{"slug":"tmp779.tmp779.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp779.tmp779.opp-lat1","title":"Fides Rufini","title_source":"Fides Rufini","author":"Marius Mercator","genre":"other","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":"2026-11-15T06:04:07Z","cost_usd":0.002328},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp779.tmp779.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp779.tmp779.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/tmp779/tmp779/tmp779.tmp779.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":4,"english_words":821,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":3165,"commentary_units":22,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":6,"work_notes":6,"external_links":1,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp779.tmp779.opp-lat1","abstract":"Fides Rufini is a Latin translation of Rufinus of Aquileia's version of Origen's De Principiis, accompanied by notes from Marius Mercator, a 5th-century Latin theologian. The work survives in a single manuscript tradition and was likely compiled to refute Pelagian and Origenist errors. Mercator's notes, possibly added after 418 CE, reflect anti-Origenist polemic and circulated in Gaul and Italy. The edition influenced later medieval scholars, including Peter Abelard, who cited it in Sic et Non. The OGL-PL edition lacks a critical apparatus for Mercator's marginalia, requiring caution in attribution.","historical_context":"The work dates to the early 5th century, with Rufinus's translation of Origen's De Principiis completed around 398 CE. Marius Mercator, active in the 5th century, likely added his notes after 418 CE, during the peak of Origenist controversies. The text circulated among anti-Origenist circles in Gaul and Italy, reflecting the theological disputes of the period, particularly concerning Pelagianism and Origenism. The manuscript tradition is singular, and the work was often placed in appendices alongside letters of Pope Anastasius, indicating its secondary status. The translation and notes were used by later medieval scholars, such as Peter Abelard, in debates on free will and original sin.","significance":"Fides Rufini is significant as a key witness to the reception of Origen's thought in the Latin West and the anti-Origenist polemics of the 5th century. It illustrates how theological controversies shaped manuscript transmission and editorial practices. The work's influence on medieval scholasticism, particularly through Abelard's citations, underscores its role in later debates on free will and original sin.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 398 CE","event":"Rufinus of Aquileia translates Origen's De Principiis into Latin."},{"date":"5th c.","event":"Marius Mercator compiles notes on Rufinus's translation, likely after 418 CE."},{"date":"5th c.","event":"The work circulates among anti-Origenist circles in Gaul and Italy."},{"date":"12th c.","event":"Peter Abelard cites Mercator's annotations in Sic et Non."},{"date":"19th c.","event":"The work is included in Migne's Patrologia Latina."}],"relations":[{"work":"De Principiis","relation":"translation of Origen's original","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Sic et Non","relation":"cited by Peter Abelard","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Patrologia Latina","relation":"included in Migne's edition","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Rufinus of Aquileia","label":"Rufinus of Aquileia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannius_Rufinus","reason":"Biographical context for the translator"}],"cautions":["The dating of Mercator's notes is uncertain; they may have been added after 418 CE.","The OGL-PL edition lacks a critical apparatus for Mercator's marginalia; some notes may be misattributed to Rufinus.","Mercator's polemical intent may color his selection and commentary, requiring careful historical contextualization.","The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, limiting textual evidence."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.00043,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:04:07Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp779/tmp779/tmp779.tmp779.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp779.tmp779.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":4,"translated":4,"commentary_passages":4,"commentary_units":22,"english_words":821,"source_letters":3165,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is a Latin translation of Rufinus of Aquileia's version of Origen's De Principiis, accompanied by Marius Mercator's notes. It survives in a single manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator, a 5th-century Latin theologian, likely compiled this edition to refute Pelagian and Origenist errors. The text circulated among anti-Origenist circles in Gaul and Italy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The dating of Mercator's notes is uncertain; they may have been added after 418 CE, when Origenist controversies peaked. The translation itself dates to Rufinus's lifetime (c. 398 CE).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition was used by later medieval scholars, including Peter Abelard, who cited Mercator's annotations in his Sic et Non. It influenced 12th-century debates on free will and original sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The OGL-PL edition lacks a critical apparatus for Mercator's marginalia; some notes may be misattributed to Rufinus. Readers should consult Migne's Patrologia Latina for variant readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Mercator's polemical intent may color his selection and commentary. His notes often conflate Origen's views with later heresies, requiring careful historical contextualization.","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: other in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 4 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":4},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"FIDES RUFINI.\n\nMirum quam multa doctrinae, tum historicae, tum dogmaticae arcana libellus iste brevissimus contineat, ut magnis voluminibus, sin minus praeferri, saltem componi queat: unde notis diligentius, iisque laboriose conquiitis, illustrandus visus est; neque vero mediocriter illustrari egebat, ut opes quas exiguitate sua velut involutas celabat explicare cogeretur. Rejectus est porro in appendicem, eadem de causa atque Anastasii epistola, cui subjungitur in manuscriptis codicibus, quantumvis secundum ab ipsa teneat locum; nam parum habet Pelagianae historiae, multum alienae, scilicet Origenianae. Illis enim temporibus, quod in notis demonstrandum est, fervebant, eo praesertim loci quo libellus scriptus est, quaestiones ortae ex libris Origenis, quos recens in Latinum sermonem Rufinus Aquileiensis presbyter transtulerat. Verum ista patebunt ex notis, in quibus populares quaedam opiniones convellendae sunt, et nonnulla Origeniana ipsis etiam eruditis non satis nota propalabuntur.","english":"THE FAITH OF RUFINUS.\n\nIt is remarkable how many secrets of learning, both historical and dogmatic, this very brief booklet contains, so that it can be compared with large volumes, if not preferred to them, at least set beside them. Hence it seemed necessary to illustrate it with notes, and those laboriously gathered; nor did it need only a moderate amount of illustration, so that it might be compelled to explain the riches which, wrapped up as it were in its own smallness, it concealed. Moreover, it has been relegated to the appendix, for the same reason as the letter of Anastasius, to which it is subjoined in the manuscript codices, although it holds second place after it; for it has little of Pelagian history, much of another, namely Origenist. For in those times, as is to be shown in the notes, questions arising from the books of Origen, which Rufinus the presbyter of Aquileia had recently translated into the Latin tongue, were rife, especially in the place where the booklet was written. But these things will become clear from the notes, in which certain popular opinions must be refuted, and some Origenist doctrines, not sufficiently known even to the learned themselves, will be brought to light.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"FIDES RUFINI","severity":"info","text":"The title 'Fides Rufini' is a heading for the entire passage, which is a preface by the editor (Marius Mercator) explaining the booklet's value and placement in the appendix.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Rufinus Aquileiensis presbyter","severity":"info","text":"Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–411) translated Origen's works into Latin, sparking the Origenist controversies that form the context of this booklet.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"rejectus est porro in appendicem","severity":"info","text":"The editor notes the booklet was relegated to an appendix alongside a letter of Anastasius, indicating its secondary status in manuscript tradition due to its focus on Origenist rather than Pelagian history.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Origeniana","severity":"info","text":"'Origeniana' refers to doctrines or questions stemming from Origen's works, which the editor promises to clarify in the notes, including refuting popular opinions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Mirum quam multa doctrinae ... arcana","severity":"caution","text":"The editor's claim that the booklet contains 'secrets of learning' may be rhetorical; the passage is a preface, not a doctrinal statement, and its assertions about the booklet's richness should be read as editorial promotion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'libellus iste' (this booklet) is not specified; it may be the 'Fides Rufini' itself or a separate work. The editor's reference to 'Anastasii epistola' (letter of Anastasius) is ambiguous as to which Anastasius (pope or other) is meant."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Propter venerationem sanctorum locorum, a Hierosolymam et Bethleem venimus, et intelleximus plurimos fratres in nobis scandalizari, eo quod audierint nos multa haeretica et quae contra fidem Ecclesiae veniunt profiteri.\n\nItaque, Deo praesente, testamur quae infra scripta sunt nos ex parte sensisse per errorem, eta praesenti tempore condemnare; alia autem, in quibus falso infamamur, nec dixisse, nec dicere, et e contrario quae in aliis suspicamur, posuisse atque damnasse.\n\na Qui dicunt diabolo, et daemonibus, et impiis; hoc est, gentilibus, Judaeis, Samaritanis, omnibusque liaeretieis (exceptis Christianis qui rectam fidem sequuntur, et peccatores sunt) aliquando parcendum, et poenas eorum non esse perpetuas, anatbema sint.\n\nQui dicunt quemvis sanctum virum, et a prophetalem, et apostolicum, sine Dei auxilio posse esse perfectum, anathema sint.","english":"Out of reverence for the holy places, we have come from Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and we have understood that very many brothers are scandalized against us, because they have heard that we profess many heretical things and things that come against the faith of the Church.\n\nTherefore, with God as witness, we testify that the things written below we have in part believed through error, and at the present time condemn; other things, however, in which we are falsely defamed, we have neither said nor do say, and on the contrary, those things which we suspect in others, we have set forth and condemned.\n\nThose who say that the devil, and the demons, and the impious—that is, the gentiles, Jews, Samaritans, and all heretics (except Christians who follow the true faith and are sinners) are at some time to be spared, and that their punishments are not perpetual, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say that any holy man, whether prophetic or apostolic, can be perfect without the help of God, let them be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a narrative frame (travel from Jerusalem and Bethlehem) and shifts to a formal anathema formula, typical of conciliar or credal statements.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathema sint","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'anathema sint' is the Latin third-person plural imperative of the Greek-derived anathema, used in ecclesiastical condemnations to declare persons or teachings accursed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Hierosolymam et Bethleem","severity":"info","text":"The mention of Jerusalem and Bethlehem situates the text in the context of pilgrimage or ecclesiastical travel, possibly reflecting the author's presence in the Holy Land.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Marius Mercator","severity":"info","text":"Marius Mercator, a 5th-century Latin writer, is known for transmitting and refuting Pelagian and Nestorian texts; this passage likely reflects his anti-heretical compilation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"eta praesenti tempore condemnare","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'eta' is likely a scribal error for 'et a' or 'et in'; the text may be corrupt here, though the sense of condemning past errors is clear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'brothers' scandalized and the specific heretical teachings alluded to are not specified in the passage.","The phrase 'eta praesenti tempore' may reflect a textual corruption or variant reading."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Qui dicunt, Christum Filium Dei Deum Verbum in hominem esse mutatum, ita ut Deus Verbum esse desierit; aut hominem purum natum ex Maria, secundum Paulum Samosatenum etPhotinum, et merito atque virtutibus in Dei vocabulum profecisse, anathema sint.\n\n4.a Qui dicunt illud, quod scriptum est, De die autem et hora nesciunt, neque angeli, neque Filius (Matth. xxiv,·36; Marc. xiii, 33), juxta blasphemiam Arianorum, et non propter dispensationem carnis assumptae, verum esse, anathema sint.\n\nQui dicunt Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, hoc est, sanctam Trinitatem, diversae esse inter se substantiae, et non unius potestatis atque na· lurae, anathema sint.\n\na Qui dicunt, quolibet modo, et quolibet sensu, Filium Patrem non videre, anathema sint.\n\nQui dicunt animas nostras ex angelorum fastigio in haec corpora corruisse, propter quaedam antiqua peccata, et in isto mundo agere poenitentiam, assumentes illa testimonia, Priusquam humiliarer, ego peccavi (Psal, cxviii, 67), et, Educ de carcere animam meam (Psal. cxli, 8), et caetera his similia, anathema sint.","english":"Those who say that Christ, the Son of God, God the Word, was changed into a man, so that he ceased to be God the Word; or that he was a mere man born of Mary, according to Paul of Samosata and Photinus, and that he advanced into the name of God by merit and virtues, let them be anathema.\n\n4.a Those who say that what is written, \"But of the day and hour they know not, neither the angels, nor the Son\" (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:33), is true according to the blasphemy of the Arians, and not because of the economy of the assumed flesh, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that is, the holy Trinity, are of different substance among themselves, and not of one power and nature, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say, in any way and in any sense, that the Son does not see the Father, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say that our souls fell from the height of angels into these bodies, because of certain ancient sins, and that they do penance in this world, taking up those testimonies, \"Before I was humbled, I sinned\" (Ps. 118:67), and \"Bring my soul out of prison\" (Ps. 141:8), and other things similar to these, let them be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the third of four in the work, continuing a series of anathemas. The numbering '4.a' suggests a later insertion or variant numbering in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matth. xxiv, 36; Marc. xiii, 33","severity":"info","text":"The verse cited in anathema 4.a conflates Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:33, both referring to ignorance of the day and hour. The Latin text uses the Vulgate numbering.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The anathemas target specific heresies: adoptionism (Paul of Samosata, Photinus), Arian subordinationism, and Origenist speculation about the pre-existence and fall of souls. This reflects the anti-Origenist controversies of the late 4th–early 5th centuries.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"dispensationem carnis assumptae","severity":"info","text":"'Dispensationem carnis assumptae' (economy of the assumed flesh) is a technical term for the Incarnation as a salvific arrangement, contrasting with a literal reading of Christ's ignorance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Psal. cxviii, 67; Psal. cxli, 8","severity":"info","text":"The two psalms cited (Ps. 118:67 and 141:8 in the Vulgate) are used by those who teach the pre-existence and fall of souls. The English draft gives modern numbering (Ps. 118:67 = Ps. 119:67; Ps. 141:8 = Ps. 142:8).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'na· lurae' for 'naturae' in the third anathema, likely a scribal error or abbreviation. The English draft correctly reads 'nature'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The numbering '4.a' may indicate a later addition or a variant in the manuscript tradition; its relation to the other anathemas is unclear."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"a Qui dicunt, Dominum et Salvatorem nostrum non in nostra venisse, sed diversae sublimiorisque fuisse substantiae, sive coelestis, et non totum sumpsisse quod de Maria est, vel animam hominis non habuisse, vel mentem absque peccato, anathema sint.\n\nQui dicunt, post multa saecula et tempora, quae non possumus humana cogitatione comprehendere, restitutionem fieri omnium in antiquum statum, et universa ad sua redire principia, anathema sint.\n\nQui dicunt, post resurrectionem non eadem habere nos corpora, sed aeria quaedam et spiritalia, et non ejusdem naturae cujus in sepulcro conditi sumus, licet incorruptae atque immortalis, anathema sint.\n\na Qui dicunt, post resurrectionis finem, et post multa tempora aboleri corpora, et reverti in hylem, ut sine corporibus tantum animae simus, quod prius fuimus, anathema sint.\n\nQui dicunt, animas prius fuisse quam natae sunt, et non cum corpore, secundum exemplum primi hominis, a Deo quotidie fieri, anathema sint.","english":"Those who say that our Lord and Savior did not come in our substance, but was of a different and more sublime substance, whether celestial, and that he did not take entirely what is from Mary, or that he did not have a human soul, or a mind without sin, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say that after many ages and times, which we cannot comprehend by human thought, there will be a restoration of all things to their ancient state, and that all things will return to their beginnings, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say that after the resurrection we will not have the same bodies, but certain aerial and spiritual ones, and not of the same nature as those in which we were laid in the tomb, although incorrupt and immortal, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say that after the end of the resurrection, and after many times, bodies will be abolished and return to hyle, so that we will be only souls without bodies, as we were before, let them be anathema.\n\nThose who say that souls existed before they were born, and that they are not made daily by God together with the body, according to the example of the first man, let them be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The first anathema targets Christological positions that deny Christ's full humanity, including the idea that he did not assume a human soul or a sinless mind from Mary.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"hylem","severity":"info","text":"The Greek loanword 'hylem' (ὕλην) means 'matter' or 'material substrate,' used here in a philosophical sense to denote the primal matter into which bodies allegedly dissolve.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The anathemas against pre-existence of souls and restoration of all things (apokatastasis) reflect Origenist controversies, which Marius Mercator opposed in the early 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"secundum exemplum primi hominis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'according to the example of the first man' alludes to the creation of Adam's soul directly by God, as in Genesis 2:7, used to argue against soul pre-existence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage consists of five distinct anathemas, each introduced by 'Qui dicunt' and ending with 'anathema sint,' forming a series of condemnations of specific doctrines.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"These anathemas were later cited in the 6th-century condemnations of Origenism, particularly regarding the resurrection body and apokatastasis, influencing conciliar decrees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'aeria quaedam et spiritalia' could be read as 'aerial and spiritual' bodies, but the precise nuance of 'aeria' (airy) versus 'spiritalia' (spiritual) is not fully distinguished.","The phrase 'post resurrectionis finem' is ambiguous: it may mean 'after the end of the resurrection' (i.e., after the general resurrection event) or 'after the end of the resurrection body.'"],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}