{"slug":"tmp353.tmp353.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp353.tmp353.opp-lat1","title":"Epistolae Et Decreta","title_source":"Epistolae Et Decreta","author":"SS Anastasius 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":"2026-11-15T06:33:37Z","cost_usd":0.006792},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp353.tmp353.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp353.tmp353.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/tmp353/tmp353/tmp353.tmp353.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":14,"english_words":3385,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":13771,"commentary_units":77,"commentary_kinds":10,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":22,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp353.tmp353.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistolae et Decreta of Pope Anastasius I (r. 399–401) comprise a collection of letters and decretals addressing ecclesiastical discipline, the condemnation of Origenism, and relations with Eastern bishops. Surviving primarily through medieval canonical manuscripts and later patristic florilegia, the corpus lacks a single authoritative codex; the order, number, and attribution of letters vary across witnesses. The edition reproduced in Migne's Patrologia Latina (OGL-PL) relies on early modern printed editions without a critical apparatus. These letters were cited in Gratian's Decretum and shaped Western canon law, while Jerome's references to Anastasius in Against Rufinus and other works attest to their early authority.","historical_context":"Anastasius I served as bishop of Rome from 399 to 401, a brief pontificate during a period of theological conflict over Origen's teachings. His letters address the Origenist controversy, aligning with Western condemnation of Origen, and engage with figures such as Jerome and Rufinus. The collection survives not in a single authoritative codex but in medieval canonical manuscripts, where the number and order of letters vary, and some attributions remain uncertain. The text was transmitted through canon law collections, notably Gratian's Decretum, and patristic florilegia, which preserved excerpts for doctrinal and disciplinary use. The OGL-PL edition reproduces the text from Migne's Patrologia Latina, itself based on early modern printed editions, without collating manuscript variants or providing a critical apparatus. Precise dating of individual epistles often depends on internal references to contemporary events, but the letters are generally assigned to Anastasius's pontificate (399–401).","significance":"Anastasius I's letters are significant for documenting early papal engagement with the Origenist controversy and for shaping Western ecclesiastical discipline through their inclusion in Gratian's Decretum. Jerome's citations of these letters in Against Rufinus and other works underscore their early authority and influence on Latin patristic thought.","timeline":[{"date":"399–401","event":"Pontificate of Anastasius I; his letters are dated to this period."},{"date":"4th–5th c.","event":"Origenist controversy; Anastasius opposes Origen's teachings."},{"date":"c. 402","event":"Jerome writes Against Rufinus, Book II, referencing Anastasius's letters."},{"date":"12th c.","event":"Gratian's Decretum cites Anastasius's letters, integrating them into canon law."},{"date":"19th c.","event":"Migne's Patrologia Latina publishes the letters based on early modern editions."}],"relations":[{"work":"Against Rufinus, Book II","relation":"Jerome references Anastasius's letters in this work.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Decretum Gratiani","relation":"Gratian's Decretum cites Anastasius's letters as authoritative sources.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Patrologia Latina","relation":"Migne's edition reproduces the text of the letters.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The precise dating of individual epistles is uncertain; they are assigned to 399–401 based on internal references.","The collection survives in medieval canonical manuscripts with varying order, number, and attribution; some letters may be spurious or misattributed.","The OGL-PL edition lacks a critical apparatus and does not collate manuscript variants, so textual reliability is limited."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000462,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:33:37Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp353/tmp353/tmp353.tmp353.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp353.tmp353.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":14,"translated":14,"commentary_passages":14,"commentary_units":77,"english_words":3385,"source_letters":13771,"commentary_kinds":10},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius I was pope from 399 to 401. His letters are dated to this brief pontificate, but precise dating of individual epistles often depends on internal references to contemporary events.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The collection survives in medieval canonical manuscripts, not in a single authoritative codex. The order and number of letters vary across witnesses, and some attributions remain uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius’s letters were cited in later canon law collections, notably the Decretum of Gratian, and in patristic florilegia, shaping Western ecclesiastical discipline.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition (OGL-PL) reproduces the text from Migne’s Patrologia Latina, which relies on early modern printed editions. It does not collate manuscript variants or provide a critical apparatus.","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: 14 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":14},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"S. ANASTASII I PAPAE EPISTOLAE ET DECRETA.\n\nMONITUM IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.\n\nI. Epistola haec ab Hieronymo memorata, et libro ii adv. R(??)fin. inserta.—Frequens epistolae hujus in Hieronymi scriptis fit mentio. Ad illam respicit in epistola 8, ad Demetriadem, ubi scribit: « Dum esses parvula, et sanctae ac beatae memoriae Anastasius episcopus Romanam regeret Ecclesiam, de Orientis partibus haereticorum saeva tempestas simplicitatem fidei, quae Apostoli voce laudata est, polluere et labefactare conata est. Sed vir ditissimae paupertatis et apostolicae sollicitudinis statim noxium percussit caput, et sibilantia hydrae ora compescuit. » In epistola 78, ad Pammachium et Marcellam, Theophilo Alexandrino, quod Origenem haereticum declaras et, laudato, de hac epistola ita loquitur: « Quamquam celebri sermone vulgatum sit, beatum quoque papam Anastasium eodem fervore, quia eodem spiri(??)u est, latitantes in suis foveis haereticos persecutum; ejusque litterae doceant damnatum in Occidente, quod in Oriente damnatum est. Cui multos imprecamur annos, ut haereseos rediviva plantaria per illius studium longo tempore arefacta moriantur. » In libro iii Apologiae de eadem pluries sermonem habet, neque de ea tacet in secundo.","english":"The holy Pope Anastasius I: Letters and Decrees.\n\nA Note on the Following Letter.\n\nI. This letter is mentioned by Jerome and inserted into Book II Against Rufinus. Frequent mention of this letter is made in Jerome’s writings. He refers to it in Letter 8, to Demetrias, where he writes: “While you were a little girl, and the bishop Anastasius of holy and blessed memory ruled the Roman Church, a savage storm of heretics from the regions of the East attempted to defile and undermine the simplicity of faith, which is praised by the voice of the Apostle. But a man of the richest poverty and apostolic vigilance immediately struck the deadly head and silenced the hissing mouths of the hydra.” In Letter 78, to Pammachius and Marcella, praising Theophilus of Alexandria for declaring Origen a heretic, he speaks thus of this letter: “Although it is spread by common talk that the blessed Pope Anastasius also, with the same zeal, because he is of the same spirit, persecuted heretics lurking in their dens; and his letters teach that what was condemned in the East was condemned in the West. We pray many years for him, so that the revived plantings of heresy, withered for a long time through his efforts, may die.” In Book III of his Apology he speaks of it several times, nor is he silent about it in Book II.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Monitum in Epistolam Sequentem","severity":"info","text":"This heading introduces a prefatory note (monitum) that precedes the first letter, a common editorial feature in patristic collections to provide context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola haec ab Hieronymo memorata","severity":"info","text":"Jerome references this letter in multiple works, including Against Rufinus, Book II, and his letters to Demetrias and Pammachius, indicating its early authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Jerome"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"haereticorum saeva tempestas","severity":"info","text":"The 'savage storm of heretics' refers to the Origenist controversy, which Anastasius I opposed, aligning with Western condemnation of Origen's teachings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"vir ditissimae paupertatis","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, 'man of the richest poverty,' is a rhetorical paradox praising Anastasius for ascetic virtue despite his papal office.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Anastasius episcopus Romanam regeret Ecclesiam","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius I was pope from 399 to 401 AD; Jerome's reference to him as 'of holy and blessed memory' suggests this note was written after Anastasius's death.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"libro ii adv. R(??)fin.","severity":"caution","text":"The abbreviation 'R(??)fin.' likely stands for 'Rufinum,' but the text is corrupt; the intended reference is Jerome's Against Rufinus, Book II.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The abbreviation 'R(??)fin.' is unclear but probably refers to Rufinus; the exact title of Jerome's work is uncertain from this text alone."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Immo huic libro ejus exemplum a se subjectum esse testatur, et cur subjectum sit, Rufinum alloquens exponit his verbis: « Si ideo interpretaris (Origenis libros) ut eum haerelicum arguas, nihil de Graeco mutes, et hoc ipsum praefatione testare, quod prudentissime papa Anastasius in epistola, quam contra te scribit ad episcopum Joannem, suo sermone complexus est; me liberans qui id feci, et te arguens qui facere noluisti. Ac ne forsitan hoc quoque neges, subjeci exemplum ejus: ut si non vis audire fratrem monentem, audias episcopum condemnantem. »\n\nII. Epistolarum Hieronymi collectioni unde inserta sit.—Inde quoque conjectare licet, qua occasione evenerit, ut inter Hieronymi epistolas, etiam in veteribus earum collectionibus, haec Anastasii collocata sit. Nimirum qui has concinnarunt collectiones, quidquid inter Hieronymi opera sunt nacti, quod epistolae formam haberet, illud a caeteris ejusdem scriptis distraxerunt, ut in unum epistolarum corpus referrent. Cum igitur hanc Anastasii epistolam, sicut et superiorem Rufini, libro ii Apologiae Hieronymi subnexas invenissent, utramque ad epistolarum classem sibi transferendam duxerunt. Nunc vero ambae in tomum, qui aliena Hieronymi opera continet, rejectae sunt. An satius foret hujusmodi scripta eo loco exhibere, quem Hieronymus eis dederat, meum non est definire.","english":"Indeed, he testifies that a copy of this book was appended by him, and addressing Rufinus, he explains why it was appended in these words: “If you interpret (Origen’s books) in order to accuse him of heresy, change nothing from the Greek, and declare this very thing in your preface, as the most prudent Pope Anastasius, in the letter he writes against you to Bishop John, has comprehended in his own words; freeing me, who did this, and accusing you, who refused to do it. And lest perhaps you also deny this, I have appended a copy of it: so that if you are unwilling to hear a brother admonishing, you may hear a bishop condemning.”\n\nII. From what collection of Jerome’s letters it was inserted.—From this, it is also possible to conjecture on what occasion it happened that this letter of Anastasius was placed among Jerome’s epistles, even in their ancient collections. Undoubtedly, those who compiled these collections, whatever they found among Jerome’s works that had the form of a letter, they separated it from his other writings, so as to refer it to a single body of epistles. Therefore, when they found this letter of Anastasius, as well as the earlier one of Rufinus, appended to Book II of Jerome’s Apology, they deemed both to be transferred to the class of epistles. Now, however, both have been relegated to the volume that contains Jerome’s other works. Whether it would be better to present writings of this kind in the place that Jerome had assigned to them is not for me to decide.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"papa Anastasius","severity":"info","text":"Pope Anastasius I (reigned 399–401) is here cited by Jerome in his Apology against Rufinus. The letter to Bishop John of Jerusalem is a key document in the Origenist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistolarum Hieronymi collectioni","severity":"info","text":"The editor explains that Anastasius’s letter was inserted into collections of Jerome’s letters because compilers extracted any letter-form text from Jerome’s works, including this one appended to Book II of the Apology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"II. Epistolarum Hieronymi collectioni unde inserta sit","severity":"info","text":"This section is a separate editorial note (marked II) that discusses the manuscript transmission of Anastasius’s letter within Jerome’s epistolary corpus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunc vero ambae in tomum, qui aliena Hieronymi opera continet, rejectae sunt","severity":"info","text":"The editor notes that both Anastasius’s and Rufinus’s letters have been moved to a volume of spurious works attributed to Jerome, indicating later editorial decisions about authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"An satius foret hujusmodi scripta eo loco exhibere, quem Hieronymus eis dederat, meum non est definire","severity":"caution","text":"The editor declines to judge whether the letters should be restored to their original place in Jerome’s Apology, leaving the reader uncertain about the best editorial arrangement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'epistolam, quam contra te scribit ad episcopum Joannem' could mean the letter is written 'against you' (Rufinus) or 'concerning you'; the translation takes it as 'against you'.","The phrase 'suo sermone complexus est' is ambiguous: it may mean 'comprehended in his own words' or 'summarized in his own discourse'; the translation adopts the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"III. Marii Mercatoris scriptis exemplaribus reperitur praefixa.—E vulgatis Hieronymi operibus haec Anastasii epistola primum in editione Romana pontificiarum epistolarum, tum apud Baronium, ac postmodum in editionibus con(??)iorum descripta est. In Vaticano ac Bellovacensi scriptis exemplaribus Ma(??)i Mercatoris operibus una cum altero libello, cui (??)tulus est Fides ejusdem Rufini, praefigitur. Ac licet neutrum opus ad Marium Mercatorem ullo modo pertinere Joannes Garnerius agnoscat, utrumque tamen cum hujus scriptoris operibus, non quidem in eorum fronte, sed ad calcem edendum, ac notis illustrandum putavit. Unum pag. 109, alterum pag. 114, ejus editio repraesentat. Eam autem fidei expositionem, quam Rufini nomine donatam invenit, Aquileiensis presbyteri non esse recte observavit.\n\nIV. Hanc Rufinus ab Hieronymo confictam suspicatur.—Is(??)am Anastasii epistolam ab Hieronymo confictam suspicari se Rufinus non sine animi ancipitis atque incerti nota significavit. Quocirca eum Hieronymus sic alloquitur: « In epistola sancti papae Anastasii lubricus exsti(??)sti; et turbatus in quo figas gradum non reperis. Modo enim dicis a me esse compositam; nunc ab eo (scil. Joanne) ad (??)e debuisse transmitti cui missa est. Rursum injustitiam scribentis arguis.","english":"III. It is found prefixed to the written exemplars of Marius Mercator’s works.—This letter of Anastasius was first described in the Roman edition of pontifical letters among the published works of Jerome, then in Baronius, and afterwards in editions of the councils. In the Vatican and Beauvais manuscript exemplars, it is prefixed to the works of Marius Mercator together with another little book, whose title is “The Faith of the Same Rufinus.” And although John Garnier acknowledges that neither work pertains in any way to Marius Mercator, he nevertheless thought that both should be published, not at the front of this writer’s works, but at the end, and illustrated with notes. His edition presents one on page 109, the other on page 114. Moreover, he rightly observed that the exposition of the faith which he found bestowed with the name of Rufinus is not that of the presbyter of Aquileia.\n\nIV. Rufinus suspects this to have been fabricated by Jerome.—Rufinus signified that he suspected this letter of Anastasius to have been fabricated by Jerome, with a mark of a wavering and uncertain mind. Wherefore Jerome addresses him thus: “In the letter of the holy Pope Anastasius you were slippery; and troubled, you find no place to fix your step. For at one time you say it was composed by me; now, that it ought to have been transmitted by him (i.e., John) to the one to whom it was sent. Again, you accuse the writer of injustice.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Marii Mercatoris","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator was a 5th-century Latin Christian writer and supporter of Augustine in the Pelagian controversy. His works often included documents from the Origenist disputes, which explains the presence of Anastasius's letter in his manuscripts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Vaticano ac Bellovacensi scriptis exemplaribus","severity":"info","text":"The Vatican and Beauvais manuscripts are key witnesses for the transmission of Anastasius's letter alongside works of Marius Mercator. Their provenance suggests a medieval French and Roman monastic context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Joannes Garnerius","severity":"info","text":"John Garnier (Joannes Garnerius) was a 17th-century Jesuit editor of Marius Mercator. His edition (Paris, 1673) placed Anastasius's letter and Rufinus's creed at the end of the volume, with notes, despite doubting their attribution to Mercator.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Hanc Rufinus ab Hieronymo confictam suspicatur","severity":"caution","text":"Rufinus's suspicion that Jerome forged Anastasius's letter is a contested claim. The passage notes Rufinus's wavering mind, but modern scholarship generally rejects the forgery hypothesis, viewing it as a polemical tactic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"IV","severity":"info","text":"Section IV shifts from manuscript transmission to the polemical exchange between Rufinus and Jerome, quoting Jerome's response to Rufinus's accusation. This structural move highlights the letter's role in the Origenist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has lacunae (e.g., 'con(??)iorum', 'Ma(??)i', '(??)tulus', 'Is(??)am', 'exsti(??)sti', '(??)e'), which obscure precise readings. The English draft supplies plausible restorations (e.g., 'conciliorum', 'Marii', 'cui titulus', 'Ipsam', 'exstitisti', 'te'), but these are editorial conjectures."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"» Et post pauca ipse de epistolae veritate certus Rufinum, quod ex Oriente ejus exemplum exspectare se diceret, ridet in hunc modum: « Vade potius Romam, et praesens apud eum (Anastasium) expostula, cur tibi absenti et innocenti fecerit contumeliam: primum, ut non reciperet expositionem fidei tuae (in superiore epistola contentam).. deinde ut epistolas contra te ad Orientem mitteret. » Etiamnum tamen Petrus Halloix de Vita Origenis pag. 333, eamdem suppositionis suspectam habet. At veritatem ejus Hieronymus litteris aliis ab eodem papa sequenti anno rursus in Orientem missis confirmat, de quibus paulo post ista subjicit: « Esto praeteriti anni ego epistolam finxerim: recentia ad Orientem scripta quis misit, in quibus papa Anastasius tantis te ornat floribus, ut cum ea legeris, magis te velle defendere incipias, quam nos accusare? » Et circa apologiae suae finem: « Sin autem ejus est (scil. Anastasii), ut hujus quoque anni contra te epistolae probant, frustra et falso falsam arguere niteris. »","english":"And after a few things, being certain of the truth of the letter, he mocks Rufinus, who said he was awaiting a copy of it from the East, in this manner: \"Go rather to Rome, and in person demand of him (Anastasius) why he inflicted an insult upon you, absent and innocent: first, by not receiving the exposition of your faith (contained in the earlier letter).. then, by sending letters against you to the East.\" Yet Peter Halloix, in his *Life of Origen*, page 333, still regards the same letter as suspect of being a forgery. But Jerome confirms its truth by other letters sent to the East by the same pope in the following year, concerning which he adds shortly after: \"Grant that I forged the letter of last year: who sent the recent writings to the East, in which Pope Anastasius adorns you with such flowers that, when you read them, you begin more to wish to defend yourself than to accuse us?\" And near the end of his apology: \"But if it is his (i.e., Anastasius's), as the letters of this year also against you prove, you strive in vain and falsely to argue that it is false.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Petrus Halloix de Vita Origenis pag. 333","severity":"info","text":"Pierre Halloix (1571–1656) in his *Vita Origenis* (p. 333) doubted the authenticity of Anastasius's letter, a skepticism Jerome here rebuts.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Halloix 1633"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et post pauca","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Et post pauca' signals a continuous excerpt from Jerome's *Apologia contra Rufinum*, where Jerome defends the letter's authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufinum","severity":"info","text":"Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411) was a translator and theologian, opponent of Jerome in the Origenist controversy; his claim to await an Eastern copy of Anastasius's letter is mocked here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"sequentis anni","severity":"info","text":"Jerome refers to letters sent by Pope Anastasius I to the East in the year following the initial letter (c. 401–402), confirming the earlier correspondence's authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"suppositionis suspectam","severity":"caution","text":"The passage notes ongoing scholarly suspicion (Halloix) about the letter's authenticity, a debate Jerome himself addresses; the text's transmission may involve later interpolations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'earlier letter' (superiore epistola) and the 'recent writings' (recentia ad Orientem scripta) is not specified; the passage assumes familiarity with Jerome's *Apologia*."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"V. Quo anno scripta sit.—Cum his duobus locis stare nequit opinio eorum, qui epistolam, de qua agimus, anno scriptam putant. Nemo enim est, qui Anastasii ultra diem mensis Aprilis anni protrahat vitam. Atqui non eo anno, quo defunctus est hic papa, sed eo qui illum praecessit, Hieronymus epistolam istam scriptam esse testatur. Ex quo sequitur, ut vel ad annum referenda sit, si reipsa Anastasius anno mense Aprili obiit; vel si non male obitus ejus die Decembris anni consignatur, ad annum pertineat, atque Hieronymus postremam apologiae suae partem adversus Rufinum non anno 402, sed composuerit.\n\nVI. Origenes ab Anastasio damnatus.—Hac epistola Origenem damnatum esse cum ex pluribus Hieronymi locis, tum ex ipsius epistolae verbis liquet. Eam, uti jam observavi, Hieronymus epist. 16, Marcellae laudem tribuit, quod hujus damnationis principium fuerit. Hanc ipse tum expetebat Hieronymus, eique postulanti Theophilus Alexandrinus antistes etiam nesciens non mediocri subsidio fuit. Cum enim sanctus ille Doctor in Occidentem litteras adversus Origenem misisset, atque Anastasius nihil praecipitatum volens, necdum Hieronymi aliorum (??) sollicitationibus cederet; « ex dispensatione Dei, » inquit ipse Hieronymus epist. 71, ad Theophilum scribens, « factum puto, ut eo in tempore tu quoque ad Anastasium papam scriberes, et nostram dum ignorares sententiam roborares.","english":"V. In what year it was written.—With these two passages, the opinion of those who think the letter in question was written in the year 402 cannot stand. For there is no one who prolongs the life of Anastasius beyond the day of the month of April of that year. Yet Jerome testifies that this letter was written not in the year in which this pope died, but in the one which preceded it. From this it follows that it must either be referred to the year 401, if Anastasius actually died in the month of April; or, if his death is recorded on a day in December, it pertains to the year 402, and Jerome composed the last part of his apology against Rufinus not in the year 402, but in 403.\n\nVI. Origen condemned by Anastasius.—That Origen was condemned by this letter is clear both from several passages of Jerome and from the words of the letter itself. Jerome, as I have already observed, in Letter 16 gives praise to Marcella for having been the beginning of this condemnation. Jerome himself was then seeking this, and Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, even unknowingly, was of no small assistance to him in his request. For when that holy Doctor had sent letters against Origen to the West, and Anastasius, wishing nothing precipitate, was not yet yielding to the solicitations of Jerome and others, \"I think,\" says Jerome himself in Letter 71, writing to Theophilus, \"it happened by the dispensation of God that at that time you also wrote to Pope Anastasius, and, while unaware of our opinion, you strengthened it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Quo anno scripta sit","severity":"info","text":"The passage discusses the dating of the letter, arguing against a 402 date and proposing 401 or 403 based on Anastasius's death and Jerome's testimony.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Origenes ab Anastasio damnatus","severity":"info","text":"This section asserts that Origen was condemned by Anastasius, referencing Jerome's letters and the involvement of Theophilus of Alexandria in influencing the pope.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hieronymus epist. 16, Marcellae laudem tribuit","severity":"info","text":"Jerome credits Marcella with initiating the condemnation of Origen, highlighting her role in the controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hieronymus epist. 71, ad Theophilum scribens","severity":"info","text":"Jerome, in Letter 71, describes Theophilus's letter to Anastasius as providential, unknowingly supporting Jerome's position against Origen.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"aliorum (??)","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has a parenthetical '??' after 'aliorum', indicating a textual uncertainty or corruption in the source edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact year of Anastasius's death is uncertain, with April or December possibilities affecting the letter's dating.","The phrase 'aliorum (??)' suggests a possible lacuna or scribal error in the manuscript."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"» Idem Theophilus in Sermone ad quosdam monachos Origenem, ut a se, ita et ab Anastasio damnatum testatur his verbis: « Anathematizantes Origenem caeterosque haer(??)ticos, exemplo nostro et Anastasii sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae episcopi, qui ex veteribus certaminibus clarus, nobilissimi populi dux creatus est, quem et universa Occidentis episcoporum sequitur synodus; quae accepit ac probavit Alexandrinorum Ecclesiae sententiam in impium latam. » Haec autem Theophili verba Justinianus imperator in epistola, quam ad Menam adversus Origenis errores scripsit, laudat (Concil. Lab. tom. V, pag. 658).\n\nVII. Anastasius Rufinum lata sententia non condemnavit.—An vero pariter cum Origene Rufinus ab Anastasio lata sententia condemnatus sit, expendisse juverit. Id quidem pro certo ponunt plerique: iisque (??)avere videtur Hieronymus, dum Rufinum non modo accusatum, ac Romam citatum, sed etiam damnatum nonnumquam praedicat. In eum quippe maxime convenit illud (Epist. 16) hujus Doctoris: « Acciti frequentibus litteris haeretici, ut se defenderent, venire non sunt ausi: tantaque vis conscientiae fuit, ut magis absentes damnari, quam praesentes coargui maluerint. » At Theophilus loco allato unam memorat sententiam in impium (hoc est in unum Origenem) latam.","english":"The same Theophilus, in a sermon to certain monks, testifies that Origen was condemned by Anastasius as well as by himself, in these words: \"Anathema to Origen and the other heretics, following the example of ourselves and of Anastasius, bishop of the holy Roman Church, who, renowned from ancient contests, was created leader of a most noble people, and whom the whole synod of the bishops of the West follows; which synod received and approved the sentence of the Church of Alexandria pronounced against the impious one.\" The Emperor Justinian, moreover, in the letter which he wrote to Menas against the errors of Origen, cites these words of Theophilus (Concil. Lab. tom. V, pag. 658).\n\nVII. Anastasius did not condemn Rufinus by a formal sentence.—But whether Rufinus was condemned together with Origen by a formal sentence of Anastasius, it will be useful to consider. Many indeed assume this as certain; and Jerome seems to favor them, when he sometimes proclaims that Rufinus was not only accused and summoned to Rome, but also condemned. For that saying of this Doctor (Epist. 16) applies especially to him: \"The heretics, summoned by frequent letters to defend themselves, did not dare to come: and so great was the force of their conscience that they preferred to be condemned in absence rather than to be refuted in presence.\" But Theophilus, in the passage cited, mentions only one sentence pronounced against the impious one (that is, against one Origen).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Theophilus","severity":"info","text":"Theophilus of Alexandria was a prominent bishop who opposed Origenism and secured condemnation of Origen at a synod in 400. His sermon to monks, cited here, aligns his own stance with that of Pope Anastasius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Justinianus imperator","severity":"info","text":"Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565) wrote to Patriarch Menas of Constantinople against Origen's errors, quoting Theophilus's sermon. This shows the lasting authority of Anastasius's condemnation in later imperial and ecclesiastical debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"haer(??)ticos","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'haer(??)ticos', indicating a lacuna or illegible abbreviation in the source. The intended word is likely 'haereticos' (heretics), but the exact reading is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VII. Anastasius Rufinum lata sententia non condemnavit","severity":"info","text":"This section heading introduces a new argument: that Anastasius did not issue a formal sentence against Rufinus, only against Origen. The author distinguishes between condemnation by implication and by formal decree.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Hieronymus","severity":"info","text":"Jerome's claim that Rufinus was condemned (Epist. 16) is paralleled here with Theophilus's silence on a second sentence. The author uses this contrast to question whether Rufinus was formally condemned.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Concil. Lab. tom. V, pag. 658","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Concil. Lab. tom. V, pag. 658' refers to the Labbé edition of the councils (Concilia, 1671–1672). This indicates the source from which the author drew Justinian's letter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'haer(??)ticos' is corrupt; the intended word is likely 'haereticos' but the exact form is uncertain.","The phrase 'iisque (??)avere videtur' contains a lacuna; the intended verb may be 'favere' (to favor), but the reading is not secure."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Et commode intelligitur Hieronymus haereticos eatenus dixisse damnatos, quatenus damnato Origene, condemnati censentur et ii, qui erroribus iisdem implicantur. Neque vero Rufinum ab Anastasio damnatum sonant haec Hieronymi lib. ii apol. Rufinum ipsum sic alloquentis: « Cur translaturus haeretica, in defensionem eorum praemittis quasi Martyris librum, et id Romanis auribus ingeris, quod translatum totus orbis expavit? aut certe si ideo interpretaris ut cum haereticum arguas, nihil de Graeco mutes, et hoc ipsum quod prudentissime papa Anastasius in epistola, quam contra te scribit ad episcopum Joannem, suo sermone complexus est; me libera(??)s qui id feci, te arguens qui facere noluisti, » Ubi notandum quod ait te arguens, non (??)e condemnans; atque ita arguens, ut adhuc in potestate ipsius esset praestandi quod facere hactenus omisisset, eoque pacto condemnationem evaderet. Nondum igitur ulla adversus illum dicta erat sententia: sed res etiamnum in suspenso erat. Quocirca ubi verbis allatis proxime subdit Hieronymus. « Ac ne forsitan hoc quoque neges, subjeci exemplum ejus » (scil. epistolae Anastasii), « ut si non vis audire fratrem monentem, audias episcopum condemnantem, » non absolutam condemnationem seu haereseos convicto jam dictam sententiam notat, sed hypotheticam, quam nondum quidem subierit, sed haud dubie subiturus sit, si quod illum monet facere spernat.","english":"And it is easily understood that Jerome considered heretics condemned only insofar as, with Origen condemned, those who are entangled in the same errors are also considered condemned. Nor does Jerome's statement in Book II of his *Apology* against Rufinus, addressing Rufinus himself, mean that Rufinus was condemned by Anastasius: \"Why, when you are about to translate heretical works, do you preface them with the book of a martyr as a defense, and thrust upon Roman ears what, when translated, horrified the whole world? Or if, indeed, you translate so that you may argue against the heretic, why do you change nothing from the Greek? And this very point, which the most prudent Pope Anastasius in his letter, which he writes against you to Bishop John, has embraced in his own words—do you free me, who did it, while accusing you, who refused to do it?\" Here it should be noted that he says \"accusing you,\" not \"condemning you\"; and he accuses in such a way that it was still within his power to do what he had so far omitted, and thereby escape condemnation. Therefore, no sentence had yet been pronounced against him; the matter was still in suspense. Hence, where Jerome immediately adds after the quoted words, \"And lest perhaps you also deny this, I have appended a copy of it\" (namely, of Anastasius's letter), \"so that if you are unwilling to hear a brother admonishing you, you may hear a bishop condemning you,\" this does not denote an absolute condemnation or a sentence already pronounced upon a convicted heretic, but a hypothetical one, which he has not yet undergone, but which he will undoubtedly undergo if he scorns to do what Jerome urges him to do.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"commode intelligitur","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'commode intelligitur' introduces a logical inference: Jerome's view that condemnation of Origen implies condemnation of those sharing his errors is presented as a reasonable deduction, not a direct statement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"arguens","severity":"info","text":"The term 'arguens' (accusing) is contrasted with 'condemnans' (condemning) to argue that Jerome's language implies a conditional, not final, judgment against Rufinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ubi notandum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Ubi notandum' marks a structural shift to exegetical commentary, where the author clarifies the distinction between accusation and condemnation in Jerome's text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"hypotheticam","severity":"info","text":"The term 'hypotheticam' (hypothetical) reflects a later theological reading of Jerome's rhetoric, interpreting his mention of episcopal condemnation as conditional rather than actual.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"me libera(??)s","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'me libera(??)s' is marked with parentheses and question marks, indicating a textual corruption or uncertain reading in the source edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has a lacuna or uncertain reading at 'me libera(??)s', which may affect the interpretation of Jerome's argument."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Immo et de posterioribus scriptis, anno sequente in Orientem missis sermonem habens, « in quibus, » inquit ad Rufinum, « papa Anastasius tantis te ornat floribus, ut cum ea legeris, magis te velle defendere incipias quam accusare, » presbyterum illum necdum lata sententia damnatum significat. Ubi enim a supremo judice lata sententia est, nullus jam superest defensioni locus: sed unum reo restat, ut aut judicii sustineat poenam, aut id emendet propter quod judicatus est. Sed quid alienis immorer argumentis, cum Anastasius in subjecta epistola a judicio de Rufino ferendo sese sustinere constanter affectet? quippe cui nondum satis compertum erat, qua ille mente libros Origenis Latine transtulisset. S(??)e si so(??)entiam adversus cum dixisset, haec aut ipsi, sut praesuli Ecclesiae, in cujus territorio degebat, aut publice denuntianda fuerat. Id porro unum aperte significat Anastasius, suo ipsius judicio Rufinum damnatione dignum censeri, si librorum Origenis, quos latinitate donavit, doctrinam approbarit. De eadem re in notis nonnulla erunt necessario disserenda.","english":"Indeed, speaking of his later writings sent to the East the following year, he says to Rufinus, “in which Pope Anastasius adorns you with such great flowers that when you read them, you begin to wish to defend you rather than accuse you,” indicating that the presbyter was not yet condemned by a definitive sentence. For where a definitive sentence has been handed down by the supreme judge, no room for defense remains; but only one thing is left for the accused: either to undergo the penalty of the judgment, or to correct that for which he was judged. But why should I dwell on others’ arguments, when Anastasius in the attached letter consistently asserts that he refrains from passing judgment on Rufinus? Indeed, he had not yet sufficiently ascertained with what intention Rufinus had translated Origen’s books into Latin. If he had pronounced a sentence against him, this should have been denounced either to him, or to the bishop of the Church in whose territory he lived, or publicly. Moreover, Anastasius clearly indicates this one thing: that by his own judgment, Rufinus is considered worthy of condemnation if he approved the doctrine of Origen’s books, which he rendered into Latin. On the same matter, some things will necessarily have to be discussed in the notes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Immo et de posterioribus scriptis","severity":"info","text":"The author continues his argument that Jerome’s later writings show Rufinus was not yet condemned by Anastasius, citing Jerome’s own words to Rufinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"lata sententia","severity":"info","text":"‘Lata sententia’ (definitive sentence) is a legal term indicating a final judgment by a supreme judge, after which no defense is possible.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Anastasius","severity":"info","text":"Pope Anastasius I (reigned 399–401) was involved in the Origenist controversy, corresponding with Jerome and others about the orthodoxy of Origen’s works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed quid alienis immorer argumentis","severity":"info","text":"The author shifts from citing Jerome’s arguments to directly appealing to Anastasius’s own letter, which he claims shows the pope refrained from condemning Rufinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"in notis nonnulla erunt necessario disserenda","severity":"info","text":"The author signals that further discussion of this matter will appear in the notes, a common feature of patristic editions to address textual or doctrinal complexities.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"S(??)e si so(??)entiam","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt here; the reading is uncertain. The English draft interprets it as ‘If he had pronounced a sentence against him,’ but the original wording is unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'S(??)e si so(??)entiam' is corrupt; the intended sense is likely conditional ('if he had pronounced a sentence'), but the exact Latin cannot be reconstructed with certainty."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"EPISTOLA I.\n\nAnastasii I Romanae urbis episcopi ad Joannem episcopum Jerosolymorum, a super nomine Rufini.\n\nA Joanne consultus Anastasius, utrum Rufinus ob versos e Graeco in Latinum Origenis libros damnandus esset, respondet, seposita omni suspicione perpendendum esse quo id animo a(??)gress(??)s esset, et eum quidem damnandum, si propria mente et laudans ac probans transtulerit, secus si ipsum accusans auctorem: se vero non vano timore sollicitari, sed operam daturum, ne hinc Ecclesiae per orbem corrumpantur.\n\nAnastasius se laudantem laudat, ac rogat ut laudare desinat.—Probatae quidem affectionis est hoc, ut laudabiliter de sacerdote sacerdos loquaris. Pro tanto igitur praeconio, quod in merita mea effusissimum contulisti, ut amori tuo gratias ago, i(??) splendorem tuae sanctitatis, et eas quas in Domino habes virtutes, subinde quodam modo parvitatis nostrae favorabilis sermo prosequitur. T(??) enim, vir omnium praestantissime, laudum tuarum fulges nitore conspicuus, ut par esse meritis sermo non possit. Porro autem tanto titulorum (??)uorum rapior incitamento, ut etiam quod impetrare nequeo, audere non desinam. Jam hoc de laudibus tuis est, quod me tantummodo de coelestis istius animi serenitate l(??)ndasti. Tui etenim episcopatus ordo perspicuus per e diversum orbem velut radians, etiam ad nos splendoris sui detulit claritatem.","english":"LETTER I.\n\nAnastasius, bishop of the city of Rome, to John, bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the name of Rufinus.\n\nHaving been consulted by John as to whether Rufinus ought to be condemned on account of his translations of Origen's books from Greek into Latin, Anastasius replies that, setting aside all suspicion, it must be carefully considered with what intention he undertook this, and that he is indeed to be condemned if he translated with his own mind, praising and approving the author, but not if he translated while accusing the author himself; and that he himself is not troubled by empty fear, but will take care that the churches throughout the world are not corrupted from this source.\n\nAnastasius praises the one who praises him, and asks that he cease praising.—It is indeed a mark of proven affection that a priest speaks laudably of a priest. For so great a commendation, which you have most lavishly bestowed upon my merits, I thank your love, and the splendor of your sanctity, and those virtues which you possess in the Lord, which the favorable speech of our smallness somehow follows. For you, most excellent of men, shine with the luster of your own praises, so that speech cannot equal your merits. Moreover, I am so carried away by the incitement of your titles that I do not cease to dare even what I cannot obtain. This very thing is part of your praises, that you have praised me only for the serenity of that heavenly mind. For the illustrious order of your episcopate, radiating throughout the whole world, has brought the brightness of its splendor even to us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola I","severity":"info","text":"The letter is divided into two distinct sections: a summary of the query and response regarding Rufinus, followed by a rhetorical exchange of praise between Anastasius and John.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufini","severity":"info","text":"Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411) was a theologian and translator whose Latin versions of Origen's works sparked controversy over orthodoxy, leading to his condemnation by Pope Anastasius I in 400.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Origenis libros","severity":"info","text":"Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253) was a prolific early Christian writer whose allegorical exegesis and speculative theology were later deemed heterodox, fueling the Origenist controversies of the late 4th and early 5th centuries.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Anastasius se laudantem laudat","severity":"info","text":"The elaborate exchange of praise reflects the rhetorical conventions of late antique epistolography, where mutual flattery served to reinforce ecclesiastical bonds and hierarchical respect.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"a(??)gress(??)s","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text contains lacunae or uncertain readings (e.g., 'a(??)gress(??)s'), likely due to manuscript corruption, making the precise verb form uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact wording of the Latin is uncertain in places (e.g., 'a(??)gress(??)s', 'i(??)', 'T(??)', 'l(??)ndasti'), likely due to manuscript damage or scribal error.","The relationship between the two sections of the letter is not explicitly stated; the transition from the Rufinus matter to the praise exchange may be abrupt or reflect a composite structure."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"In me quippe totum ipse amicitiae (??)buis, examini nihil relinquis. Aut si jure me laudas, tu quoque similiter non relaudandus es? Obsecro igitur ob utrumque, ut me ipsum apud me laudare jam desinas; duplex etenim a me causa constringit, ne consacerdotis tui sensibus aut dolorem falsa laus ingerat, aut pudorem vera succendat.\n\nRufini causa Dei relinquitur arbitrio.—Sed ut ad causam revertar: Rufinus, de quo me consulere dignatus es, conscientiae suae divinam habet arbitram majestatem, apud quam se integro devotionis officio ipse viderit qualiter debeat approbare.\n\nDe Origene quid sentiendum.—Origenes autem, cujus in nostram linguam composita derivavit, antea et quis fuerit, et in quae processerit verba, nostrum propositum nescit: quod vero sit animi mei studium, cum tua paulisper super hoc conferam sanctitate. Hoc igitur mente concepi, quod urbis nostrae populis de translatis Origenis lectio patefecit, quadam puris mentibus velut nebula caecitatis injecta, fidem Apostolorum et majorum traditione firmatam velut deviis anfractibus illum voluisse dissolvere.","english":"In me indeed you place the whole of friendship, leaving nothing for examination. Or if you rightly praise me, are you not likewise to be praised in return? I beg you, therefore, for both reasons, that you cease praising me to myself; for a twofold cause binds me, lest false praise bring grief to the mind of your fellow bishop, or true praise kindle shame.\n\nThe case of Rufinus is left to the judgment of God.—But to return to the matter: Rufinus, concerning whom you have deigned to consult me, has the divine majesty as the arbiter of his conscience, before which he himself will see, with the full duty of devotion, how he ought to prove himself.\n\nWhat is to be thought concerning Origen.—Origen, however, from whose works he derived compositions translated into our language, both what he was before and into what words he proceeded, our purpose does not know; but what my mind's intention is, I will briefly confer with your holiness on this matter. This, therefore, I have conceived in my mind, that the reading of Origen's translated works, which has been opened to the peoples of our city, has cast, as it were, a cloud of blindness over pure minds, and has sought to dissolve the faith of the Apostles and the tradition of the elders, confirmed by the faith of the Apostles and the tradition of the elders, as if by devious winding paths.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"In me quippe totum ipse amicitiae (??)buis, examini nihil relinquis","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt: 'amicitiae (??)buis' likely represents a garbled word, perhaps 'amicitiae tribuis' (you attribute to friendship). The sense is that the addressee attributes everything to friendship, leaving nothing for examination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufini causa Dei relinquitur arbitrio","severity":"info","text":"This sentence functions as a thematic heading in the manuscript tradition, summarizing the following discussion of Rufinus. It is set off in the English draft as a subheading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Origenes","severity":"info","text":"Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253) was a prolific theologian whose works were controversial in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, especially regarding the pre-existence of souls and universal salvation. Anastasius I (pope 399–401) opposed translations of Origen by Rufinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"nebula caecitatis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'cloud of blindness' is a metaphor for spiritual obscurity or heresy, echoing patristic language about the deceptive nature of false teaching.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"fidem Apostolorum et majorum traditione firmatam","severity":"info","text":"This phrase parallels the language of the Rule of Faith (regula fidei) common in early Christian writers, emphasizing apostolic and traditional authority against novel interpretations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufini causa Dei relinquitur arbitrio","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in later medieval and early modern debates about papal authority and the condemnation of Origenism, as Anastasius defers judgment to God rather than issuing a definitive condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text at 'amicitiae (??)buis' is corrupt; the intended word is uncertain, but likely 'tribuis' (you attribute).","The phrase 'quadam puris mentibus velut nebula caecitatis injecta' could be read as either a purpose clause or a result clause; the translation takes it as resultative."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Qua mente Rufinus Origenem interpretatus sit quaeritur.—e Discere hoc loco libet, quid agat in Romanam linguam ista translatio. Approbo, si accusat auctorem, et execrandum factum populis prodit, ut justis tandem odiis teneatur, quem jam dudum fama constrinxerat. Si vero interpres tantorum malorum a consensum praestat, et legenda prodit in populos; nihil aliud sui opera laboris exstruxit, nisi ut propriae veluti mentis arbitrio haec, quae sola, quae prima, quae apud catholicos christianos vera fide jam exinde ab Apostolis in hoc usque tempus tenentur, inopinatae titulo assertionis everteret.\n\nAnastasii vigilantia adversus pravam doctrinam. Origenis lectio imperialibus edictis prohibita.—Absit e hoc ab Ecclesiae Romanae catholica disciplina. Numquam profecto eveniet, aliqua ut haec admittam ratione, quae jure meritoque damnamus. Quapropter illa toto orbe Christi Dei nostri diffusa providentia probare dignabitur, accipere nos omnino non posse quae Ecclesiam maculent, probatos mores evertant, aures circumstantium vulnerent, jurgia, iras, dissensionesque disponant. Qua re(??) moti, qualem epistolam ad fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum Venerium diligentiori cura perscriptam parvitas nostra transmiserit, ex subditis poteris comprobare. Unde igitur habeat secum ille qui transtulit, servetque sibi hanc conscientiam, non superflua laboro formidine, neque inani timore sollicitor.","english":"It is asked with what intention Rufinus interpreted Origen.—I wish to learn at this point what that translation is doing to the Latin language. I approve, if it accuses the author and exposes the execrable deed to the peoples, so that he whom rumor had long since constrained may at last be held in just hatred. But if the interpreter lends his consent to such great evils and brings them forth to be read among the peoples, he has built nothing else by his labor than to overturn, as if by the judgment of his own mind, those things which alone, which first, which among catholic Christians have been held as true faith from the Apostles up to this time, under the title of a novel assertion.\n\nAnastasius’ vigilance against depraved teaching. Reading of Origen prohibited by imperial edicts.—Far be this from the catholic discipline of the Roman Church. Never indeed will it happen that I admit any such thing, by any reason, which we justly and deservedly condemn. Therefore, that providence of Christ our God, spread throughout the whole world, will deign to approve that we can by no means accept things which stain the Church, overturn approved morals, wound the ears of bystanders, and arrange quarrels, angers, and dissensions. Moved by this matter, what kind of letter our littleness sent to our brother and fellow bishop Venerius, written with more careful diligence, you will be able to ascertain from what is subjoined. Whence, therefore, he who translated has this with himself, and keeps this conscience for himself, I am not troubled by superfluous fear, nor am I agitated by empty dread.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Qua mente","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Qua mente' (with what intention) introduces the central question of Rufinus' motives in translating Origen, a key issue in the Origenist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Origenem interpretatus","severity":"info","text":"Rufinus of Aquileia translated Origen's works into Latin, sparking debate over orthodoxy. Anastasius I opposed these translations, aligning with anti-Origenist sentiment in the late 4th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Absit hoc","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Absit hoc' (Far be this) marks a rhetorical shift, emphatically rejecting any compromise with Origenist teachings, reinforcing the letter's polemical tone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"imperialibus edictis prohibita","severity":"info","text":"The reference to imperial edicts banning Origen's works reflects the broader condemnation of Origenism, notably by Emperor Theodosius I in 398 and later by Pope Anastasius I.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Qua re(??) moti","severity":"caution","text":"The text has 'Qua re(??) moti', likely a scribal corruption or abbreviation; the intended reading is probably 'Qua re moti' (Moved by this matter), as in the English draft.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"parvitas nostra","severity":"info","text":"'Parvitas nostra' (our littleness) is a conventional expression of humility used by bishops in late antique Latin correspondence, here referring to Anastasius himself.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Qua re(??) moti' is textually uncertain; the reading 'Qua re moti' is adopted based on context and the English draft."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Mihi certe cura non deerit Evangelii fidem circa meos custodire populos, partesque i corporis mei, per spatia diversa terrarum j, quantum possum, litteris convenire, ne qua profanae interpretationis origo subrepat, quae devotas mentes immissa sui caligine labefactare conetur. Illud quoque, quod evenisse gaudeo, tacere non potui, beatissimorum principum nostrorum manasse responsa, quibus unusquisque Deo serviens ab Origenis lectione revocetur: damnatumque sententia principum, quem lectio reum profana prodiderit. Hactenus sententiae meae forma a processerit.\n\nQuod te vero vulgi de Rufino querela sollicitat, ut quosdam vagis suspicionibus persequaris: hanc tuam opinionem constringam divinae lectionis exemplo, sicut scriptum est: Non sic homo ut Deus; nam Deus videt in corde, homo videt in facie (I Reg. xvi, 7). Itaque, frater charissime, omni suspicione seposita, Rufinum propria mente perpende si Origenis dicta in latinum transtulit ac probavit: nec dissimilis e a reo est, qui alienis vitiis praestat assensum. Illud tamen tenere te cupio, ita haberi a nostris partibus alienum, ut quid agat, et ubi sit, nescire cupiamus. Ipse denique viderit ubi possit absolvi g.","english":"For my part, I will not lack the care to guard the faith of the Gospel among my peoples, and to unite the members of my body, scattered across diverse regions of the earth, as far as I can, by letters, lest any origin of profane interpretation creep in, which might attempt to shake devoted minds by casting its darkness upon them. Nor could I pass over in silence that which I rejoice has happened: that the responses of our most blessed princes have been issued, by which each person serving God is recalled from reading Origen; and that one whom reading has revealed as guilty of profanity is condemned by the sentence of the princes. Thus far has the form of my judgment proceeded.\n\nAs for the fact that the people’s complaint about Rufinus troubles you, so that you pursue certain persons with vague suspicions: I will restrain this opinion of yours by the example of divine reading, as it is written: “Man is not like God; for God sees in the heart, man sees in the face” (1 Sam. 16:7). Therefore, dearest brother, setting aside all suspicion, consider Rufinus by his own mind: whether he translated Origen’s sayings into Latin and approved them; for he is no less guilty than the guilty one who gives assent to the vices of others. Yet I wish you to hold this: that he is considered so alien to our party that we desire not to know what he does or where he is. Finally, let him himself see where he can be absolved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non sic homo ut Deus; nam Deus videt in corde, homo videt in facie (I Reg. xvi, 7)","severity":"info","text":"The citation is from 1 Samuel 16:7, but the Vulgate text reads 'Non sic homo ut Deus' only in some manuscripts; the standard Vulgate has 'Non est homo sicut Deus'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"beatissimorum principum nostrorum manasse responsa","severity":"info","text":"The 'most blessed princes' likely refer to the Roman emperors Honorius and Arcadius, who issued rescripts against Origen's works around 398–400 CE.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"profanae interpretationis origo","severity":"info","text":"'Profane interpretation' refers to Origen's allegorical exegesis, which Anastasius condemns as a source of doctrinal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Hactenus sententiae meae forma a processerit","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a transition from Anastasius's own actions to addressing the recipient's concerns about Rufinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufinum propria mente perpende","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius's call to judge Rufinus by his own mind reflects a key moment in the Origenist controversy, where Rufinus's translation of Origen was seen as endorsing heresy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"a processerit","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'a processerit' is grammatically irregular; it may be a scribal error for 'processerit' or 'a processerit' meaning 'has proceeded from'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'beatissimi principes' is not specified; assumed to be Honorius and Arcadius.","The scripture citation 'I Reg. xvi, 7' does not match the standard Vulgate numbering; it may refer to 1 Samuel 16:7 in the Septuagint-based numbering."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"EPISTOLA II.\n\nAD SIMPLICIANUM. Studium Theophili ac vigilantiam laudat, cujus litteris conventus, Simpliciano Mediolanensi episcopo denuntiat; a se quoque Origenianae haeresi inflictum esse anathema.\n\nDomino Fratri Simpliciano Anastasius.\n\nI. Grandem sollicitudinem atque excubias super gregem suum pastor habere approbatur. Similiter et i ex alta turre causa civitatis diu noctuque cautus speculator observat. Magister j providus navis hora tempestatis et periculi magnam patitur animi jactationem, ne procellis atque asperrimis fluctibus navis elidatur in saxa. Pari animo vir sanctus et honorabilis Theophilus, frater et coepiscopus noster, circa salutis commoda non desinit vigilare, ne Dei populus per diversas Ecclesias Origenem legendo, in magnas incurrat blasphemias.\n\nII. Conventus litteris memorati, convenio sanctitatem tuam, ut sicuti nos in urbe Roma positi, quam Princeps Apostolorum statuit et fide sua confirmavit gloriosus Petrus, ne quis contra praeceptum legat haec quae diximus, damnavimus, et cum magnis precibus postulavimus, ut Evangeliorum instituta, quae ex ore suo Dei et Christi docuit censura, a ab hac recedi omnino non debere, sed illud in memoriam deduci quod Paulus venerabilis Apostolus praedixit atque commonuit: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter quod evangelizatum est vobis, anathema sit (Gal. i, 8).","english":"LETTER II.\n\nTO SIMPLICIANUS. He praises the zeal and vigilance of Theophilus, by whose letter he announces a council to Simplicianus, bishop of Milan; he also states that he himself has inflicted anathema upon the Origenist heresy.\n\nTo his Lord Brother Simplicianus, Anastasius.\n\nI. A great solicitude and watchfulness over his flock is approved in a pastor. Likewise, those who from a high tower observe the city cautiously by day and night are careful watchmen. A prudent master of a ship, at the hour of storm and peril, suffers a great tossing of the mind, lest the ship be dashed against the rocks by gales and the roughest waves. With a like spirit, the holy and honorable man Theophilus, our brother and fellow bishop, does not cease to keep watch over the interests of salvation, lest the people of God, by reading Origen throughout the various churches, fall into great blasphemies.\n\nII. Summoned by the letter of the aforementioned man, I call upon your holiness, so that, just as we, placed in the city of Rome, which the Prince of the Apostles, the glorious Peter, established and confirmed with his faith, no one, contrary to the precept, may read those things which we have mentioned, condemned, and with great prayers have demanded that the institutions of the Gospels, which the censure of God and of Christ taught from His own mouth, should by no means be departed from in this matter, but that it be brought to memory what the venerable Apostle Paul foretold and warned: If anyone evangelizes to you beyond what has been evangelized to you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola II. Ad Simplicianum","severity":"info","text":"The letter is divided into two sections: the first praises Theophilus's vigilance using three similes (pastor, watchman, shipmaster); the second announces the condemnation of Origen and cites Galatians 1:8.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ex alta turre","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ex alta turre' (from a high tower) is a classical topos for vigilant observation, here applied to episcopal oversight.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gal. i, 8","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter quod evangelizatum est vobis, anathema sit' is a paraphrase of Galatians 1:8-9, adapted to condemn unauthorized teaching.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Theophilus","severity":"info","text":"Theophilus of Alexandria (c. 385-412) was a key opponent of Origenism; his letter to Anastasius prompted this epistle and the subsequent condemnation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Origenem legendo","severity":"info","text":"The condemnation of reading Origen reflects the late 4th-century anti-Origenist reaction, which culminated in the Synod of Alexandria (400) and later the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"a ab hac recedi omnino non debere","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'a ab hac recedi omnino non debere' is grammatically awkward; the sense is that one should not depart from the Gospel institutions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact wording of the Galatians citation differs from the Vulgate; it may be a loose quotation or a scribal variant.","The phrase 'a ab hac' may be a scribal error for 'ab hac'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Igitur hoc praeceptum tenentes, illud quidquid est fidei nostae contrarium, ab Origene quondam scriptum, indicavimus, a nobis esse alienum atque punitum.\n\nIII. Haec sanctitati tuae scripsimus per Eusebium presbyterum, qui calorem fidei gestans, et amorem circa Dominum habens b, quaedam capitula blasphemiae obtulit, quae nos non solum horruimus, et judicavimus, verum et si qua alia sunt ab Origene exposita, cum suo auctore pariter a nobis scias esse damnata. Dominus te incolumem custodiat, domine frater merito honorabilis.","english":"Therefore, holding to this precept, we have judged that whatever was once written by Origen contrary to our faith is alien to us and has been condemned.\n\nIII. We have written these things to your holiness through the presbyter Eusebius, who, bearing the zeal of faith and having love for the Lord, presented certain chapters of blasphemy which we not only abhorred and judged, but also—if there are any other things set forth by Origen—know that they have been condemned by us together with their author. May the Lord keep you safe, lord brother, worthy of honor.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Igitur hoc praeceptum tenentes","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Igitur hoc praeceptum tenentes' opens the passage by linking back to a previously stated precept, likely the Nicene faith or a conciliar decree, establishing continuity with the preceding section.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"calorem fidei gestans","severity":"info","text":"'Calorem fidei gestans' (bearing the zeal of faith) is a metaphorical expression emphasizing Eusebius's fervent orthodoxy, a common rhetorical trope in late antique ecclesiastical letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Eusebium presbyterum","severity":"info","text":"Eusebius the presbyter is likely the same figure who carried Theophilus of Alexandria's anti-Origenist letter to Rome, acting as a messenger between Eastern and Western sees during the Origenist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ab Origene quondam scriptum","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in later medieval and early modern debates on Origen's orthodoxy, often used to support the claim that Origen was posthumously condemned by Rome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"si qua alia sunt ab Origene exposita","severity":"caution","text":"The conditional clause 'si qua alia sunt' introduces ambiguity: Anastasius may be condemning all of Origen's works hypothetically, or only those known to him. The Latin leaves the scope of the condemnation imprecise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Eusebium presbyterum' is not further specified; he may be the same as the Eusebius who was a deacon of Alexandria or another figure.","The phrase 'cum suo auctore' could mean Origen himself is condemned posthumously, or that the condemned works are rejected along with their author's authority; the precise canonical implication is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}