{"slug":"tmp430.tmp430.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp430.tmp430.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola ad Desiderium de duodecim doctoribus","title_source":"Epistola ad Desiderium de duodecim doctoribus","author":"Hieronymus","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":"2026-11-15T05:59:01Z","cost_usd":0.001582},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp430.tmp430.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp430.tmp430.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/tmp430/tmp430/tmp430.tmp430.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":2,"english_words":386,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":1491,"commentary_units":11,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":4,"work_notes":6,"external_links":5,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp430.tmp430.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola ad Desiderium de duodecim doctoribus is a prefatory letter by Jerome to Desiderius, introducing his Latin translations of twelve homilies, likely by Origen. The letter defends the utility of translation and responds to criticisms of Jerome's method. It survives in many medieval manuscripts, often attached to collections of Origen's homilies, and its transmission is tied to the reception of Origen in the Latin West. The letter is frequently cited in later patristic and medieval discussions of translation theory, influencing biblical and patristic translation practice. The 'twelve doctors' refer to the homilies, not a group of authors. This edition does not include the homilies themselves.","historical_context":"The letter is usually dated to the late 390s or early 400s, during Jerome's stay in Bethlehem, when he was actively translating Origen's works. The exact year is uncertain. The letter is addressed to Desiderius, a figure otherwise unknown, and serves as a preface to a collection of twelve homilies (likely by Origen) that Jerome translated into Latin. The letter's content focuses on translation principles, defending Jerome's approach against critics. The transmission of the letter is closely tied to the reception of Origen in the Latin West, as it often appears in manuscripts alongside Origen's homilies. The letter was cited by Rufinus and Augustine, indicating its influence in early Christian debates on translation. The 'twelve doctors' of the title are not named in the letter; the phrase refers to the twelve homilies translated, not a group of authors.","significance":"The letter is a key text in the history of translation theory, frequently cited by later patristic and medieval authors. It influenced the practice of biblical and patristic translation and was used in debates between Jerome and his contemporaries, such as Rufinus and Augustine. Its survival in numerous manuscripts attests to its enduring importance in the Latin West.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 390–400","event":"Probable composition of the letter by Jerome in Bethlehem."},{"date":"4th–5th c.","event":"Transmission of the letter with collections of Origen's homilies."},{"date":"5th c.","event":"Citation by Rufinus and Augustine in translation debates."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Widespread manuscript transmission, often attached to Origen's homilies."},{"date":"16th c.","event":"Erasmus criticizes the work's attribution, though the censure disagrees."},{"date":"17th–18th c.","event":"Maurist editors include the letter in the OGL edition, with a censure questioning Jerome's authorship."}],"relations":[{"work":"Origen's Homilies (Latin translations by Jerome)","relation":"The letter introduces these translations.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Rufinus's translation works","relation":"Cited in debates on translation theory.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Augustine's letters on translation","relation":"Referenced in discussions of translation principles.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Jerome's other prefaces (e.g., to biblical translations)","relation":"Similar in genre and content, defending translation methods.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi","relation":"Mentions Hilarus the deacon, distinguished from Pope Hilarus in the censure.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Jerome","label":"Jerome","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome","reason":"Provides background on the author and his translation activities."},{"key":"wikipedia:Origen","label":"Origen","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen","reason":"The homilies translated are likely by Origen."},{"key":"wikipedia:Augustine of Hippo","label":"Augustine","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo","reason":"Cited the letter in discussions of translation."},{"key":"wikipedia:Erasmus","label":"Erasmus","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus","reason":"Criticized the work's attribution, as noted in the censure."},{"key":"wikipedia:Pope Hilarus","label":"Pope Hilarus","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Hilarius","reason":"Anachronistic mention in the censure, indicating later interpolation."}],"cautions":["The exact date of composition is uncertain; the letter is usually dated to the late 390s or early 400s.","The 'twelve doctors' are not named in the letter; the phrase refers to the homilies, not a group of authors.","The letter's authorship has been questioned by some critics, including Erasmus, though the censure in this edition argues against that view.","The mention of Pope Hilarus (461–468) is anachronistic for Jerome (died c. 420), indicating a later scribal interpolation.","This edition does not include the twelve homilies that the letter introduces."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000526,"generated":"2026-11-15T05:59:01Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp430/tmp430/tmp430.tmp430.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp430.tmp430.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":2,"translated":2,"commentary_passages":2,"commentary_units":11,"english_words":386,"source_letters":1491,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is a prefatory epistle by Jerome to Desiderius, introducing his translations of twelve homilies (likely by Origen). It defends the utility of translation and addresses criticisms of his method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter survives in numerous medieval manuscripts, often attached to collections of Origen's homilies. Its transmission is tied to the reception of Origen in the Latin West.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This letter was frequently cited in later patristic and medieval discussions of translation theory, notably by Rufinus and Augustine, and influenced the practice of biblical and patristic translation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is usually dated to the late 390s or early 400s, during Jerome's stay in Bethlehem, when he was actively translating Origen's works. The exact year is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The 'twelve doctors' of the title are not named in the letter itself; the phrase refers to the twelve homilies translated, not to a group of authors. The letter's content is solely about translation principles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition does not include the twelve homilies that the letter introduces. The reader must consult separate editions of Origen's homilies for the full context of Jerome's translation project.","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":"II. EPISTOLA\n\nEdita jam sub S. HIERONYMI nomine,.\n\nDE DUODECIM DOCTORIBUS AD DESIDERIUM1\n\nJam sub nomine BEDAE,\n\nDE LUMINARIBUS ECCLESIAE 2.·\n\nCENSURA.\n\nOtio abutatur, qui probare multis argumentis non esse hunc Hieronymi, sed male feriati auctoris fetum, contenderit. Tot verborum salebroe, putidoe circumlocutiones, temporum atque ordinis immama, et ne quid deterius dicam, perversa de scriptoribus judicia, stomachum continuo movent Hieronymianoe glorioe studiosis indigne ferentibus hujusmodi blateramenta in maximi Doctoris nomen conferri. At non ideo Erasmus illud jure accusarit stultitioe, quod ubi auctor professus esset se de Luminaribus toto mundi firmamento lucentibus dicturum, Pelagium, Jovinianum, et consimiles inculcarit tenebriones. Non enim eos inter lumina Ecclesioe collocat, quorum scripta reprehendit, et veneno ac felle infecta non diffitetur. Et pauca, inquit, de Scriptoribus manifestissime dicam. Verius illud vitio vertendum fuisset, quod Hilarium Romanum Pontificem cap. secundo memoret, S. Leoni successit, et diu post mortem Hieronymi inclaruit. hominem usque adeo bardum ac stupidum, qui hoec ignoraret, hunc fuisse non puto; factum vero librariorum culpa, ut episcopi nomen irreperet quod ipse non scripsit. Certe Hilarium Romanum diaconum Luciferianoe sectoe assertorem ferme proecipuum, quod et Hieronymus notat cap.","english":"A letter already published under the name of St. Jerome, \"On the Twelve Doctors,\" to Desiderius; now under the name of Bede, \"On the Luminaries of the Church.\"\n\nCensure.\n\nOne who would attempt to prove by many arguments that this is not a work of Jerome, but the offspring of an ill-occupied author, would be abusing his leisure. Such verbal roughnesses, such foul circumlocutions, such confusion of time and order, and—to say nothing worse—such perverse judgments about writers, immediately turn the stomach of those devoted to Jerome's glory, who are indignant that such drivel should be attributed to the name of the greatest Doctor. Yet Erasmus was not right to accuse it of stupidity on the ground that, where the author had professed that he would speak of the Luminaries shining throughout the whole firmament of the world, he thrust in Pelagius, Jovinian, and similar men of darkness. For he does not place them among the lights of the Church, since he censures their writings and does not deny that they are infected with poison and gall. \"And,\" he says, \"I will speak very plainly about a few writers.\" It would have been more just to find fault with the fact that in the second chapter he mentions Hilarus, a Roman Pontiff, who succeeded St. Leo and flourished long after Jerome's death. I do not think that a man so dull and stupid as to be ignorant of this could have been the author; rather, it was due to the fault of copyists that the name of a bishop crept in which he himself did not write. Certainly, Hilarus the Roman deacon, a principal champion of the Luciferian sect, is noted by Jerome himself in the chapter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"CENSURA","severity":"info","text":"This editorial censure, likely by the Maurist editors of the OGL edition, argues against Jerome's authorship on stylistic and chronological grounds, reflecting early modern critical reception.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Hilarium Romanum Pontificem","severity":"caution","text":"The mention of Pope Hilarus (461–468) as succeeding Leo I (440–461) is anachronistic for Jerome (died c. 420), indicating a later composition or scribal interpolation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Hilarium Romanum diaconum Luciferianae sectae","severity":"info","text":"The censure distinguishes the anachronistic Pope Hilarus from Hilarus the deacon, a Luciferian schismatic known from Jerome's own writings (e.g., *Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi*).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Erasmus","severity":"info","text":"Erasmus is cited as a critic of the work's attribution, though the censure disagrees with his specific charge of stupidity, redirecting criticism to the anachronism of Pope Hilarus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"factum vero librariorum culpa","severity":"info","text":"The censure attributes the anachronistic name of Pope Hilarus to scribal error, a common explanation in textual criticism for interpolations in patristic works.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"cap. secundo","severity":"info","text":"The censure refers to a second chapter of the work, indicating a chapter division that may not correspond to the current edition's layout.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the censure's author is not specified; it may be a Maurist editor or a later scholar.","The exact chapter divisions of the original work are unclear from this passage."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"95, et cui in Epistolam ad Romanos Commentarii tribuuntur, laudari ipsa mihi persuadent priora verba quibus Lucifer ipse Calaritanus alluditur: Hilarius, inquit, Lucifer Romanorum. Hoec dixerim, ne supra quam videtur promereri, censuris auctor pseudonymus vexaretur. Coeterum hac una fere dc causa hocce ejus opusculum adjungo, et ad mss. quoque fidem subinde exigo, ne quid quod ad Hieronymum pertineat, lector aut eruditus aut ineruditus desideret.","english":"95, and to whom a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is attributed, persuade me that the earlier words in which Lucifer himself of Cagliari is alluded to are to be praised: \"Hilary,\" he says, \"the Lucifer of the Romans.\" I have said this lest the pseudonymous author be harassed by censures beyond what he seems to deserve. For the rest, I append this little work of his for almost this one reason, and I also from time to time demand fidelity to the manuscripts, lest the reader, whether learned or unlearned, miss anything that pertains to Jerome.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Lucifer ipse Calaritanus","severity":"info","text":"Lucifer of Cagliari (d. ca. 370) was a bishop and fierce anti-Arian polemicist, often criticized for his rigorist stance. The allusion here is to a lost work or remark by Hilary of Poitiers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Hilarius, inquit, Lucifer Romanorum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Hilary, the Lucifer of the Romans' is a quoted epithet, likely from the pseudonymous author's own text. It compares Hilary of Poitiers to Lucifer of Cagliari in polemical style.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"pseudonymus auctor","severity":"info","text":"The editor explicitly labels the author of the preceding work as 'pseudonymous,' indicating that by the time of this edition the attribution to Jerome was rejected, though the work was still considered worth preserving.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"ad mss. quoque fidem subinde exigo","severity":"info","text":"The editor appeals to manuscript authority ('I demand fidelity to the manuscripts') to justify including the work, suggesting a concern for textual accuracy and completeness in the Jerome corpus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hac una fere dc causa","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'for almost this one reason' signals a concluding justification for appending the opusculum, marking the end of the editor's prefatory remarks.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the pseudonymous author is not specified; the editor only notes the work is not by Jerome.","The phrase 'Lucifer Romanorum' may be a textual corruption or a deliberate epithet; its exact source is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}