{"slug":"tmp775.tmp775.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp775.tmp775.opp-lat1","title":"Nestorii Epistolae Tres","title_source":"Nestorii Epistolae Tres","author":"Marius Mercator","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":"2026-11-15T06:14:21Z","cost_usd":0.004013},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp775.tmp775.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp775.tmp775.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/tmp775/tmp775/tmp775.tmp775.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":8,"english_words":1650,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":6948,"commentary_units":44,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":14,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp775.tmp775.opp-lat1","abstract":"The three letters of Nestorius, preserved only in Latin translation by Marius Mercator, date to Nestorius's episcopacy (428–431). The first two letters precede the Council of Ephesus (431); the third, addressed to Pope Celestine I, belongs to the council's immediate aftermath. Mercator's Latin versions were used in fifth-century Christological controversies and cited in conciliar florilegia, especially at Chalcedon (451), as evidence of Nestorius's views. This edition (ogl-pl) lacks a critical apparatus for the Latin text or a full collation of manuscript witnesses.","historical_context":"The letters were composed during Nestorius's tenure as bishop of Constantinople (428–431), a period of intense Christological debate. Nestorius's teachings on the two natures of Christ sparked opposition from Cyril of Alexandria and others, leading to the Council of Ephesus in 431. The letters survive only in Latin translation by Marius Mercator, a Latin theologian active in Constantinople, who appended them to his own anti-Nestorian works. The Greek originals are lost. Mercator's translations were later used in conciliar florilegia, especially at Chalcedon (451), to document Nestorius's views. The transmission is thus mediated by Latin theological and conciliar contexts, with no surviving Greek manuscript tradition.","significance":"These letters are primary evidence for Nestorius's own articulation of his Christology before and after his condemnation. They illustrate the theological and political dynamics of the early fifth-century Christological controversies, the role of Latin translations in shaping the Western reception of Nestorianism, and the use of such texts in later conciliar debates, particularly at Chalcedon.","timeline":[{"date":"428–431","event":"Nestorius serves as bishop of Constantinople; composes the three letters."},{"date":"431","event":"Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorius; third letter addressed to Pope Celestine I belongs to this period."},{"date":"5th c.","event":"Marius Mercator translates the letters into Latin and appends them to his anti-Nestorian works."},{"date":"451","event":"Council of Chalcedon cites the letters in florilegia as evidence of Nestorius's views."}],"relations":[{"work":"Marius Mercator's anti-Nestorian works","relation":"contains the Latin translation of these letters","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451)","relation":"cites these letters in florilegia","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Cyril of Alexandria's writings against Nestorius","relation":"contemporary polemical counterpart","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The Greek originals are lost; only Latin translations by Marius Mercator survive.","The exact dates of the letters are uncertain; they are assigned to Nestorius's episcopacy (428–431) based on internal references.","This edition (ogl-pl) does not provide a critical apparatus or full collation of manuscript witnesses."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000376,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:14:21Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp775/tmp775/tmp775.tmp775.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp775.tmp775.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":8,"translated":8,"commentary_passages":8,"commentary_units":44,"english_words":1650,"source_letters":6948,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The three letters survive only in Latin translation, likely by Marius Mercator, who also appended them to his own anti-Nestorian works. No Greek original is extant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letters date to Nestorius’s episcopacy (428–431). The first two precede the Council of Ephesus (431); the third, addressed to Pope Celestine I, belongs to the council’s immediate aftermath.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator’s Latin versions were used in the fifth-century Christological controversies and later cited in conciliar florilegia, especially at Chalcedon (451), as evidence of Nestorius’s views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition (ogl-pl) does not provide a critical apparatus for the Latin text or a full collation of manuscript witnesses. Readers should consult the sources listed in the edition’s introduction for variant readings.","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: 8 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":8},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"I. NESTORII EPISTOLAE TRES.\n\na EPISTOLA I\n\nnestorii ad coelistinum papam unius romae.\n\nFraternas nobis invicem debemus collocutiones, velut (vera inter nos, secandam Scripturas, obtinente concordia) pugnaturi in diabolum pacis inimicum. Quorsum hoc antiloquium? Julianus quidam a, et Florus, et Orontius, et Fabius dicentes se Occidentalium partium episcopos, saepe et piissimum et praedicatissimum imperatorem adierunt, ac suas causas defleverunt, tamquam orthodoxi orthodoxis temporibus persecutionem passi. Saepe eadem et apud nos lamentantes, ac saepe rejecti, eadem facere non desierunt, sed insistunt per dies singulos, implentes aures omnium vocibus lacrymosis.\n\nHis quidem ad eos sermonibus quibus oportuit asi sumus, cum negotii eorum veram fidem nesciremus; sed quoniam apertiore nobis de causis eorum notitia opus est, ne piissimus et christianissimus imperator noster molestiam saepe ab his sustineat, ne nos, ignorantes eorum causas, circa negotii defensionem dividamur, dignare nobis de his notitiam largiri; ne vel quidam, ignorando justitiam veritatis, importuna commiseratione conturbentur, vel canonicam indignationem beatitudinis tuae, quae contra eos pro sectis religionis forte probata est, aliud quiddam quam hoc aestiment. Nam sectarum novitas nullam meretur defensionem a veris pastoribus.","english":"I. THE THREE LETTERS OF NESTORIUS.\n\na. LETTER I\n\nNestorius to Pope Coelestinus of the one Rome.\n\nWe owe each other fraternal conferences, as if (with true concord among us, according to the Scriptures, prevailing) we were to fight against the devil, the enemy of peace. To what purpose this preamble? Certain men—Julianus, Florus, Orontius, and Fabius—calling themselves bishops of the Western regions, have often approached the most pious and most renowned emperor, and have bewailed their own causes, as if they were orthodox suffering persecution in orthodox times. They have often lamented the same things before us as well, and, though often rejected, they have not ceased to do the same, but persist day by day, filling the ears of all with tearful voices.\n\nWe have indeed addressed them with the words that were fitting, since we were ignorant of the true state of their affair; but because we need a clearer knowledge of their causes, lest our most pious and most Christian emperor suffer annoyance from them so often, and lest we, ignorant of their causes, be divided concerning the defense of the matter, deign to grant us knowledge of them; lest some, in ignorance of the justice of the truth, be disturbed by untimely commiseration, or lest they judge the canonical indignation of Your Beatitude, which has perhaps been approved against them on account of religious sects, to be something other than it is. For novelty of sects merits no defense from true pastors.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"I. NESTORII EPISTOLAE TRES. a EPISTOLA I","severity":"info","text":"The heading marks the beginning of the first of three letters by Nestorius, addressed to Pope Coelestinus. The letter is structured as a formal epistle with a preamble, a narrative of events, and a request for information.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Fraternas nobis invicem debemus collocutiones","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'fraternal conferences' reflects the epistolary convention of ecclesiastical correspondence, emphasizing collegiality between bishops. The Latin 'collocutiones' suggests formal discussions, not casual conversation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Julianus quidam a, et Florus, et Orontius, et Fabius","severity":"info","text":"These four individuals, claiming to be Western bishops, are otherwise unknown. Their appeal to the emperor and Nestorius reflects the jurisdictional tensions between East and West in the early 5th century, particularly over Pelagian controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"sectarum novitas","severity":"info","text":"Nestorius uses 'novelty of sects' as a pejorative term, implying that the accused bishops are introducing unauthorized innovations. This aligns with his later condemnation of heretical novelties in Christological debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"secandam Scripturas","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'secandam Scripturas' is likely a scribal error for 'secundum Scripturas' (according to the Scriptures). The English draft correctly emends to 'according to the Scriptures'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity and specific charges against Julianus, Florus, Orontius, and Fabius are not clarified in this passage; they may be Pelagians or other dissidents.","The phrase 'canonicam indignationem beatitudinis tuae' could refer to a formal ecclesiastical censure, but its exact nature is unspecified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Unde et nos non modicam corruptionem orthodoxiae apud quosdam hic reperientes, e et ira et lenitate circa aegros quotidie utimur. Est enim aegritudo non parva, sed affinis putredinis Apollinaris et Arii. Dominicam enim in homine unionem ad cujusdam contemperationis confusionem passim commiscent: adeo ut et quidam apud nos clerici, quorum alii ex imperitia, alii ex haeretica fraude in se olim celata (qualia plurima et apostolorum temporibus contigerunt) tamquam haeretici aegrotent, et aperte blasphement, Deum Verbum Patri, tamquam originis initium de Virgine sumpsisset, cum templo suo aedificatum esse, et carni consepultum; eamdem carnem dicunt post resurrectionem non mansisse, sed in naturam transiisse Deitatis. Ut in compendio dicam, Deitatem Unigeniti, et ad originem conjunctae carnis referunt, et commortificant carni; carnem vero conjunctam Deitati ad Deitatem transiisse blasphemant, a usi ipso verbo Deificationis, quod nihil est aliud nisi utrumque corrumpere.","english":"Therefore we also, finding here among some a not insignificant corruption of orthodoxy, daily employ both anger and gentleness toward the sick. For the illness is not slight, but akin to the rottenness of Apollinaris and Arius. They indiscriminately confuse the Lord’s union in man with a kind of blending of mixture, to such an extent that even some clerics among us—some from inexperience, others from heretical fraud long concealed within them (of which many instances also occurred in the times of the apostles)—are sick as heretics and openly blaspheme, saying that God the Word, as if He had taken the beginning of His origin from the Virgin, was built together with His temple and buried with the flesh; and they say that this same flesh did not remain after the resurrection, but passed into the nature of the Godhead. To put it briefly, they refer the Godhead of the Only-Begotten both to the origin of the joined flesh and cause it to die with the flesh; but they blasphemously claim that the flesh joined to the Godhead passed over into the Godhead, using even the very word “deification,” which is nothing other than to corrupt both.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"corruptionem orthodoxiae","severity":"info","text":"Nestorius accuses his opponents of corrupting orthodoxy, a charge that mirrors the accusations later leveled against him at Ephesus (431).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Apollinaris et Arius","severity":"info","text":"Apollinaris of Laodicea (4th cent.) taught that Christ had a divine mind but a human body, blurring the natures; Arius denied the full divinity of the Son. Nestorius links his opponents' views to these heresies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"contemperationis confusionem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'blending of mixture' (contemperationis confusionem) echoes the Greek κρᾶσις and σύγχυσις, terms central to later Christological debates about the union of natures in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"apostolorum temporibus","severity":"info","text":"Nestorius compares the concealed heresy among clerics to events 'in the times of the apostles,' possibly alluding to Acts 8:9-24 (Simon Magus) or 1 Tim 1:19-20 (Hymenaeus and Alexander).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Deificationis","severity":"info","text":"The term 'deification' (θεοποίησις) was used by Cyril of Alexandria to describe the communication of divine properties to Christ's humanity; Nestorius here rejects it as corrupting both natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ut in compendio dicam","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a summary of Nestorius's accusation: his opponents reduce the divinity of the Word to the flesh and claim the flesh is absorbed into the Godhead.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'certain men' (Julianus, Florus, Orontius, Fabius) mentioned in the previous passage is not specified here; they may be Western bishops or local opponents.","The phrase 'affinis putredinis Apollinaris et Arii' could be read as a rhetorical exaggeration or as a precise doctrinal genealogy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Sed et Virginem ausi sunt modo quidam dicere; hanc vero vocantes non perhorrescunt, quando sancti illi et supra omnem praedicationem Patres per Nicaeam nihil amplius de sancta Virgine dixisse leguntur, nisi quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus incarnatus est ex Spiritu sancto et Maria virgine: et taceo Scripturas, quae ubique Virginem matrem Christi, non Dei Verbi, et per angelos, et per apostolos praedicarunt.\n\nPropter quae quanta certamina sustinuerimus, aestimo famam praecedentem docuisse beatitudinem tuam, hoc quoque attendentem quod non frustra certaverimus, sed emendati sint gratia Domini multi ex his qui perversi erant, discentes a nobis quia debet esse parienti nativitas; quia Dei Verbi commixtura nulla est cum homine, sed unio creaturae et humanitatis Dominicae Deo conjunctae ex Virgine per Spiritum.\n\nSi quis autem hoc nomen, propter natam humanitatem conjunctam Deo Verbo, non propter parientem proponat, dicimus quidem hoc vocabulum in eam quae peperit non esse conveniens. Oportet enim veram matrem de eadem esse essentia qua est ex se natum; ferri tamen posse propter ipsam considerationem, et quod solum nominetur de Virgine hoc verbum propter inseparabile templum Dei Verbi ex ipsa, non quia ipsa sit mater Dei Verbi; e nemo enim antiquiorem se parit.","english":"But some have now dared to call her Virgin; yet they do not shrink from this name, when those holy Fathers, beyond all preaching, at Nicaea are read to have said nothing more about the holy Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary: and I pass over the Scriptures, which everywhere proclaimed the Virgin as mother of Christ, not of God the Word, both through angels and through apostles.\n\nOn account of these things, what great struggles we have endured, I think the preceding report has taught your Beatitude, also noting this, that we have not striven in vain, but many of those who were perverse have been corrected by the grace of the Lord, learning from us that there must be a birth for the one giving birth; that there is no mixture of God the Word with man, but a union of the creature and of the Lord's humanity joined to God from the Virgin through the Spirit.\n\nBut if anyone proposes this name, on account of the born humanity joined to God the Word, and not on account of the one giving birth, we say indeed that this term is not fitting for her who bore. For a true mother must be of the same essence as that which is born from her; yet it can be tolerated on account of the consideration itself, and because this word is only spoken of the Virgin on account of the inseparable temple of God the Word from her, not because she is the mother of God the Word; for no one gives birth to one older than herself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"parienti nativitas","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'parienti nativitas' (a birth for the one giving birth) is a compressed theological formula: the reality of the birth (nativitas) belongs to the human mother (pariens), not to the divine nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"commixtura","severity":"info","text":"'Commixtura' (mixture) is a technical term rejected by Nestorius to describe the union of divine and human in Christ, as opposed to 'unio' (union), which preserves the distinction of natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"nemo enim antiquiorem se parit","severity":"info","text":"The maxim 'no one gives birth to one older than herself' echoes a logical principle used in anti-Arian and anti-Apollinarian polemic, though not a direct biblical quotation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Patres per Nicaeam","severity":"info","text":"Nestorius appeals to the Nicene Creed (325), which states that Jesus Christ was 'incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,' but does not call Mary 'Theotokos' (Mother of God).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed et Virginem ausi sunt modo quidam dicere","severity":"info","text":"This sentence introduces a new objection: opponents now dare to call Mary 'Virgin' (i.e., deny her title 'Mother of God'), which Nestorius counters by citing Nicene and scriptural precedent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"inseparabile templum Dei Verbi","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'inseparable temple of God the Word' reflects Nestorius's preferred Christology: Mary is the mother of the human Christ, who is the inseparable temple of the divine Word.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'hanc vero vocantes' could refer to calling Mary 'Virgin' or to calling her 'Mother of God'; the context supports the former.","The phrase 'ferri tamen posse' indicates Nestorius's reluctant tolerance of the term 'Theotokos' under certain conditions, but the precise concession is debated."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Haec quidem existimo praecedentem famam significasse; exponimus vero etiam nos quae contigerunt, et rebus ostendimus quia fraterno animo negotium eorum quos praediximus nosse cupimus, non desiderio curiositatis importunae, cum et nostra narremus, tamquam fratres fratribus, novitatem sectarum nobis invicem publicantes, ut sit mihi principium litterarum verissimum: dixi enim, cum has litteras inciperem, quia fraternas invicem debemus collocutiones.\n\nOmnem quae tecum est in Christo fraternitatem ego et qui mecum sunt salutamus.\n\nEPISTOLA II\n\nnestorii ad coelestinum papam.\n\nSaepe scripsi beatitudini tuae propter Julianum, Orontium, et caeteros, qui sibi usurpant episcopalem dignitatem, et creberrimam aditionem apud plissimum et praedicatissimum imperatorem faciunt, nosque concidunt frequentibus lamentationibus, tamquam temporibus orthodoxis de Occidente projecti. At huc usque scripta de bis a tua veneratione non suscepimus: quae si haberem, possem eis respondere, daremque compendiosum responsum vocibus eorum. a Nunc enim ab incertis dictis eorum, non habet quis ad quod se convertat: aliis haereticos eos vocantibus, et ideo de Occidentalibus partibus projectos esse dicentibus: ipsis vero jurantibus, calumniam se sustinuisse, et periculum pro orthodoxa fide ex subreptione perpessos.","english":"I think this indicated the preceding report; but we also set forth what has happened, and show by the facts that we wish to know the business of those we have mentioned with a brotherly spirit, not from a desire of importunate curiosity, since we also relate our own affairs, as brothers to brothers, mutually disclosing to each other the novelty of sects, so that the beginning of my letter may be most true: for I said, when I began this letter, that we ought to have brotherly conversations with each other.\n\nWe, and those who are with me, greet the whole brotherhood that is with you in Christ.\n\nLETTER II\n\nNestorius to Pope Coelestinus.\n\nI have often written to your Beatitude concerning Julianus, Orontius, and the others, who usurp for themselves episcopal dignity, and make very frequent approaches to the most pious and most renowned emperor, and cut us down with constant lamentations, as if they were cast out of the West in orthodox times. But up to now I have not received any writings on these matters from your Veneration: if I had them, I could answer them, and would give a concise reply to their words. For now, from their uncertain statements, one has nothing to which to turn: some calling them heretics, and therefore saying they were cast out of the Western regions; they themselves swearing that they have suffered calumny, and undergone danger for the orthodox faith through subreption.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola II","severity":"info","text":"The heading 'Epistola II' marks the start of a new letter within the collection, shifting from the preceding narrative to a direct address from Nestorius to Pope Coelestinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"subreptione","severity":"info","text":"'Subreptione' (ablative of subreptio) denotes a fraudulent obtaining of a judgment by concealment of relevant facts, a technical term in ecclesiastical and legal contexts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Julianum, Orontium, et caeteros","severity":"info","text":"Julianus and Orontius were deposed bishops from the West who appealed to the imperial court, causing friction between Nestorius and Pope Coelestinus; their case reflects tensions over jurisdiction and orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"beatitudini tuae","severity":"info","text":"The address 'beatitudini tuae' (your Beatitude) reflects the formal title for the bishop of Rome in the 5th century, indicating the growing prestige of the papal see.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Nunc enim ab incertis dictis eorum","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'ab incertis dictis eorum' (from their uncertain statements) may reflect Nestorius's rhetorical strategy to highlight lack of evidence, but the Latin could also imply textual corruption or ambiguity in the original Greek.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Julianus, Orontius, et caeteros' is not fully specified; they are likely deposed Western bishops, but their exact charges remain unclear.","The phrase 'creberrimam aditionem' may be a scribal error for 'creberrimam aditionem' (frequent approach) or 'creberrimam auditionem' (frequent hearing); the reading follows the edition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Quorum utrum certum sit, nobis gravis est ignorantia: nam condolere eis, si vere haeretici sunt, crimen est; et iterum non condolere, si calumniam sustinent, durum et impium est.\n\nDignetur igitur amantissima Del anima tua informare nos, qui ad utrumque momentum huc usque dividimur, id est, et ad odium et ad miserationem eorum; doceri autem volumus, quam de his sententiam teneamus. Differimus enim eosdem viros per dies singulos dissimulantes, spe et exspectatione beatitudinis tuae.\n\nNon est enim, o venerandissime, sicut nosti res vilis discussio piae sectae: nec parva est probatio eorum, qui hoc agunt. Multus enim etiam nobis labor hic celebratur, dum elaboramus eruere sordidiselmam impietatem pessimae opinionis Apollinaris et Aril de Ecclesia Del: e nescio euim quemadmodum quidam de ecclesiasticis, quamdam contemperationis imaginem ex deitate et humanitate Unigeniti concipientes, aegrotent aegritudine praedictorum haereticorum: dum et corporis passiones audent superfundere deitati Unigeniti, et immutabilitatem deitatis ad naturam corporis transiisse confingunt, et utramque naturam (quae per conjunctionem summam et inconfusam in una persona Unigeniti adoratur) contemperationis mutabilitate confundunt.","english":"Of these two possibilities, whichever is true, our ignorance is grievous: for to grieve with them, if they are truly heretics, is a crime; and again, not to grieve with them, if they suffer calumny, is harsh and impious.\n\nMay your most God-loving soul therefore deign to inform us, who up to now are divided between both impulses, that is, between hatred and pity for them; for we wish to be taught what judgment we should hold concerning them. For we put off these same men day by day, dissembling, in hope and expectation of your Beatitude.\n\nFor it is not, O most venerable one, as you know, a trivial matter to examine a pious sect; nor is the testing of those who do this a small thing. For even for us great labor is here undertaken, while we strive to root out the foulest impiety of the most wicked opinion of Apollinaris and Arius from the Church of God. For I know not how some among the churchmen, conceiving a certain image of mixture from the divinity and humanity of the Only-begotten, sicken with the sickness of the aforementioned heretics: while they dare to ascribe the passions of the body to the divinity of the Only-begotten, and pretend that the immutability of the divinity has passed over to the nature of the body, and they confound both natures (which are adored in the supreme and unconfused conjunction in one person of the Only-begotten) with the mutability of mixture.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"condolere","severity":"info","text":"The verb condolere here means 'to grieve with' or 'to sympathize with,' but the author immediately qualifies it as potentially crimen if the objects are truly heretics, showing the pastoral dilemma.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"contemperationis","severity":"info","text":"Contemperatio (from the glossary) denotes a 'mixture' or 'blending' of natures, a term the author rejects as implying confusion of the divine and human in Christ, contrary to orthodox dyophysite Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Apollinaris et Aril","severity":"info","text":"Apollinaris (Apollinarius of Laodicea) and Arius are named as arch-heretics whose errors—denial of Christ's full humanity and full divinity respectively—the author sees revived in contemporary 'mixture' Christologies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Dignetur igitur","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a rhetorical turn from lament to petition, formally requesting doctrinal guidance from the addressee, whose 'most God-loving soul' is invoked as arbiter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"e nescio euim quemadmodum","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin phrase e nescio euim quemadmodum is corrupt or garbled; the English draft reads 'For I know not how,' which is a plausible emendation, but the original may have had a different construction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"contemperationis imaginem","severity":"info","text":"This passage was cited in later Christological controversies (e.g., at Ephesus 431) as evidence of Nestorius's opposition to any language of mixture or confusion of natures, aligning with Antiochene dyophysitism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'e nescio euim quemadmodum' is textually uncertain; the intended reading may be 'et nescio enim quemadmodum' or similar.","The identity of 'quidam de ecclesiasticis' is unspecified—possibly a veiled reference to Cyril of Alexandria or other miaphysite-leaning figures."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Caeci, qui nec sanctorum illorum Patrum expositionem meminerunt, nec vident aperte adversus eos reclamantes: Credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum filium Dei incarnatum ex Spiritu sancto et Maria virgine. e Haec enim vox, in Dominum, significat utramque naturam; etenim Christus est deitati Patris: humanitas vero posterioribus temporibus nata ex sancta Virgine, propter conjunctionem deitatis ab angelis et hominibus simul colitur.\n\nEum ergo, qui hic propter sectarum pravitatem tot laboribus fatigatur, considera, quid iterum pafi necesse est, si negotium praedictorum virorum nesciat, timeatque nimis, ne additamentum haereticorum per ignorantiam hic positus faciat. Unde rogo, ut undique studiosum sit sanctae animae tuae, donare notitiam praedictorum virorum: maxime cum litterarum sequester fidelissimus a Valerius cubicularius possit beatitudini tuae per se exponere molestias eorum.","english":"Blind are those who neither remember the exposition of those holy Fathers, nor see clearly those who cry out against them: \"We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.\" For this word, \"in the Lord,\" signifies both natures; indeed, Christ is of the divinity of the Father; the humanity, however, born in later times from the holy Virgin, is worshipped together by angels and men on account of the conjunction of the divinity.\n\nTherefore, consider him who here, on account of the depravity of the sects, is wearied by so many labors, and what he must again suffer if he is ignorant of the business of the aforementioned men, and fears too much lest, placed here through ignorance, he make an addition of heretics. Hence I ask that it be diligently attended to by your holy soul to grant knowledge of the aforementioned men; especially since the most faithful intermediary of letters, Valerius the chamberlain, can himself set forth to your Beatitude the troubles of these men.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum filium Dei incarnatum ex Spiritu sancto et Maria virgine","severity":"info","text":"This is a variant of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, specifically the phrase about incarnation from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, reflecting anti-Arian and anti-Nestorian formulations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"in Dominum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'in Dominum' (in the Lord) is interpreted by Nestorius as signifying both natures of Christ, a key point in his Christological argument against Cyril of Alexandria.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Valerius cubicularius","severity":"info","text":"Valerius the chamberlain (cubicularius) was a court official under Emperor Theodosius II, often involved in ecclesiastical correspondence; his role as letter-carrier underscores the political dimension of the Nestorian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Unde rogo","severity":"info","text":"This passage shifts from doctrinal exposition to a personal plea, marking a rhetorical transition from argument to petition, typical of late antique epistolary conventions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"additamentum haereticorum","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'addition of heretics' may refer to the fear of inadvertently endorsing heretical interpolations in creeds, a concern echoed in later anti-Nestorian polemics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'the aforementioned men' (praedictorum virorum) is unclear; they may be the accused heretics or the Fathers mentioned earlier.","The phrase 'pafi' in the Latin is likely a scribal error for 'pati' (to suffer), but the text is corrupt here."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Omnem in Christo fraternitatem, quae tecum est, ego et qui mecum sunt, plurimum salutamus.\n\nEPISTOLA III\n\nnestorii ad coelestium rescribentis.\n\nHonorabili et religiosissimo presbytero Coelestio Nestorius in Domino salutem.\n\nNoli aegre ferre, venerabilis, perferens ab his qui ea quae inferuntur facere debent, et praesertim asserentibus veritatem, et refugientibus e pollutorum vel contaminatorum communionem: quia et sanctis, qui ante nostram aetatem exstiterunt, gratae fuerunt aerumnae; et ipsae quidem temporales erant, veritas autem aeterna. Sic Joannes Baptista de peccato arguens Herodem, et quidem regem existentem, capite condemnatus est; sed non formidavit, Christum enim habebat caput quod non posset abscindi. Sic Paulus hoc modo quoque et Petrus sunt interfecti. Et quid amplius dici opus est? Ita actum est semper, per diversas tentationes pictate currente.","english":"All the brotherhood in Christ that is with you, I and those who are with me greet most warmly.\n\nLETTER III\n\nNestorius writing back to Coelestius.\n\nDo not take it ill, venerable one, that you suffer at the hands of those who ought to do what is laid upon them, and especially from those who assert the truth and who shrink from communion with the polluted or contaminated: for even the saints who lived before our time found hardships welcome; and these hardships were indeed temporal, but the truth is eternal. Thus John the Baptist, rebuking Herod for his sin, and that though he was a king, was condemned to be beheaded; but he did not fear, for he had Christ as his head, which could not be cut off. Thus Paul, in this way also, and Peter were put to death. And what more need be said? So it has always been done, with piety running its course through various trials.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola III","severity":"info","text":"This passage begins the third letter of Nestorius, addressed to Coelestius, as indicated by the heading and salutation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"pollutorum vel contaminatorum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'pollutorum vel contaminatorum' (polluted or contaminated) likely refers to those deemed heretical or morally impure, from whom Nestorius urges separation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Sic Joannes Baptista de peccato arguens Herodem","severity":"info","text":"The reference to John the Baptist rebuking Herod and being beheaded echoes Matthew 14:3-12 and Mark 6:17-29, where John is executed for criticizing Herod's marriage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Sic Paulus hoc modo quoque et Petrus sunt interfecti","severity":"info","text":"The mention of Paul and Peter being put to death alludes to their traditional martyrdoms in Rome under Nero, as recorded in early Christian writings like Acts of Peter and Acts of Paul.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Nestorius ad coelestium rescribentis","severity":"info","text":"Coelestius was a follower of Pelagius, and Nestorius writes to him here, indicating a connection between Nestorian and Pelagian circles, though their theological emphases differed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Nestorii Epistolae Tres","severity":"info","text":"These letters were preserved by Marius Mercator, a Latin writer who opposed Nestorius, and were used in the 5th-century Christological controversies to document Nestorius' views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'pollutorum vel contaminatorum' is not specified; it may refer to heretics or to those Nestorius considered impure in a moral or doctrinal sense."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Noli igitur a veritate deficiens eam prodere (siquidem epistolae missae episcopis a concilio Occidentis, et ab Alexandrino, multis rescriptis manifestam nobis nostram fecere sententiam ), a prudentibus scilicet ejusdem orthodoxae professionis: forsitan enim utile aliquid Ecclesiis rectae fidei proveniet, Domino cooperante.\n\nOmnem fraternitatem salutamus.\n\nEt alia manu: Incolumis et forti animo, et plurimum orans pro nobis, doneris nobis, religiosissimo frater.","english":"Do not, therefore, failing from the truth, betray it (since the letters sent to the bishops by the council of the West and by the Alexandrian have, by many replies, made our own opinion manifest to us), that is, by prudent men of the same orthodox profession; for perhaps something useful to the churches of the right faith will come about, with the Lord cooperating.\n\nWe greet the whole brotherhood.\n\nAnd in another hand: May you be granted to us, most religious brother, safe and strong in spirit, and praying much for us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Noli igitur a veritate deficiens eam prodere","severity":"info","text":"This sentence concludes Nestorius's exhortation to Coelestius, urging steadfastness in truth. The phrase 'a prudentibus scilicet ejusdem orthodoxae professionis' clarifies that the 'many replies' come from those sharing the same orthodox confession.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"orthodoxae professionis","severity":"info","text":"Nestorius uses 'orthodoxae professionis' to claim alignment with the true faith, a contested term in the Nestorian controversy. Both sides claimed orthodoxy, so this is a self-assertion rather than a neutral descriptor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"concilio Occidentis, et ab Alexandrino","severity":"info","text":"The 'council of the West' likely refers to the Council of Rome (430) under Pope Celestine I, which condemned Nestorius. The 'Alexandrian' is Cyril of Alexandria, whose letters and synodal actions opposed Nestorius. Nestorius here claims these communications clarified his own position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Et alia manu","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Et alia manu' indicates a postscript added by a different scribe, a common feature in ancient letter transmission. This suggests the letter's closing may be a later addition or a formal greeting appended by a secretary.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"doneris nobis","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'doneris nobis' is likely a textual corruption or a scribal error for 'doneris nobis' (may you be granted to us) or possibly 'doneris' as a passive subjunctive. The sense is clear, but the form is irregular.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'prudentibus' (prudent men) is unspecified; they may be bishops or theologians aligned with Nestorius. The phrase 'epistolae missae episcopis a concilio Occidentis, et ab Alexandrino' could refer to multiple letters, but the exact correspondence is not detailed."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}