that not only two but even more men are called by the same name, it could indeed have happened that the traitor Straton was a presbyter, while this other Straton was a deacon, because the Donatists had said that both deacons and presbyters were called \"exhorters of the most vain superstition\" by the pagans; although the pagans could have called all clerics by that insulting name, and it was much more uncertain what rank that traitorous cleric had been; nevertheless, even if it could be shown that he was a deacon, this was neither incredible nor surprising, since a short time before in the city of Rome itself there had been two deacons named Peter. That was also added by the Catholics, that even if it were demonstrated—which was not demonstrated at all—that the same Straton the deacon had handed over the scriptures, whom Miltiades later sent with other deacons to receive the ecclesiastical properties, Miltiades was not immediately stained by that crime, for the persecution could have kept him far away and ignorant of this entirely, and he could have considered innocent a man whom no one accused and proved guilty. Against these points the Donatists vainly shouted the same things over and over for a very long time.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Straton","severity":"info","text":"The name Straton was common in late antiquity; the argument here hinges on the possibility of two different men named Straton, one a presbyter and traditor, the other a deacon sent by Miltiades.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"duo Petri diaconi","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics cite the example of two deacons named Peter in Rome shortly before this controversy, illustrating that identical names among clergy were not unusual.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ergo catholici responderunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage is part of the Catholic rebuttal in the debate, structured as a series of counterarguments to the Donatist accusation that Miltiades was implicated by Straton's traditio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"traditor","severity":"info","text":"Traditor refers to someone who handed over sacred scriptures to Roman authorities during the Diocletianic Persecution; this term is central to the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatistae ... clamauerunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine portrays the Donatists as persistently but vainly repeating the same accusations, a rhetorical strategy to undermine their credibility.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"hortatores uanissimae superstitionis","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'exhorters of the most vain superstition' is attributed to pagans by the Donatists; its exact source or authenticity is uncertain, and it may reflect rhetorical exaggeration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Straton the traditor (presbyter or deacon) is unresolved; the Catholics argue it could be a different person from the deacon Straton sent by Miltiades.","The phrase 'hortatores uanissimae superstitionis' may be a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation from pagan sources."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"Post collationem sane etiam de Cassiano Miltiadi calumniati sunt, quia etiam hoc nomen et in diaconis inuenitur, quos ad praefectum misit Miltiades, et in illis gestis, ubi facta traditio recitata est. quod si in collatione dicerent, facile potuit a catholicis responderi in tanta turba Romanorum clericorum nihil mirum fuisse, si duo uel plures non solum Stratones, sed etiam Cassiani reperirentur, cum in duodecim apostolis non solum duo Iudae, sed etiam duo Iacobi legerentur; nisi forte ipsis licuisset Casensem a Donato Carthaginiensi distinguere, cum timerent, ne maior auctor ipsorum Donatus Carthaginiensis damnatus in Miltiadis iudicio putaretur. et catholicis non liceret in tanta multitudine clericorum Romanorum habere plures similibus nominibus appellatos. falsum enim erat quod Donatistae dixerant, conuenire personas, conuenire loca, conuenire regiones, quando nec loca nec regiones nec ipsae expressae personarum dignitates de utrisque gestis, sed sola nominum conuenientia legebatur, quam in diuersis personis generis humani consuetudo frequentare non cessat.","english":"After the conference, they also slandered Cassian of Miltiades, because this name too is found both among the deacons whom Miltiades sent to the prefect and in those records where the act of tradition was read out. If they had said this at the conference, the Catholics could easily have replied that in so great a crowd of Roman clergy it was no wonder if two or more were found not only named Strato but also Cassian, since among the twelve apostles we read not only two Judases but also two Jameses; unless perhaps it was permitted to them to distinguish Casensis from Donatus of Carthage, when they feared that the greater authority of their own Donatus of Carthage might be thought condemned in the judgment of Miltiades, and it was not permitted to the Catholics to have several men called by similar names in so great a multitude of Roman clergy. For it was false what the Donatists had said, that the persons, the places, the regions matched, when neither the places nor the regions nor even the expressed dignities of the persons in the two sets of records matched, but only the agreement of names was read, which custom does not cease to make common among different persons of the human race.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cassiano Miltiadi","severity":"info","text":"Miltiades was bishop of Rome (311–314 CE) who presided over the council that condemned Donatus of Carthage. The Donatists later slandered a certain Cassian associated with Miltiades, claiming his name appeared in records of traditores.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"duo Iudae ... duo Iacobi","severity":"info","text":"Augustine cites two Judases (Judas Iscariot and Judas Thaddaeus) and two Jameses (James the Greater and James the Less) among the twelve apostles to argue that multiple individuals can share a name.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Casensem","severity":"info","text":"Casensis likely refers to a Donatist bishop from Casa Nigra (Numidia), distinct from Donatus of Carthage. The Donatists distinguished them to avoid the implication that their founder Donatus was condemned by Miltiades.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Post collationem sane","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative appendix to the conference record, recounting post-conference Donatist slanders. It mirrors the earlier argument about the name Straton, now applied to Cassian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"falsum enim erat quod Donatistae dixerant","severity":"info","text":"Augustine refutes the Donatist claim that matching names imply matching persons, places, and regions. This argument became a standard Catholic rebuttal in Donatist controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Cassian is unclear: possibly a deacon or presbyter in Rome, but the text does not specify his rank. The reading assumes he is distinct from the Cassian in the traditio records."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"Spernens itaque cognitor incertissimas suspiciones iussit aliquid manifestum contra illa gesta proferri aut certe Constantini iudicium, cuius mentio iam facta fuerat, recitari. et recitatum est iudicium Constantini, quemadmodum se inter partes causam Caeciliani cognouisse ad Eumalium uicarium Africae scripsisset, quo remotis omnibus arbitris Caecilianum innocentem, illos calumniosissimos cognouisse testatus est, commemorans etiam in Arelatensi oppido pro Caeciliano factum episcopale iudicium, cui iudicio iam plurimi ex dissensione consenserant reliquis adhuc resilientibus et discordantibus, unde ipse de re tota inter partes coactus est iudicare. post harum imperialium litterarum recitationem quaesiuit cognitor a Donatistis, quid contra dicerent. ibi Donatistae rursus ad Miltiadis calumniosam criminationem redire conati sunt; unde cum essent cognitoris interlocutione depulsi et ab eis esset flagitatum, ut contra iudicium Miltiadis uel imperialem sententiam si haberent aliquid recitarent, responderunt etiam imperatorias aures prauis suggestionibus inflatas. ibi eis cognitor respondit, quod attentissime aduerterat inter partes fuisse iudicatum. at illi exigere coeperunt, ut hoc legeretur, utrum inter partes iudicauerit imperator.","english":"So the judge, spurning the most uncertain suspicions, ordered that something manifest be brought forward against those records, or at least that the judgment of Constantine, which had already been mentioned, be recited. And the judgment of Constantine was recited, how he had written to Eumalius, vicar of Africa, that he had heard the case of Caecilian between the parties, and that, with all arbiters removed, he had found Caecilian innocent and those men most slanderous, also mentioning the episcopal judgment made for Caecilian in the town of Arles, to which judgment many from the dissension had already consented, while the rest were still resisting and disagreeing, whence he himself was compelled to judge the whole matter between the parties. After the recitation of these imperial letters, the judge asked the Donatists what they had to say against them. There the Donatists again tried to return to the slanderous accusation against Miltiades; but when they were repelled by the judge’s interlocution and were demanded to recite something against the judgment of Miltiades or the imperial sentence, if they had anything, they replied that even the imperial ears had been inflated by base suggestions. There the judge answered them that he had most attentively noted that judgment had been made between the parties. But they began to demand that it be read whether the emperor had judged between the parties.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The term 'cognitor' refers to the imperial judge presiding over the conference, likely the proconsul or a delegate, who here dismisses the Donatists' vague suspicions and demands concrete evidence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Eumalium uicarium Africae","severity":"info","text":"Eumalius was the vicar of Africa, a high imperial official. Constantine's letter to him, cited here, is a key document in the Donatist controversy, affirming Caecilian's innocence and the earlier episcopal judgment at Arles (314).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"recitatum est iudicium Constantini","severity":"info","text":"This passage marks a structural pivot: the judge orders the recitation of Constantine's judgment, which had been previously mentioned but not read. The recitation then prompts a renewed Donatist attack on Miltiades, which the judge again repels.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"imperatorias aures prauis suggestionibus inflatas","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists' claim that Constantine's ears were 'inflated by base suggestions' reflects a persistent Donatist rhetorical strategy: impugning the impartiality of imperial judges by alleging manipulation by Catholic partisans.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"utrum inter partes iudicauerit imperator","severity":"caution","text":"The Donatists' demand to read whether the emperor judged 'between the parties' may reflect a legal technicality: they might argue Constantine acted as an arbitrator rather than a judge, thus his decision lacked binding force. The Latin 'inter partes' is ambiguous here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact legal force of Constantine's judgment (whether as arbitrator or judge) is left ambiguous by the Donatists' challenge, and Augustine does not clarify the distinction here."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"quod cum fuisset cognitore iubente recitatum, nihil inuenientes quod dicerent coeperunt de consule memoratis imperialibus litteris calumniari, quod sine consule fuerant recitatae. hinc exorto conflictu cum Donatistae inuidiose dicerent episcopale concilium cum consule fuisse recitatum et imperatoris litteras consulem non habere, et catholici responderent non ibi causam consistere, cognitor etiam interlocutus est euidentissimis legibus definitum imperialia constituta, etiamsi consules non legerentur, in dubium non uocari. deinde catholici urgebant, ut aperte dicerent falsum esse quod lectum est; posse enim archiua inquiri.\n\nSed hinc repulsi uelut aliquid ualidissimum prolaturi petierunt Optatum legi, quod et ante petiuerant, unde se probaturos dicebant Caecilianum ab imperatore damnatum; et promissum eis fuerat, sed dilatum. prius ergo uolebat cognitor ut exprimerent, utrum litteras imperatorias arguere falsitatis auderent. quod quidem illi minime audebant; tamen nihilominus consulem deesse inuidiosissime causabantur. Optatum uero legi multo instantius flagitabant. haec cum diutius agerentur, in alia charta illarum imperialium litterarum inuentus est consul. quod cum esset suggestum, Donatistae dixerunt: 'certe consulem habere non debuit'; quasi hoc aliquando dictum esset, quod habere non debuerit, ac non, etiamsi consul defuisset, non impediri imperialis constituti ueritatem.","english":"When this had been recited at the judge’s order, finding nothing to say, they began to cavil about the consul in the aforementioned imperial letter, because it had been recited without a consul. From this a conflict arose: the Donatists invidiously said that the episcopal council had been recited with a consul and the emperor’s letter did not have a consul, and the Catholics replied that the case did not rest there. The judge also interposed that it was defined by the most evident laws that imperial enactments, even if consuls were not read, were not to be called into doubt. Then the Catholics pressed that they should state openly that what had been read was false; for the archives could be searched.\n\nBut repulsed from this, as if about to bring forward something very strong, they asked for Optatus to be read, which they had also asked for before, saying that from it they would prove that Caecilian had been condemned by the emperor; and this had been promised to them, but postponed. So the judge first wanted them to express whether they dared to accuse the imperial letter of falsehood. This indeed they did not dare at all; nevertheless they complained most invidiously that the consul was missing. But they demanded that Optatus be read much more insistently. While these things were being carried on for a long time, the consul was found in another copy of that imperial letter. When this was pointed out, the Donatists said: “Surely it ought not to have a consul”; as if it had ever been said that it ought not to have one, and not that, even if the consul had been missing, the truth of the imperial enactment would not be impeded.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"consul","severity":"info","text":"The consul was the chief annual magistrate in the Roman Republic and, under the Empire, a dating official whose name appeared in official documents. The Donatists argued that the imperial letter lacked a consul's name, which they claimed invalidated it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Optatus","severity":"info","text":"Optatus refers to Optatus of Milevis, a Catholic bishop and author of a treatise against the Donatists. The Donatists sought to use his work to prove that Emperor Constantine had condemned Caecilian, but the Catholics disputed this interpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is part of the narrative of the 411 Conference, recounting the Donatists' procedural objections and the judge's rulings. It follows a pattern of Donatist challenge, Catholic response, and judicial intervention.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's account here emphasizes the Donatists' reliance on procedural quibbles (the missing consul) rather than substantive arguments, a theme that later Catholic polemicists used to portray Donatists as legalistic and unreasonable.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"alia charta","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'alia charta' (another copy) suggests that the consul's name was found in a different manuscript of the imperial letter. The text does not clarify whether this was a variant or a correction, leaving the exact nature of the discovery ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text does not specify whether the consul's name was originally omitted or simply not read aloud, nor does it clarify the relationship between the two copies of the imperial letter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"quod cum eis cognitor identidem respondisset, recitatus est et Optatus recitantibus Donatistis, ubi ait: eodem tempore idem Donatus petiit, ut ei reuerti licuisset et ad Carthaginem accedere; tunc a Philomeno suggestore eius imperatori suggestum est, ut bono pacis Caecilianus Brixae teneretur, et factum est. in quibus uerbis Optati cum omnino nulla Caeciliani damnatio, sicut illi demonstraturos se esse promiserant, reperiri potuisset, iussit cognitor totam paginam recitari, ut de superioribus et inferioribus uerbis uoluntas eius qui scripserat nosceretur. et ex officio recitatum est: Caecilianus omnium supra memoratorum sententiis innocens est pronuntiatus. quod cum recitaretur, Donatistae dixerunt hoc se non petisse recitari, stomachantes aduersus eos, qui risum tenere non poterant, cum audissent, quam apertam contra semet ipsos paginam protulissent. deinde cum illis uerbis, quae ipsi recitauerant, extenuasse dicerent Optatum damnationem Caeciliani et exprimere noluisse, flagitatum est ab eis, ut aliunde manifestum legerent, quod ab illo dicerent extenuatum. quod cum minime potuissent, etiam inde post aliquantas morarum inanium perplexitates, cum et de Donati nomine contendissent quod non Carthaginiensis, sed Casensis Donatus in iudicio Miltiadis aduersus Caecilianum adstitisset, quod et catholici concedebant, aliquando transitum est.","english":"When the judge had replied to them in the same way, Optatus was also recited by the Donatists reading, where he says: “At the same time the same Donatus asked that it be permitted him to return and to come to Carthage; then his suggester Philumenus suggested to the emperor that Caecilianus be held at Brixa for the sake of peace, and it was done.” In these words of Optatus, since no condemnation of Caecilianus could be found at all, as they had promised they would demonstrate, the judge ordered the whole page to be recited, so that the intention of the one who had written might be known from the preceding and following words. And it was recited by the official record: “Caecilianus is pronounced innocent by the sentences of all those mentioned above.” While this was being recited, the Donatists said that they had not asked for this to be recited, chafing against those who could not contain their laughter when they heard how clear a page they had produced against themselves. Then, when they said that Optatus had diminished the condemnation of Caecilianus in those words which they themselves had recited and had been unwilling to express it, it was demanded of them that they read from elsewhere the clear statement which they claimed he had diminished. Since they were quite unable to do so, and after some delays with empty perplexities, even after they had contended about the name of Donatus—that it was not Donatus of Carthage but Donatus of Casae who had stood in the judgment of Miltiades against Caecilianus, which the Catholics also conceded—the matter was at length moved on.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The cognitor was the imperial judge presiding over the 411 Conference, a role distinct from a bishop or arbiter. His authority to order recitations and move proceedings reflects the legal framework of the collatio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Optatus","severity":"info","text":"Optatus of Thamugadi was a Donatist bishop and key figure in the schism. His letter, cited here, was used by the Donatists to claim Caecilianus's condemnation, but the judge found it did not support their case.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"recitatus est et Optatus recitantibus Donatistis","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative of the conference, showing the Donatists' failed attempt to prove Caecilianus's condemnation. The judge's order to read the full page and the Donatists' subsequent objections structure the argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatus Casensis","severity":"info","text":"Donatus of Casae (or Casensis) was a Donatist bishop distinct from Donatus of Carthage. The Donatists' contention about his identity in the Miltiades judgment was a delaying tactic, as the Catholics conceded the point.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"risum tenere non poterant","severity":"info","text":"Augustine highlights the Donatists' embarrassment when their own evidence was read against them. This rhetorical detail underscores the Catholic claim of Donatist inconsistency and is typical of Augustine's polemical style.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"stomachantes","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'stomachantes' (chafing, being angry) is a strong emotional term. The English draft renders it as 'chafing,' which captures the sense, but the word may carry a connotation of indignation or resentment beyond mere annoyance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":["ogl-csel"]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Donatus' in the Optatus passage is ambiguous: the Donatists argued it was Donatus of Casae, not Donatus of Carthage, but the text does not clarify which Donatus was originally meant.","The phrase 'bono pacis' (for the sake of peace) in Optatus's letter is ambiguous: it could imply a compromise or a forced measure, but the context suggests a pragmatic decision by the emperor."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Deinde quia Constantini litteris, quibus eum inter partes cognouisse et pro Caeciliano contra illos iudicasse constabat, cognitor eos si quid haberent respondere cogebat, petiuerunt suum libellum esse recitandum, quem dicebant datum Constantino a maioribus suis. in quo libello satis aperteque monstrarunt, quam falsum dixerint de damnatione Caeciliani apud Brixam; idem quippe libellus ostendit, quemadmodum contra eos senserit Constantinus. nam ibi dicunt nullo modo A se communicaturos antistiti ipsius nebuloni paratosque esse perpeti quidquid eis facere uoluisset; quem Constantini antistitem nebulonem utique Caecilianum intellegi uolebant. quomodo ergo eum Constantini antistitem dicebant, cui se contra Constantinum loquentes non communicare confirmabant, si eum apud Constantinum superauerant, ita ut ab illo Brixae scirent esse damnatum?","english":"Then, because the judge was compelling them to respond, if they had anything, to the letters of Constantine, by which it was established that he had heard the parties and had judged in favor of Caecilianus against them, they requested that their own petition be read, which they said had been given to Constantine by their predecessors. In that petition they showed clearly and openly how false was what they had said about the condemnation of Caecilianus at Brixa; for the same petition shows how Constantine had decided against them. For there they say that they would by no means communicate with the bishop of that scoundrel, and that they were prepared to suffer whatever he might wish to do to them; by which bishop of Constantine’s scoundrel they undoubtedly meant Caecilianus. How then could they call him the bishop of Constantine, while they, speaking against Constantine, affirmed that they would not communicate with him, if they had prevailed over him before Constantine, so that they knew he had been condemned by him at Brixa?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The judge (cognitor) is the imperial commissioner appointed to hear the case, likely the same figure mentioned earlier in the work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"libellum","severity":"info","text":"Libellum (petition) refers to a formal written request presented to the emperor, here by the Donatist predecessors.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Brixa","severity":"info","text":"Brixa (modern Brescia) was the location where, according to Donatist claims, Caecilianus was condemned by Constantine. Augustine argues this is contradicted by the Donatists' own petition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quomodo ergo","severity":"info","text":"The rhetorical question (quomodo ergo) marks a logical climax, exposing the inconsistency in the Donatist position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Constantini antistitem nebulonem","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's phrase 'bishop of Constantine's scoundrel' (antistitem nebulonem) echoes Donatist polemic against Caecilianus, whom they denigrate as a scoundrel (nebulo).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'judge' (cognitor) is not specified further in this passage; it is assumed to be the same as in earlier sections."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"Cum ergo catholici dixissent hoc eos contra se ipsos recitasse, hoc idem ipse etiam cognitor esset interlocutus, addiderunt etiam illi suae falsitati conuincendae magnum aliud firmamentum, recitantes ipsius Constantini litteras scribentis ad Uerinum uicarium, ut libero eos dimittat arbitrio, se iussisse insinuans ut de exilio remearent. in quibus litteris Constantinus sic eos detestatur, ut nihil illa indulgentia possit deformius inueniri. quos utique non ita culpasset, sed magis laudasset, si ab eis Caecilianus apud illum uictus ab eoque damnatus Brixae relegaretur. ac per hoc ista contra se ipsos proferentes atque recitantes et a Caeciliano se superatos memorati imperatoris iudicio manifestissime monstrauerunt et suam falsitatem, qua eum dicebant esse damnatum, apertissime conuicerunt, et qui catholicos persecutionem facere, se autem pati gloriabantur, Caecilianum tamen per suas accusationes ab imperatore damnatum etiam falso gloriari uoluerunt.","english":"When, therefore, the Catholics had said that they had recited this against themselves, and the judge himself had also made the same observation, they added yet another great support for convicting their own falsehood, reciting the letters of Constantine himself, written to Verinus the vicar, ordering that they be released at their own free will, indicating that he had commanded that they return from exile. In these letters, Constantine so detests them that nothing more shameful than that indulgence can be found. For he would certainly not have blamed them in this way, but would rather have praised them, if Caecilianus had been defeated by them before him and condemned by him, and had been relegated to Brixa. And by this, bringing forth and reciting these things against themselves, they most clearly showed that they had been overcome by Caecilianus in the judgment of the aforementioned emperor, and they most openly convicted their own falsehood, by which they claimed that he had been condemned. And those who boasted that the Catholics were persecuting, while they themselves were suffering, nevertheless wished even falsely to boast that Caecilianus had been condemned by the emperor through their accusations.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"falsitati conuincendae","severity":"info","text":"Augustine uses the phrase 'falsitati conuincendae' (convicting their falsehood) to highlight the Donatists' self-incrimination by reading Constantine's letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"Constantini litteras scribentis ad Uerinum uicarium","severity":"info","text":"Verinus was a vicarius (deputy) of the praetorian prefect in Africa. Constantine's letter ordering the Donatists' release from exile is a known historical document, referenced here to show imperial disfavor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Cum ergo catholici dixissent...","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the narrative of the conference, showing the Donatists' attempt to bolster their case backfiring as the judge and Catholics point out their self-contradiction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Brixa","severity":"info","text":"Brixa (or Brixia, modern Brescia) was the place of Caecilianus's alleged exile. Augustine argues that Constantine's harsh tone toward the Donatists disproves their claim that Caecilianus was condemned.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"'Cognitor' here refers to the judge presiding over the conference, likely the imperial commissioner Marcellinus, who acted as cognitor (investigator) in the 411 Collatio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'cognitor' is not explicitly named in this passage, but context from the Collatio indicates it is Marcellinus."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"his itaque recitatis cum catholici dicerent et cognitorem breuiter admonerent, quod etiam ipse cernebat, pro se illa, hoc est pro innocentia Caeciliani contra illos fuisse recitata et hoc idem etiam ipse fuisset interlocutus, Donatistae responderunt dicentes: 'de libero arbitrio nihil dicit potestas tua'; hoc enim putantes secundum Constantini litteras sibi posse a praesente cognitore concedi eas etiam contra se pro Caeciliani causa recitandas existimauerunt. hic cum eis cognitor respondisset aliud sibi esse a praesentis temporis imperatore praeceptum, ierunt in aliud, quod contra se identidem multo mirabilius protulerunt.\n\nRecitauerunt enim alias litteras eiusdem Constantini imperatoris ad Probianum proconsulem datas, quae quidem consules non habebant; sed nihil quasi de obiectione mutua catholici agere uoluerunt, quamuis et hinc se ipsos Donatistae conuincerent quam calumniose catholicis id obiecerint, cum prior chartula, ex qua recitatum est iudicium Constantini, quo absolutus est Caecilianus, consules non haberet, qui tamen mox in alia chartula inuenti sunt. istae itaque litterae ad Probianum proconsulem datae continent imperatoris iussionem, qua praecepit ut ad se Ingentius mitteretur, cuius confessione in proconsulis Aeliani iudicio Felix Aptugnensis ordinator Caeciliani a crimine traditionis fuerat absolutus.","english":"After these documents had been recited, when the Catholics said and briefly reminded the judge—what he himself also perceived—that they had been recited in their favor, that is, in favor of the innocence of Caecilianus against them, and that he himself had also made the same observation in his interlocution, the Donatists answered, saying: 'Your power says nothing about free will'; for they thought that, according to the letters of Constantine, they could be granted by the present judge to have them also recited against themselves for the case of Caecilianus. When the judge had answered them that he had received a different instruction from the emperor of the present time, they went on to another point, which they brought forth against themselves in a much more remarkable way.\n\nFor they recited other letters of the same Emperor Constantine, given to the proconsul Probianus, which indeed had no consuls; but the Catholics chose to make nothing of this as a mutual objection, although from this the Donatists convicted themselves of how calumniously they had objected this to the Catholics, since the earlier document, from which the judgment of Constantine by which Caecilianus was acquitted was recited, had no consuls, which however were soon found in another document. These letters, then, given to the proconsul Probianus, contain an order of the emperor, by which he commanded that Ingentius be sent to him, by whose confession in the judgment of the proconsul Aelianus, Felix of Aptunga, the ordainer of Caecilianus, had been acquitted of the charge of traditio.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"de libero arbitrio nihil dicit potestas tua","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists claim that Constantine's letters say nothing about free will, implying they expect the judge to grant them the same leniency Constantine ordered.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ingentius","severity":"info","text":"Ingentius was a key witness whose confession in the trial before proconsul Aelianus led to the acquittal of Felix of Aptunga, ordainer of Caecilianus, on charges of traditio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ierunt in aliud","severity":"info","text":"The phrase marks a shift in the Donatist argument: after the judge rejects their request, they pivot to a new point that inadvertently incriminates themselves.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"chartula ... consules non haberet","severity":"caution","text":"The absence of consular dating on the first document is noted; the Donatists had earlier criticized the Catholics for this, but here they produce a similar undated letter, undermining their own objection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatistae responderunt","severity":"info","text":"Augustine records the Donatist response verbatim, preserving their legal argumentation and showing how they attempted to use imperial letters to their advantage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact content of Constantine's letter to Probianus is not given; only its purpose (to summon Ingentius) is stated.","The phrase 'nihil quasi de obiectione mutua catholici agere uoluerunt' is ambiguous: it may mean the Catholics chose not to press the objection about missing consuls, or that they did not treat it as a reciprocal charge."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"hoc autem imperiale praeceptum ideo Donatistae se recitare dicebant, ut quasi ostenderent Caeciliani causam adhuc fuisse suspensam etiam post illud iudicium, quo se Constantinus inter partes omnia terminasse iam scripserat, cum et in ipsis litteris, quas ad Probianum proconsulem datas recitauerunt, quibus quasi ostenderent adhuc pendere iudicium, quoniam ad se mitti iusserat imperator Ingentium, tanta contra se legerint, ut omnino mirum sit quibus illa oculis aspicere uel quo ore pronuntiare potuerint. ibi enim Constantinus dixit ab Aeliano proconsule audientiam praestitam competentem Felicemque innocentem ab exustione codicum diuinorum constitisse, illos autem esse in praesentia confutandos, qui diurnis diebus eum interpellare non quiescerent, ut eis liquido appareret frustra eos Caeciliano inuidiam comparare et aduersus eum uiolenter insurgere uoluisse. hic ergo per illas litteras non solum Caecilianum, sed etiam Felicem purgatum seque innocentium persecutores apud imperatorem extitisse docuerunt.","english":"This imperial command, however, the Donatists said they were reciting in order to show, as it were, that the case of Caecilianus had still been pending even after that judgment in which Constantine had already written that he had settled everything between the parties, when even in the same letter, which was given to the proconsul Probianus and which they recited—by which they sought to show that the judgment was still pending, because the emperor had ordered Ingentius to be sent to him—they read so much against themselves that it is utterly astonishing with what eyes they could look upon or with what mouth they could utter those words. For there Constantine said that a hearing had been granted by the proconsul Aelianus, that Felix had been found innocent of the burning of the divine codices, and that those who did not cease to petition him on ordinary days were to be refuted in their presence, so that it would clearly appear to them that they had vainly sought to stir up ill will against Caecilianus and had wished to rise up violently against him. Therefore, through that letter they demonstrated not only that Caecilianus, but also Felix, had been cleared, and that they themselves had stood before the emperor as persecutors of the innocent.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"imperiale praeceptum","severity":"info","text":"The imperial command refers to Constantine's letter to the proconsul Probianus, part of the legal proceedings against the Donatists. The Donatists cited it to argue that Caecilianus's case remained unresolved.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"suspensam","severity":"info","text":"The Donatists claimed the case of Caecilianus was still pending (suspensam) after Constantine's earlier judgment, but Augustine argues the letter they cited actually proves the opposite.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ingentium","severity":"info","text":"Ingentius is a person mentioned in Constantine's letter; the emperor ordered him to be sent to the imperial court. His identity and role are not further specified in this passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Felix","severity":"info","text":"Felix was a bishop of Aptungi, accused by the Donatists of handing over scriptures during the Diocletianic persecution. Constantine's letter declared him innocent of burning the divine codices.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ibi enim Constantinus dixit","severity":"info","text":"Augustine quotes Constantine's letter to show its content contradicts the Donatists' claim. This is a rhetorical strategy to expose the inconsistency of the Donatist position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"mirum sit quibus illa oculis aspicere","severity":"info","text":"Augustine expresses astonishment that the Donatists could read the letter without seeing how it condemned their own position. This reflects the polemical tone of the work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Ingentius is not clarified; the text assumes the reader knows the context of the Donatist controversy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Hac autem accepta opportunitate catholici recitandam protulerunt et ipsius Aeliani tunc proconsulis relationem de hac re ad Constantinum datam, ubi se causam Felicis audisse et finisse commemorat, et ipsa gesta proconsularia, quibus absolutus est Felix et omnium necessariarum personarum testimonio a traditionis crimine innocens comprobatus. quibus recitatis quid contradici posset cognitor inquisiuit. tunc Donatistae, quod et ante dicere coeperant, identidem repetierunt quaerentes, utrum ex praecepto imperatoris directus ad comitatum fuisset Ingentius, et quid postea gestum esset ut ostenderetur a catholicis exigentes, et gesta proconsularia quibus possent uerbis refellere conantes quibus absolutus est Felix, obicientes gratiam iudicis uel suppositas fuisse personas et cetera, quae solent homines contra gesta quibus uincuntur suspiciosa querimonia iactitare; dicebant etiam non recte Felicem absentem fuisse absolutum. ad ista responsum est a catholicis omnia quae lecta sunt ad absolutionem Caeciliani et Felicis apertissime pertinere, si quid autem Donatistae arbitrarentur misso ad comitatum Ingentio pro se fuisse iudicatum et mutatum esse iudicium, quo Constantinus inter partes cognoscens purgato Caeciliano illos calumniosissimos iudicauerat, ipsos debere proferre.","english":"Having taken this opportunity, the Catholics brought forward for reading both the report of the then proconsul Aelianus himself on this matter, given to Constantine, where he records that he had heard and concluded the case of Felix, and the proconsular proceedings themselves, by which Felix was acquitted and proven innocent of the crime of traditio by the testimony of all necessary persons. After these were read, the judge inquired what could be objected. Then the Donatists, repeating what they had begun to say earlier, again asked whether Ingentius had been sent to the court by imperial command, and demanded that the Catholics show what had been done afterwards, and attempted to refute the proconsular proceedings by which Felix was acquitted with whatever words they could, objecting the favor of the judge or that persons had been substituted, and other things which men are accustomed to cast about as suspicious complaints against proceedings by which they are defeated; they also said that Felix had not been rightly acquitted in his absence. To this, the Catholics responded that everything which had been read pertained most clearly to the acquittal of Caecilianus and Felix, but if the Donatists thought that by Ingentius being sent to the court judgment had been given in their favor and that the judgment had been changed, by which Constantine, judging between the parties, had adjudged Caecilianus purged and them most calumnious, they themselves ought to produce it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Aeliani tunc proconsulis","severity":"info","text":"Aelianus was proconsul of Africa in 314–315 CE. His report and the proconsular proceedings here cited are part of the official record of Felix of Abthugni's trial, which acquitted Felix of the charge of traditio during the Donatist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"traditionis crimine","severity":"info","text":"The 'crime of traditio' refers to the charge of handing over sacred scriptures to Roman authorities during the Diocletianic persecution. This was the central accusation against both Caecilianus and Felix, and the Donatists' main grievance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"quibus recitatis quid contradici posset cognitor inquisiuit","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a procedural turn: after the Catholics present evidence, the judge (cognitor) invites objections. The Donatists' response is then given, showing the adversarial structure of the collatio.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ingentius","severity":"info","text":"Ingentius was a Donatist bishop who, according to earlier passages, had been sent to Constantine's court. The Donatists here try to use his mission to argue that the imperial judgment was later reversed or modified.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"obicientes gratiam iudicis uel suppositas fuisse personas","severity":"info","text":"Augustine here characterizes Donatist objections as standard rhetorical tactics: alleging judicial bias or forged identities. This reflects a common polemical pattern in late antique Christian controversy, where defeated parties impugn the integrity of proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quid postea gestum esset ut ostenderetur a catholicis exigentes","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin syntax is compressed: 'exigentes' governs the preceding indirect question. The sense is that the Donatists demanded that the Catholics show what was done afterwards. The English draft correctly expands this, but the Latin could be misread as ambiguous about who is to show what.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quid postea gestum esset' could refer either to events after Ingentius's mission or after the proconsular proceedings; the context favors the former, as the Donatists are trying to link Ingentius's mission to a change in judgment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"quando autem hoc catholici dicebant, in illa temporis breuitate non poterant considerari consules; quorum ordinem in ipsis gestis qui uoluerit considerans inueniet posterius ab imperatore Constantino absolutum esse Caecilianum quam Felicis causam ab Aeliano proconsule discussam atque purgatam, post aliquot etiam annos Constantinum scripsisse ad Uerinum uicarium quas litteras ipsi recitauerunt, ubi sibi asserebant liberum arbitrium ab illo imperatore concessum, in quibus litteris eos tamquam pessimos et christianae pacis inimicos ostendit. quod utique non fecisset, si aliquid pro illis contra Caecilianum iudicasset, cum ad comitatum missus esset Ingentius. cognitor ergo interlocutus est non posse gesta quae tanta roborauit antiquitas remoueri nisi aliis posterioribus gestis e contrario recitatis. dictum est etiam a catholicis magis ad declarandam Felicis innocentiam profuisse quod absens fuerat absolutus, quia gratiae suspicio, si praesens esset, potius oriretur.","english":"When the Catholics were saying this, in that brief period of time the consuls could not be examined; anyone who wishes to examine the order of consuls in those proceedings will find that Caecilian was absolved by the emperor Constantine later than the case of Felix was examined and cleared by the proconsul Aelianus, and that after some years Constantine wrote to the vicarius Verinus the letter which they themselves recited, in which they claimed that free choice had been granted to them by that emperor, and in which letter he showed them to be most wicked and enemies of Christian peace. He certainly would not have done this if he had judged anything in their favor against Caecilian, when Ingentius had been sent to the court. Therefore the judge interposed that proceedings which such antiquity had strengthened could not be set aside unless other later proceedings to the contrary were recited. It was also said by the Catholics that it had been more beneficial for declaring Felix's innocence that he had been acquitted in his absence, because suspicion of favor would rather have arisen if he had been present.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"consules","severity":"info","text":"The consuls mentioned here are the eponymous magistrates whose names date official acts; the Catholics argued that the brief time available prevented checking them to verify the sequence of events.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"posterius ... quam","severity":"info","text":"Augustine asserts that Caecilian's absolution by Constantine occurred later than Felix's acquittal by Aelianus, and that Constantine's letter to Verinus came after several more years, establishing a clear timeline.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Uerinum uicarium","severity":"info","text":"Verinus was vicarius of Africa under Constantine; the letter cited by the Donatists claimed imperial grant of free choice, but Augustine argues Constantine's own words in it condemn them as enemies of peace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ingentius","severity":"info","text":"Ingentius was a Donatist delegate sent to Constantine's court; his mission failed to obtain a ruling against Caecilian, as the judge's remark implies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The 'cognitor' is the judge presiding at the conference; he ruled that the earlier proceedings, strengthened by age, could not be overturned unless countered by later contradictory proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"absens fuerat absolutus","severity":"info","text":"The Catholics argued that Felix's acquittal in absentia actually strengthened his case, since a verdict given in his presence might have raised suspicion of undue influence or favor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'consules' could refer either to the consuls themselves or to the consular dating; the translation takes it as the officials whose order needed checking.","The phrase 'post aliquot etiam annos' is ambiguous as to the exact interval; the translation renders it as 'after some years'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"Urgere deinde cognitor coepit, ut, si qua posteriora gesta Donatistae haberent contra absolutionem Caeciliani uel Felicis, iam iamque proferrent. hic illi ad ea, quae iam totiens dixerant et catholicis totiens ad omnia respondentibus transacta iam fuerant, rursus quasi a capite redire et ea replicare conati sunt. ubi cum interlocutus esset cognitor, admonens ut eos iam pigeret eadem repetere, quae peracta et transacta iam fuerant, et identidem proferre compelleret, si quid recitandum haberent aduersus Caeciliani et Felicis sic euidentissimas absolutiones, et illi nihil omnino aduersus illa proferentes eadem repetere non cessarent, ut de illis quae dixerant iudicaretur, et contra cognitor illud potius flagitaret, ut legerent, si haberent quod legi posset aduersus imperiale et proconsulare iudicium. ut posset de omnibus pronuntiari. quoniam legibus prohibetur semiplenam proferre sententiam, instarent etiam catholici, ut rebus omnibus cognitori manifestatis et Donatistis quid respondeant non inuenientibus eadem repetentibus tandem aliquando causa finiretur, in ultimo cognitor dixit: (si contra nihil est quod legatis, exire dignamini, ut possit plena de omnibus scribi sententia.' et utrisque exeuntibus sententiam scripsit, quam rursus intromissis partibus recitauit, qua complexus est omnia, quae de prolixa trium dierum actione potuit recordari.","english":"Then the judge began to press them, so that, if the Donatists had any later proceedings against the absolution of Caecilian or Felix, they should produce them immediately. At this point, they attempted to return to the beginning, as it were, and to rehearse again those things which they had already said so many times and which had already been concluded, with the Catholics having responded to everything so many times. When the judge had interjected, warning them that they should now be weary of repeating the same things which had already been done and finished, and compelling them to produce, if they had anything to read against the most evident absolutions of Caecilian and Felix, and they, bringing forward nothing at all against those things, did not cease repeating the same things, so that a judgment might be made concerning what they had said, and the judge rather demanded that they read, if they had anything that could be read against the imperial and proconsular judgment, so that a pronouncement could be made on everything. Since the laws forbid rendering a half-complete sentence, the Catholics also insisted that, with all matters made clear to the judge and the Donatists, finding nothing to answer, repeating the same things, the case should finally be ended. At last the judge said: \"If there is nothing against which you read, be so good as to leave, so that a full sentence may be written on everything.\" And with both sides leaving, he wrote the sentence, which, when the parties were again admitted, he recited, embracing in it everything that he could recall from the lengthy action of three days.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"cognitor","severity":"info","text":"The judge (cognitor) is a judicial official appointed by the emperor to hear a specific case, distinct from a standing magistrate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"semiplenam sententiam","severity":"info","text":"A 'half-complete sentence' (semiplenam sententiam) refers to a judgment that does not address all issues, which Roman law prohibited.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"imperiale et proconsulare iudicium","severity":"info","text":"The 'imperial and proconsular judgment' refers to earlier decisions by Emperor Constantine and Proconsul Aelianus that had absolved Caecilian and Felix.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"trium dierum actione","severity":"info","text":"This passage concludes the three-day hearing described in the Breviculus, with the judge finally issuing a comprehensive sentence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Donatistae","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's account of the Donatists' repeated arguments and failure to produce evidence shaped later Catholic polemic against Donatism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'exire dignamini' is a polite imperative; the English 'be so good as to leave' captures the tone but is not literal."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"in quibus quaedam non eo ordine quo gesta sunt commemorauit, omnia tamen ueraciter posuit, confutatos a catholicis Donatistas omnium documentorum manifestatione pronuntians.\n\nAVGVSTIMI RETRACTATIONVM LIB. II CAP. LIV (XXXVIIII) (PAG. 177, ED. KNOELL).\n\nBREUICULUS CONLATIONIS CUM DONATISTIS, LIBRI TRES.\n\nPosteaquam facta est cum Donatistis nostra conlatio, breuiter commemoraui, quae gesta sint, litterisque conprehendi secundum tres dies, quibus cum eis contulimus, idque opus utile existimaui, quo quisque commonitus uel sciat sine labore, quid actum sit, uel consultis numeris, quos rebus singulis annotaui, legat in eisdem gestis ad locum, quodcumque uoluerit, quoniam fatigant illa nimia prolixitate lectorem. huius autem operis titulus est: breuiculus conlationis.\n\nHoc opus sic incipit: Cum catholici episcopi et partis Donati.","english":"In which he recalled certain things not in the order in which they were done, yet set down everything truthfully, pronouncing that the Donatists had been refuted by the Catholics through the manifestation of all the documents.\n\nFrom Augustine's Retractations, Book II, Chapter 54 (39) (Page 177, Knoell edition).\n\nA Brief Summary of the Conference with the Donatists, Three Books.\n\nAfter our conference with the Donatists had taken place, I briefly recalled what was done, and I committed it to writing according to the three days on which we conferred with them; and I considered this work useful, so that anyone, being reminded, might either know without labor what was done, or, by consulting the numbers which I have appended to each individual matter, might read in the same proceedings at the place whatever he wishes, since their excessive length wearies the reader. The title of this work, however, is: A Brief Summary of the Conference.\n\nThis work begins thus: \"When the Catholic bishops and those of the party of Donatus...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Breuiculus conlationis","severity":"info","text":"The passage is the explicit of the Breviculus Collationis, followed by Augustine's own retrospective notice from the Retractationes, which serves as a colophon and authenticates the work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Augustini Retractationum lib. II cap. LIV (XXXVIIII)","severity":"info","text":"Augustine's Retractationes (2.54) provides a later authorial summary of the Breviculus, confirming its purpose and structure. The parenthetical 'XXXVIIII' reflects an alternative chapter numbering in some manuscript traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"conlatio cum Donatistis","severity":"info","text":"The conference of 411 CE at Carthage, presided over by the imperial commissioner Marcellinus, was a formal debate between Catholic and Donatist bishops. Augustine's Breviculus condenses the official proceedings (gesta) into a more accessible form.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"confutatos a catholicis Donatistas omnium documentorum manifestatione pronuntians","severity":"caution","text":"Augustine's claim that the Donatists were 'refuted by the manifestation of all the documents' reflects his partisan perspective; the Donatists disputed the completeness and fairness of the documentary record. The reader should not take this as an impartial verdict.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"PAG. 177, ED. KNOELL","severity":"info","text":"The page reference '177, ed. Knoell' points to the CSEL edition of Augustine's Retractationes (Vienna, 1902), edited by Pius Knoell. This indicates the source from which the Retractationes excerpt was taken for the present edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in quibus quaedam non eo ordine quo gesta sunt commemorauit' could refer either to the judge's summary or to a lost portion of the proceedings; the antecedent of 'in quibus' is ambiguous in the Latin."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}