{"slug":"tmp108.tmp108.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp108.tmp108.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola Orientalium ad SS Julium I Papam","title_source":"Epistola Orientalium ad SS Julium I Papam","author":"SS Iulius I","genre":"letter","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":"2026-11-15T06:11:16Z","cost_usd":0.003482},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp108.tmp108.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp108.tmp108.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/tmp108/tmp108/tmp108.tmp108.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":6,"english_words":1386,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":5904,"commentary_units":33,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":10,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp108.tmp108.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola Orientalium ad SS Julium I Papam is a Latin letter traditionally attributed to the mid-4th century, during the episcopate of Pope Julius I (337–352). It purports to be a communication from Eastern bishops to the pope, complaining about his reception of Athanasius and threatening schism unless the pope accepts their condemnations. The text survives only in later manuscript copies, the earliest from the 9th century, and was cited in medieval canon law collections, notably the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, to support papal primacy. Its authenticity is disputed; many scholars consider it a later forgery, possibly from the 5th or 6th century.","historical_context":"The letter is set in the context of the mid-4th century theological and ecclesiastical conflicts following the Council of Nicaea (325). The Eastern bishops, many of whom were aligned with Arian or semi-Arian positions, had condemned Athanasius of Alexandria at councils such as Tyre (335) and Antioch (341). Pope Julius I, however, supported Athanasius and refused to recognize those condemnations. The letter reflects the tension between the Roman see and Eastern episcopates over jurisdiction and doctrinal authority. The Latin text survives only in later manuscripts, the earliest from the 9th century, and was transmitted through canon law collections, especially the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, which used it to bolster claims of papal supremacy. The original language of composition is uncertain; if genuine, it would have been written in Greek and later translated into Latin. The lack of contemporary witnesses and the letter's rhetorical and legalistic style have led many scholars to suspect it is a later forgery, possibly from the 5th or 6th century, created to support papal authority in ecclesiastical disputes.","significance":"The letter is significant for its role in the development of papal primacy ideology, as it was used by medieval canonists to argue for the pope's authority over Eastern churches. It also illustrates the complex dynamics of the 4th-century Arian controversy and the political maneuvering between Rome and the Eastern episcopates. Its disputed authenticity highlights the challenges of using later manuscript evidence to reconstruct early church history.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 337–352","event":"Episcopate of Pope Julius I; traditional setting of the letter."},{"date":"335","event":"Council of Tyre condemns Athanasius."},{"date":"341","event":"Council of Antioch reaffirms condemnation of Athanasius."},{"date":"5th–6th c.","event":"Possible composition of the letter as a forgery."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Earliest extant manuscript copies of the letter."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Inclusion in Pseudo-Isidorian decretals."}],"relations":[{"work":"Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals","relation":"The letter was included in this collection to support papal primacy.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Athanasius of Alexandria","relation":"The letter concerns the reception of Athanasius by Pope Julius I.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Nicaea (325)","relation":"The letter references ecclesiastical canons, likely from Nicaea.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Tyre (335)","relation":"One of the councils whose condemnations the letter defends.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Antioch (341)","relation":"Another council whose condemnations the letter defends.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The letter's attribution to the 4th century is uncertain; it may be a 5th- or 6th-century forgery.","No contemporary manuscript witnesses survive; the earliest are from the 9th century.","The original language (Greek or Latin) is unknown; the Latin text is a translation or composition.","The letter's use in Pseudo-Isidorian decretals raises questions about its authenticity and purpose."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000508,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:11:15Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp108/tmp108/tmp108.tmp108.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp108.tmp108.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":6,"translated":6,"commentary_passages":6,"commentary_units":33,"english_words":1386,"source_letters":5904,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is traditionally dated to the mid-4th century, during the episcopate of Pope Julius I (337–352), but the precise year and occasion remain uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text survives only in later manuscript copies; no contemporary witness is extant. The earliest known manuscripts date from the 9th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This letter was cited in medieval canon law collections, notably in the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, to support papal primacy claims.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The attribution to Pope Julius I is not universally accepted; some scholars suspect the letter is a later forgery, possibly from the 5th or 6th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition does not include a critical apparatus of manuscript variants, nor does it provide a full stemma of the transmission history.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text is based on the edition in OGL-PL (Patrologia Latina), which reprints earlier printed editions without systematic collation of manuscripts.","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: letter in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 6 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":6},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"EPISTOLA\n\nORIENTALIUM AD JULIUM PAPAM I.\n\n(Conc. t. II, col. 481.)\n\nCausantur quod in communionem receperit Athanasium, et caeteros quos ipsi damnaverant.\n\nDomino beatissimo et honorabili patri Julio, apostolicae sedis venerabili episcopo; Eusebius, Theognius, Theodorus, et Berinthus una cum reliquis fratribus et coepiscopis nostris, in Antiochia congregatis.\n\nLicet circa omnes Romanam ecclesiam sciamus esse munificam, et apostolicam habere curam, et semper matrem existere pietatis, quamquam ab Oriente ad eam praedicatores (Hist. Trip. IV, 16, et Soz. III, 7) pietatis advenissent, tamen optaremus vos nobiscum concordare, et quos a communione suspendimus, a vobis esse suspensos: et quos in ordine confirmamus episcoporum, a vobis esse confirmandos: nec nos secundo loco habendos; cum ex his partibus ad vos usque dogmatizantes apostoli pervenerint. Nec enim nos vestris resultavimus quamvis hoc agere potuissemus, quando Novatianus a Romana pulsus est ecclesia, quoniam (ut juxta vulgarem consuetudinem loquamur) inimicitias quaerit omnis qui vult recedere ab amico (Prov. XXVIII). Nec crimine carere potest, qui alterius excommunicatum, absque ejus licentia, a quo communione est privatus, in communionem susceperit, canonibus scilicet jubentibus, ut excommunicatus ab aliis, ab aliis non suscipiatur, viventibus illis a quibus communione privatus esse dignoscitur.","english":"Letter of the Eastern Bishops to Pope Julius I.\n\n(Conc. t. II, col. 481.)\n\nThey complain that he has received Athanasius and the others whom they had condemned into communion.\n\nTo the most blessed and honorable father Julius, venerable bishop of the apostolic see; Eusebius, Theognius, Theodorus, and Berinthus together with the rest of our brothers and fellow bishops, assembled at Antioch.\n\nAlthough we know the Roman church to be munificent towards all, and to have apostolic care, and always to be a mother of piety, even though preachers of piety came to her from the East, nevertheless we would wish you to agree with us, and that those whom we have suspended from communion should be suspended by you: and those whom we confirm in the order of bishops should be confirmed by you: and that we should not be considered second, since from these parts apostles who taught doctrine reached as far as you. For we have not opposed you, although we could have done this when Novatian was expelled from the Roman church, because (to speak according to common custom) everyone who wishes to withdraw from a friend seeks enmities (Prov. XXVIII). Nor can one be free from fault who receives into communion one excommunicated by another, without the permission of the one by whom he was deprived of communion, the canons indeed commanding that one excommunicated by some should not be received by others, while those by whom he is known to have been deprived of communion are still living.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"Epistola Orientalium ad SS Julium I Papam","severity":"info","text":"This letter, attributed to Eastern bishops assembled at Antioch, protests Pope Julius I's reception of Athanasius into communion after his condemnation by a synod at Tyre (c. 339). It reflects the early phase of the Arian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Prov. XXVIII","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Proverbs 28:25 (Vulgate: 'qui vult recedere ab amico, inimicitias quaerit') is used to justify the Eastern bishops' stance against breaking communion without consent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"canonibus","severity":"info","text":"The term 'canonibus' refers to ecclesiastical canons, likely those of the Council of Nicaea (canon 5) or earlier synods, which forbade receiving those excommunicated by others without permission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Causantur quod in communionem receperit Athanasium","severity":"info","text":"The heading 'Causantur quod in communionem receperit Athanasium' serves as a summary rubric, not part of the original letter, indicating the complaint against Pope Julius I.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Hist. Trip. IV, 16, et Soz. III, 7","severity":"info","text":"The marginal references to 'Hist. Trip. IV, 16' (Cassiodorus' Historia Tripartita) and 'Soz. III, 7' (Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History) indicate the letter's use in later historical compilations, though not original to the text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The letter's authenticity is debated; it may be a later Latin translation or forgery. The names of the senders (Eusebius, Theognius, Theodorus, Berinthus) are partially attested but the list may be incomplete or altered."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Nec solum in his nobis contumeliam irrogatis, sed etiam in his, quod concilia nostra dissolvitis, neque ea rata sinitis esse. Sunt namque a nobis, et maxime a totius Orientis episcopis damnati, Athanasius Alexandrinus, Paulus Constanlinopolitanus, Marcellus Ancyra, Asclepius Gazae, Lucianusque Hadrianopolites, pro certis criminibus, quibus adversarii sunt apud nos inscripti, quae per praesentes hujus epistolae latores omnia sub certa relatione vestra innotescere non omittimus sanctitati. Quibus agnitis, si nostris placitis magis quam eorum machinationibus assentire, et ordinatos episcopos (Hist. Trip. IV, 16) in damnatorum loco firmare eligitis, pacem vobiscum et communionem habere volumus: si vero aliter egeritis, et eis amplius, quam nobis assentire judicaveritis, contraria celebrabimus, et vobiscum deinceps nec congregari, nec vobis obedire, nec vobis vestrisque favere volumus, sed per nos, quidquid melius elegerimus, agere conabimur. Nam nullus est in hac parte terrarum aetatem habens, qui ignoret praedictorum molimina seductorum, propter eos enim multa sunt mala peracta, multa concilia diversis et asperis temporibus celebrata, multae seditiones, multae machinationes (seductiones), multa nobis opprobria illata, et alia multa quae enumerare perlongum est. Nam si his consentire eligitis, tone liquet quod nos perdere vultis, et non, ut pater filios, fovere.","english":"Nor do you only heap insult upon us in these matters, but also in that you dissolve our councils and refuse to let them stand. For there have been condemned by us, and especially by the bishops of the entire East, Athanasius of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, Asclepius of Gaza, and Lucianus of Hadrianople, for certain crimes with which they have been charged before us, all of which we do not fail to make known to your Holiness through the present bearers of this letter, in a certain report. Having learned these things, if you choose to assent to our decrees rather than to their machinations, and to confirm the bishops ordained in the place of the condemned, we wish to have peace and communion with you. But if you act otherwise, and judge it better to assent to them rather than to us, we will do the contrary, and from now on we wish neither to assemble with you, nor to obey you, nor to favor you and yours, but we will endeavor to do whatever we choose better on our own. For there is no one in this part of the world of mature age who is ignorant of the machinations of the aforementioned deceivers; because of them many evils have been perpetrated, many councils have been held at various and harsh times, many seditions, many machinations, many insults have been inflicted upon us, and many other things which it would be too long to enumerate. For if you choose to consent to them, it is clear that you wish to destroy us, and not, as a father, to cherish your sons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"contumeliam irrogatis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'contumeliam irrogatis' (you heap insult) is a legalistic expression, common in late antique rhetoric, implying formal injury rather than mere personal offense.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"concilia nostra dissolvitis","severity":"info","text":"The Eastern bishops accuse Pope Julius of dissolving their councils, a reference to the Council of Antioch (341) and the Council of Tyre (335), whose condemnations of Athanasius were not recognized by Rome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Si vero aliter egeritis","severity":"info","text":"This passage presents a conditional ultimatum: if the pope accepts the Eastern condemnations, peace; if not, schism. The structure mirrors diplomatic threats in imperial correspondence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Hist. Trip. IV, 16","severity":"info","text":"The parenthetical reference '(Hist. Trip. IV, 16)' in the Latin text is a marginal note from the source edition, pointing to the Historia Tripartita of Cassiodorus, which recounts the same events.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"tone liquet","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'tone liquet' is likely a scribal error for 'tunc liquet' (then it is clear). The English draft correctly reads 'it is clear'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'sub certa relatione' could mean 'in a certain report' or 'with a reliable account'; the translation adopts the former.","The list of condemned bishops includes 'Paulus Constanlinopolitanus' (a variant spelling of Constantinople) and 'Lucianusque Hadrianopolites' (of Hadrianople)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Dicunt enim et affirmant tam cives istorum, quam etiam sacerdotes eorum, hos fovere vos velle homicidas (Athan. apol. II, et ad solit. Hil. in fragm.), sacrorum templorum eversores, virginum stupratores, sacrorum librorum incensores, sacrorumque vasorum, ac caeterorum sacrorum ministeriorum fraudatores, officiorum neglectores, imperatorum infidos, gentis et patriae proditores, et inter sacerdotes maximam generantes discordiam, eo quod consubstantialitatis vocem, quae scripta non invenitur, in fidei doctrina posuissent. Quid plura enumerare necesse est, cum propter eos nobis et cunctis hujus regionis habitatoribus scientibus, tanta caedes hominum sit perpetrata, ut amplius quam mille homines sint prostrati? Talibus autem favere quid aliud est, quam sceleribus eorum consentire, cum sacra scriptura haec prohibeat, dicens: Non solum qui faciunt culpabiles existunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus (Rom. I). Talibus enim vos obsistere totis viribus oportet, ne involvamini in peccatis eorum, et excommunicationem eorum ne suscipiatis. Tales enim a vobis procul abjicite,·ne propter animositatem talium hominum, infirmae animae et ignari populi, sacrilega dissentione dispereant. Itaque oportet (Martinus I, cons. conc. Later.) vos improbis probe resistere. Quapropter si neglexeritis deturbare perversos, liquet quod eorum protegatis errorem.","english":"They say and affirm that both the citizens of those men and also their priests wish you to favor these murderers, destroyers of sacred temples, defilers of virgins, burners of sacred books, and plunderers of sacred vessels and other sacred ministries, neglecters of duties, traitors to emperors, betrayers of their people and country, and those who generate the greatest discord among priests, because they placed the word \"consubstantiality,\" which is not found in Scripture, in the teaching of the faith. Why is it necessary to enumerate more, when because of them, as we and all the inhabitants of this region know, such a great slaughter of men has been perpetrated that more than a thousand men have been laid low? To favor such men is nothing other than to consent to their crimes, since sacred Scripture forbids this, saying: \"Not only those who commit the deeds are guilty, but also those who consent to those who commit them\" (Romans 1). For you must oppose such men with all your strength, lest you become entangled in their sins, and do not receive their excommunication. Cast such men far from you, lest because of the animosity of such men, weak souls and ignorant peoples perish in sacrilegious dissension. Therefore, it is fitting that you resist the wicked with probity. Wherefore, if you neglect to cast down the perverse, it is clear that you protect their error.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"consubstantialitatis vocem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'consubstantialitatis vocem' refers to the Greek term homoousios, a key point of contention in the Arian controversy. The letter claims this word is not found in Scripture, a standard anti-Nicene argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non solum qui faciunt culpabiles existunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus (Rom. I)","severity":"info","text":"This citation loosely echoes Romans 1:32, which in the Vulgate reads: 'non solum qui faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus, digni sunt morte.' The letter adapts it to support the argument against favoring the accused.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"amplius quam mille homines sint prostrati","severity":"info","text":"The claim of over a thousand slain likely refers to violence in Alexandria or elsewhere during the Arian conflict, possibly the massacre of 339 or later unrest. The number is rhetorical, not verifiable.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Martinus I, cons. conc. Later.","severity":"info","text":"The marginal note 'Martinus I, cons. conc. Later.' is a later insertion, likely by a medieval editor, referencing Pope Martin I and the Lateran Council of 649. This anachronistically links the letter to later anti-Monothelite debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quid plura enumerare necesse est","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question marks a transition from a list of accusations to a summary of consequences, intensifying the emotional appeal. It is a common device in ancient epistolary rhetoric.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Talibus autem favere quid aliud est, quam sceleribus eorum consentire","severity":"caution","text":"The logic equating favor with consent is a rhetorical escalation, not a legal principle. The letter uses it to pressure Pope Julius I into condemning the accused, but the argument is tendentious.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'thousand men' slain is unspecified; the number may be symbolic. The phrase 'cives istorum' could refer to citizens of the accused or of the Eastern bishops; the translation takes it as the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Nec vero caret scrupulo societatis occultae, qui manifeste (al. manifestis) facinoribus desinit obviare (Felix III, in ep, ad Acacium), Decet enim vos ad arguendam proterviam eorum linguam vestram exacuere, et velut venenosos a vobis repellere, ne eorum veneno vos vestrique in aliquo sauciemini. Igitur (Idem Martinus) sufficiunt nobis querimoniae contra eos delatae, quoniam derelinquet noa tempus, secundum quod ait Apostolus, si voluerimus omnium obloquentium oblatas contra eos producere querelas; maxime cum haec nobis sufficiant quae superius dicta sunt. Neo nobis necesse est iterum eorum divulgare mala, cum ipsa per se prodeant, et maxime omnes orientales testes super eorum malis existant. In ore enim (juxta quod scriptum est) duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum (Matth. XVIII): quanto magis in multitudine tantorum sacerdotum et populorum, abbatum vel monachorum, in scripto et sine scripto contra horum pravitatem nos quotidie vox acclamantium? Nos vero diu expectavimus eoa per multam patientiam, ut crearent uvas, sed ilii e contrario fecerunt labruscas. Vos ergo non oportet de caetero negligere et differre tales, ne (quod absit)memoratis criminibus eorum submittamini (subdamini), irrationabiliter eos episcopos ponentes.","english":"Nor is it free from the suspicion of secret association, he who manifestly fails to oppose manifest crimes (Felix III, in a letter to Acacius). For it befits you to sharpen your tongue to rebuke their insolence, and to repel them from you as if they were venomous, lest you and yours be wounded in any way by their poison. Therefore (the same Martinus) the complaints brought against them suffice for us, since time will fail us, as the Apostle says, if we should wish to produce all the complaints brought against them by all who speak ill; especially since those things which have been said above suffice for us. Nor is it necessary for us to again publicize their evils, since they themselves come forth on their own, and especially all the Easterners stand as witnesses to their evils. For on the word (according to what is written) of two or three witnesses every word will stand (Matthew 18): how much more in the multitude of so many priests and peoples, abbots or monks, who daily cry out with voice, in writing and without writing, against the depravity of these men? But we have long awaited them with great patience, that they might produce grapes, but on the contrary they have produced wild grapes. Therefore you ought no longer to neglect and defer such men, lest (which God forbid) you be subjected to their aforementioned crimes, irrationally appointing them as bishops.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. XVIII","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Matthew 18:16 (Vulgate: 'in ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum') adapts a legal maxim, not a direct biblical verse, to ecclesiastical procedure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"labruscas","severity":"info","text":"'Labruscas' (wild grapes) contrasts with 'uvas' (grapes), echoing a proverbial or patristic metaphor for disappointing outcomes, possibly from Jerome or Augustine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Felix III, in ep, ad Acacium","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Pope Felix III (483–492) and his letter to Acacius of Constantinople situates the passage in the Acacian schism, where Felix opposed Acacius' Christological compromise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Idem Martinus","severity":"info","text":"'Idem Martinus' likely refers to Pope Martin I (649–655), a staunch opponent of Monothelitism, whose writings were used in later anti-heretical florilegia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Igitur (Idem Martinus) sufficiunt nobis querimoniae","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from a general maxim (Felix III) to a specific argument (Martinus) that the already-lodged complaints suffice, structuring the letter as a cumulative case.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"submittamini (subdamini)","severity":"caution","text":"The variant 'submittamini' (you be subjected) vs. 'subdamini' (you be subdued) in the source edition indicates textual uncertainty; the sense is that the addressees risk complicity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Idem Martinus' is ambiguous: it may refer to Pope Martin I or to a different Martinus in the florilegium; the reading assumes Martin I.","The phrase 'in scripto et sine scripto' could mean 'in writing and orally' or 'in Scripture and without Scripture'; the translation takes the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Ipsi enim, nisi cito corrigantur, juxta quod beatus apostolus protestatur, secundum duritiam earum, et cor impoenitens, thesaurizant tibi iram in die ira et revelationis justi judicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera ejus (Rom. II). Qui corrigendi sunt, ne per temporalem delectationem (S. Greg.), et per mendacia atque figmenta sua vobis assensum praebentibus, aeterna perdant praemia, quae per veram poenitentiam consequi potuerunt. Nec haec, quae praedicta sunt, solummodo Athanasio et sequacibus ejus irrogamus, sed etiam quod contra regulam egerit, quam nos decreveramus, quia non decreto communis concilii (Trip. hist. IV, et 16, X, 17, ex Socr, a Soz.) episcoporum recepit sacerdotium, sed sibimet arrogando ecclesiam fuisset ingressus, et in sede resedisset, cum dudum decretum fuisset, nullum a pauciore numero restitui debere, quam depositum fuisse constaret. Deinde, quoniam ejus adventu sit turba generata, plurimique seditione sint mortui, et non solum haec per eum et propter eum sunt peracta, sed etiam quidam jam a dicto Athanasio caesi, judicibus dicuntur esse contraditi. Haec et alia innumerabilia sunt ab eo suisque sequacibus impudenter perpetrata, quos excommunicatos, communioni (ut audivimus) contra regulam in contumeliam omnium orientalium sociastis. Praefato itaque debitae salutationis (Ep.","english":"For they themselves, unless they are quickly corrected, according to what the blessed apostle testifies, by reason of their hardness and impenitent heart, are storing up wrath for you on the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to each according to his works (Rom. II). Those who are to be corrected, lest through temporal pleasure (S. Greg.), and through their lies and fabrications, with you giving them assent, they should lose the eternal rewards which they could have obtained through true penitence. Nor do we impute these things, which have been foretold, solely to Athanasius and his followers, but also that he acted against the rule which we had decreed, because he received the priesthood not by decree of a common council (Trip. hist. IV, et 16, X, 17, ex Socr, a Soz.) of bishops, but by arrogating to himself he had entered the church and sat in the see, when it had long been decreed that no one ought to be restored by a smaller number than that by which he was known to have been deposed. Then, because by his arrival a crowd was stirred up, and very many died in the sedition, and not only were these things done by him and on his account, but also some, already beaten by the said Athanasius, are said to have been handed over to the judges. These and countless other things have been shamelessly perpetrated by him and his followers, whom you, excommunicated, have (as we have heard) joined to communion against the rule, to the insult of all the Easterners. To the aforementioned, therefore, of the due salutation (Ep.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. II","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Rom. II' refers to Romans 2:5-6, where Paul speaks of storing up wrath and just judgment. The Latin 'thesaurizant tibi iram in die ira' echoes the Vulgate's 'thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae' (Rom 2:5).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Trip. hist. IV, et 16, X, 17, ex Socr, a Soz.","severity":"info","text":"The marginal note 'Trip. hist. IV, et 16, X, 17, ex Socr, a Soz.' refers to the 'Tripartite History' (Cassiodorus' epitome of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret), book 4, chapters 16 and 10.17, as a source for the claim that Athanasius was not ordained by a common council.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Cassiodorus, Historia Tripartita"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum duritiam earum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'secundum duritiam earum' (by reason of their hardness) uses 'earum' (feminine plural) referring to 'aures' (ears) implied from the biblical context of 'duritia aurium' (hardness of ears), a metaphor for obstinacy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"S. Greg.","severity":"info","text":"The marginal note 'S. Greg.' likely cites Pope Gregory I (Gregory the Great), whose writings on penitence and temporal pleasure were influential in later Latin canon law and pastoral theology.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Gregory I, Moralia in Job or Regula Pastoralis"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nec haec, quae praedicta sunt, solummodo Athanasio et sequacibus ejus irrogamus","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a structural shift from general warnings about the impenitent to specific accusations against Athanasius, listing violations of conciliar decrees and causing sedition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Praefato itaque debitae salutationis (Ep.","severity":"caution","text":"The passage ends abruptly with 'Praefato itaque debitae salutationis (Ep.', suggesting a lacuna or editorial truncation. The parenthesis '(Ep.' may indicate a citation from a letter (Epistula) that is incomplete in the manuscript.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'secundum duritiam earum' is ambiguous: 'earum' could refer to 'aures' (ears) from the biblical idiom, but the text does not explicitly state this, leaving the referent unclear.","The marginal note 'Trip. hist. IV, et 16, X, 17, ex Socr, a Soz.' is ambiguous in its exact reference: it may indicate multiple chapters or a composite citation from Socrates and Sozomen via the Tripartite History.","The abrupt ending 'Praefato itaque debitae salutationis (Ep.' leaves the sentence incomplete; the intended citation or continuation is uncertain."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Africanorum ad Coelestinum I papam) officio propter beati Petri honorem impenso, postulamus, ut deinceps ad vestras hinc venientes aures non tam facile admittatis, neque a nobis excommunicatos ultra velitis excipere, ne canonum transgressores inveniamini, sed magis salva fraterna charitate, erratum hoc in posterum minime patiamini.\n\nEt subscriptio: Orantem (Ep. Tarracon, ad Hilarum papam)pro nobis apostolatum vestrum Dominus aevo custodiat longiore, beatissime pater. Amen.","english":"of the Africans to Pope Coelestine I) by reason of the office rendered to the honor of blessed Peter, we request that henceforth you do not so readily admit to your ears those coming from here, nor should you any longer wish to receive those excommunicated by us, lest you be found transgressors of the canons; but rather, with fraternal charity preserved, you should in no way permit this error in the future.\n\nAnd the subscription: (The letter of Tarragona to Pope Hilary) Praying for us, may the Lord preserve your apostolate for a longer time, most blessed father. Amen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Africanorum ad Coelestinum I papam","severity":"info","text":"This phrase is a marginal or inserted heading referencing a lost letter from African bishops to Pope Celestine I (422–432), likely concerning appeals of excommunicated clerics to Rome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"officio propter beati Petri honorem impenso","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'by reason of the office rendered to the honor of blessed Peter' acknowledges papal primacy while asserting that the pope should respect African disciplinary decisions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et subscriptio: Orantem ...","severity":"info","text":"The subscription is a separate closing formula, here borrowed from a letter of Tarragona to Pope Hilary (461–468), indicating later compilation or conflation of documents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"canonum transgressores","severity":"info","text":"The warning against being 'transgressors of the canons' reflects the African church's insistence on conciliar canons (e.g., Council of Carthage, 419) that forbade appeals to Rome from excommunicated persons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Orantem (Ep. Tarracon, ad Hilarum papam)","severity":"caution","text":"The subscription is clearly a later insertion from a different letter (Tarragona to Pope Hilary), not part of the original African letter to Celestine; its presence here is a textual conflation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text conflates two distinct letters: the main body from African bishops to Celestine I, and the subscription from Tarragona to Hilary. The exact original wording of the African letter's closing is lost."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}