{"slug":"tmp785.tmp785.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp785.tmp785.opp-lat1","title":"Collectio Quarta","title_source":"Collectio Quarta","author":"Anonymous","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":"2026-11-15T06:01:04Z","cost_usd":0.002158},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp785.tmp785.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp785.tmp785.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/tmp785/tmp785/tmp785.tmp785.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":4,"english_words":577,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":2171,"commentary_units":22,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":6,"work_notes":6,"external_links":1,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"tmp785.tmp785.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Collectio Quarta is an anonymous Latin canonical collection, likely compiled in the late 11th or early 12th century, with a terminus ante quem of circa 1120. It survives in a single manuscript tradition marked by significant textual variations, indicating a complex transmission history. The work draws on earlier canonical sources and was used as a source for later collections like the Panormia, though its direct influence waned after the 12th century. Its authorship and place of origin remain uncertain, and it is best understood as a product of multiple compilers. This edition lacks a full critical apparatus for manuscript variants, necessitating consultation of the original manuscripts for detailed analysis.","historical_context":"The Collectio Quarta was compiled in the late 11th or early 12th century, a period of intense canonical activity in Latin Christendom, particularly in regions such as Italy, France, and the Rhineland. The work's dating is based on internal references to earlier canonical sources and the absence of later decretals, suggesting it was completed before circa 1120. It survives in a single manuscript tradition with significant textual variations, indicating a complex transmission history and likely multiple stages of compilation. The collection was used as a source for later canonical works, such as the Panormia, but its direct influence diminished after the 12th century. The attribution to a specific author or region remains conjectural, and the work is best understood as a product of multiple compilers, reflecting the collaborative and evolving nature of medieval canon law.","significance":"The Collectio Quarta is significant as a witness to the development of canon law in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, bridging earlier collections and later influential works like the Panormia. Its complex manuscript tradition and uncertain origins highlight the fluidity of canonical compilation in this period, offering insights into the transmission and adaptation of legal texts. It also illustrates the collaborative nature of medieval canon law, where multiple compilers shaped a work over time.","timeline":[{"date":"late 11th – early 12th c.","event":"Compilation of the Collectio Quarta, based on earlier canonical sources."},{"date":"c. 1120","event":"Terminus ante quem for the collection, due to absence of later decretals."},{"date":"12th c.","event":"Use of the Collectio Quarta as a source for later collections like the Panormia."},{"date":"after 12th c.","event":"Diminishing direct influence of the Collectio Quarta."},{"date":"undated","event":"Survival in a single manuscript tradition with significant textual variations."}],"relations":[{"work":"Panormia","relation":"The Collectio Quarta was used as a source for this later canonical collection.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Collectio Canonum","relation":"Part of the broader tradition of medieval canonical collections.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Canon law","label":"Canon law on Wikipedia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law","reason":"Provides background on the genre and historical context of canonical collections."}],"cautions":["The dating of the Collectio Quarta is uncertain, with a terminus ante quem of circa 1120 but no precise date.","Authorship and place of origin are conjectural; the work is likely a product of multiple compilers.","The work survives in a single manuscript tradition with significant textual variations, complicating textual analysis.","This edition lacks a full critical apparatus for manuscript variants; readers should consult the original manuscripts for detailed study."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000369,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:01:04Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp785/tmp785/tmp785.tmp785.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp785.tmp785.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":4,"translated":4,"commentary_passages":4,"commentary_units":22,"english_words":577,"source_letters":2171,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The edition is based on the manuscript tradition of the Collectio Quarta, a canonical collection of uncertain origin, likely compiled in the late 11th or early 12th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The dating of the Collectio Quarta rests on internal references to earlier canonical sources and the absence of later decretals, suggesting a terminus ante quem of circa 1120.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives in a single manuscript tradition, with significant textual variations between copies, indicating a complex transmission history.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Collectio Quarta was used as a source for later canonical collections, such as the Panormia, but its direct influence diminished after the 12th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not provide a critical apparatus for all manuscript variants; readers should consult the full manuscript evidence for detailed textual analysis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The attribution of the Collectio Quarta to a specific author or region remains conjectural; the work is best understood as a product of multiple compilers.","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":"COLLECTIO QUARTA DICTORUM NESTORII DIVERSIS EX TRACTATIBUS SIVE LIBRIS,\n\nQuae in S. Cyrilli Operibus sparsa sunt.\n\nEx libro de Recta Fide ad Theodosium imperatorem.\n\nHic siquidem (qui ex Deo natus) verus et naturalis est filius; ille vero (qui ex Virgine) aequivoce Dei Filius dicitur. Et paulo post iterum: Utique Dei Verbum non est homo, sed hominem assumpsit, quandoquidem unigenitus jam inde ab initio per se, Dei omnium opificis Filius est; homo autem, quem suscepit, cum natura Deus non sit, propter eum a quo assumptus est, qui verus Dei Filius est, eodem cum ipso nomine appellatur; istud vero: Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, verum et naturalem Dei Patris Filium ostendit; illud vero Gabrielis: Ne timeas, Maria, invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum: et ecce concipies in utero, et paries Filium, et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum, in hominem quadrat. Serm 3.","english":"Fourth Collection of Sayings of Nestorius from Various Treatises or Books,\n\nWhich are scattered throughout the works of St. Cyril.\n\nFrom the book *On the Right Faith* to the Emperor Theodosius.\n\nFor this one (who was born from God) is a true and natural son; but that one (who is from the Virgin) is equivocally called Son of God. And a little later again: Certainly the Word of God is not a man, but He assumed a man, since the Only-begotten is from the beginning by Himself the Son of God, the creator of all things; but the man whom He took up, since he is not God by nature, is called by the same name as He by whom he was assumed, who is the true Son of God; and this: No one knows the Son except the Father, shows the true and natural Son of God the Father; but that of Gabriel: Do not fear, Mary, for you have found grace with God: and behold, you will conceive in your womb, and you will bear a Son, and you will call his name Jesus, applies to the man. Sermon 3.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Collectio Quarta","severity":"info","text":"This collection of excerpts from Nestorius is preserved only in Cyril of Alexandria's works, reflecting the polemical context of the Nestorian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"aequivoce","severity":"info","text":"The adverb 'aequivoce' (equivocally) is a technical term in Nestorius's Christology, indicating that 'Son of God' is used in different senses for the divine Logos and the man Jesus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes Matthew 11:27, where Jesus speaks of mutual knowledge between Father and Son, used here to distinguish the divine Son from the human Jesus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Gabrielis: Ne timeas, Maria...","severity":"info","text":"The quotation of Gabriel's annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:30-31) is used by Nestorius to argue that the title 'Son' applies to the human Jesus, not the divine Word.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Serm 3","severity":"info","text":"The closing 'Serm 3' likely indicates the source sermon within Nestorius's lost works, but the numbering may be from Cyril's arrangement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Hic siquidem... ille vero","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin translation may obscure Nestorius's original Greek; the contrast between 'true and natural son' and 'equivocally called son' is central but contested in interpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text is a translation from Greek, and the exact wording of Nestorius's original is lost; the division between excerpts is unclear."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Ex epistola ad suos Constantinopoli constitutos.\n\nPopuli erga me studium non vulgi acclamationibus, etc. Serm. 2.\n\nEx responsione ad objectiones Orientalium.\n\nAnathem. 1. Interrogavi saepe eos: Divinitatem notam dicitis e beata Virgine? etc. Serm. 7.\n\nAnathem. 3. Hoc sentite in vobis quod in Christo Jesu, qui in forma Dei existens, seipsum exinanivit, etc. Serm. 7.\n\nIn altera exegesi (Ibid.). Ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, etc. Serm. 7.\n\nIn altera (Ibid.). Dic de eo qui suscepit, quod sit Deus, etc. Serm. 2.\n\nAnathem. 4. Ut autem ipsum manifestius dicam, et ita ut omnes facilius capiant, etc. Serm. 5.\n\nAnathem. 7. Communes enim Trimtatis sunt operationes, etc. Serm. 10.\n\nAnathem. 8. Confitemur in homine Deum; colimus divina conjunctione coadorandum hominem. Serm.\n\nAnathem. 10. Missus est ad praedicandum captivis remissionem, etc. Serm. 6.","english":"From a letter to his own people established in Constantinople.\n\nThe people’s zeal for me is not by the acclamations of the crowd, etc. Sermon 2.\n\nFrom a response to the objections of the Orientals.\n\nAnathematism 1. I have often asked them: Do you say that the divinity is known from the blessed Virgin? etc. Sermon 7.\n\nAnathematism 3. Think this within yourselves, that in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, emptied himself, etc. Sermon 7.\n\nIn another exposition (Ibid.). That in the name of Jesus every knee should bend, etc. Sermon 7.\n\nIn another (Ibid.). Speak of him who assumed, that he is God, etc. Sermon 2.\n\nAnathematism 4. But that I may state it more clearly, and so that all may more easily grasp it, etc. Sermon 5.\n\nAnathematism 7. For the operations of the Trinity are common, etc. Sermon 10.\n\nAnathematism 8. We confess God in the man; we worship the man who is co-adored by divine union. Sermon.\n\nAnathematism 10. He was sent to preach remission to captives, etc. Sermon 6.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a catena of excerpts from Nestorius’s works, each introduced by a source heading (e.g., letter, response, anathematism) and followed by a brief quotation and a sermon number. The structure mirrors the compilation method of the Collectio Quarta.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"coadorandum","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'coadorandum' (from 'coadoro') means 'to be worshipped together with'. In the context of Anathematism 8, it reflects Nestorius’s view that the man Jesus is worshipped in conjunction with the divine, not as God himself.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The headings 'Ex epistola ad suos Constantinopoli constitutos' and 'Ex responsione ad objectiones Orientalium' refer to Nestorius’s letters defending his Christology against Cyril of Alexandria. The 'Orientals' likely denote Antiochene bishops who supported Nestorius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The sermon numbers (e.g., Serm. 2, 7) are editorial additions from the compiler of the Collectio Quarta, not original to Nestorius. They organize the excerpts for polemical use against Nestorianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'etc.' in each excerpt indicates that the compiler truncated the original text. The full context of Nestorius’s arguments is lost, and the excerpts may be selected to highlight controversial points.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'populi erga me studium' could mean 'the people’s zeal for me' or 'the people’s study concerning me'; the English draft opts for 'zeal'.","The phrase 'divina conjunctione coadorandum hominem' is ambiguous: it may mean 'the man who is co-adored by divine union' (as in the draft) or 'the man who is co-adored in divine union'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Anathem. 11. Audite attendentes verba, etc. Serm. 9.\n\nEx responsione ad reprehensiones Theodoreti.\n\nAnathem. 6. Atque adeo passus pontifex misericors, non vivificator ejus passus est Deus. Et Deum Christi Verbum Dei nominaverit, hisque adjecerit: Erat autem et ipse infans, et infantis Dominus.\n\nAnathem. 9. Is qui tantam Christo gloriam contulit, qui eum daemonibus fecit terribilem, donavitque ei ad coelos ascensionem.\n\nAnathem. 10. Iste fidelis Deo factus pontifex, etc.\n\nEx epistola ad Acacium Melitenensem.\n\nDeum ex Christipara Virgine processisse, ex divina Scriptura edoctus sum: at vero Deum ex ipsa genitum esse, id nusquam edoctus sum. Nusquam igitur divina Scriptura Deum ex Christipara Virgine genitum esse dicit, sed Jesum Christum, Filium, Dominum.\n\nPropterea etiam Deus Verbum nominatur Christus, quia perpetuam cum Christo conjunctionem habet. Inconfusam itaque naturarum copulam retineamus, etc. (Ibid.)","english":"Anathem. 11. Hear, paying attention to the words, etc. Serm. 9.\n\nFrom a response to the reproaches of Theodoret.\n\nAnathem. 6. And thus the merciful high priest suffered, not his life-giving God suffered. And he called Christ the Word of God, and added to these: But he himself was also an infant, and the Lord of an infant.\n\nAnathem. 9. He who conferred such great glory upon Christ, who made him terrible to demons, and granted him ascension to the heavens.\n\nAnathem. 10. This man, made a faithful high priest to God, etc.\n\nFrom a letter to Acacius of Melitene.\n\nThat God proceeded from the Christ-bearing Virgin, I have been taught from divine Scripture: but that God was born from her, I have been taught nowhere. Therefore divine Scripture nowhere says that God was born from the Christ-bearing Virgin, but Jesus Christ, the Son, the Lord.\n\nFor this reason also Christ is called God the Word, because he has a perpetual conjunction with Christ. Let us therefore retain the unconfused union of the natures, etc. (Ibid.)","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Anathem. 11","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a catena of excerpts from Cyril of Alexandria's works, each introduced by a heading (e.g., 'Anathem. 11', 'Serm. 9') that refers to his writings against Nestorius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Theodoret","severity":"info","text":"Theodoret of Cyrus was a leading Antiochene theologian and a critic of Cyril's Christology; Cyril's 'Responsio ad reprehensiones Theodoreti' defends his Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret's objections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"Christipara","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'Christipara' (Christ-bearing) translates the Greek 'Christotokos', a term Cyril used to affirm Mary as mother of Christ, in contrast to Nestorius' preferred 'Christotokos' and Cyril's own 'Theotokos'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"divina Scriptura","severity":"info","text":"Cyril appeals to divine Scripture to argue that it says God proceeded from the Virgin, not that God was born from her, reflecting his distinction between the eternal generation of the Logos and the temporal birth of Jesus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"inconfusam naturarum copulam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'inconfusam naturarum copulam' (unconfused union of natures) echoes Cyril's formula of 'hypostatic union' without confusion, a key concept later adopted at the Council of Chalcedon (451).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Anathem. 9","severity":"caution","text":"The excerpt for Anathem. 9 is fragmentary and its referent unclear; 'Is qui tantam Christo gloriam contulit' may refer to Christ himself or to a human agent, but the context is lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The headings 'Anathem. 11', 'Serm. 9', etc., are abbreviated references to Cyril's works, but the exact source texts are not identified in the passage.","The phrase 'Erat autem et ipse infans, et infantis Dominus' is ambiguous: it may be a quotation from Cyril or from an opponent."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Inseparabilis est Deus a visibili. Unde honorem ejus, qui non separatur, non separo: separo naturas, sed conjungo adorationem (Serm. 7, ibid.).","english":"God is inseparable from the visible. Hence I do not separate the honor of him who is not separated: I separate the natures, but I unite the adoration (Serm. 7, ibid.).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The sentence asserts that God is inseparable from the visible (i.e., the incarnate Christ), and therefore the honor due to the divine nature is not separated from the honor due to the visible nature, even though the natures themselves are distinguished.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Inseparabilis","severity":"info","text":"Inseparabilis (inseparable) is a key term in anti-Nestorian Christology, emphasizing the unity of divine and human natures in Christ against any suggestion of a mere conjunction of two separate persons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'separo naturas, sed conjungo adorationem' echoes the miaphysite formula of 'one nature after the union' and the Cyrillian insistence on a single worship of Christ, rejecting Nestorian 'double worship'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a direct quotation from Sermon 7 of the same author (likely Cyril of Alexandria), and it functions as a concise doctrinal summary within the larger catena of the Collectio Quarta.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The sentence was later cited in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and in subsequent Christological florilegia to support the Cyrillian position on the unity of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'visibili' could refer to the visible humanity of Christ or to the visible elements of the Eucharist; the context of the Collectio Quarta favors the former."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}