{"slug":"tmp390.tmp390.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp390.tmp390.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola Anastasiii Romae Urbis Episcopi Ad Joannem Episcopum Jerosolymorum","title_source":"Epistola Anastasiii Romae Urbis Episcopi Ad Joannem Episcopum Jerosolymorum","author":"Rufinus Aquileiensis","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":"2026-11-15T06:05:28Z","cost_usd":0.002625},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp390.tmp390.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp390.tmp390.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/tmp390/tmp390/tmp390.tmp390.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":4,"english_words":974,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":3874,"commentary_units":24,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":6,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp390.tmp390.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola Anastasii Romae Urbis Episcopi Ad Joannem Episcopum Jerosolymorum is a letter from Pope Anastasius I (399–401) to John II, bishop of Jerusalem (387–417), concerning the condemnation of Origen and the reception of Rufinus of Aquileia's Latin translations of Origen's works. Written in Latin, the letter survives in the Collectio Avellana (6th century) and later canonical collections. It addresses the Origenist controversies of the late 4th century, shortly after Theophilus of Alexandria's condemnation of Origen (c. 400). The letter was cited in medieval canon law, shaping Western views on Origen's orthodoxy. Its attribution to Anastasius is secure, but the precise date and addressee's identity are debated. The edition lacks a critical apparatus.","historical_context":"The letter is set in the late 4th to early 5th century, during the Origenist controversies that roiled the Christian East and West. Pope Anastasius I (399–401) wrote to John II of Jerusalem (387–417) after Theophilus of Alexandria condemned Origen around 400. Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411) had translated Origen's works into Latin, sparking accusations of heresy. The letter reflects the papal effort to judge Rufinus's intentions rather than the act of translation itself. The text survives in Latin manuscripts of the Collectio Avellana (6th century) and later canon law collections like Gratian's Decretum, indicating its use as an anti-Origenist authority. The community involved includes the Roman and Jerusalem churches, with transmission through medieval canonical compilations. The precise date and the identity of the addressee (John II) are debated due to chronological tightness.","significance":"This letter is a key document in the Origenist controversy, illustrating papal engagement with Eastern theological disputes and the reception of Origen's works in the West. It was cited in medieval canon law as a papal authority against Origenism, influencing Western orthodoxy. The letter also highlights the role of translation in theological conflict and the distinction between a translator's intent and the content translated.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 345–411","event":"Life of Rufinus of Aquileia, translator of Origen's works."},{"date":"387–417","event":"Episcopate of John II of Jerusalem, addressee of the letter."},{"date":"399–401","event":"Papacy of Anastasius I; letter likely written during this period."},{"date":"c. 400","event":"Condemnation of Origen by Theophilus of Alexandria."},{"date":"6th century","event":"Compilation of the Collectio Avellana, which preserves the letter."},{"date":"12th century","event":"Citation of the letter in Gratian's Decretum as an anti-Origenist authority."}],"relations":[{"work":"Origen's De Principiis","relation":"Subject of controversy; Rufinus's translation prompted the letter.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Rufinus's Apology","relation":"Related defense of his translations; context for the letter.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Collectio Avellana","relation":"Manuscript collection preserving the letter.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Gratian's Decretum","relation":"Medieval canon law collection citing the letter.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Jerome's Letters","relation":"Contemporary correspondence on Origenist controversy.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The precise date of the letter is unknown; it is placed within Anastasius's papacy (399–401).","The identity of the addressee as John II of Jerusalem is debated due to chronological tightness.","The edition lacks a critical apparatus; variant readings from manuscripts are not recorded.","The heading 'Super nomine Rufini' is a later editorial addition, not part of the original letter."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000516,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:05:27Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp390/tmp390/tmp390.tmp390.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp390.tmp390.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":4,"translated":4,"commentary_passages":4,"commentary_units":24,"english_words":974,"source_letters":3874,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is addressed by Pope Anastasius I (399–401) to John II, bishop of Jerusalem (387–417). It concerns the condemnation of Origen and the reception of Rufinus’s translation of Origen’s works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius’s episcopate (399–401) places this letter in the context of the Origenist controversies of the late 4th century, shortly after the condemnation of Origen by Theophilus of Alexandria (c. 400).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter survives in Latin manuscripts of the Collectio Avellana (6th century) and in later canonical collections. Its preservation is tied to its role in the anti-Origenist dossier.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This letter was cited in medieval canon law collections (e.g., Gratian’s Decretum) as a papal authority against Origenism, shaping the Western view of Origen’s orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The letter’s attribution to Anastasius is secure, but its precise date and the identity of the addressee (John II) are debated; some scholars identify the recipient as John of Jerusalem, but the chronology is tight.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition (ogl-pl) does not include a critical apparatus or collation of manuscripts; the text is based on a single printed source, and variant readings 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: 4 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":4},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"EPISTOLA ANASTASII ROMANAE URBIS EPISCOPI AD JOANNEM EPISCOPUM JEROSOLYMORUM\n\nSuper nomine Rufini\n\nA Joanne consultus Anastasius, utrum Rufinus oh versos e Graeco in Latinum Origenis libros damnandus esset, respondet, seposita omni suspicione, perpendendum esse, quo id animo aggressus sit: 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 Ecclestoe per orbem corrumpantur.\n\nProbatae 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, ita splendorem tuae sanctitatis, et eas, quas in Domino habes virtutes, subinde quodammodo parvitatis nostrae favorabilis sermo prosequitur. Tam enim, vir omnium praestantissime, laudum tuarum fulges nitore conspicuus, ut par esse meritis sermo non possit. Porro nutem tanto titulorum tuorum rapior incitamento, ut etiam quod e implere nequeo, audere non destnam. Jam hoc de laudibus tuis est, quod me tantum de caelestis istius animi serenitate laudasti. Tui etenim Episcopatus ordo perspicuus per diversum orbem velut radians, etiam ad nos splendoris sui detulit claritatem. In me quippe totum a ipse amicitiae tribuis, examini nihil relinquis. Aut si jure me laudas, tu quoque similiter non relaudandus es?","english":"Letter of Anastasius, Bishop of the City of Rome, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem\n\nConcerning the Name of Rufinus\n\nHaving been consulted by John whether Rufinus, who translated Origen’s books from Greek into Latin, ought to be condemned, Anastasius replies that, setting aside all suspicion, it must be weighed 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 otherwise if he himself accused the author; but that he himself is not troubled by vain fear, but will take care that the Churches throughout the world are not corrupted from this source.\n\nIt is indeed a mark of proven affection that you speak laudably of a priest concerning a priest. For so great a commendation, which you have most abundantly bestowed upon my merits, I thank your love, even as the favorable speech of our insignificance in some way follows the splendor of your sanctity and the virtues which you possess in the Lord. For you, most excellent of all men, shine with such a luster of your praises that speech cannot equal your merits. Moreover, I am so carried away by the incitement of your titles that, even what I cannot fulfill, I do not cease to dare. This itself is part of your praises, that you have praised me so much from the serenity of that heavenly mind. For the illustrious order of your episcopate, radiating throughout the diverse world, has brought the brightness of its splendor even to us. Indeed, you attribute everything to friendship itself, leaving nothing for examination. Or if you rightly praise me, are you not likewise to be praised in return?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola Anastasii Romanae Urbis Episcopi ad Joannem Episcopum Jerosolymorum","severity":"info","text":"The heading and summary (Super nomine Rufini) are a later editorial addition, not part of the original letter, as indicated by the shift from third-person summary to first-person address.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufini","severity":"info","text":"Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411) translated Origen's works into Latin, sparking controversy over orthodoxy. Anastasius I (pope 399–401) here responds to Bishop John of Jerusalem, likely John II (387–417), who had consulted him on this matter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"oh versos","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin phrase 'oh versos' is likely a scribal error or corruption for 'obversos' or 'eversos'; the intended sense is 'translated' (from Greek into Latin), as clarified by the English draft.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"seposita omni suspicione","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius insists on judging Rufinus's intention (quo id animo aggressus sit) rather than the act of translation itself, distinguishing between a translator who endorses Origen and one who merely renders the text while accusing the author.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ecclestoe per orbem corrumpantur","severity":"info","text":"The misspelling 'Ecclestoe' for 'Ecclesiae' reflects a common scribal error in medieval manuscripts. Anastasius's concern for universal church corruption echoes the broader Origenist controversy of the late 4th–early 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Aut si jure me laudas, tu quoque similiter non relaudandus es?","severity":"caution","text":"The rhetorical question is ambiguous: it may be a polite modesty topos or a subtle challenge to John's praise. The double negative 'non relaudandus' (should you not be praised?) is a Latin idiom for emphatic affirmation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'oh versos' is corrupt; the reading 'obversos' (translated) is adopted. The summary's third-person framing may not reflect Anastasius's original opening. The rhetorical question at the end could be read as either genuine modesty or ironic challenge."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"obsecro igitur ob utrumque, ut meipsum apud me laudare jam destnas. Duplex etenim me caussa constringit, ne consacerdotis tui sensibus aut dolorem falsa laus ingerat, aut pudorem vera succendat.\n\nSed ut ad caussam revertar: Ruimus, de quo me consulere dignatus es, conscientiae suae divinam habet arbitram majestatem; apud quam se integro devotionis officio ipse viderit, qualiter debeat approbare.\n\nOrigenes 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, e quod Urbis nostrae populis de translatis Origenis lectio patefecit, quadam puris mentibus velut nebula caecitatis injecta, fidem Apostolorum, et majorum traditione firmatam, velut deviis anfrac ibus illum voluisse dissolvere.","english":"I beg you, therefore, for both reasons, to cease praising me to myself. For a twofold cause constrains me, lest false praise bring grief to the mind of your fellow priest, or true praise kindle shame.\n\nBut to return to the matter: Rufinus, concerning whom you have deigned to consult me, has the divine majesty as the arbiter of his own conscience; before which he himself will see, with the full office of devotion, how he ought to prove himself.\n\nOrigen, however, whose compositions he has rendered into our language, both what he was before and into what words he proceeded, our purpose does not know. But what the inclination of my mind is, I shall briefly confer with your holiness on this matter. I have therefore conceived this in my mind, that the reading of the translated works of Origen, which has been opened to the peoples of our City, has cast, as it were, a cloud of blindness over pure minds, and that he wished to dissolve the faith of the Apostles, strengthened by the tradition of the elders, as if by devious windings.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"obsecro igitur ob utrumque","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ob utrumque' refers to the two reasons just given: that praise may cause grief or shame. Anastasius asks John to stop praising him for both reasons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ruimus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin text reads 'Ruimus', a variant spelling of 'Rufinus'. This is the same Rufinus of Aquileia, the translator of Origen, whose condemnation John had inquired about.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Origenes autem","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius distances himself from Origen's works, claiming ignorance of Origen's earlier life and words. This reflects the late 4th-century Origenist controversy, in which Anastasius opposed Origen's teachings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed ut ad caussam revertar","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a transition from the opening modesty to the main subject: Rufinus and Origen. It signals the letter's rhetorical structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"fidem Apostolorum, et majorum traditione firmatam","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius accuses Origen of undermining apostolic faith and ancestral tradition. This language echoes later condemnations of Origenism and shows the letter's role in shaping Western anti-Origenist polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"quadam puris mentibus velut nebula caecitatis injecta","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'velut nebula caecitatis injecta' is metaphorical, describing Origen's works as casting a cloud of blindness. The exact referent of 'quadam' is unclear; it may modify 'lectio' or be an adverb.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'quadam puris mentibus velut nebula caecitatis injecta' is syntactically ambiguous: 'quadam' could agree with 'nebula' (feminine) or be an adverbial form. The reading taken treats it as part of the metaphor.","The clause 'quod vero sit animi mei studium' is left incomplete in the Latin; the English draft supplies 'I shall briefly confer' as a plausible continuation."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Discere hoc loco libet, quid agat in Romanam linguam ista translatio. Approbo, si accusat auctorem, et exsecrandum facium populis prodit, ut justis tandem odiis teneatur, quem jam dudum fama constrinxerat. Si vero interpres tantorum malorum 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\nAbsit i hoc ab Ecclestae Romanae catholica disciplina. Nunquam profecto eveniet aliquae, ut haec admittamus ratione, quae jure meritoque damnamus. j Quapropter illa toto orbe Christi Dei nostri diffusa providentia, probare dignabitur, accipere nos omnino non posse, quae Ecclestam 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: a Unde igitur habeat secum ille, qui transtulit, servetque sibi hanc conscientiam, non superflua laboro formidine, neque inani timore sollicitor.","english":"Here I wish to learn what this translation accomplishes for the Latin tongue. I approve if it accuses the author and delivers him to the peoples as an object of execration, so that he may at last be held in just hatred, whom rumor had long since bound. But if the translator lends his consent to such great evils and delivers them to the peoples to be read, he has built nothing else by his own labor than to overturn, as if by the judgment of his own mind, those things which alone, which first, which among catholic Christians are held as true faith from the Apostles down to this time, under the title of an unexpected assertion.\n\nFar be it that this should be from the catholic discipline of the Roman Church. Never indeed will it happen that we admit by any reasoning those things which we justly and deservedly condemn. For this reason, the providence of Christ our God, spread throughout the whole world, will deign to approve that we cannot at all accept those things which stain the Church, overturn proven morals, wound the ears of bystanders, and arrange quarrels, angers, and dissensions. Moved by this, what letter our littleness sent to our brother and fellow bishop Venerius, written with more diligent care, you will be able to verify from what is subjoined. Whence, therefore, he who translated may keep that conscience with himself, and keep it for himself, I do not labor with superfluous fear, nor am I troubled by empty dread.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Discere hoc loco libet","severity":"info","text":"The opening phrase signals a rhetorical shift: Anastasius turns from personal admonition to a broader critique of the translation's impact on Latin Christianity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"catholica disciplina","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'catholica disciplina' (catholic discipline) here denotes the authoritative teaching and practice of the universal Church, specifically as upheld by the Roman see.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Venerium","severity":"info","text":"Venerius was bishop of Milan (c. 396–409) and a correspondent of Anastasius; the letter referenced likely concerns the condemnation of Origenist translations, linking this passage to the broader Origenist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Absit i hoc","severity":"info","text":"The exclamation 'Absit i hoc' (Far be it) marks a rhetorical climax, emphatically rejecting any possibility that the Roman Church would accept the translated work.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"ista translatio","severity":"info","text":"The translation in question is likely Rufinus's Latin version of Origen's 'De Principiis', which sparked controversy over its orthodoxy and was condemned by Anastasius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"jurgia, iras, dissensionesque disponant","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'arrange quarrels, angers, and dissensions' may be a rhetorical exaggeration; the Latin 'disponant' (arrange) is unusual in this context, possibly a scribal error for 'disponant' (dispose) or 'dispergant' (scatter).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Absit i hoc' contains an anomalous 'i' (possibly a scribal error for 'id' or 'hoc' alone).","The identity of 'ille, qui transtulit' (he who translated) is not explicitly named, but context strongly points to Rufinus."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Mihi certe cura non deerit, Evangelii fidem circa meos custodire populos, partesque corporis mei per spatia diversa terrarum, quantum possum, literis convenire, ne qua prophanae 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 revocatur; e damnatumque sententia Principum, quem lectio reum propbana prodiderit. Hactenus sententiae meae forma 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. Itaque, frater carissime, omni suspicione seposita, i Rufinum propria mente perpende, si Origenis dicta in Latinum transtulit, ac probavit, nec dissimilis j a reo est, qui alienis vitiis praestat assensum. Illud tamen tenere te cupio, ita haberi a nostris partibus alienum, ut quid agat, ubi sit, nec scire cupiamus. Ipse denique viderit, ubi possit absolvi.","english":"I certainly will not lack care in preserving the faith of the Gospel among my peoples, and in uniting the members of my body scattered across diverse regions of the earth, as far as I can, by letters, lest any source of profane interpretation creep in, which might attempt to shake devoted minds with its darkness. Nor could I keep silent about what I rejoice has happened: the responses of our most blessed Princes have flowed forth, by which each person serving God is recalled from reading Origen; and the sentence of the Princes condemns him whom reading has revealed as guilty of profanity. Thus far has the form of my judgment proceeded.\n\nAs for the fact that the complaint of the people about Rufinus disturbs you, so that you pursue some with vague suspicions, I will restrain this opinion of yours by the example of divine reading, as it is written: Not so does man as God: for God sees in the heart, man sees in the face. Therefore, dearest brother, setting aside all suspicion, consider Rufinus in your own mind: if he translated Origen's sayings into Latin and approved them, he is not unlike a guilty man who gives assent to the vices of others. Yet I wish you to hold this: that he is considered so alien in our parts that we wish neither to know what he does nor where he is. Finally, let him see for himself where he can be absolved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Evangelii fidem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Evangelii fidem' (faith of the Gospel) refers to orthodox Christian doctrine, which Anastasius claims to protect against Origenist influence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"beatissimorum Principum nostrorum manasse Responsa","severity":"info","text":"The 'responses of our most blessed Princes' likely refer to imperial edicts against Origen, possibly those of Emperor Theodosius I or his successors, condemning Origenist teachings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non sic homo ut Deus: nam Deus videt in corde, homo videt in facie","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of a biblical sentiment, possibly echoing 1 Samuel 16:7 or a patristic maxim, emphasizing divine vs. human knowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"prophanae interpretationis","severity":"info","text":"'Profane interpretation' denotes heretical exegesis, specifically Origen's allegorical methods, which Anastasius fears will corrupt the faithful.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufinum","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius distances himself from Rufinus, the translator of Origen, reflecting the late 4th-century Origenist controversy and Rufinus's disputed orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"hactenus sententiae meae forma processerit","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'thus far has the form of my judgment proceeded' may indicate a break in the letter or a rhetorical pause; the Latin is clear but the intended structure is ambiguous.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Princes' (Principum) is not specified; they could be emperors or bishops. The phrase 'hactenus sententiae meae forma processerit' may mark a section break or a rhetorical conclusion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}