{"slug":"stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1","title":"Epigrammata In Quempiam Augustini Obtrectatorem","title_source":"Epigrammata In Quempiam Augustini Obtrectatorem","author":"Prosperus Aquitanus","genre":"poetry","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":"2026-11-15T06:04:58Z","cost_usd":0.002383},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0237/stoa008a/stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":4,"english_words":922,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":3747,"commentary_units":23,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":7,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1","abstract":"Prosper of Aquitaine's 'Epigrammata In Quempiam Augustini Obtrectatorem' is a short Latin poem defending Augustine of Hippo against unnamed detractors. Composed likely between 430 and 450, during the semi-Pelagian controversy, it survives within Prosper's collected works, transmitted through a single manuscript tradition and early modern printed editions. The epigram serves as a concise witness to Augustinian grace theology, cited by medieval and early modern theologians, though it never attained liturgical or canonical status. Textual criticism remains incomplete, with variant readings uncollated.","historical_context":"The poem was composed in Latin, probably in Gaul (Aquitaine), by Prosper, a lay theologian and ardent defender of Augustine's teachings on grace and original sin. The dating is uncertain but falls between Augustine's death in 430 and Prosper's active literary period, which extended into the mid-5th century. The work responds to the semi-Pelagian controversy, which challenged Augustine's predestinarian views, and may target Pelagian or Nestorian opponents. It survives in a single manuscript tradition within Prosper's collected works, with the Patrologia Latina edition based on early modern printed editions. The epigram's title suggests it is part of a series against Augustine's critics, possibly linked to a preceding poem. The text shows signs of corruption, such as 'Quicaptobscuris', likely a scribal error.","significance":"This epigram is significant as a concise poetic defense of Augustinian grace theology during the semi-Pelagian controversy. It reflects Prosper's role as a key lay theologian in 5th-century debates and was later cited by medieval and early modern theologians. The poem also illustrates the use of epigrammatic form for polemical purposes, denouncing heresies as dead and buried.","timeline":[{"date":"430","event":"Death of Augustine of Hippo; terminus post quem for the poem."},{"date":"430–450","event":"Probable composition period during Prosper's active literary career and the semi-Pelagian controversy."},{"date":"5th century","event":"Poem transmitted in manuscript tradition within Prosper's collected works."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Cited by theologians as a witness to Augustinian grace theology."},{"date":"Early modern period","event":"Printed editions, including Patrologia Latina, establish the text."}],"relations":[{"work":"Augustine of Hippo, De correptione et gratia","relation":"Defends Augustinian grace theology against semi-Pelagian critics.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Prosper of Aquitaine, Carmen de ingratis","relation":"Another poetic work by Prosper against semi-Pelagianism.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pelagius, Ad Demetriadem","relation":"Opposing view on grace and original sin.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Nestorius, Sermons","relation":"Linked in the poem's admonitio as a heresy opposed by Augustine.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["Dating is uncertain; placed between 430 and 450 based on historical context.","Attribution to Prosper is traditional and widely accepted but not definitively proven.","The poem survives in a single manuscript tradition; textual criticism remains incomplete.","The Latin text shows corruption (e.g., 'Quicaptobscuris'), likely from scribal errors."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000444,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:04:58Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0237/stoa008a/stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0237.stoa008a.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":4,"translated":4,"commentary_passages":4,"commentary_units":23,"english_words":922,"source_letters":3698,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Prosper of Aquitaine defends Augustine against detractors in this short epigrammatic poem, likely composed in the 5th century during the semi-Pelagian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Dating is uncertain but placed between 430 and 450, after Augustine's death (430) and during Prosper's active literary period. Attribution to Prosper is traditional and widely accepted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The poem survives in a single manuscript tradition within Prosper's collected works. The source edition (ogl-pl) relies on the Patrologia Latina text, which is based on early modern printed editions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This epigram was cited by medieval and early modern theologians as a concise witness to the Augustinian position on grace, though it never achieved liturgical or canonical status.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The present edition does not collate variant readings from the few extant manuscripts; textual criticism of the epigram remains incomplete.","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: poetry in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 4 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":4},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"S. PROSPERI AQUITANI a EPIGRAMMA IN EUMDEM AUT ALIUM QUEMPIAM AUGUSTINI OBTRECTATOREM.\n\nContra Augustinum narratur serpere quidam Scriptor, quem dudum livor adussit edas: a Quicaptobscuris contectum utcumque ca vernis Tollere humo miserum perpulit anguiculum. Aut hunc fruge sua æquorei pavere Britanni, Aut huic Campano gramine corda tument.\n\nQuæ concepta fovet promat, quæ parturit edat; Seu vetere armatur dogmate, sive novo. In quoscumque sinus spirarum torqueat orbes, Et fallax multa contegat arte caput; Currentem attritos super aspidas et basiliscos Declinare senem vipera non poterit.\n\nADMONITIO IN EPITAPHIUM NESTORIANÆ ET PELAGIANÆ H.ERESEON.\n\nUt hoc epitaphium plane intelligatur, duo veluti capita in hæresi Nestoriana attendenda sunt. Unum circa unionem naturæ humanæ cum divina in Christo. quam Nestorius per solam inhabitationem, non vero in unitatem personæ factam fuisse prædicabat, in ut duæ essent in Chris o personæ æque ac dure naturæ nec idem esset Filius Dei, qui filius Mariæ. Alterum caput rationem spectat qua Jesus ad eam, qualiscumque sit, unionem pervenerit. Non enim eam statim in ipso conceptu obtinuisse, sed suis postomodum meritis conseculum fuisse affirmabat.","english":"An epigram of Saint Prosper of Aquitaine against the same or some other detractor of Augustine.\n\nAgainst Augustine a certain writer is said to creep, whom long-standing envy has already consumed. A wretched little serpent, covered by dark caverns as best it could, a force has driven to raise itself from the ground. Either let the Britons of the sea feed this one with their own grain, or let Campanian grass swell his heart with pride.\n\nLet him bring forth what he conceives and cherishes, let him give birth to what he labors to produce; whether he arms himself with old doctrine or new. Into whatever coils he twists the circles of his folds, and conceals his treacherous head with much art, the old man, running over crushed asps and basilisks, the viper will not be able to avoid.\n\nA WARNING ON THE EPITAPH OF THE NESTORIAN AND PELAGIAN HERESIES.\n\nSo that this epitaph may be clearly understood, two heads, as it were, in the Nestorian heresy are to be noted. One concerns the union of the human nature with the divine in Christ, which Nestorius proclaimed was made only by habitation, not truly into a unity of person, so that there were two persons in Christ equally as two natures, and the Son of God was not the same as the son of Mary. The other head concerns the manner by which Jesus arrived at that union, such as it is. For he affirmed that he did not obtain it immediately at the moment of conception, but achieved it afterwards by his own merits.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epigramma in eumdem aut alium quempiam Augustini obtrectatorem","severity":"info","text":"The title distinguishes two possible targets: the same detractor as in a preceding poem or another. This frames the poem as part of a series against Augustine's critics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Campano gramine","severity":"info","text":"Campania was a region in southern Italy known for its fertile soil and grain. The phrase contrasts British and Italian settings, possibly alluding to Pelagian or other heretical origins.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Nestorianae et Pelagianae haereseon","severity":"info","text":"The admonitio links Nestorian and Pelagian heresies, both opposed by Augustine. Nestorius denied the hypostatic union; Pelagius denied original sin. Prosper often combated both.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"epitaphium","severity":"info","text":"Here 'epitaphium' means a polemical summary or condemnation, not a funerary inscription. It is used figuratively to denounce heresies as dead and buried.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"S. Prosperi Aquitani","severity":"info","text":"Prosper was a lay theologian and defender of Augustine's teachings, especially against semi-Pelagianism. This poem reflects his role in the 5th-century controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Quicaptobscuris","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text here is corrupt: 'Quicaptobscuris' likely results from a scribal error. The intended reading may be 'qui captus obscuris' or similar, meaning 'who, caught in darkness'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the detractor is unspecified; it may be a Pelagian or Nestorian opponent. The phrase 'aut alium quempiam' leaves the target deliberately vague.","The textual corruption in 'Quicaptobscuris' obscures the precise syntax of the serpent's concealment."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Quare vetus Chronologus apud Liberatam, hæc habet de haresi Nestoriana: Felice et Tauro coss., Nestorius Constantinopolitanus episcopus novum Ecclesiis molitur errorem inducere, prædicans Christum hominem tantum, non etiam Deum natum, etque divinitatem collatam esse pro merito dicit Hunc posteriorem errorem postissimum spectat sanctus Prosper, et in eo Nestorianam hæresim cum Pelagiana comparat. Illam vero ait Pelagiianæ genitricem simul et natam esse: genitricem, quia error illius qui in capi e gratiam destruit, et qui Jesum dignitatem Christi propriis meritis asseculum fuisse contendit (quæ ext hæresis Nestorii), fons et principium est erroris illius qui gra iam in membris evertit, quique homines Christianorum dignitatem propriis meritis sibi comparare posse affirma (quæ est hæresis Pelagii): natam vero, quia Nestorius suam non vulgavit hæresim nisi post damnatos Pelagianos.","english":"Why does the old Chronologer, in the work of Liberatus, have this concerning the Nestorian heresy: In the consulship of Felix and Taurus, Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, attempted to introduce a new error into the Churches, preaching that Christ was born a man only, and not also God, and he says that divinity was conferred upon him as a reward for merit. Saint Prosper especially regards this latter error, and in it he compares the Nestorian heresy with the Pelagian. He says that the former is both the mother and the daughter of the Pelagian: the mother, because the error of that man who destroys grace in its source, and who contends that Jesus attained the dignity of Christ by his own merits (which is the heresy of Nestorius), is the fount and beginning of that error which overturns grace in its members, and which affirms that men can obtain the dignity of Christians by their own merits (which is the Pelagian heresy); the daughter, indeed, because Nestorius did not publish his own heresy until after the Pelagians had been condemned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Liberatam","severity":"info","text":"Liberatus of Carthage, a 6th-century deacon, wrote a Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, which Prosper here cites as a source for the Nestorian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Chronologus","severity":"info","text":"The term 'Chronologus' likely refers to a chronicler or annalist, possibly Prosper himself or another early historian, but the reference is ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"genitricem simul et natam","severity":"info","text":"Prosper's paradoxical claim that Nestorianism is both mother and daughter of Pelagianism structures his argument: Nestorianism originates Pelagianism (mother) yet historically appears after Pelagian condemnation (daughter).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Nestorianam hæresim cum Pelagiana comparat","severity":"info","text":"This passage shows Prosper's influential linking of Nestorian and Pelagian heresies, a theme later developed in medieval anti-heretical writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"postissimum","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'postissimum' is likely a scribal error for 'potissimum' (especially), as the sense requires an adverb of emphasis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'old Chronologer' is unclear; it may refer to Prosper himself or another chronicler.","The phrase 'apud Liberatam' could mean 'in the work of Liberatus' or 'at the place called Liberata'; the former is adopted here."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Atque adeo cum in istius epitaphii limine Nestorianam hæresim Pelagianæ successisse divisset, quasi postmodum ortam, quod verum est, si illius per Nestorium divulgationem consideres, post a tamen utramqne simul ortam esse ait, tum ob affinitatem et cognationem, quæ inter utriusque errores intercedit, tum etiam quia ante Nestorium Nestoriana hæresis in Pelagiana continebatur: ut patet ex Leporio Gallicano monacho, qui cum esset Pelagiani dogmatis acerrimus defensor, illum etiam ob quam postea Nestorius damnatus est hæresim docuit; sed Augustini opera ad sanam mentem rediit. Nestorias suum dii ulgavit hæresim paulo post damnatos Pelagianos, circo annum 429.\n\nHoc idem epitophium a Prospera nostro utriusque hæresis tumulo appensum negarat Joan. Gamerius soc. Jesu in cap, dissert. ad Marii Mercatoris Opera; simile quiddam æmgmati proferri conteniens, cum dicitur alteram hæresim alterius fuisse matrem simul et filiam: quæ ingeniose quidem dicta fatetur, sed vere fuisse negat: hincque probare nititur quod a tertio sæculo per deliria Samosateni Nestoriano errori præludi cæperii, subjicitque dundam eo faciliorem veniam poe æ nostro, quod ipse quoque Cassianus in eodem peccaverit, et suam in tententiam traxerit amicum Leonem Magnum, aliosque postmodum plures eorum auctoritatem secutos.","english":"And so, when at the threshold of this epitaph he had said that the Nestorian heresy succeeded the Pelagian, as if it arose later—which is true, if you consider its dissemination by Nestorius—he nevertheless says that both arose simultaneously, both because of the affinity and kinship that exists between the errors of each, and also because before Nestorius the Nestorian heresy was contained within the Pelagian: as is evident from Leporius, a Gallic monk, who, while being a most vehement defender of the Pelagian doctrine, also taught that heresy for which Nestorius was later condemned; but through the works of Augustine he returned to a sound mind. Nestorius disseminated his heresy shortly after the Pelagians were condemned, around the year 429.\n\nThis same epitaph, placed by our Prosper on the tomb of both heresies, was denied by Jean Gamerius of the Society of Jesus in the chapter of his dissertation prefixed to the works of Marius Mercator; he contends that something like a riddle is put forward, when it is said that one heresy was both mother and daughter of the other: which, he admits, is cleverly said, but denies that it is true; and from this he tries to prove that from the third century, through the ravings of the Samosatene, the Nestorian error began to be prefigured, and he adds that pardon is all the more easily granted to our poet, because Cassianus himself sinned in the same way, and drew his friend Leo the Great into his own opinion, and afterwards many others followed their authority.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Leporius, a Gallic monk, was a Pelagian who taught a Christological error later associated with Nestorius; Augustine's writings led to his recantation. Prosper uses this to argue that Nestorianism was latent within Pelagianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Jean Gamerius (c. 1530–1580), a Jesuit scholar, contested Prosper's epitaph in his dissertation prefixed to the works of Marius Mercator, arguing that the two heresies were not related as mother and daughter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Gamerius claims that Cassianus (John Cassian) made the same error as Prosper, and that Cassian influenced Pope Leo the Great and many later authorities to adopt his view.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"circa annum 429","severity":"info","text":"The passage dates Nestorius's dissemination of his heresy to around 429, shortly after the condemnation of Pelagianism, which aligns with historical consensus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The 'Samosatene' refers to Paul of Samosata, a third-century bishop whose adoptionist Christology was seen as a precursor to Nestorianism by Gamerius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"æmgmati","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'æmgmati' (a riddle) reflects Gamerius's characterization of Prosper's claim that one heresy was both mother and daughter of the other; the text is not corrupt but the sense is contested.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'post a tamen utramqne simul ortam esse' is unclear; the reading taken is 'he nevertheless says that both arose simultaneously'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Quibus non obstantibus, tole opusculum Prospero abjudicanaum negat Anthelmius dissert. in Opera SS. Leonis et Prosperi, tum propter auctoritatem Cassiani et Leon v Magni, quibus si hoc licuit serio disserentibus, multo indulgentius poetæ condonandum, non tam ad historiæ normam loquenti, quom consepultis erroribus laxatis habenis inflatisque, ut aiunt, tibiis volenti illudere Maxime cum hæc utriusque hæreseos comparatio non semet ab eo usurpata deprehendatur, sed et in Chronico ipso narret quod apud Ephesum Nestorius cum hæresi nominis sui, et cum Iuliis Pel gianis, qui cognatum errori suo juvabant dogma. fuent damnatus, et hanc ipsam utriusque erroris contesserationem Cassiano exprobret libri adversus eum scripti cap. Per hunc virum (Læl stinum) etiam Orie.t les Ecclesiæ gemina peste rgatæ sunt, quando Cyrillo Alexandrinæ urbis antistiti ad exserrandum Nestorianam impietatem, apostolico auxiliatus est gladeo, quo etiam Pelagiani dum ratis conlæ terantur erioribus, iterum prosternerentur. Quo autem sensu hæc inter utrunque granitas intelligenda veniat, jam supra fuse satis explicatum habes.","english":"Despite these objections, Anthelmius, in his dissertation on the works of SS. Leo and Prosper, denies that the little work is to be taken from Prosper, both on the authority of Cassian and Leo the Great—to whom, if they were allowed this in serious discussion, much more indulgence is to be granted to a poet, who speaks not so much according to the norm of history, but, as it were, with reins loosened and pipes inflated, wishes to mock buried errors—especially since this comparison of both heresies is not found to have been first employed by him, but he also relates in his own Chronicle that at Ephesus, Nestorius was condemned along with the heresy of his own name and with the Pelagians, who supported a dogma akin to their own error, and Cassian reproaches him for this very conjoining of both errors in the book written against him, chapter: \"Through this man (Coelestinus), the twin plagues of the Eastern Churches were also purged, when, with the apostolic sword, he assisted Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, in cursing the Nestorian impiety, by which the Pelagians, while they were being crushed by the same errors, were again overthrown.\" In what sense this connection between the two is to be understood, you have already explained sufficiently above.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Anthelmius","severity":"info","text":"Anthelmius is a modern editor who argued against Prosper's authorship of this work, citing the authority of Cassian and Leo the Great.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cassiani et Leonis Magni","severity":"info","text":"Cassian and Leo the Great are patristic authorities invoked to defend Prosper's authorship, as they engaged in serious theological discussion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hæc utriusque hæreseos comparatio","severity":"info","text":"The comparison of Pelagian and Nestorian heresies is a recurring theme, also found in Prosper's Chronicle, linking the two errors.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"apud Ephesum Nestorius cum hæresi nominis sui","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) condemned Nestorius and his heresy, along with Pelagians, as noted in Prosper's Chronicle.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"contesserationem","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'contesserationem' means 'conjoining' or 'interweaving', emphasizing the perceived link between the two heresies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Quo autem sensu hæc inter utrunque granitas intelligenda veniat","severity":"caution","text":"The text acknowledges that the sense of the connection between heresies has been explained above, implying a contested interpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'tole opusculum Prospero abjudicanaum' is unclear; likely a textual corruption or variant reading for 'tolle opusculum Prospero abiudicandum' (remove the little work from Prosper's authorship).","The reference to 'Læl stinum' is ambiguous; probably a misprint for 'Coelestinum' (Pope Celestine I)."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}