Notis in the Vita Patrum Iurensium

Latin Learning Latin
1

I am probably missing something obvious but I’m not sure understand notis in the following sentence taken from the preface of the 6th c. Vita Patrum Iurensium. The anonymous author indicates that if he doesn’t answer his friends knocking at the door, i.e. if he doesn’t write the lives of the Jura Fathers, it would be a sign of his selfishness and his friends would be justified in shunning him:

Unde vos, o piissimi fratres Iohannes atque Armentari, vehementius amicum gemino pulsantes affectu, si oris cordisque mei claustra reserare distulero, insignitum pertinacis avaritiae > notis> , nec cibum mecum apostolica traditione pronuntiatis posse vos sumere.

This is why, my very pious brothers John and Armentarius, if I delay in opening the gates of my mouth and heart, when you are knocking rather hard at your friend’s door with your double affection, > ??? > a mark of unyielding greed and you declare that you can’t, according to the apostolic tradition, share a meal with me.

It seems the general meaning calls for something like “if you knock at my door and I don’t open my mouth and heart, it shows/it denotes/you notice/you recognize a mark of unyielding greed and you…”.
That’s how the two translations I have consulted seem to understand it (“vous stigmatisez mon avarice obstinée”/“betrachtet Ihr dies als Zeichen des hartnäckigen Geizes”) but I don’t understand how that’s supposed to work. What verb would produce notis as its present tense 2nd pl.?

My best guess at this point is that notis isn’t a finite verb form but the dative plural of notus, which would translate as: “if you knock at my door and I don’t open my mouth and heart (a mark of unyielding selfishness for/to/between friends)…”.

Source: Krusch 1896, p. 131, line 10.

2

I’d rather say it’s the ablative plural of nota, depending on insignitum, which agrees with amicum.

3

Unde vos, o piissimi fratres Iohannes atque Armentari, vehementius amicum gemino pulsantes affectu, si oris cordisque mei claustra reserare distulero, insignitum pertinacis avaritiae notis, nec cibum mecum apostolica traditione pronuntiatis posse vos sumere.

For which reason, o most pius brethren Iohannes and Armenarius, you knocking hard at your friend [while moved by] double affection, if I defer opening the gates of my mouth and heart, being branded by indelible signs of avarice, nor would you, you declare, partake of food with me according to the apostolic tradition.

4

Seems to me the syntax has to be as bedwere suggests, however convoluted it may seem. Then is the nec not “nor” or “and not” (for there’s no preceding main verb) but “not even”, in protest against his apparent selfishness in keeping it all to himself?

5

Thank you all for your answers. I didn’t think of nota. That does indeed seem convoluted but that would be rather par for the course based on what I’ve read of the work.