{"slug":"tmp947.tmp947.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp947.tmp947.opp-lat1","title":"Concilium Romanum I Decreta","title_source":"Concilium Romanum I Decreta","author":"SS Gelasius I","genre":"canon-law","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":"2026-11-15T06:30:51Z","cost_usd":0.00669},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp947.tmp947.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp947.tmp947.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/tmp947/tmp947/tmp947.tmp947.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":13,"english_words":3098,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":12627,"commentary_units":72,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":22,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp947.tmp947.opp-lat1","abstract":"The decrees traditionally attributed to a Roman synod under Pope Gelasius I (492–496) survive in early medieval canonical collections such as the Collectio Dionysiana and the Hispana, with the earliest copies dating to the Carolingian period. The precise date and historicity of the council are debated, with some scholars placing it in 495. The Gelasian decrees were cited throughout the Middle Ages as authoritative on the canon of scripture and ecclesiastical discipline, though their attribution to a Roman council was sometimes questioned. This edition lacks a critical apparatus, leaving variant readings and interpolations undetermined.","historical_context":"The decrees are traditionally assigned to a Roman synod under Pope Gelasius I (492–496), but the precise date and even the historicity of the council are debated; some scholars place it in 495. The text survives in early medieval canonical collections, notably the Collectio Dionysiana and the Hispana, with no contemporary manuscript witness; the earliest copies are Carolingian. The Gelasian decrees were cited throughout the Middle Ages as authoritative on the canon of scripture and on ecclesiastical discipline, though their attribution to a Roman council was sometimes questioned. The heading presents the work as either a council or a decree, reflecting uncertainty about its formal status in canon law. The date is left vague, a common practice in medieval canon-law collections when the exact year was unknown. The decree was traditionally attributed to Pope Gelasius by Burchard of Worms, Gratian, and most manuscripts, but this attribution was contested. A very ancient codex of Dionysius Exiguus's collection bears the name of Pope Damasus, indicating an earlier attribution. A very ancient codex from Urgell has the name of Pope Hormisdas prefixed, further complicating the authorship question. Fontaninus discovered a nine-hundred-year-old Vatican codex that omits material found in printed editions, which he took as evidence of authenticity.","significance":"The Gelasian decrees are significant for their enduring influence on the canon of scripture and ecclesiastical discipline in medieval canon law. They were cited by major canonists like Burchard of Worms and Gratian, and their contested attribution reflects broader debates about papal authority and the authenticity of early church councils. The work also illustrates the fluidity of textual transmission in early medieval canonical collections.","timeline":[{"date":"5th c.","event":"Possible Roman synod under Pope Gelasius I (492–496) producing decrees on canon and discipline."},{"date":"6th–7th c.","event":"Decrees incorporated into early canonical collections like the Collectio Dionysiana and the Hispana."},{"date":"9th c.","event":"Earliest surviving manuscript copies from the Carolingian period."},{"date":"11th–12th c.","event":"Cited by Burchard of Worms and Gratian as authoritative."},{"date":"16th c.","event":"Fontaninus discovers a Vatican codex omitting material found in printed editions, raising authenticity questions."},{"date":"Modern","event":"Scholars debate the historicity of the council and the attribution to Gelasius."}],"relations":[{"work":"Collectio Dionysiana","relation":"Contains the decrees in early medieval transmission","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Hispana","relation":"Another early canonical collection preserving the decrees","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Decretum Gratiani","relation":"Cites the Gelasian decrees as authoritative","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Decretum of Burchard of Worms","relation":"Also cites the decrees","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The precise date and historicity of the council are debated; some scholars place it in 495, but this is uncertain.","No contemporary manuscript witness exists; the earliest copies are Carolingian, raising questions about textual fidelity.","Attribution to Pope Gelasius I is contested; some manuscripts attribute the decrees to Popes Damasus or Hormisdas.","This edition lacks a critical apparatus, so variant readings and interpolations cannot be identified."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000464,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:30:51Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp947/tmp947/tmp947.tmp947.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp947.tmp947.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":13,"translated":13,"commentary_passages":13,"commentary_units":72,"english_words":3098,"source_letters":12518,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The decrees are traditionally assigned to a Roman synod under Pope Gelasius I (492–496). The precise date and even the historicity of the council are debated; some scholars place it in 495.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives in early medieval canonical collections, notably the Collectio Dionysiana and the Hispana. No contemporary manuscript witness exists; the earliest copies are Carolingian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Gelasian decrees were cited throughout the Middle Ages as authoritative on the canon of scripture and on ecclesiastical discipline, though their attribution to a Roman council was sometimes questioned.","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 or stemma. The reader cannot determine from it alone which variant readings or interpolations may be present in the transmitted text.","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: canon-law in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 13 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":13},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"CONCILIUM ROMANUM SIVE DECRETUM\n\nDe libris recipiendis et non recipiendis a Gelasia papa cum episcopis anno circiter habitum.\n\nADMONITIO.\n\n(Ex Suppl. Joan. Dom. Mansi.)\n\nCelebre illud de libris probandis improbandisque decretum, in Romano quodam concilio editum diu mullumque eruditos exercuit. Potissimum est de auctore dissidium. Conciliorum collectores omnes Gelasio papæ tribuerunt, quibus et fidem astruit Burchardus Wormatiensis, Gratianus et mss. codices plerique. Verum in codice vetustissimo collectionis Dionysii Exigui, quem Dacherius communicavit Baluzio, hoc ipsum decretum Damasi papæ nomen præfert. Denique in vetustissimo Urgellensi codice Baluzius Hormisdæ papæ nomen præfixum repent. Chiffletius in Jurensi nongentorum annorum codice hoc decretum offendit; cumque emendatissimum omnium quæ ad id usque prodierant judicaret, exscribendum illud edendumque in suis ad opera Vigilii Tapsensis notis assumpsit. Hormisdae papæ in eo codice inscribitur; ex quo sententias de Hormisda decreti illius conditore auctoritas summa accessit. Ita rebus constitutis, factum est ut non ante multos annos ct. Fontaninus in codicem Vaticanum annorum nongentorum inciderit, qui hoc ipsum decretum profert, idemque cum multa resecet, quæ in editis teguntur, hoc præ cæteri. argumento sinceritatem eius vindicari judicavit.","english":"The Roman Council, or Decree\n\nConcerning the books to be received and not received, issued by Pope Gelasius together with the bishops, held around the year [date].\n\nADMONITION\n\n(From the Supplement of Giovanni Domenico Mansi.)\n\nThat celebrated decree concerning books to be approved and disapproved, published in a certain Roman council, has long and greatly exercised scholars. The chief point of disagreement is concerning its author. All collectors of councils have attributed it to Pope Gelasius, and their credibility is supported by Burchard of Worms, Gratian, and most manuscript codices. However, in a very ancient codex of the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, which Dacherius communicated to Baluze, this same decree bears the name of Pope Damasus. Finally, in a very ancient codex from Urgell, Baluze found the name of Pope Hormisdas prefixed. Chiffletius, in a nine-hundred-year-old codex from Jura, came upon this decree; and since he judged it the most correct of all that had appeared up to that time, he undertook to have it transcribed and published in his notes on the works of Vigilius of Thapsus. In that codex it is inscribed to Pope Hormisdas; from this, the authority of Hormisdas as the author of that decree gained the highest support. With matters thus settled, it happened that not many years ago the learned Fontaninus came upon a nine-hundred-year-old Vatican codex which presents this same decree, and since it cuts away many things that are concealed in the published versions, he judged that this, above all others, vindicates its authenticity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CONCILIUM ROMANUM SIVE DECRETUM","severity":"info","text":"The heading presents the work as either a council or a decree, reflecting uncertainty about its formal status in canon law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"anno circiter habitum","severity":"info","text":"The date is left vague ('around the year'), a common practice in medieval canon-law collections when the exact year was unknown.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Gelasio papæ tribuerunt","severity":"info","text":"The decree was traditionally attributed to Pope Gelasius by Burchard of Worms, Gratian, and most manuscripts, but this attribution was contested.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"codice vetustissimo collectionis Dionysii Exigui","severity":"info","text":"A very ancient codex of Dionysius Exiguus's collection bears the name of Pope Damasus, indicating an earlier attribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"vetustissimo Urgellensi codice","severity":"info","text":"A very ancient codex from Urgell has the name of Pope Hormisdas prefixed, further complicating the authorship question.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Fontaninus ... codicem Vaticanum","severity":"info","text":"Fontaninus discovered a nine-hundred-year-old Vatican codex that omits material found in printed editions, which he took as evidence of authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact date of the council is not given; 'anno circiter' leaves it unspecified.","The authorship is disputed among Popes Gelasius, Damasus, and Hormisdas, with manuscript evidence for each."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"ld enim solemne est hujusmodi lucubrationibus, ut quæ brevissimæ sunt, hæ genuinæ censeantur; fit enim ut novis subinde et novis additionibus tractu temporis reformentur, ut succedentium temporum disciplinæ accommodentur. Hoc ergo decretum, prout in eo Vaticano codice legitur produxit in suo de Antiquitatibus Hortæ Commentario; censuitque hac vel sola auctoritate controversiam de auctore opusculi decidi, cum Gelasiano nomine inscribatur. Huic viri clarissimi sententiæ accessuros sanioris criticæ peritos omnes censeo, tum quoad operis auctorem, cum etiam quoad latum de ejus sinceritate judicium, in iis præsertim quæ resecta et plane innovata exhibet. Si enim agatur de iis quæ communia habet cum cœteris, in multis profecto Chiffletiano Jurensi cedit, in quo lectio probatior est, ut conferenti patebit. Desiderandum proinde superesset ut tertius aliquis paris antiquitatis codcx proferretur, iii quo et detractiones Vaticanæ comparent, et probatæ iLLæ Chiffletianæ lectiones offerrentur; idque si unquam sors. tulerit, prolatis ultro manibus eruditos excepturos non dubito. Sed bonum factum! id tandem mihi vetustum Lucensem codicem annorum nongentorum evolventi obtigit. En tibi ex eo, lector, decretum de libris probandis reprobandisque, in quo ea omnia resecta sunt, quæ desunt in Vaticano. In cæteris ad Chiffletianam lectionem potius quam ad Vaticanam accedit.","english":"For it is customary with such compositions that those which are very brief are considered genuine; for it happens that they are reformed from time to time with new and further additions over the course of time, so that they are adapted to the discipline of later times. Therefore, this decree, as it is read in that Vatican codex, he produced in his Commentary on the Antiquities of Hortus; and he judged that by this sole authority the controversy concerning the author of the little work was decided, since it is inscribed with the Gelasian name. I consider that all experts in sounder criticism will agree with the opinion of this most distinguished man, both as to the author of the work and also as to the broad judgment concerning its authenticity, especially in those matters which it presents as excised and plainly revised. For if we are dealing with those things which it has in common with the others, it certainly yields in many respects to the Chiffletian Jurensi, in which the reading is more approved, as will be evident to one who compares them. Therefore, it would remain desirable that some third codex of equal antiquity be produced, in which both the Vatican deletions appear and those approved Chiffletian readings are offered; and if ever fortune should bring this about, I do not doubt that scholars will receive it with open hands. But good fortune! at last, when I was examining the ancient Luccan codex of nine hundred years, it came to me. Behold for you, reader, from it the decree concerning books to be approved and disapproved, in which all those things that are missing in the Vatican are excised. In other respects it approaches the Chiffletian reading rather than the Vatican.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Vaticano codice","severity":"info","text":"The Vatican codex is a manuscript of the Gelasian Decree, whose readings are compared here with the Chiffletian and Luccan codices.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Chiffletiano Jurensi","severity":"info","text":"The Chiffletian Jurensi codex, edited by Pierre-François Chifflet, is a key witness for the text of the Gelasian Decree, often preferred for its superior readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"vetustum Lucensem codicem annorum nongentorum","severity":"info","text":"The Luccan codex, said to be 900 years old at the time of writing, provides a third witness that reconciles the Vatican and Chiffletian traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Gelasiano nomine inscribatur","severity":"info","text":"The attribution to Pope Gelasius is contested; the editor argues that the Vatican codex's inscription alone does not settle authorship, but that sounder criticism supports it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"detractiones Vaticanæ","severity":"caution","text":"The Vatican codex is said to contain deletions ('detractiones') that are absent in the Luccan codex, indicating textual instability in the tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"decretum de libris probandis reprobandisque","severity":"info","text":"This phrase identifies the core content of the decree: a list of approved and disapproved books, which the Luccan codex presents in a more complete form.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'vir clarissimus' whose opinion is endorsed is not specified in the passage.","The exact date and location of the Roman Council are not given here."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Gelasiano nomine inscribitur, ac tandem tate est quale desideraveris. Neque eo tantum nomine præstat cæteris hucusque excusis; sed et ex eo commendabitur magis, quod præfatione ornetur nuspiam in editis legenda; quanquam doleo incuria exscriptoris luxatam esse, nec facite sanandam. Tota Gelasiana est, quantum ex styli similitudine judicare licet. Hoc est meum de nova hac Gelasiani decreti editione judicium: ut id approbem eruditis, ejusdem decreti triplex schema profero, Vaticanum, Jurense seu Chiffletianum, v Lucense,\n\nPost hæc scripta incidi in decretum Gelasianum ex vetustissimo Florenlino codice editum a P. Josepho Blanchinio Oratorii Romani S. Philippi Nerii presbytero V. Cl., in prolegomenis ad I V volumen Anastasii Bibliothecarii editionis Romanæ. Ex eo codice repræsentare se genuinum decretum Gelasii vir ille doctus censuit. Nec lane negaverim meliorem esse ejus lectionem præ Vaticano. Cum vero ait idem vir doctissimus, catalogum illum sacrorum Librorum qui in Vaticano Fontanini non exstat, legiturque in suo Florentino, e Vaticano sive scriptoris in. curia, sive alicujus fraude subtractum esse, futile est et inane, cum et a meo pariter Lucensi absit, quem sane Lucensem ex Vatieano illo expressum, sive ambos ex tertio alio derivatos esse, nemo sibi persuaserit, cum discrepent non raro.","english":"It is inscribed with the name of Gelasius, and finally it is of such a quality as you would have desired. Nor does it excel the others hitherto published only on that account; but it will be commended all the more because it is adorned with a preface nowhere to be read in the published editions; although I grieve that it has been dislocated by the carelessness of the copyist, and not easily to be healed. It is entirely Gelasian, as far as one may judge from the similarity of style. This is my judgment concerning this new edition of the Gelasian decree: that I may approve it to the learned, I present a threefold schema of the same decree: the Vatican, the Jurense or Chiffletian, and the Lucense.\n\nAfter these writings, I came upon the Gelasian decree published from a very ancient Florentine codex by the Reverend Father Joseph Blanchini of the Roman Oratory of St. Philip Neri, a most distinguished priest, in the prolegomena to the first volume of the Roman edition of Anastasius the Librarian. From that codex, that learned man judged that he was representing the genuine decree of Gelasius. Nor indeed would I deny that its reading is better than the Vatican one. But when that same most learned man says that that catalogue of sacred books which is not extant in the Fontanini Vatican, and is read in his Florentine, was removed from the Vatican either by the carelessness of a writer in the curia or by someone's fraud, this is futile and empty, since it is likewise absent from my Lucense, which no one would persuade himself was copied from that Vatican, or that both were derived from some third other, since they not infrequently disagree.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Gelasiano nomine inscribitur","severity":"info","text":"The decree is attributed to Pope Gelasius I (492–496). The authenticity of the Decretum Gelasianum has been debated since the Renaissance; modern scholarship generally regards it as a composite work of the 6th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"triplex schema ... Vaticanum, Jurense seu Chiffletianum, v Lucense","severity":"info","text":"The editor presents three manuscript witnesses: the Vatican codex, the Jurense (from Jura, edited by Chifflet), and the Lucense (from Lucca). This tripartite comparison is a standard philological method for establishing a critical text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"P. Josepho Blanchinio ... in prolegomenis ad I V volumen Anastasii Bibliothecarii editionis Romanæ","severity":"info","text":"Blanchini’s edition of the Gelasian decree appeared in the prolegomena to his 1718–1735 Roman edition of Anastasius Bibliothecarius. His claim to have the genuine text is here contested by the present editor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"incuria exscriptoris luxatam esse, nec facite sanandam","severity":"caution","text":"The editor warns that the preface of the decree has been dislocated by a copyist’s carelessness and is not easily restorable. This textual corruption affects the reliability of the Vatican manuscript.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"triplex schema ... profero","severity":"info","text":"The editor announces a threefold presentation of the decree (Vatican, Jurense/Chiffletian, Lucense) as a means of allowing readers to compare variant traditions. This structural choice reflects humanist editorial practice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"futile est et inane","severity":"info","text":"The editor dismisses Blanchini’s theory that the catalogue of sacred books was fraudulently removed from the Vatican manuscript, noting that the same catalogue is absent from the Lucense codex, which cannot be a copy of the Vatican.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'tertio alio' (third other) from which both Vatican and Lucense might derive is not specified.","The phrase 'v Lucense' may be an abbreviation for 'vel Lucense' (or the Lucense) or 'videlicet Lucense' (namely the Lucense)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Hunc si omittas sacrorum librorum catalogum, in cæteris Florentinus ille fere cum nostro convenit: paucis exceptis, quæ ad extremam pagellæ oram diligenter adnotavi*. Est vero Florentinus Blanchinii in fine mutilus, nam post illud; Fausti Hegiensis, etc., cætera desunt, quæ tamen in reliquis omnibus mss. codicibus leguntur.\n\nHæc scripseram in priori mea editione: modo vero aliquid accessit, quo nova hæc editio ornetur, nempe variantes e vetustissimo Frisingensi codice annorum circiter 1000, quas mihi, pro ea qua est humanitate suppeditavit vir doctissimus P. Frobenius Forster prior et bibliothecarius S. Emmerami Ratisbonensis. In eo codice concilio Damasi decretum istud subjicitur, nam eo concilio absoluto statim subditur: Item dictum est: Nunc vero de Scripturis divinis agendum est, quid universalis catholica recipiat Ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat. Incipit ordo Veleris Testamenti, etc.; tum continuo sequitur integrum decretum de libris legendis.","english":"If you omit this catalogue of sacred books, in the rest that Florentine agrees almost entirely with ours, with few exceptions, which I have carefully noted at the bottom of the page. The Florentine of Blanchinius is indeed mutilated at the end, for after “Faustus of Hegium, etc.” the rest is missing, which however are read in all the other manuscript codices.\n\nI had written this in my former edition; but now something has been added by which this new edition is adorned, namely variants from the very ancient codex of Freising, of about 1000 years, which, with the kindness that is his, the most learned man, Father Frobenius Forster, prior and librarian of Saint Emmeram of Regensburg, supplied to me. In that codex, that decree of the Council of Damasus is subjoined, for after that council is concluded, it is immediately added: “It was also said: Now we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church receives, and what it ought to avoid. Here begins the order of the Old Testament, etc.”; then the entire decree concerning the books to be read follows continuously.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Florentinus ille","severity":"info","text":"The 'Florentine' codex refers to a manuscript used by the editor, likely from the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence. Blanchinius is the Latinized name of the scholar Giuseppe Bianchini (1704–1764).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Frisingensi codice","severity":"info","text":"The Freising codex (Frisingensis), dated to circa 1000, is a key witness. It supplies variant readings and includes the decree of the Council of Damasus, which the editor uses to supplement the Florentine manuscript.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"concilio Damasi decretum istud subjicitur","severity":"info","text":"The decree on canonical books is appended to the Council of Damasus in the Freising codex, introduced by a rubric: 'Item dictum est: Nunc vero de Scripturis divinis agendum est...' This structural link is absent in other witnesses.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"P. Frobenius Forster","severity":"info","text":"Frobenius Forster (1709–1791), a Benedictine scholar and librarian at St. Emmeram, Regensburg, supplied the editor with variants from the Freising codex. His collaboration reflects the scholarly network of the 18th-century patristic revival.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Florentinus Blanchinii in fine mutilus","severity":"caution","text":"The Florentine manuscript is mutilated at the end, lacking material after 'Faustus of Hegium, etc.' The editor notes that this missing portion is present in all other manuscript codices, so the Florentine is incomplete.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Florentinus ille' is not fully specified; it may refer to a specific manuscript or a printed edition. The phrase 'Fausti Hegiensis' is ambiguous: 'Hegium' may be a place name or a corruption of 'Regium' (Reggio)."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"OBSERVATIO P. ANTONII PAG1.\n\n(Ad annum Christi 494, num. et seqq.)\n\nDecretum de Scripturis divinis, et opusculis sanctorum Palrum quae in Ecclesia catholica recipiuntur valde urget heterodoxos, qui traditionem rejiciunt, et librorum canonicorum numerum pro libito ac sectarum suarum commodo mutilant. Job enim, Tobiæ, Judith, Machabæorum libri, Epistola ad Hebræos, Apocalypsis Joannis, Petri duæ, Joannis apostoli III, Judce I, in eo memorantur. Pearsonius in vindiciis I gnatianis prolixiorem sermonem de ejus auclore, ac tempore quo conditum est, instituit, et pag. ait, se existimare hoc decretum post synodum v, anno celebratam, promulgatum fuisse. Neque catholici de hujus sanctionis auctore, annoque quo ea emissa, inter se conveniunt; quod mss. codices eam tribus diversis pontificibus ascribant. Vetustissimus codex collectionis Dionysii Exigui, quem secum communicatum a Dacherio Baluzius testatur, hoc decretum Damaso papæ attribuit, et Baronius anno 69, num. 4, refert Cresconiam collectionem continere concilium Romanum sub Damaso in quo de libris apocryphis agitur, cujus decreta repetita credit Baronius a Gelasio in decreto episcoporum, de quo anno cum collectoribus Conciliorum verba facit. Verum codex antiquissimus a Pearsonio lectus, et a Lantfranco ex Beccensi cænobio in Angliam delatus, hunc titulum præfert: « Decreta Gelasii papa de recipiendis, et non recipiendis libris.","english":"OBSERVATION OF FATHER ANTONIUS PAGI.\n\n(On the year of Christ 494, number and following.)\n\nThe Decree on the Divine Scriptures and the works of the holy Fathers which are received in the Catholic Church greatly presses the heterodox, who reject tradition and mutilate the number of canonical books according to the convenience of their own sects. For Job, Tobit, Judith, the books of the Maccabees, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of John, the two of Peter, the three of John the apostle, the one of Jude, are mentioned in it. Pearson in his Vindication of Ignatius undertakes a more lengthy discussion about its author and the time when it was established, and on page [x] says that he believes this decree was promulgated after the synod celebrated in the fifth year. Nor do Catholics agree among themselves about the author of this sanction and the year in which it was issued, because manuscript codices ascribe it to three different pontiffs. The most ancient codex of the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, which Baluze testifies was communicated to him by Dacherius, attributes this decree to Pope Damasus, and Baronius in year 69, number 4, reports that the Cresconian collection contains a Roman council under Damasus in which the matter of apocryphal books is treated, whose decrees Baronius believes were repeated by Gelasius in the decree of the bishops, about which he speaks with the collectors of the Councils. But the most ancient codex read by Pearson, and brought from the Beccian monastery into England by Lanfranc, bears this title: \"Decrees of Pope Gelasius on books to be received and not to be received.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"OBSERVATIO P. ANTONII PAG1.","severity":"info","text":"Antonius Pagi (1624–1699) was a Franciscan historian and critic of Baronius. His observation here introduces a note on the Gelasian Decree, a key document in canon law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Pearsonius in vindiciis I gnatianis","severity":"info","text":"John Pearson (1613–1686) in his Vindiciae Ignatianae argued the decree was promulgated after the fifth synod, likely the Council of Rome (494). This reflects early modern scholarly debate on the decree's date.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Pearson 1672"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"codex collectionis Dionysii Exigui","severity":"info","text":"The oldest manuscript of Dionysius Exiguus's collection attributes the decree to Pope Damasus, not Gelasius. This shows the decree's ascription varied in early medieval canon law collections.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Baluze","Dacherius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"codex antiquissimus a Pearsonio lectus","severity":"info","text":"A manuscript from Bec Abbey, brought to England by Lanfranc, titles the decree as Gelasius's. This supports Gelasian authorship, contrasting with the Dionysian attribution to Damasus.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Pearson","Lanfranc"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Neque catholici de hujus sanctionis auctore, annoque quo ea emissa, inter se conveniunt","severity":"caution","text":"Catholic scholars disagree on the decree's author and date, with manuscripts ascribing it to three different popes. This cautions against assuming Gelasian origin without further evidence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cresconiam collectionem","severity":"info","text":"The Cresconian collection, a canonical collection, is cited by Baronius as containing a Roman council under Damasus on apocryphal books, which he thinks Gelasius later repeated.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Baronius 1607"],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The decree's author is uncertain: manuscripts attribute it to Damasus, Gelasius, or a third pope. Pagi notes this but does not resolve it.","The year of promulgation is disputed; Pearson suggests after the fifth synod (possibly 494), but other sources vary."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Quæ scripta sunt ab eo cum septuaginta eruditissimis episcopis. » Nicolaus I pontifex Romanus tn epist. ad episcopos Galliæ circa annum data; Lupus abbas Ferrariensis it. fine epistolæ ad Carolum Calvum, et in fine quæst. de Sanguine Christi; Gratianus dist. 15, cap. Sancta Romnna; Burchardus Wormatiensis episcopus, varii codices mss. omnesque excusi, Gelasium hujus decreti auctorem produnt. Denique Hormisdæ papæ in antiquissimo Vergellensi codice Baluzius et Chiffletius in Jurensi, illud ascribi testantur. Indeque Chiffletio in fine notorum ad Vigilium Tapsensem existimatum, decretum hoc primo sancitum fuisse a Gelasio in concilio Romano hoc anno: ita tamen ut non quasi decretum pontificium, sed velut totius con:i:ii quidam canon prodiret: tum deinde ab Hormisda editum esse sub forma pontificiæ decretalis, et in quinque:iulo. methodi gratia divisum ac fortasse nonnullis in locis restitutum,","english":"Those things which were written by him with the seventy most learned bishops. Pope Nicholas I, in his letter to the bishops of Gaul, given around that year; Lupus, abbot of Ferrières, at the end of his letter to Charles the Bald, and at the end of his Questions on the Blood of Christ; Gratian, Distinction 15, chapter Sancta Romana; Burchard, bishop of Worms; various manuscript codices and all printed editions, reveal Gelasius as the author of this decree. Finally, Baluze and Chifflet attest that it is ascribed to Pope Hormisdas in the very ancient Vercelli codex, and in the Jura codex. Hence Chifflet, at the end of his notes on Vigilius of Thapsus, considered that this decree was first sanctioned by Gelasius in the Roman council of this year: yet in such a way that it came forth not as a pontifical decree, but as a kind of canon of the whole council; and that it was then published by Hormisdas in the form of a pontifical decretal, and divided into five parts for the sake of method, and perhaps restored in some places.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Gelasium hujus decreti auctorem produnt","severity":"info","text":"The passage surveys medieval and early modern authorities (Nicholas I, Lupus of Ferrières, Gratian, Burchard of Worms) who attribute the decree to Pope Gelasius I, reflecting a long-standing tradition of Gelasian authorship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Hormisdæ papae in antiquissimo Vergellensi codice","severity":"info","text":"Baluze and Chifflet note that the very ancient Vercelli codex and the Jura codex ascribe the decree to Pope Hormisdas, indicating a competing attribution in manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Chiffletio ... existimatum, decretum hoc primo sancitum fuisse a Gelasio ... tum deinde ab Hormisda editum","severity":"info","text":"Chifflet proposed a two-stage redaction: the decree was first sanctioned by Gelasius as a conciliar canon, then later issued by Hormisdas as a pontifical decretal, possibly divided into five parts and restored in places.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"in quinque:iulo. methodi gratia divisum","severity":"caution","text":"The text mentions division into five parts for method's sake, but the Latin is corrupt ('quinque:iulo' likely for 'quinque capitula' or similar). This suggests a later editorial reorganization.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"non quasi decretum pontificium, sed velut totius con:i:ii quidam canon prodiret","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'con:i:ii' is a scribal corruption for 'concilii' (council). The passage emphasizes that the decree originally had conciliar, not papal, authority, a nuance often lost in later reception.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact number and content of the five parts into which the decree was divided are not specified.","The phrase 'in quinque:iulo' is corrupt; the intended word may be 'capitula' or 'partes'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Gelasium tamen celeberrimi hujus decreti auctorem esse, et nonnisi per errorem illud Hormisdæ attributum demonstrabo, et litem, ni valde fallor, dirimam. In eo cum damnatorum voluminum index texitur, inter ea libri,Cassiani ac Faussi Reiensis numerantur hpc prænissa sententia: « Cætera, quæ ab hæreticis sive schismaticis conscripta, vel prædicata sunt, nullatenus recipit catholica et apostolica Romana Ecclesia, e quibus pauca, quæ ad memoriam venerunt, et a catholicis vitanda sunt, credimus esse subdenda. » Cumque plurimos libros hæreticorum aliorumque incertorum auctorum Patres synodi Romanæ mnassent, hos inter Cassiani et Fausti volumina posuere hoc titulo: « Opuscula Caasiani presbyteri Galliarum apocrypha, opuscula Fausti Regiensis Galliarum apocrypha. I Sæculo sequenti exortis de divina gratia contentionibus ex Fausti præsertim libris, non modo in Occidente, verum etium in Oriente alii Faustum defenderunt, alii eumdem acerrime confutarunt, præcipue monachi Scythæ, qui ex Asia erumpentes adversus eum Europam atque Africam commoverunt, ut anno explicabimus.","english":"I will demonstrate that Gelasius is the author of this most celebrated decree, and that it was only through error that it was attributed to Hormisdas, and I will settle the dispute, unless I am greatly mistaken. In it, when the list of condemned volumes is drawn up, among those books the works of Cassian and Faustus of Riez are numbered, with this sentence prefixed: \"The rest, which have been written or preached by heretics or schismatics, the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in no way receives, from which we believe a few, which have come to memory and are to be avoided by Catholics, should be subjoined.\" And when the Fathers of the Roman synod had condemned many books of heretics and other uncertain authors, they placed among these the volumes of Cassian and Faustus under this title: \"The little works of Cassian, priest of the Gauls, apocryphal; the little works of Faustus of Riez, of the Gauls, apocryphal.\" In the following century, when controversies concerning divine grace arose, especially from the books of Faustus, not only in the West but also in the East, some defended Faustus, while others most sharply refuted him, particularly the Scythian monks, who, bursting forth from Asia, stirred up Europe and Africa against him, as we will explain in the year.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Gelasium","severity":"info","text":"Gelasius I, pope from 492–496, is traditionally credited with the Decretum Gelasianum, though its attribution and date remain debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"apocrypha","severity":"info","text":"Here 'apocrypha' denotes works rejected as inauthentic or heretical by ecclesiastical authority, not merely non-canonical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Fausti Regiensis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus of Riez (c. 405–c. 490) was a semi-Pelagian bishop whose works on grace were condemned in the 6th-century Scythian monk controversies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Sæculo sequenti","severity":"info","text":"The 'following century' refers to the 6th century, when the Scythian monks (c. 520s) debated grace and free will, targeting Faustus' writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"hpc prænissa sententia","severity":"info","text":"The passage quotes a prefatory sentence from the decree, then lists condemned works, showing the decree's internal structure of anathema and catalogue.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'hpc' is a scribal error or abbreviation; the English draft reads it as 'hac' or 'hoc' (this). The author's identity (Gelasius vs. Hormisdas) is contested, but the passage argues for Gelasius."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Eo rerum statu consultus Possessor episcopus Africanus a Trasamundo Africæ rege in exsilium missus, dum Constantinopoli morabatur, ubi Fausti libri a pluribus defendebantur ut catholici, a Maxentio vero et a monachis Scythis uti hæretici damnabantur, consulit ipsemet Hormisdam papam, quid de iisdem libris sentiendum essel; eamque in rem Justinum diaconum suum ad eum misit. Exstat ejus ad Hormisdam Relatio tom. superiori Concil., diciturque accepta « xv cal. Augusti Rustico V. C. cos. id est anno 520. Hæc Possessoris in ea verba: « Arbitror vestram beatitudinem non latere quantis in Constantinopolitana urbe Ecclesia laboret insidiis, et ad morem veteri. morbi in saniem vulnus iterum quærat irrumpere, quod obductum creditur cicatrice. Unde cum quorumdam fratrum animus de codice Fausti cujusdam natione Galli Reginæ civitatis episcopi, qui de diversis rebus et frequentius de gratia Dei diserte visus est disputare, in scandalum moverctur, aliis (ut se habent humana studia) in contrarium renitentibus me crediderunt de hoc ambiguo consulendum. » Addit postea Possessor: « Quæso, ut consulentibus, quid de præfati auctoris dictis videatur, auctoritate apostolicæ responsionis agnoscant: maxime quod filii quoque magistri militum Vitalianus et Justinianus præcipue super hac re rescripto beatiludinis vestra similiter informari desiderant. I","english":"In this state of affairs, Possessor, an African bishop, having been consulted, was sent into exile by Trasamund, king of Africa, and while he was staying at Constantinople, where the books of Faustus were defended by many as Catholic, but were condemned as heretical by Maxentius and the Scythian monks, he himself consulted Pope Hormisdas as to what was to be thought concerning these same books; and for this purpose he sent his deacon Justinus to him. His Relation to Hormisdas exists in the previous volume of the Councils, and is said to have been received on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of August, in the consulship of Rusticus, a man of consular rank, that is, in the year 520. These are the words of Possessor in it: \"I think that your Beatitude is not unaware of how many snares the Church in the city of Constantinople labors under, and that, after the manner of an old disease, the wound seeks to break out again into a sore, which is believed to be closed by a scar. Hence, when the mind of some brothers was moved to scandal concerning the book of a certain Faustus, a Gaul by nation, bishop of the city of Reginae, who seemed to have discoursed eloquently on various matters and more frequently on the grace of God, while others (as human studies are wont) resisted to the contrary, they believed that I should be consulted about this ambiguity.\" Later Possessor adds: \"I ask that those who consult may learn, from the authority of the apostolic response, what is to be thought of the sayings of the aforementioned author; especially since the sons also, the masters of the soldiers Vitalian and Justinian, especially desire to be similarly informed on this matter by a rescript of your Beatitude.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Possessor episcopus Africanus","severity":"info","text":"Possessor was an African bishop exiled by the Vandal king Thrasamund. His consultation of Pope Hormisdas (c. 520) is a key witness to the 6th-century controversy over semi-Pelagianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"xv cal. Augusti Rustico V. C. cos. id est anno 520","severity":"info","text":"The date 'xv cal. Augusti' (18 July) in the consulship of Rusticus corresponds to 520, anchoring Possessor's Relation and the ensuing papal response.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Fausti cujusdam natione Galli Reginæ civitatis episcopi","severity":"info","text":"Faustus of Riez (c. 405–490), bishop of Riez (Reginae), was a Gallic theologian whose works on grace were later condemned as semi-Pelagian. The description 'natione Galli' identifies his origin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Maxentio vero et a monachis Scythis","severity":"info","text":"Maxentius and the Scythian monks were advocates of the Theopaschite formula ('one of the Trinity suffered'), active in Constantinople c. 519–520. They opposed Faustus's works as heretical.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"filii quoque magistri militum Vitalianus et Justinianus","severity":"info","text":"Vitalian (magister militum) and the future emperor Justinian (then also a general) sought Hormisdas's ruling, showing the political and ecclesiastical weight of the Faustus controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Eo rerum statu consultus Possessor ... consulit ipsemet Hormisdam papam","severity":"info","text":"This passage narrates the historical context for the Decretum Gelasianum's condemnation of Faustus, linking the African exile Possessor's inquiry to the papal response that shaped the decree.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'tom. superiori Concil.' refers to an earlier volume of conciliar collections, but the exact edition is unspecified.","The identity of 'Rusticus V. C.' (vir clarissimus) is not further detailed; the consular year 520 is inferred from standard fasti."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Hormisda Possessoris epistolam die mensis Julii anni accepit, et die mensis Augusti ad eumdem rescripsit epistolam ordine 70, in qua inter alia ait: Hi vero quos vos de Fausti cujusdam Galli antistitis dictis consuluisse, litteris indicastis, id sibi responsum habeant: neque illum recipi, neque quemquam, quos in auctoritate Patrum non recipit examen catholicæ fidei, aut ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ ambiguitatem posse gignere, aut religiosis præjudicium comparare. Fixa sunt a Patribus quæ fideles sectari debeant instituta: sive interpretatio,.ire prædicatio, seu verbum populi ædificatione compositum, si cum fide recta, et doctrina sana concordat, admittitur, si discordat, aboletur. » Ubi Hormisdam de decreto Gelasii loqui recte observarunt cardinales Baronius anno 520, num. 21, et card. Norisius in Cenot. Pis. pag. 445. Verum, quæ paulo post idem pontifex subjungit, non sese, sed eumdem Gelasium illius decreti conditorem fuisse, manifeste insinuant: « Non improvide veneranda Patrum sententia fideli posteritati quæ essent catholica dogmata, definiit; certa librorum etiam veterum in auctoritatem recipienda, sancto Spiritu instruente, præfigens, ne opinioni suæ lector indulgens, non quod ædificationi ecclesiastictæ conveniret, sed quod voluptas sua concepisset, assereret.","english":"Hormisda received Possessor's letter in the month of July of the year, and in the month of August he wrote back to him a letter in order 70, in which among other things he says: \"But those whom you have indicated in your letters that you consulted concerning the sayings of a certain Faustus, a Gallic bishop, let them have this response: that neither he is to be received, nor anyone whom the examination of the Catholic faith or of ecclesiastical discipline does not receive in the authority of the Fathers, can generate ambiguity or create prejudice for the religious. The institutions which the faithful ought to follow have been fixed by the Fathers: whether interpretation, preaching, or a word composed for the edification of the people, if it agrees with right faith and sound doctrine, it is admitted; if it disagrees, it is abolished.\" Where the cardinals Baronius in the year 520, number 21, and Cardinal Norisius in Cenot. Pis. page 445, rightly observed that Hormisda speaks of the decree of Gelasius. But what the same pontiff adds a little later manifestly insinuates that not he himself, but the same Gelasius was the framer of that decree: \"The venerable sentence of the Fathers not improvidently defined for faithful posterity what the Catholic dogmas were, fixing, with the Holy Spirit instructing, even certain ancient books to be received into authority, lest a reader, indulging his own opinion, should assert not what would be suitable for ecclesiastical edification, but what his own pleasure had conceived.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"die mensis Julii anni ... die mensis Augusti","severity":"info","text":"The year is not given in the Latin text; the context of Pope Hormisdas (514–523) and King Trasamund (died 523) places the exchange around 520, as Baronius notes.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Baronius 520"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"cardinales Baronius ... et card. Norisius","severity":"info","text":"The editor cites Cardinal Baronius (Annales Ecclesiastici, year 520, number 21) and Cardinal Norisius (Cenotaphia Pisana, page 445) as authorities who identified Hormisdas’s reference to Gelasius’s decree.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Baronius 520","Norisius Cenot. Pis. 445"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ordine 70","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'ordine 70' likely refers to the position of Hormisdas’s letter in a canonical collection, possibly the Collectio Avellana or a similar register, where it is numbered 70.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Fausti cujusdam Galli antistitis","severity":"info","text":"Faustus of Riez (c. 405–490/495), a Gallic bishop, was a semi-Pelagian theologian whose works were later condemned; his books were defended at Constantinople but opposed by Maxentius and Scythian monks.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Ubi Hormisdam de decreto Gelasii loqui","severity":"info","text":"The editor explicitly links Hormisdas’s words to the Decretum Gelasianum, asserting that Hormisdas refers to Gelasius’s decree on canonical and apocryphal books.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Non improvide veneranda Patrum sententia","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is slightly corrupt: 'definiit' should be 'definivit', and 'ecclesiastictæ' is a misspelling of 'ecclesiasticae'. The sense remains clear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The year of Hormisdas’s letter is not specified; the editor relies on Baronius’s dating to 520.","The phrase 'ordine 70' is ambiguous: it may refer to a numbering in a specific canonical collection, but the collection is not named."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"I Decretum itaque de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, non ab Hormisda, sed ab aliquo ex ejus successoribus in aliqua synodo Romana emissum, non quidem ab Anaslasio et Symmacho, qui Gelasium secuti sunt, et Hormisdam antecessere; cum nullus unquam id asseruerit, nullumque is. alterutrius nomen præferat, sed a Gelasio, cui innumeri codices illud attribuunt.\n\nNec dici potest illud scriptum esse a Damaso, cujus nomen librariorum errore præfert in colleclione Cresconiana; cum plerique opusculorum in eo memoratorum auctores post Damasum vixerint el scripserint. Nihil præterea ab Hormisda immutatum, ut credidit Chiffletius; cum Hormisda in sua ad Possessorem epistola citata hunc remittat ad ea quæ jam fixa fuerant a Patribus, nihilque novi de Fausto, de quo consultus fuerat, statuere voluerit. Apparet igitur Hormisdam tam ad Possessorem quam ad legatos suos, qui Constantinopoli tunc agebant, decretum Gelasii papæ misisse ac mandasse, ut illud ab omnibus religiose observaretur. Quo pacto Possessoris petitioni faciebat salis. Contigit vero, ut decretum illud tunc in varia exemplaria transcriptum, et tatius per Europam, Afrieam et Orientem, præsertim a Fausto adversariis disseminatum fuerit, et quia ab Hormisda papa missum fuerat, ejusque nomine ubique divulgatum, eidem ab aliquibus, temporis progressu, imprudenter ascriptum fuerit. Hæc falsæ illius inscriptionis sine dubio origo.","english":"Therefore, the Decree concerning books to be received and not received was not issued by Hormisdas, but by one of his successors in some Roman synod, certainly not by Anastasius and Symmachus, who followed Gelasius and preceded Hormisdas; since no one has ever asserted this, and neither bears the name of the other, but it is by Gelasius, to whom countless manuscripts attribute it.\n\nNor can it be said that it was written by Damasus, whose name the error of scribes bears in the Cresconian collection; since most of the works mentioned in it were written by authors who lived and wrote after Damasus. Moreover, nothing was changed by Hormisdas, as Chifflet believed; since Hormisdas, in his cited letter to Possessor, refers him to what had already been fixed by the Fathers, and wished to decide nothing new concerning Faustus, about whom he had been consulted. It therefore appears that Hormisdas sent the decree of Pope Gelasius both to Possessor and to his legates, who were then acting in Constantinople, and ordered that it be religiously observed by all. In this way he sufficiently satisfied Possessor's petition. It happened, however, that this decree, then transcribed into various copies and disseminated throughout Europe, Africa, and the East, especially by the adversaries of Faustus, and because it had been sent by Pope Hormisdas and published everywhere under his name, was, in the course of time, imprudently ascribed to him by some. This is undoubtedly the origin of that false inscription.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis","severity":"info","text":"This refers to the so-called Decretum Gelasianum, a list of approved and prohibited books long attributed to Pope Gelasius I (492–496). Modern scholarship assigns it to the early 6th century, possibly after Gelasius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Hormisda","severity":"info","text":"Pope Hormisdas (514–523) reigned after Gelasius. The passage argues that the decree was not issued by Hormisdas but by Gelasius, and that Hormisdas merely transmitted it to Possessor and his legates in Constantinople.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Chiffletius","severity":"info","text":"Chiffletius (Jean Chifflet, 17th-century scholar) had believed Hormisdas altered the decree. The passage rejects this, citing Hormisdas's letter to Possessor as evidence that he referred to earlier patristic decisions without innovation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"falsæ illius inscriptionis","severity":"info","text":"The passage explains that the decree was widely copied and disseminated under Hormisdas's name because he sent it out, leading to later misattribution. This accounts for the false inscription in manuscripts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Damaso","severity":"caution","text":"The passage denies Damasus's authorship, noting that the Cresconian collection erroneously bears his name. However, the argument that works mentioned postdate Damasus is anachronistic if the decree is later; the dating remains debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage does not specify which Roman synod issued the decree, nor does it identify the 'successor' of Hormisdas who may have done so. The identity of 'Faustus' (a Gallic bishop) and his adversaries is left vague."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Baronius et conciliorum collectores scribunt decretum Gelasii datum esse Asterio et Præsidio cess., hoc sc. anno; verum refellunt eos codices mss. in quibus nota illa temporaria non habetur. Legi in bibiiotheca regia antiquissimo charactere exaratum, sed sine nota constari, aliumque in bibliotheca sancti Victoris Parisiensis, a quo ea etiam abest; nec dubito quin in cæteris mss. desideretur, cum concilium Romanum septuaginla episcoporum, in quo illud emissum ante annum celebratum non fuerit. In laudato enim decreto hæc verba de Sedulio teguntur: « Item venerabilis viri Sedulii opus Paschale, quod heroiCis descripsit versibus insigne laude præferimus. I In fine vero libri Bucolicorum codicis Virgilii Medicei vetustissimi hæc habentur. Turcius Rufus Apronianus Asterius V. C. et inl. ex comite domesl. prolecl. ex com. priv. largit. expræf. Urbi Palricius et consul ordin. legi et distincti codicem fratris Macharii V. C., non mei fiducia sed ejus cui sit ad omnia sum devotus arbitrio, xi cal. Maii Romæ. P. Vegili Maroni.: Distincti emendans gratum mihi munus amici Succedens operi sedulus incubui. B colicon liber explicit. I","english":"Baronius and the collectors of councils write that the decree of Gelasius was given in the consulship of Asterius and Praesidius, that is, in this year; but the manuscript codices in which that temporal notation is not found refute them. I read in the royal library a copy written in the most ancient script, but without any note of the consulship, and another in the library of Saint Victor of Paris, from which that notation is also absent; nor do I doubt that it is lacking in the remaining manuscripts, since the Roman council of seventy bishops, in which that decree was issued, was not celebrated before that year. For in the aforementioned decree these words concerning Sedulius are covered: \"Likewise, the Paschal work of the venerable man Sedulius, which he described in heroic verses, we set forth as worthy of praise.\" At the end of the book of the Bucolics of the very ancient Medicean codex of Virgil, these words are found: \"Turcius Rufus Apronianus Asterius, vir clarissimus et illustris, ex comite domesticorum, protectore, ex comite privatarum largitionum, ex praefecto Urbi, patricius et consul ordinarius, read and punctuated the codex of his brother Macharius, vir clarissimus, not relying on my own judgment but on that of him to whose will I am in all things devoted, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of May at Rome. Publi Vergili Maronis: Having punctuated and corrected, a welcome gift to me from a friend, I diligently applied myself to the work. The book of the Bucolics ends.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Baronius et conciliorum collectores","severity":"info","text":"Baronius (Caesar Baronius, 1538–1607) was a cardinal and historian whose Annales Ecclesiastici shaped early modern reception of conciliar decrees. The 'collectors of councils' likely refer to editors of conciliar collections such as Severinus Binius or Jean Hardouin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Asterio et Præsidio cess.","severity":"info","text":"The consular year of Asterius and Praesidius corresponds to 494 AD. The passage argues that the Gelasian Decree cannot date to that year because the Roman council of seventy bishops occurred later, implying a date after 494.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"codices mss.","severity":"info","text":"The author cites two manuscripts—one in the royal library (likely the Bibliothèque du Roi, later the Bibliothèque Nationale) and one in the library of Saint Victor in Paris—both lacking the consular note, arguing against the earlier dating.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"opus Paschale ... Sedulii","severity":"info","text":"The Gelasian Decree praises Sedulius's Paschal work, a fifth-century Christian poet. This citation shows the decree's role in shaping the canon of acceptable Christian literature, though the decree's authenticity and date remain debated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Turcius Rufus Apronianus Asterius","severity":"info","text":"Asterius was consul in 494 AD. The subscriptio from the Medicean Virgil manuscript records his reading and punctuation of the codex, providing a consular date that the author uses to argue against the decree's association with that year.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"hæc verba de Sedulio teguntur","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'teguntur' (are covered) is ambiguous: it may mean 'are contained' or 'are concealed.' The author likely means the words appear in the decree, but the verb choice could imply a textual problem or interpolation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'hæc verba de Sedulio teguntur' is ambiguous: 'teguntur' could mean 'are covered' (i.e., hidden) or 'are contained.' The reading taken is 'are contained,' consistent with the author's argument that the decree includes praise of Sedulius.","The consular date of Asterius and Praesidius (494 AD) is contested: the author denies it, but the subscriptio from the Medicean Virgil confirms Asterius's consulship. The passage uses this to argue the decree is later, but the logic is not fully explicit."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Em. card. Norisius laudatus, qui eam clausulam produxit, observat in vetusto codice Vaticano num. i 165, post ea men Paschale Sedulii hæc legi: Hoc opus Sedulius inter cartulas disperaum reliquit, quod recollectum et adunatum, atque omni elegantia divulgatum est a Turcio Rufio Asterio quinto V. C. exconsule ordinario atque patricio. I Similem huic codicem etiam vidit Cuspinianus, qui ad consulatum Asterii et Præsidii, ait, carmen Sedulii a Turcio Ruffo Aslerio quinto U. C. exconsule ordinario atque patricio » scriplum esse. Eadem annotatio erat etiam in codice quo Aldus Manutius senior usus est, siquidem advertit opus illud non a Sedutlo, sed a « Turcio Rufo Asterio V. C. exconsule ordinario atque palricio I publicatum esse. Verum quidem cst Sirmondum in notis ad epist. lib. Ennodii scribere, in codice Remens, poematis Paschalis Sedulii hrec haberi; i Hoc opus Sedulius inter chartulas dispersum reliquit, quod recolletum, adornatumque ad omnem elegantiam, divulgatum est a Turcio Rufo U. C. consule ordinario atque patricio. » Verum ex laudatis mss. liquet, loco exconsule ordinario, exscriptorem per errorem posuisse consule ordinario; cumque Asterius ante annum sequentem exconsul dici non potuerit, ante eum annum Sedulii carmina nec collegit, nec evulgavit, ideoque, nec antea synodus Romana, in cujus decreto de Sedulio mentio, celebrata fuit, ut recte videre Usserius lib.","english":"The esteemed Cardinal Norisius, who produced that clause, observes that in the ancient Vatican codex number 165, after the Paschal work of Sedulius, the following is read: \"This work Sedulius left scattered among his papers, which was collected and united, and published with all elegance by Turcius Rufius Asterius, five times vir clarissimus, ex-consul ordinarius and patrician.\" Cuspinianus also saw a similar codex, who says that the poem of Sedulius was written in the consulship of Asterius and Praesidius by Turcius Rufius Asterius, five times vir clarissimus, ex-consul ordinarius and patrician. The same annotation was also in the codex which the elder Aldus Manutius used, since he notes that that work was published not by Sedulius, but by Turcius Rufius Asterius, five times vir clarissimus, ex-consul ordinarius and patrician. It is true that Sirmondus, in his notes to the letters of Ennodius, writes that in the Reims codex of Sedulius's Paschal poem the following is found: \"This work Sedulius left scattered among his papers, which was collected, adorned to all elegance, and published by Turcius Rufius, vir clarissimus, consul ordinarius and patrician.\" But from the cited manuscripts it is clear that, in place of ex-consul ordinarius, the copyist erroneously placed consul ordinarius; and since Asterius could not be called ex-consul before the following year, he neither collected nor published Sedulius's poems before that year, and therefore the Roman synod, in whose decree mention is made of Sedulius, was not celebrated before that time, as Usserius rightly saw in his book.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Turcio Rufio Asterio","severity":"info","text":"Turcius Rufius Asterius was a Roman aristocrat and consul in 494 AD, later patrician, who edited Sedulius's Carmen Paschale.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"exconsule ordinario","severity":"info","text":"The argument hinges on Asterius being styled 'ex-consul' only after his consulship (494), thus dating Sedulius's publication to 495 or later, and the synod after that.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"vetusto codice Vaticano num. i 165","severity":"info","text":"Norisius cites Vatican codex 165 as containing a note that Asterius collected Sedulius's scattered papers, a key witness for the textual history.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Usserius","severity":"info","text":"Usserius (James Ussher) is cited as correctly concluding that the Roman synod mentioning Sedulius occurred after Asterius's consulship, showing early modern scholarly engagement.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"consule ordinario","severity":"caution","text":"The Reims codex reads 'consul ordinario' instead of 'ex-consul', which the author attributes to scribal error, affecting the dating of Sedulius's publication.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact reading of the Vatican codex (whether 'exconsule' or 'consule') is not directly quoted, only paraphrased by Norisius."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"III de Primordiis Eccles. Britan. c. 16. Pearsonius in Vindieiis epistolarum sancti Ignat. pag. 46. et card. Norisius laudatus, qui plura habet de Sedulio et ejus opere. Cum tero mense Martio alia synodus Romana habita sit, ea de qua agitur, pertinet ad an. 496, fuitque II Romana, sub Gelasio, non I, ut perperam hactenus a conciliorum collectoribus appellata, et horum exemplo ab aliis.","english":"III. On the Beginnings of the British Church, ch. 16. Pearson in his Vindication of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, p. 46, and the esteemed Cardinal Norisius, who has more on Sedulius and his work. Since another Roman synod was held in the month of March, the one in question pertains to the year 496, and was the Second Roman synod under Gelasius, not the First, as it has hitherto been wrongly called by the collectors of councils, and by others following their example.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"III de Primordiis Eccles. Britan. c. 16","severity":"info","text":"This heading refers to a section or chapter in a work on the early British Church, likely a modern scholarly reference, not part of the conciliar decree itself.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Pearsonius in Vindieiis epistolarum sancti Ignat.","severity":"info","text":"John Pearson (1613–1686) wrote 'Vindiciae Epistolarum S. Ignatii' (1672), defending the authenticity of Ignatius's letters. The page reference (p. 46) is to a specific edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Pearson 1672"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"card. Norisius laudatus","severity":"info","text":"Cardinal Enrico Noris (1631–1704) is cited for his work on Sedulius. The reference likely comes from his 'Historia Pelagiana' or similar writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Noris 1673"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Cum tero mense Martio alia synodus Romana habita sit","severity":"info","text":"The text notes that another Roman synod was held in March of the same year, distinguishing the current synod from that one. This clarifies the dating to 496.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"non I, ut perperam hactenus a conciliorum collectoribus appellata","severity":"caution","text":"The passage corrects a long-standing misidentification: this synod was the Second Roman synod under Gelasius, not the First, as earlier council collectors had erroneously labeled it.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'III de Primordiis Eccles. Britan. c. 16' is a modern editorial insertion, not part of the original decree; its exact source is unclear.","The reference to 'Cum tero mense Martio' may contain a textual corruption ('tero' for 'tertio' or similar), but the sense is that another synod occurred in March."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}