{"slug":"tmp778.tmp778.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp778.tmp778.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola Anastasii Romanae Urbis Episcopi Ad Joannem Hierosolymorum Episcopum","title_source":"Epistola Anastasii Romanae Urbis Episcopi Ad Joannem Hierosolymorum Episcopum","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":"2026-11-15T06:07:28Z","cost_usd":0.003145},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp778.tmp778.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp778.tmp778.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/tmp778/tmp778/tmp778.tmp778.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":6,"english_words":1154,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":4654,"commentary_units":33,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":10,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp778.tmp778.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola Anastasii Romanae Urbis Episcopi Ad Joannem Hierosolymorum Episcopum is a Latin letter attributed to Pope Anastasius I (399–401) and addressed to John II of Jerusalem (387–417). It survives solely in the collection of Marius Mercator, a fifth-century anti-Pelagian compiler, and is transmitted without independent Greek or Syriac witnesses. The letter likely dates to around 400, though its exact chronology is uncertain. Mercator included it to illustrate papal authority in the Pelagian controversy, but the letter itself does not directly discuss Pelagianism. Its authenticity as a direct papal composition is unverifiable, and Mercator’s editorial hand may have altered the original wording. The letter was later cited in canon law collections, including the Pseudo-Isidorean decretals.","historical_context":"The letter was composed in Latin, likely in Rome, during the pontificate of Anastasius I (399–401). The addressee, John II of Jerusalem, held his see from 387 to 417, providing a broad terminus post quem of 387 and a terminus ante quem of 401. The letter concerns Rufinus of Aquileia and the emerging Pelagian controversy, though it does not explicitly engage Pelagian theology. It survives only in the collection of Marius Mercator, a fifth-century Latin compiler who assembled documents to combat Pelagianism. Mercator’s editorial activity may have introduced alterations, and no independent Greek or Syriac manuscript tradition exists. The letter was later incorporated into canon law collections, such as the Pseudo-Isidorean decretals, which enhanced its authority in medieval ecclesiastical jurisprudence. Its transmission is thus entirely dependent on Latin canonical and polemical contexts.","significance":"The letter is significant as an early witness to papal involvement in Eastern ecclesiastical affairs and the developing anti-Pelagian polemic. It demonstrates how later compilers like Marius Mercator used papal correspondence to bolster claims of Roman authority. Its inclusion in Pseudo-Isidorean decretals further shaped medieval canon law. The letter also provides insight into the relationship between the sees of Rome and Jerusalem at the turn of the fifth century.","timeline":[{"date":"387–417","event":"John II serves as bishop of Jerusalem."},{"date":"399–401","event":"Anastasius I serves as pope; letter likely written during this period."},{"date":"ca. 400","event":"Probable date of the letter's composition."},{"date":"5th c.","event":"Marius Mercator compiles his anti-Pelagian collection, preserving the letter."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Pseudo-Isidorean decretals cite the letter, enhancing its canonical authority."}],"relations":[{"work":"Marius Mercator's anti-Pelagian collection","relation":"preserves the letter as a source","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pseudo-Isidorean decretals","relation":"later cite the letter in canon law","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Rufinus of Aquileia","relation":"mentioned in the letter","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pelagian controversy","relation":"context for the letter's preservation","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The letter's date is uncertain; it is placed around 400 based on the tenures of Anastasius I and John II, but no precise year is known.","The letter survives only in the Latin collection of Marius Mercator; no independent Greek or Syriac witness exists.","Mercator's editorial hand may have altered the original wording, and the letter's authenticity as a direct papal composition is not independently verifiable.","The letter does not directly address Pelagianism, despite its inclusion in an anti-Pelagian collection."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000484,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:07:28Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp778/tmp778/tmp778.tmp778.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp778.tmp778.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":6,"translated":6,"commentary_passages":6,"commentary_units":33,"english_words":1154,"source_letters":4654,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter survives only in the Latin collection of Marius Mercator, a fifth-century anti-Pelagian compiler. No independent Greek or Syriac witness is known.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius I was pope 399–401; John II of Jerusalem died 417. The letter likely dates to ca. 400, but the terminus post quem is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Mercator included this letter to document papal authority against Pelagianism. It was later cited in canon law collections, e.g., the Pseudo-Isidorean decretals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Mercator’s editorial hand may have altered the original wording. The letter’s authenticity as a direct papal composition is not independently verifiable.","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: 6 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":6},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"APPENDIX PRIMA AD PARTEM PRIMAM OPERUM MARII MERCATORIS,\n\nComplectens:\n\nEpistolam Anastasii papae ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum de Rufino Aquileiensi,et Fidei Professionem duodecim anathematismis constantem quam Rufinus quidam edidit.\n\na EPISTOLA ANASTASII ROMANAE URBIS EPISCOPI AD JOANNEM HIEROSOLYMORUM EPISCOPUM RESCRIBENTIS SUPER NOMINE COELESTII.\n\nQuamvis haec epistola nihil contineat affine haeretis Pelagianae, habet tamen multa observatu digna, et ad historiam non parum conducentia; ideoque visa est non abjicienda omnino, velut extranea, sed in hune postremum locum rejicienda, licet in manuscriptis codicibus primum obtineat. Nec enim ipsam opinor a Mercatore suis operibus praefixam, quippe quae ad rem sive Pelagianam, xive Nestorianam faciat; sed a collectore aliquo non eruditissimo, cui cum nullus Rufinus praeter Aquileiensem, notus foret, siatim ac occurrit Rufini nomen anathematismis praelatum, utrumque opus ad unum eumdemque ratus est Rufinum perlinere.","english":"First Appendix to the First Part of the Works of Marius Mercator,\n\nContaining:\n\nThe Letter of Pope Anastasius to John of Jerusalem concerning Rufinus of Aquileia, and the Profession of Faith consisting of twelve anathematisms which a certain Rufinus published.\n\na THE LETTER OF ANASTASIUS, BISHOP OF THE CITY OF ROME, TO JOHN, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, REPLYING CONCERNING THE NAME OF COELESTIUS.\n\nAlthough this letter contains nothing pertaining to the Pelagian heresy, it nevertheless has many things worthy of observation and contributing not a little to history; and therefore it seemed not to be rejected entirely, as extraneous, but to be relegated to this last place, although in the manuscript codices it holds the first. For I do not think that Mercator himself prefixed it to his works, since it pertains to the Pelagian or Nestorian matter; but that it was placed there by some not very learned collector, who, since no Rufinus other than the one of Aquileia was known to him, as soon as the name of Rufinus appeared prefixed to the anathematisms, thought that both works pertained to one and the same Rufinus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Appendix Prima ad Partem Primam Operum Marii Mercatoris","severity":"info","text":"This heading is a later editorial addition, not part of the original letter. It signals that the letter is placed as an appendix in the collected works of Marius Mercator.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola Anastasii Romanae Urbis Episcopi ad Joannem Hierosolymorum Episcopum","severity":"info","text":"Pope Anastasius I (399–401) wrote to John II of Jerusalem (387–417) concerning Rufinus of Aquileia and the Pelagian controversy. The letter is preserved in the collection of Marius Mercator, a 5th-century anti-Pelagian writer.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Quamvis haec epistola nihil contineat affine haeretis Pelagianae","severity":"info","text":"The editor notes that the letter does not directly address Pelagianism, but includes it for historical value. This reflects later editorial judgment, likely by a collector who grouped it with Pelagian materials due to the mention of Rufinus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufini nomen anathematismis praelatum","severity":"caution","text":"The editor speculates that a later collector mistakenly attributed the twelve anathematisms to Rufinus of Aquileia, when they may belong to a different Rufinus. This confusion affects the interpretation of the appended profession of faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Coelestius","severity":"info","text":"Coelestius was a disciple of Pelagius and a key figure in the Pelagian controversy. His name appears in the letter's title, though the letter itself does not discuss Pelagianism, as the editor notes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Rufinus' who published the twelve anathematisms is uncertain; the editor suggests it may not be Rufinus of Aquileia.","The letter's original placement in manuscript codices (first) versus its relegation to an appendix in this edition indicates editorial rearrangement."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Probatae quidem affectionis est hoc, ut de sacerdote sacerdos laudabiliter loquaris. Pro tanto igitur praeconio, quod immerito in me 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 autem tanto titulorum tuorum rapior incitamento, ut etiam, quod implere nequeo, audere non desinam.\n\nJam hoc de laudibus tuis est, quod tantum me de coelestis istius animi serenitate laudasti. Toi etenim episcopatus ordo perspicuus per universum orbem velut radians, etiam ad nos splendoris tui detulit claritatem: in me quippe totum amicitiae ipse tribuis, examini nihil relinquis, aut si jure me laudas, tu quoque simili tenore laudandus es. Obsecro igitur ob utrumque, ut meipsum apud me laudare jam desinas: duplex etenim te causa constringit, ne consacerdotis tui sensibus, aut dolorem falsa laus ingerat, aut pudorem vera succendat.","english":"It is indeed a mark of genuine affection that you, a priest, speak so laudably of a fellow priest. For such great praise, which you have most abundantly and undeservedly heaped upon me, I thank your love, even as the favorable speech of our insignificance in some measure follows the splendor of your holiness and the virtues you possess in the Lord. For you, most excellent of men, shine with such a luster of your own praises that speech cannot equal your merits. Moreover, I am so carried away by the incitement of your titles that I do not cease to dare what I cannot fulfill.\n\nThis itself is part of your praises, that you have praised me so much for the serenity of that heavenly mind of yours. For the illustrious order of your episcopate, radiating throughout the whole world, has also conveyed to us the brightness of your splendor. You attribute everything to friendship in my case, leaving nothing to examination; or if you rightly praise me, you also are to be praised in a similar manner. I therefore beg you, for both reasons, to cease praising me to myself. For a twofold reason binds you, lest false praise bring grief to the feelings of your fellow priest, or true praise kindle shame.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Probatae quidem affectionis est hoc","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius opens with a rhetorical captatio benevolentiae, acknowledging John's praise while deflecting it. The phrase establishes the letter's tone of episcopal courtesy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"coelestis istius animi serenitate","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'coelestis istius animi serenitate' (serenity of that heavenly mind) may pun on the name Coelestius, the Pelagian figure condemned by Anastasius. This aligns with the letter's anti-Pelagian context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"episcopatus ordo perspicuus per universum orbem","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius refers to the universal visibility of John's episcopal office, reflecting the late 4th-century ideal of a unified episcopal network across the Roman world, especially between Rome and Jerusalem.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Obsecro igitur ob utrumque","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a structural pivot: Anastasius moves from acknowledging praise to requesting its cessation, introducing a twofold reason (false praise causing grief, true praise causing shame) that frames the letter's moral argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"aut si jure me laudas, tu quoque simili tenore laudandus es","severity":"caution","text":"The conditional 'aut si jure me laudas' introduces ambiguity: Anastasius may be conceding that John's praise is just, but then insists on reciprocal praise, creating a logical tension that some readers interpret as ironic or rhetorical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'coelestis istius animi' may or may not be a deliberate allusion to Coelestius; the text does not clarify. The conditional 'aut si jure me laudas' leaves open whether Anastasius accepts John's praise as just or merely entertains the possibility."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Sed ut ad causam revertar: Rutinus, de quo me consulere dignatus es, a conscientiae suae divinam habet arbitram majestatem, apud quam se, integro devotionis oflicio, ipse viderit qualiter debeat approbare.\n\nOrigenes autem, cujus in nostram linguam composita derivavit, antea et quis fuerit, et in quae processerit verba, nostrum studium nesciit; quod vero sit animi mei propositum, cum tua paulisper super hoc conferam sanctitate.\n\nHoc igitur mente concipi, illum qui urbis nostrae populis opera translata Origenis, lectione patefecit, quamdam puris mentibus veluti nebulam caecitatis injicere, fidemque apostolorum et majorum traditione firmatam, velut deviis anfractibus voluisse dissolvere.\n\nDicere hoc loco libet: Quid aget, in Romanam linguam ista translatione? Approbo, si accusat auctorem, et exsecrando factum, exosum populis prodit, ut justis tandem odiis teneatur quem jamdudum fama constrinxerat. Si vero interpres ipse tantorum malorum erroribus consensum praestat, et legenda impia dogmata prodit ad populos, nihil aliud sui opera laboris exstruxit, nisi ut propriae voluntatis arbitrio, haec, quae sola, quae prima, quae apud catholicos Christianos vera fide, jam inde ab apostolis in hoc usque tempus tenentur, titulo assertionis everteret.","english":"But to return to the matter: Rufinus, about whom you have deigned to consult me, has the divine majesty as the arbiter of his own conscience, before whom he himself shall see how he ought to approve himself with an unimpaired devotion.\n\nOrigen, however, whose compositions he has translated into our language, both what he was before and into what words he proceeded, my study did not know; but what my intention is, I shall briefly confer with your holiness on this matter.\n\nI conceive this, therefore, that he who has made the translated works of Origen known to the peoples of our city by reading has cast a certain cloud of blindness over pure minds, and has wished to dissolve the faith confirmed by the tradition of the apostles and the elders, as if by devious byways.\n\nI am inclined to say at this point: What is he doing with this translation into the Roman language? I approve if he accuses the author, and by execrating the deed, exposes him as hateful to the peoples, so that he may be held in just hatred whom rumor had already constrained. But if the interpreter himself lends consent to the errors of such great evils, and brings forth impious teachings to the peoples, he has built nothing else by the labor of his work than to overturn, by the will of his own choice, 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 assertion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Rutinus","severity":"info","text":"The Latin spelling 'Rutinus' for Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411) is a common variant in late antique manuscripts. The letter concerns his translations of Origen.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Origenes","severity":"info","text":"Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253) was a prolific theologian whose works were controversial in the West, especially after the Origenist controversies of the late 4th–5th centuries. Rufinus translated several of his works into Latin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed ut ad causam revertar","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a rhetorical return to the main subject after a digression of praise in the preceding passage, typical of epistolary conventions in late antique Latin letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"divinam habet arbitram majestatem","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius asserts that Rufinus's conscience is answerable only to God, a standard topos in patristic discussions of authorial responsibility, but here it also distances the pope from direct judgment.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"fidemque apostolorum et majorum traditione firmatam","severity":"info","text":"This phrase reflects the late 4th–5th century Western appeal to apostolic and patristic tradition as a norm of orthodoxy, a key argument in the anti-Origenist polemic of the period.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"integro devotionis oflicio","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'integro devotionis oflicio' is likely a scribal error for 'integro devotionis officio' (with unimpaired devotion). The manuscript tradition of this letter shows occasional orthographic variants.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in quae processerit verba' is ambiguous: it may mean 'into what words he proceeded' (i.e., what Origen wrote) or 'into what verbal disputes he entered'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Absit hoc ab Ecclesiae Romanae catholica disciplina, numquam profecto eveniet aliqua ut haec admittamus ratione, quae jure meritoque damnamus: quapropter illa, quae toto orbe diffusa est, Christi Domini nostri providentia probare dignabitur, accipere nos omnino non posse, quae Ecclesiam maculent, quae probatos mores evertant, quae aures circumstantium vulnerent, et jurgia, iras dissensiones· que disponant.\n\ne Qua re moti, Origenis quidem scripta et erro- (??)es damndvimus; interpretem vero, cum non satis, neque sua praefatione ad libros Origenis, neque apologia td nos missa, se purgaverit, immo forte iisdem erroribus reipsa consentiat, Romam ad judicium sedis apostolicae vocavimus, et renuentem venire eadem sententia involvimus. Damnationis autem epistolam fratribus nostris Venerio et Chromatio scripsimus. Quam epistolam ad fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum Venerium, diligentiore cura perscriptam, parvitas nostra transmiserit, ex subditis poteris comprobare.","english":"Far be it from the catholic discipline of the Roman Church; never indeed will it happen that we admit any such thing, for any reason, which we rightly and deservedly condemn. For this reason, those things which are spread throughout the whole world, which the providence of our Lord Christ will deign to approve, we absolutely cannot accept—things that stain the Church, overturn established morals, wound the ears of those present, and set in motion quarrels, angers, and dissensions.\n\nMoved by this, we have condemned the writings and errors of Origen. As for the translator, since he has not sufficiently cleared himself, either in his own preface to the books of Origen or in the apology sent to us—indeed, perhaps he even agrees in fact with those same errors—we have summoned him to Rome for judgment before the apostolic see, and, when he refused to come, we have included him under the same sentence. Moreover, we have written a letter of condemnation to our brothers Venerius and Chromatius. That you may verify from what follows, our lowliness has sent that letter, written with more careful attention, to our brother and fellow bishop Venerius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Absit hoc ab Ecclesiae Romanae catholica disciplina","severity":"info","text":"The phrase asserts that the Roman Church's discipline would never admit what it condemns, reinforcing the authority of the apostolic see.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"catholica disciplina","severity":"info","text":"Catholica disciplina here denotes the normative teaching and practice of the universal Church, as upheld by the Roman see.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Venerio et Chromatio","severity":"info","text":"Venerius was bishop of Milan (c. 396–409) and Chromatius bishop of Aquileia (c. 388–407); both were correspondents of Jerome and involved in the Origenist controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quam epistolam ... ex subditis poteris comprobare","severity":"info","text":"This sentence signals that the letter to Venerius is appended below, serving as a textual witness within the dossier.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"erro- (??)es","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt at 'erro- (??)es'; the intended word is likely 'errores' (errors), as reflected in the English draft.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Origenis ... scripta et errores damndvimus","severity":"info","text":"This condemnation of Origen's writings by Pope Anastasius I (c. 400) contributed to the later anathemas against Origenism in the 6th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the translator (likely Rufinus) is not named in this passage, though the context implies him.","The phrase 'iisdem erroribus reipsa consentiat' leaves ambiguous whether the translator's agreement is inferred or proven."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Unde igitur habeat secum ille qui transtulit, servetque sibi hanc conscientiam, non.superflua laboro formidine, neque inani timere sollicitor. Mihi certe cura non deerit, Evangelii fidem circa meos populos custodire,a partesque corporis, per spatia diversa terrarum diffusas, quantis possum litteris convenire; ne qua profanae interpretationis origo subrepat, quae devotas mentes, immissa sui caligine, labefactare conetur.\n\nIllud quoque, quod evenisse gaudeo, tacere non potui: beatissimorum nostrorum principum manasse responsa, qnibus unusquisque Deo serviens ab Origenis lectione revocetur; damnatumque sententia principum, quem lectio reum profana prodiderit, hactenus sententiae meae forma praecesserit.\n\nQuod te vero vulgi de Rufino querela sollicitat, a ut quosdam vagis suspicionibus persequaris, hanc tuam opinionem constringam divinae lectionis exemplo. Sic enim scriptum est: Non sic homo, ut Deus; nam Deusvidet in corde, homoinfacie(I Reg. xvi).","english":"Whence, therefore, he who translated it derives this, and keeps for himself this conscience, I am not troubled with superfluous fear, nor am I anxious with empty dread. For my part, care will certainly not be lacking to me to guard the faith of the Gospel among my peoples, and to address the parts of the body scattered through 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 by casting its darkness upon them.\n\nThat also, which I rejoice has come to pass, I could not pass over in silence: the responses of our most blessed princes have been issued, by which each person serving God is recalled from reading Origen; and he whom the profane reading has revealed as guilty has been condemned by the decree of the princes, even though the form of my own sentence had preceded this.\n\nBut as for the fact that the complaint of the common people concerning Rufinus troubles you, so that you pursue some with vague suspicions, I will constrain this opinion of yours by the example of divine reading. For it is written thus: \"Man is not like God; for God sees in the heart, man in the face\" (1 Samuel 16).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non superflua laboro formidine, neque inani timere sollicitor","severity":"info","text":"Anastasius denies being moved by groundless fear, asserting his pastoral vigilance. The double negative construction reinforces his confidence in resisting Origenist influence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"beatissimorum nostrorum principum manasse responsa","severity":"info","text":"The 'most blessed princes' likely refer to the Roman emperors Arcadius and Honorius, who issued rescripts against Origen's writings around 398–400. This aligns with Anastasius's own condemnation of Origen.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Non sic homo, ut Deus; nam Deus videt in corde, homo in facie","severity":"info","text":"The citation is from 1 Samuel 16:7 (Vulgate), where Samuel rebukes Saul. Anastasius uses it to argue that human judgment (like Rufinus's accusers) is superficial, unlike divine insight.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"quod te vero vulgi de Rufino querela sollicitat","severity":"info","text":"The complaint about Rufinus echoes earlier tensions: Rufinus had translated Origen into Latin, provoking Jerome's opposition. Anastasius here distances himself from popular agitation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Illud quoque, quod evenisse gaudeo, tacere non potui","severity":"info","text":"This sentence marks a transition from personal defense to reporting imperial action. The phrase 'tacere non potui' signals a deliberate inclusion of authoritative support.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"hactenus sententiae meae forma praecesserit","severity":"caution","text":"The clause 'hactenus sententiae meae forma praecesserit' is ambiguous: it may mean Anastasius's own sentence preceded the imperial decree, or that the imperial decree followed his form. The Latin allows both readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'hactenus sententiae meae forma praecesserit' is ambiguous: it could mean Anastasius's sentence preceded the imperial decree, or that the imperial decree followed the form of his sentence. The Latin syntax does not clearly resolve temporal priority.","The identity of 'ille qui transtulit' (he who translated) is not specified; it may refer to Rufinus or another translator of Origen."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Itaque, frater charissime, omni suspicione seposita, Rufinum scito quod propria mente Origenls dicta in Latinum transtulit ac probavit, nec dissimilis a reo est qui alienis vitiis praestat assensum. Illud tamen tenere te cupio, ita haberi a nostris partibus alienum, ut, quid agat, ubi sit, nescire cupiamus. Ipse denique viderit ubi possit absolvi.","english":"Therefore, dearest brother, with all suspicion set aside, know that Rufinus, of his own mind, translated and approved the sayings of Origen into Latin, and he is not unlike the guilty party who gives assent to the vices of others. Yet I wish you to hold this: that he is so regarded as an alien in our parts that we desire not to know what he does or where he is. Let him himself finally see where he may be absolved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"omni suspicione seposita","severity":"info","text":"The phrase signals a rhetorical gesture of impartiality, but the preceding passage shows the author has already condemned Rufinus. The disclaimer is conventional.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"reus","severity":"info","text":"Reus here means 'guilty party' in a legal or moral sense, not merely 'accused'. The comparison equates Rufinus with one who actively consents to others' faults.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufinum","severity":"info","text":"Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411) translated Origen's works into Latin, sparking the Origenist controversy. Anastasius I (pope 399–401) condemned these translations, as reflected here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Itaque ... Illud tamen ... Ipse denique","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a definitive accusation (Itaque) to a concessive qualification (Illud tamen) and ends with a dismissive final clause (Ipse denique), forming a three-part rhetorical closure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"alienum","severity":"info","text":"The term alienum (alien, foreign) reflects the late antique practice of declaring theological opponents as outside the communion, a precursor to formal excommunication.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'propria mente' could mean 'of his own mind' (voluntarily) or 'with his own intention' (deliberately). The translation takes the former, emphasizing personal responsibility.","The final clause 'ubi possit absolvi' is ambiguous: it may mean 'where he may be absolved' (by God or church) or 'where he may be released' (from his errors). The translation opts for the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}