{"slug":"tmp97.tmp97.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp97.tmp97.opp-lat1","title":"Epistola Valentis et Ursacii ad Julium Papam","title_source":"Epistola Valentis et Ursacii ad Julium Papam","author":"SS Iulius I","genre":"letter","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T05:58:29Z","cost_usd":0.001517},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp97.tmp97.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp97.tmp97.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/tmp97/tmp97/tmp97.tmp97.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":2,"english_words":287,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":1254,"commentary_units":11,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":2,"work_notes":5,"external_links":1,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp97.tmp97.opp-lat1","abstract":"The Epistola Valentis et Ursacii ad Julium Papam is a letter from the Arian bishops Valens and Ursacius to Pope Julius I, likely composed around 347 CE in the aftermath of the Council of Sardica (343). The bishops, condemned at Sardica for supporting Arianism, sought reconciliation with the Roman see by retracting their accusations against Athanasius and professing orthodox faith. The letter survives only as a fragment quoted in Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos, with no independent manuscript tradition. Its Latin text may derive from a Greek original. The letter was later used in anti-Arian polemic and as evidence of papal authority in doctrinal disputes.","historical_context":"The letter belongs to the mid-4th-century Arian controversy, a period of intense theological conflict over the nature of Christ. Valens and Ursacius were Illyrian bishops who initially supported Arius and opposed Athanasius, the orthodox bishop of Alexandria. After the Council of Sardica (343) condemned them, they sought to regain communion with the Western church by writing to Pope Julius I (337–352). The letter is usually dated to c. 347, based on the sequence of events in the Arian dispute. It survives only as quoted in Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos, where it is used to demonstrate the inconsistency of Arian leaders. The text was later transmitted through canonical collections and patristic citations, notably in Hilary of Poitiers' Fragment II. The original Latin may have been translated from Greek, and the present edition cannot verify its completeness or exact wording due to its fragmentary preservation.","significance":"The letter is significant as a rare example of Arian bishops formally retracting their position and seeking reconciliation with Rome, illustrating the role of papal authority in early doctrinal disputes. It also provides insight into the political and theological pressures of the Arian controversy, and its preservation by Athanasius shows how such documents were used in polemical contexts to discredit opponents.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 318–320","event":"Arius begins teaching that the Son is a creature, sparking the Arian controversy."},{"date":"325","event":"Council of Nicaea condemns Arianism and affirms the homoousion."},{"date":"335","event":"Council of Tyre exiles Athanasius; Valens and Ursacius support the Arian party."},{"date":"343","event":"Council of Sardica condemns Valens and Ursacius; they seek reconciliation with Pope Julius I."},{"date":"c. 347","event":"Probable date of the Epistola Valentis et Ursacii ad Julium Papam."},{"date":"4th–5th c.","event":"Letter quoted by Athanasius in Apologia contra Arianos; later transmitted in canonical collections."}],"relations":[{"work":"Apologia contra Arianos","relation":"Primary source preserving the letter as a quotation","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Fragment II of Hilary of Poitiers","relation":"Later transmission of the letter in anti-Arian polemic","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Council of Sardica (343)","relation":"Context of condemnation that prompted the letter","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Epistula ad Iulium (other Arian retractions)","relation":"Similar genre of retraction letters to the pope","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"De Synodis (Athanasius)","relation":"Related work discussing the same events","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Arian controversy","label":"Arian controversy","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy","reason":"Provides background on the theological conflict"}],"cautions":["The letter's date is uncertain; c. 347 is a scholarly estimate based on the sequence of events.","The text survives only as a fragment quoted by Athanasius; its completeness and exact wording cannot be verified.","The original language may have been Greek, but only a Latin version is extant.","Authorship by Valens and Ursacius is generally accepted but not independently confirmed.","The letter's transmission through patristic citations means it may have been edited for polemical purposes."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000525,"generated":"2026-11-15T05:58:29Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp97/tmp97/tmp97.tmp97.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp97.tmp97.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":2,"translated":2,"commentary_passages":2,"commentary_units":11,"english_words":287,"source_letters":1254,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is addressed by the two Arian bishops Valens and Ursacius to Pope Julius I, likely in the context of the Arian controversy after the Council of Sardica (343).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter is usually dated to c. 347, after Valens and Ursacius had been condemned at Sardica and sought reconciliation with Julius. The dating depends on the known sequence of events in the Arian dispute.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The letter survives only as quoted in later sources, notably in Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos. No independent manuscript tradition exists; the text is reconstructed from patristic citations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter was used by Athanasius to demonstrate the inconsistency of the Arian leaders. It later entered canonical collections as evidence of papal authority in doctrinal disputes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The present edition cannot verify the completeness or exact wording of the letter, as it is known only through Athanasius' selective quotation. The original Latin may have been translated from Greek.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: letter in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 2 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":2},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"EPISTOLA VALENTIS ET URSACII AD JULIUM PAPAM.\n\nQUAM EPISTOLAM POST RENUNTIATIONEM ORIENTALIUM, ATIIANASIUM REUM NON ESSE, IN URBE ROMA HOLOGRAPHA MANU VALENS PERSCRIPSIT, ET URSACIUS SUBSCRIPSIT.\n\n(Ex Hilarii fragmento II, num. 20.)\n\nDomino beatissimo papae Julio Valens et Ursacius. Quoniam constat nos antehac mulla gravia de nomine Athanasii episcopi litteris nostris insinuasse, atque litteris sanci itatis tuae conventi, ejus rei de qua significavimus, non praestitisse rationem: profitemur apud sanctitatem tuam, eundis praesentibus presbyteris fratribus nostris, omnia quae antehac ad aures vestras pervenerunt de nomino praedicti, falsa a nobis esse insinuata, atque omnibus viribus carere: atque ideo nos libentissime amplecti communionem praedicti Athanasii; maxime cum sanctitas tua, pro insita sibi benevolentia, errori nostro veniam fuerit dare dignata. Profitemur etiam, quod si aliquando nos Orientales voluerint, vel idem Athanasius, malo animo ad causam vocare, citra conscientiam tuam non adfuturos; haereticum vero Arium, sed et satellites ejus, qui dicunt: Erat tempus quando non erat filius, et qui dicunt ex nihilo filium, et qui negant Dei filium ante saecula fuisse, sicut per priorem libellum nostrum, quem apud Mediolanum porreximus, et nunc et semper anathematizasse.","english":"Letter of Valens and Ursacius to Pope Julius.\n\nWhich letter, after the Easterners’ renunciation that Athanasius was not guilty, Valens wrote in his own hand in the city of Rome, and Ursacius subscribed.\n\n(From Hilary’s fragment II, no. 20.)\n\nTo the most blessed lord Pope Julius, Valens and Ursacius. Since it is evident that we previously insinuated many grave things in our letters concerning the name of Bishop Athanasius, and, summoned by letters of your holiness, did not furnish proof of the matter of which we gave notice, we profess before your holiness, in the presence of these presbyters, our brothers, that everything which previously reached your ears concerning the name of the aforesaid was falsely insinuated by us and is utterly devoid of substance; and therefore we most gladly embrace the communion of the aforesaid Athanasius, especially since your holiness, by the kindness innate in you, has deigned to grant pardon for our error. We also profess that if at any time the Easterners, or Athanasius himself, should wish to call us to account with ill intent, we will not appear without your knowledge; and that we have anathematized, as in our earlier libellus which we presented at Milan, and now and always, the heretic Arius, and also his followers, who say: “There was a time when the Son was not,” and who say the Son is from nothing, and who deny that the Son of God existed before the ages.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Valens and Ursacius were Illyrian bishops who initially supported Arius and opposed Athanasius. This letter to Pope Julius I (337–352) represents a retraction, likely coerced after the Council of Serdica (343).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter has two main sections: a confession of false accusations against Athanasius and a profession of orthodoxy, including an anathema against Arian positions. The second section echoes a prior libellus presented at Milan.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"holographa manu","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'holographa manu' indicates Valens wrote the letter in his own hand, a practice that lent authenticity to such retractions in ecclesiastical disputes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This letter is preserved only in Hilary of Poitiers' Fragment II, no. 20, suggesting it was used in later anti-Arian polemic. Its authenticity is generally accepted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Erat tempus quando non erat filius","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'There was a time when the Son was not' is a standard Arian slogan, condemned at Nicaea (325). It echoes the Arian position that the Son is a creature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has minor errors: 'mulla' for 'multa', 'sanci itatis' for 'sanctitatis', 'eundis' for 'eisdem', 'nomino' for 'nomine'. These are scribal, not substantive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'post renuntiationem orientalium, Atianasium reum non esse' is ambiguous: it could mean the Easterners renounced that Athanasius was not guilty (i.e., they declared him innocent) or that they renounced the charge that he was guilty. The translation takes the former, more natural reading."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Haec manu nostra, qua scripsimus, profitemur et iterum dicimus, haeresim Arianam, ut superius diximus, et ejus auctores in perpetuum damnasse. Et manu Ursacii: Ego Ursacius episcopus huic professioni nostrae subscripsi.","english":"We declare by this hand, with which we have written, and we say again that we have condemned the Arian heresy, as we said above, and its authors forever. And by the hand of Ursacius: I, Ursacius the bishop, have subscribed to this our profession.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Haec manu nostra, qua scripsimus, profitemur et iterum dicimus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase marks a formal, repeated declaration, typical of subscription formulas in ecclesiastical letters. The shift to first-person plural and then to Ursacius's singular subscription underscores the document's legal character.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"haeresim Arianam","severity":"info","text":"The term 'Arian heresy' here refers to the theological positions condemned at Nicaea (325). Valens and Ursacius, previously supporters of Arius, now publicly renounce it, a key moment in their shifting allegiance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"damnasse","severity":"info","text":"The perfect infinitive 'damnasse' (condemned) indicates a past action, likely referring to their earlier subscription at the Council of Serdica (343) or a subsequent retraction. This letter is part of their reconciliation with Pope Julius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Ego Ursacius episcopus huic professioni nostrae subscripsi","severity":"info","text":"This subscription formula is preserved in Hilary of Poitiers' Fragment II, which collected documents from the Arian controversy. It shows how later orthodox writers used such retractions to discredit Arianism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Haec manu nostra, qua scripsimus","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'by this hand, with which we have written' may be a scribal or editorial addition to authenticate the document. The original letter likely had autograph signatures, but the surviving text is a copy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'damnasse' could be read as a perfect infinitive ('have condemned') or a syncopated pluperfect subjunctive; the translation takes it as perfect indicative in sense. The identity of 'auctores' (authors) of the Arian heresy is not specified—possibly Arius and his early followers."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}