{"slug":"tmp366.tmp366.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp366.tmp366.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola Sancti Zosimo Papae Attributa","title_source":"Epistola Sancti Zosimo Papae Attributa","author":"SS Zosimus","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":"2026-11-15T06:00:36Z","cost_usd":0.001619},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp366.tmp366.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp366.tmp366.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/tmp366/tmp366/tmp366.tmp366.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":2,"english_words":520,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":2153,"commentary_units":12,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":3,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp366.tmp366.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola Sancti Zosimo Papae Attributa is a Latin letter attributed to Pope Zosimus (417–418) but widely regarded as a 9th-century forgery. It survives only within canonical collections, first appearing in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (mid-9th century). The letter’s content reflects 5th-century papal claims, yet its language and legal formulae align with later Carolingian forgeries. No external witness predates the Pseudo-Isidorian corpus. Included in Gratian’s Decretum (c. 1140), it was cited in medieval canon law to support papal primacy and appellate jurisdiction. The present edition reproduces the text from a single printed source without manuscript collation, and variant readings from early modern editions are not recorded.","historical_context":"The letter is attributed to Pope Zosimus, who served as Bishop of Rome from 417 to 418, a period marked by jurisdictional disputes between the sees of Arles and Vienne in Gaul. Zosimus initially favored Arles, but the Synod of Turin (c. 417) compromised, allowing Vienne to claim nearby cities pending further review. The letter’s content, however, reflects later papal claims to appellate jurisdiction and primacy, consistent with the 9th-century Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries. These forgeries, produced in the Carolingian Empire, aimed to bolster papal authority and protect bishops from secular interference. The letter’s first attestation in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (mid-9th century) and its inclusion in Gratian’s Decretum (c. 1140) ensured its transmission within medieval canon law. The term 'archiepiscopi' (archbishop) is anachronistic for Zosimus’s time, further indicating later fabrication. The letter survives only in canonical collections, not in a separate manuscript tradition, and its authenticity was questioned by early modern editors such as D. Coust. (Denis de Sainte-Marthe?).","significance":"The Epistola Sancti Zosimo Papae Attributa is significant as a key example of Pseudo-Isidorian forgery, illustrating how 9th-century Carolingian authors fabricated papal decretals to support claims of papal primacy and appellate jurisdiction. Its inclusion in Gratian’s Decretum shaped medieval canon law and influenced later ecclesiastical authority structures. The letter also highlights the methodological challenges of distinguishing authentic from forged early papal documents.","timeline":[{"date":"417–418","event":"Pontificate of Pope Zosimus; jurisdictional dispute between Arles and Vienne."},{"date":"c. 417","event":"Synod of Turin addresses the Arles-Vienne dispute."},{"date":"mid-9th century","event":"First attestation of the letter in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals."},{"date":"c. 1140","event":"Inclusion in Gratian’s Decretum, establishing its authority in canon law."},{"date":"17th–18th centuries","event":"Early modern editors (e.g., D. Coust.) question the letter’s authenticity."}],"relations":[{"work":"Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals","relation":"First surviving witness; the letter is part of this corpus of forgeries.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Gratian’s Decretum","relation":"Includes the letter as an authoritative papal decretal.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Genuine letters of Pope Zosimus","relation":"Used by early modern critics to disprove the attributed letter’s claims.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Synod of Turin (c. 417)","relation":"Historical context for the jurisdictional dispute referenced in the letter.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["Date of composition is uncertain; the letter is first attested in the mid-9th century but may have been composed earlier in the 9th century.","Attribution to Pope Zosimus is almost certainly false; the letter is a Pseudo-Isidorian forgery.","The letter survives only in canonical collections, not in a separate manuscript tradition, limiting textual criticism.","The present edition (ogl-pl) reproduces a single printed source without collation against manuscript witnesses; variant readings are not recorded."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000499,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:00:36Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp366/tmp366/tmp366.tmp366.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp366.tmp366.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":2,"translated":2,"commentary_passages":2,"commentary_units":12,"english_words":520,"source_letters":2153,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter survives only in canonical collections, not in a separate manuscript tradition. Its attribution to Pope Zosimus (417–418) is first attested in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (mid-9th century).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The letter’s content reflects 5th-century papal claims, but its language and legal formulae are consistent with 9th-century forgery. No external witness confirms it before the Pseudo-Isidorian corpus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Included in Gratian’s Decretum (c. 1140) as an authoritative papal decretal, the letter was cited in medieval canon law to support papal primacy and appellate jurisdiction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition (ogl-pl) reproduces the text from a single printed source without collation against manuscript witnesses. Variant readings from early modern editions are not recorded.","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: 2 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":2},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"EPISTOLA S. ZOSIMO PAPAE ATTRIBUTA.\n\n(D. Coust. Append. ad tom. I Epist. Rom. Pontif.)\n\nCENSURA EPISTOLAE.\n\nHanc primus Joannes a Bosco ad calcem Bibliothecae Floriacensis vulgavit. Placet quidem atque antiquitatem redolere videtur ejus simplicitas. Sed eidem antiquitati primum adversatur usurpatum in ipsius inscriptione archiepiscopi vocabulum. Tum eorum, quae in eadem asseruntur, falsitalem convincunt ipsius Zosimi epistolae et 6, « datae iii kal. « Octobris Honorio aug. xi et Constantio ii conss., » in quarum prima Zosimus vehementer indignatur adversus Proculum Massiliensem, quod et ipse in synodo Taurinensi subripiendum id putavit, ut haec synodus sibi praestaret ordinandorum in Narbonensi secunda provincia sacerdotum potestatem, et « socium sibi Simplicium Viennensis civitatis ascivit, qui non dissimili impudentia postularet, ut sibi quoque creandorum sacerdotum permitteretur arbitrium. » Deinde ut id jus « inviolabili in utraque Narbonensi et Viennensi auctoritate possideat metropolitanus Arelatensis civitatis episcopus, » constituit; quod et epist. confirmat. An sententiam, quam a se « numerosa cognitione » praemissa pronuntiatam testatur, quarto post die mutasse dicendus est?","english":"A letter attributed to Saint Pope Zosimus.\n\n(From D. Coust. Appendix to vol. I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs.)\n\nCRITICAL NOTE ON THE LETTER.\n\nThis letter was first published by Joannes a Bosco at the end of the Bibliotheca Floriacensis. Its simplicity is indeed pleasing and seems to breathe antiquity. But against that same antiquity, first, the use of the term \"archbishop\" in its inscription is objectionable. Then, the falsity of the assertions made in it is proven by the letters of Zosimus himself, both the 6th and the one \"given on the 3rd day before the Kalends of October, in the consulship of Honorius for the 11th time and Constantius for the 2nd.\" In the first of these, Zosimus vehemently expresses indignation against Proculus of Massilia, because he thought that at the Synod of Turin he could surreptitiously obtain for himself the power of ordaining priests in the second province of Narbonensis, and \"he associated with himself Simplicius of the city of Vienne, who with no less impudence demanded that the right to create priests should also be granted to him.\" Then, he decreed that this right \"should be possessed by the metropolitan bishop of the city of Arles with inviolable authority in both the Narbonensis and Viennensis provinces,\" which he also confirms in his letter. Is he to be said to have changed the sentence, which he testifies to have pronounced after a \"lengthy hearing,\" four days later?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is attributed to Pope Zosimus (reigned 417–418) but is considered spurious. The critical note argues against its authenticity based on anachronistic terminology and contradictions with Zosimus's genuine letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"archiepiscopi","severity":"caution","text":"The term 'archiepiscopi' (archbishop) is flagged as anachronistic for Zosimus's time, suggesting the letter is a later forgery.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter was first published by Joannes a Bosco in the Bibliotheca Floriacensis, a collection of texts from the Abbey of Fleury. Its authenticity was questioned by the editor D. Coust. (Denis de Sainte-Marthe?).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a critical note (CENSURA EPISTOLAE) preceding the letter itself, summarizing arguments against its authenticity. It references two genuine letters of Zosimus to disprove the claims made in the attributed letter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The genuine letter is dated 'iii kal. Octobris' (29 September) in the consulship of Honorius XI and Constantius II, which corresponds to the year 417.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The critical note questions whether Zosimus could have changed his sentence four days after a 'lengthy hearing,' implying inconsistency that undermines the attributed letter's claims.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'D. Coust.' is ambiguous; it likely refers to Denis de Sainte-Marthe, but the abbreviation is not fully expanded in the source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Suspicionem hujusmodi tam a vero abhorrentem admitti prorsus non sinunt ejusdem pontificis epistolae et 11, Martii die anni consignatae, ex quibus eum in praedicta sententia constantem fuisse exploratum est. Eo autem firmiora sunt ista falsitalis epistolae hujus argumenta, quod ejus artifex litterarum Zosimi in Arelatensis episcopi gratiam scriptarum veritatem agnoscat ipse, ac pro certo habeat.\n\nAD SIMPLICIUM VIENNENSEM EPISCOPUM\n\nUt viciniores intra provinciam civitates, donec res plenius excutiatur, sibi vindicet. Lazarum damnatum esse.\n\nZosimus episcopus Simplicio Viennensi archiepiscopo salutem.\n\nRevelatum nobis est, qualiter in Taurinensi synodo causas tuae dioeceseos prosecutus fueris. Et licet Arelatensi episcopo, antequam legatus tuus venisset, propter reverentiam sancti Trophimi, jus et pontificium super tres provincias habere scripserimus: tamen si ita est, ut scripta tua nobis missa continent, interim usque dum lucidius ventiletur, potestatem antiquam tibi manere permittimus: ut sicut in Taurinensi gravissimorum episcoporum synodo, pacis consilio decretum est, viciniores tibi intra provinciam civitates vindices, donec plenius rei ordinem charitas apostolica prosequatur. Lazarum indebite episcopum criminatorem fratris ordinatum, scias nostro judicio esse damnatum. Data sub die kalend. Octobris ( Octob. i ann. 417), Honorio xi et Constantio consulibus.","english":"The suspicion of such a thing, so abhorrent from the truth, is absolutely not permitted by the same pontiff's letters, dated the 11th of March, from which it has been ascertained that he was steadfast in the aforementioned opinion. Moreover, the arguments for the falsity of this letter are all the stronger because its forger himself acknowledges and holds as certain the truth of Zosimus's letters written in favor of the bishop of Arles.\n\nTO SIMPLICIUS, BISHOP OF VIENNE\n\nThat he may claim for himself the nearer cities within the province, until the matter is more fully examined. That Lazarus has been condemned.\n\nBishop Zosimus to Simplicius, Archbishop of Vienne, greeting.\n\nIt has been revealed to us how you prosecuted the causes of your diocese in the Synod of Turin. And although we wrote to the bishop of Arles, before your legate had come, that, out of reverence for Saint Trophimus, he had the right and pontifical authority over three provinces, nevertheless, if it is as your letters sent to us contain, in the meantime, until the matter is more clearly ventilated, we permit your ancient authority to remain to you: so that, as was decreed in the Synod of Turin by the most grave bishops, for the sake of peace, you may claim for yourself the nearer cities within the province, until the apostolic charity pursues the full order of the matter. Know that Lazarus, unduly ordained a bishop and a slanderer of his brother, has been condemned by our judgment. Given on the day before the Kalends of October (October 1, in the year 417), under the consulship of Honorius for the eleventh time and Constantius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Taurinensi synodo","severity":"info","text":"The Synod of Turin (c. 417) addressed the jurisdictional dispute between the sees of Arles and Vienne. Zosimus had initially favored Arles, but the synod's compromise allowed Vienne to claim nearby cities pending further review.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"archiepiscopo","severity":"info","text":"The title 'archiepiscopo' (archbishop) in the salutation is anachronistic for the early 5th century, when the term was not yet in standard use. This is a key argument against the letter's authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Data sub die kalend. Octobris ... Honorio xi et Constantio consulibus","severity":"info","text":"The consular date corresponds to 1 October 417. This is consistent with the known activity of Pope Zosimus (reigned 417–418), but the letter's authenticity is disputed on other grounds.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"falsitalis epistolae hujus argumenta","severity":"info","text":"The critical note preceding the letter argues that the forger inadvertently acknowledged the authenticity of Zosimus's genuine letters favoring Arles, thus undermining the forgery's credibility. This reflects early modern scholarly debate on the letter's status.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Lazarum ... damnatum","severity":"info","text":"Lazarus, bishop of Aix, was a controversial figure deposed by Pope Zosimus for slander and irregular ordination. His condemnation is referenced in other contemporary sources, such as letters of Pope Innocent I.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Suspicionem hujusmodi ... abhorrentem","severity":"caution","text":"The opening sentence refers to a suspicion about the letter's authenticity, but the referent is unclear without the previous passage. The critical note indicates the letter is a forgery, yet the text itself is presented as genuine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'forger' (artifex) is not specified; the critical note implies it is known but does not name him.","The phrase 'viciniores tibi intra provinciam civitates' is ambiguous as to which province is meant—Viennensis or a broader jurisdiction."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}