SOURCE: "Jerome's Attitude: Principles and Practice" in Latin Fathers and the Classics: A Study on the Apologists, Jerome, and Other Christian Writers, Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1958, pp. 309-28.

[In the following excerpt, Hagendahl discusses Jerome's ambivalent attitude toward his predecessors, concluding that he struggled with an apparent conflict between his Christian asceticism and the cultural legacy of pagan literature.]

… Jerome's attitude towards the cultural legacy left by the ancients cannot be defined in a plain and unequivocal formula. It is inconsequent, inconsistent, reflecting opposite tendencies, fluctuating like the currents of the tide.

On the one hand it shows the same negative rigorousness which, since Paul, had distinguished the old church, and which found a sonorous expression in Tertullian:' Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? quid Academiae et ecclesiae? quid haereticis et Christianis? This renunciation is echoed in Jerome's equally famous antithesis: Quid facit cum psalterio Horatius? cum evangeliis Maro? cum apostolo Cicero?² It recurs more than thirty years later in this form: Quid Aristoteli et Paulo? Quid Platoni et Petro?³

On the other hand Jerome is an exponent of a new current, distinguished by a less prejudiced recognition of pagan thought and literature. It emerged in the Greek world at the end of the second century and had its centre in the Christian school at Alexandria, whose leaders, Clement and Origen, strove to assimilate and utilize the essence of Greek philosophy.⁴ It found another expression in the apologists, above all in Minucius Felix and Lactantius, when they tried to win over people of education. After being officially recognized, the church could not maintain her cultural isolation. In proportion as she aimed at universality, she had to make room for culture and create a literature that was on a par with secular literature. That is what came about in the century after Constantine.

However, this process of assimilation had its limits and was not accepted without difficulty. Jerome's case is not unique. The inconsistency of his attitude recurs in almost every educated Christian writer. It proceeded from the feeling that classical culture and Christianity were fundamentally incompatible. In Jerome this feeling is reflected more distinctly than in anybody else, in the words he seemed to hear in the dream: Ciceronianus es, non Christianus; Cicero, the protagonist of Latin humanism, is opposed to Christ.⁵ The conflict between the two worlds of thought gave birth, in Jerome's soul, to a dissonance which he never resolved. As a Christian he felt obliged to condemn pagan literature, but he could not cease admiring—and reading—what he condemned.

Christianity triumphed over the pagan religions, but it had to yield to the pagan school-system, the last stronghold of classical culture. In the first four centuries the Christians did not dream of creating Christian schools; the pagan educational system, to which they were once, at best, indifferent, became in course of time indispensable to them.⁶ The pagan schools of grammar and rhetoric exercised upon them an influence that can hardly be overrated. They affected, as Homes Dudden put it, "not merely the literary style of those who were bred in them, but also their feeling and habit of thought."⁷

Jerome is perhaps the best example of this influence. No other Christian writer, former teachers like Lactantius and Augustine not excepted, has so much to say about school education. Again and again he recalls his schooldays, first in Stridon, then in Rome.⁸

In the grammar school, where he studied under the distinguished grammarian Donatus, he acquired the intimate knowledge of the Latin classics which we have endeavered to track and laid the foundations for his masterly use of the Latin language. He often discusses questions of grammatical correctness and scoffs at the shortcomings of his adversaries in this respect.⁹

Rhetoric attracted Jerome still more than grammar. The established curriculum of rhetoric, as it was taught in the schools for centuries, developed his versatile genius and gave him an intellectual training and a stylistic skill which are already conspicuous in his earliest writings. He often refers to the instructions of the rhetors¹⁰ and dialecticians." Above all he was influenced by the school declamations, controversiae, where the pupils had to act alternately as prosecutor and as defendant in fictitious legal cases far remote from real life. As an old man he still dreamed that he was standing before the rhetor,¹² he recurs now and then to his school declamations¹³ and quotes many sentences from controversiae, both extant ones and lost ones.¹⁴

Jerome's principles and practice in the matter of style are a counterpart to his attitude towards classical literature and may therefore claim our attention.

The first writings are distinguished by a redundant style which smells of the rhetorical school. A typical example is the letter to Heliodorus, Epist. 14, of which Jerome, nearly twenty years later, judged as follows (Epist. 52, 1, 1): In illo opere pro aetate tunc lusimus et calentibus adhuc rhetorum studiis atque doctrinis quaedam scholastico flore depinximus. In the same letter, one of the most refined in his correspondence, he disclaims all pretentions to oratory: Ne a me quaeras pueriles declamationes, sententiarum flosculos, verborum lenocinia et per fines capitum singulorum acuta quaedam breviterque conclusa, quae plausus et clamores excitent audientium (Chap. 4, 1). There is every reason not to take such utterances too literally; according to literary etiquette modesty was required of an author when talking of himself.¹⁶In hoc libello nulla erit rhetorici pompa sermonis, says Jerome in a letter to Eustochium which from a stylistic point of view is one of the most extravagant things he ever wrote. In the pamphlet against Helvidius he begins by saying: Non campum rhetorici desideramus eloquii, but he gives the lie to this in practice and finally concedes: Rhetoricati sumus et in morem declamatorum paululum lusimus. The examples could easily be multiplied.

However, in Jerome and other Christian writers, there is another ground for the breach between theory and practice in the matter of style."¹⁹ Christianity was founded by fishermen,²⁰ the Scriptures were translated in vulgar Latin,²¹ simplicity was imposed by tradition.²² In Jerome's opinion simplicity was required above all in sermons; he disapproved of preachers who indulged in rhetoric and provoked applause.²³ He also disclaims oratory in the commentaries: In Amos lib. III praef. pp. 309-310 In explanatione sanctarum scripturarum non verba composita et oratoriis floribus adornata, sed eruditio et simplicitas quaeritur veritatis.²⁴ His interest was centred in exegetics, he wrote for those who were concerned with exegesis, not for persons of literary taste.²⁵

In spite of this he by no means despises oratory in the commentaries.²⁶Tribuatque nobis Dominus, he writes in the commentary on Ezekiel (16, 13 p. 157), ut divinum sensum accipere mereamur atque sapientiam et id quod mente concipimus eloquii venustate proferre. He bestowed care upon the style even in translations, as he confesses about his rendering of Theophilus' epistula paschalis (Epist. 98);²⁷ it is so elaborated that it could serve as a basis for an analysis of Jerome's own style. But, of course, he is at his best in the letters and the polemical writings, where he gives free rein both to his personal feelings and to his rhetorical skill. As a letter-writer he can be compared only with Cicero—it suffices for his glory. By nature and education he was a controversialist, inferior to none in satirical verve and subtlety, alas also in recklessness. His polemical tone is low, to say the least.²⁸ In this he adopted the bad habits of Roman lawyers, as he depicts them.²⁹ He took advantage of his superiority in rhetorical training and ridiculed without mercy the deficiencies of his adversaries. On the other hand he does not forget to praise the style of his friends. If he praises the beauty of secular literature—and nobody has done it more unreservedly—³⁰ he is no less eager to emphasize the merits of Christian writers; it is enough to call to mind his efforts to glorify their oratory in De viris illustribus.³¹ In short, he lives as a writer in the atmosphere of the rhetorical school.³²

In judging his style we must take into consideration some important circumstances. Mostly he did not write in his own hand, but dictated to stenographers. He excuses himself (Epist. 74, 6, 2), si scatens oratio solito cursu non fluat. Non enim eodem lepore dictamus, quo scribimus, quia in altero saepe stilum vertimus, "iterum quae digna legi sunt scripturi", in altero, quidquid in buccam venerit, celeri sermone dictamus.³³ He often complains of being compelled to dictate in great haste and of not having time to correct or even to read through what he has dictated.³⁴ He emphasizes himself the difference inter subitam dictandi audaciam et elucubratam scribendi diligentiam³⁵. The analyser of his style will go wrong if he does not keep this in view.³⁶

It does no credit to classical scholarship that we are still in want of up-to-date monographs on Jerome's style. Latin prose has stylists of a richer individuality and a greater artistic perfection, but no one since Cicero can compete with the easy fluency of Jerome's style. His register is wide, he possesses all modes and tempos, from plain instruction and discussion to sharp polemics, from edification and consolation to jokes and humour, from insinuation and irony to sentiment and pathos. Rufinus, who knew him better than anyone else, called him rhetor noster,³⁷ and with that he hit the mark. Jerome, as I have said before, is "an antique rhetor with all the merits and faults, mental and literary, which rhetorical training implies: the brilliancy and fluency of style, the power of invention, the subtlety of mind, the ready wit and recklessness of a thorough controversialist, the tendency to superficial ostentation and self-conceited overbearingness".³⁸

Among his teachers Jerome mentions after the grammatici and rhetores also the philosophi, but in reality his interest in philosophy was as slight as his knowledge of it was superficial. In this respect he was a true Roman. The numerous references to Greek philosophers are, as we have pointed out several times, nothing but boasts of a learning he did not possess; they are due to Latin intermediaries, as he himself had to admit, above all to Cicero. His attitude towards the philosophers is mostly unfavourable or hostile, partly on the ground that the heretics rely on them.⁴² He is far from the broad-mindedness of Lactantius, who held that every single part of the truth is to be found in the philosophers, although none of them attained it in its entirety. Only one passage, In Dan. 1, 2 (PL 25, 518),⁴⁴ forms an exception; it is so remarkable that I almost feel tempted to suppose that Jerome took it over from one of the Greek Fathers whom he followed in this commentary. Elsewhere, if by chance he approves or makes use of philosophers and their ideas, he does so with a view to practical utility, as he says in a letter to Damasus (Epist. 21, 13, 6): Atqui et nos hoc facere solemus, quando philosophos legimus, quando in manus nostras libri veniunt sapientiae saecularis: si quid in eis utile repperimus, ad nostrum dogma convertimus, si quid vero superfluum, de idolis, de amore, de cura saecularium rerum, haec radimus.

Thus the artes liberales in Jerome's opinion are useful or necessary. They are enumerated in Adv. Pelag. I. 21 (above p. 264) and in Epist. 53, 6, I: Taceo de grammaticis, rhetoribus, philosophis, geometricis, dialecticis, musicis, astrologis, medicis, quorum scientia mortalibus vel utilissima est. He distinguishes between veritas quae non habet pietatem and scientia pietatis.⁴⁵ He admires the immense ceuvre of polyhistors such as Varro and Didymus and opposes it to the materialism of his time (Epist. 33, 1, 2): Nos Epimenidis dormire somnum et studium, quod Mi posuerunt in eruditione saecularium litterarum, in congregandis opibus ponere. Albeit his learning has turned out to be less extensive than his writings could give to understand, he was no doubt the most learned of all Latin Fathers, being called philosophus, rhetor, grammaticus, dialecticus, Hebraeus, Graecus, Latinus, trilinguis (Adv. Rufin. III. 6). He was a hard worker, and he spoke from personal experience when he said: Litterae marsupium non sequuntur. Sudoris comites sunt et laboris, sociae ieiuniorum, non saturitatis, continentiae, non luxuriae (ib. I. 17).

We have looked at several aspects of Jerome's attitude towards secular culture and can now approach our main problem: his attitude towards Latin literature.

From the very outset I have placed the tale of his dream (Epist. 22, 30) in the foreground, and I have explained how I read this document, which, agreeable to its importance, has become a bone of contention among scholars.⁴⁶ The difference of opinion is partly owing to the fact that it is decked in so much rhetoric that some scholars fail to see anything but rhetoric in it.⁴⁷ I think this is to underrate matters. Nor can I see that the parallels pointed out by de Labriolle⁴⁸ in pagan and Christian writings make against the authenticity of the dream; they only attest—if attestation is needed—that the belief in dreams was common in antiquity. As I take it, two points are decisive. First: in A.D. 400, when Rufinus charged him with perjury because of the oaths he had taken in the dream, Jerome did not deny having had it;⁴⁹ he only declined to be bound for life by a promise given in a dream. Second: without any external provocation, Jerome in the commentary on Galatians calls Paula and Eustochium to testify that for more than fifteen years neither Cicero nor Virgil nor any pagan writer whatsoever has come into his hands (In Gal. lib. III praef. pp. 485-486, see above p. 120). This is an evident allusion to the dream related in the letter to the same Eustochium (Epist. 22).

For these reasons I take the dream seriously: it is a specimen of Jerome's state of mind, most interesting from a psychological point of view.

Before going farther we have to clear up another point. The account of the dream is inserted in the context in the following way. Jerome warns the virgin not to indulge in a taste for literature or mince her words. Then, rather abruptly, he quotes Paul's antithesis: Quae enim communicatio luci ad tenebras? qui consensus Christo et Belial? (2 Cor. 6, 14-15) and subjoins an antithesis of his own: Quid facit cum psalterio Horatius?, etc. It would be preposterous to presume that he is here addressing himself only to Eustochium or to the Christian virgins. His words have a wider bearing, they aim at all Christians, including himself. Simul bibere non debemus calicem Christi et calicem daemoniorum. Secular literature is incompatible with Christianity; it is the calix daemoniorum.⁵⁰) In order to confirm this view he then relates what he experienced in his dream.

The dream dates, as is generally accepted, from the early years of Jerome's first stay in the East (about 374), and the account of it was written in 384 during his last stay in Rome. One year before, he had unfolded his views concerning the problem in question in a letter to Damasus (Epist. 21, 13, 4 sqq., quoted pp. 109). Expounding the parable of the prodigal son he takes the husks, siliquae, to be secular literature⁵² which, in spite of its formal beauty, is devoid of saturitas veritatis and only leaves an empty sound. It can be used only if treated like the captive woman in Deut. 21, 10-13. Even with this restriction, however, Jerome is in doubt because of Paul's warnings against idolatry (1 Cor. 8, 9-11):⁵³Nonne tibi videtur sub aliis verbis dicere, ne legas philosophos, oratores, poetas, ne in eorum lectione requiescas?

Psychologically this attitude is easy to understand. It is that of primitive Christianity; it is an integral part of the same tendency to isolation which gave rise to monasticism. The early letters bear witness to Jerome's ecstatic turn of mind during his first stay in the East. Hence the pangs of conscience reflected in the agony of the dream. The writings dating from his last stay in Rome are distinguished by a rigorousness and ascetic zeal which are a prelude to his final retirement from the world, and which also account in full for his severe principles as to secular literature.

And his practice? If we are to believe Jerome, he did not read pagan authors for more than fifteen years. Is this true?

In the first period his memory of what he learned at school is still fresh. The earliest letters, overflowing with sentiment, are enriched by reminiscences of secular authors of whom some (Turpilius, Lucilius and Florus) leave no traces in his later writings (see p. 102). On the other hand literal quotations do not appear in writings intended for the public (with one exception) or in the letters written in Rome,⁵⁴ and the reminiscences are neither particularly frequent nor conspicuous. Thus I conclude that Jerome, at least towards the end of this period, put his principles into practice.

In the second period matters are different. Whole lines from poetry, not allowed before in writings for the public (except in Vita Pauli), appear not infrequently in the great commentaries, viz.

In Gal.: Virgil 1 line, Terence 1, quidam de neotericis 2.

In Eph.: Virgil 6, Horace 2.

In Eccles: Virgil 10, Horace 3.

In Nah.: Virgil 2.

In Hab.: Virgil 2.

In Mich.: Terence 5, Horace 1.

Every reader of my Chap. 3 (pp. 115-141) can be sure that quotations of less than one line and paraphrases of lines are far more numerous. There is no doubt that Jerome has changed his attitude in practice. We must ask, then: Does he really quote from memory, as he says in the same passage where he denies having read the classics during the last fifteen years:⁵⁵Et si quid forte inde, dum loquimur, obrepit, quasi antiqui per nebulam somnii recordamur?

There is a great deal to be said against this. When Jerome wrote the first commentaries, his school-days, according to Cavallera's chronology, were at least twenty years back in the past. And would his memory of secular authors read at school still have been so fresh—in spite of his learning Greek and Hebrew, in spite of the manifold new interests and the literary activity that filled the many years between? There is very little likelihood of its being possible; I think psychologists will agree on this point. Now, special circumstances, too, call for our attention.

1. The prefaces to Quaest. hebr. in gen. and In Mich. lib. II (quoted in full pp. 130 sqq. and 137 sq.) are composed, like a mosaic, of pieces put together both from the Bible and from many secular authors. The latter contains literal quotations from three of Terence's prologues, those to Andria, Eunuchus and Adelphoe, besides other borrowings from the prologue to Andria. It stands to reason that Jerome looked up these passages when he, like Terence, had to answer malevolent criticism.
2. Is it mere chance, I have asked before (p. 128), that three of the four quotations from Horace occurring in In Eccles. belong to the first book of the Epistles, and, more expressly, to the first two epistles?
3. The only imitation of Seneca's tragedies that has been pointed out hitherto is to be found in this period (see p. 118).
4. If poetical lines, because of their metrical form, easily imprint themselves on our mind, it is just the contrary with prose. It therefore gives cause for reflection that a passage in Cicero's Pro Marcello (Ch. 10, see p. 134) is quoted word for word in In Hab. 2,9 p. 617, and that the following paragraph likewise is quoted literally in a much later commentary (In Ezech. lib. III praef. p. 80). It is out of the question that Jerome could have retained in his memory the very wording of those passages for about 20 and 45 years respectively. Considering the other cases mentioned here I do not doubt that he had Cicero's speech before him when he wrote.⁵⁶
5. Not until this period did Jerome take a real interest in Cicero's philosophical works (see pp. 291 sq., 331, 377).
6. The same can be said in the case of Sallust. Nearly half of the quotations from him are to be found in the writings of this period; above all some prefaces are conspicuous for such adornment (see p. 294).

Whether or not Jerome kept the oaths taken in the dream, is a bone of contention among scholars. Among those who believe his word, Eiswirth has recently taken matters to an extreme: he denies that Jerome ever read secular classics after the dream, either during the period in question or subsequently.⁵⁷ Most scholars take up a sceptical attitude. This is to-day the communis opinio, as Eiswirth concedes (p. 13), quoting Rostagni's verdict: "II solenne giuramento—si sa—non fu mantenuto."⁵⁸ Only there are differences of opinion as to the date of Jerome's resuming his reading of the classics. According to Geffcken⁵⁹ and Kunst,⁶⁰) he did so a short time after the dream, according to Grtitz-macher,⁶¹" and Cavallera⁶² he kept his promise for a long time. Pease is more precise: "In the light, then", he says, "of Jerome's statements and practice it is likely that the vision had some effect for fifteen years or so, but after that he regarded it as in no way binding."

I for my part agree in the main with Pease's opinion. Considering the arguments, both general and special, which I have brought forward, I think it is out of the question that Jerome at the time of the first commentaries quoted from memory. I conclude that at this time there was a change in his attitude in two respects: he began both to read and to quote the secular authors. Facts have a greater weight than words.

The discrepancy between Jerome's words and actions appears distinctly in other passages of the commentary on Galatians. He declines to quote Varro and states the reason for it as follows: Nobis propositum est incircumcisos homines non introducere in templum Dei (In Gal. lib. II praef. pp. 425-426, see above p. 120). But in the same book he quotes illa sententia nobilis apud Romanos poetae (Ter. Andr. 68. In the preface to the third book he discusses principles of style in a way so contradictory that Eiswirth admits having the impression that there were two souls in his breast.⁶³) This is the heart of the matter. Asceticism and culture were the two poles in Jerome's life. As has been said before (p. 92), "he never succeeded in getting over the internal conflict or in reaching a stable equilibrium".

Why did he change his attitude? I think we can answer this question by considering his situation. When he burst into literary activity, he had for many years been silent before the public. His tongue was corroded by rust, as he says;⁶⁴ he had ruined his style, omnem sermonis elegantiam et Latini eloquii venustatem, by learning Hebrew, by desisting from reading the classics, by the necessity of dictating instead of writing.⁶⁵ "I know what I have lost in the use of my language".⁶⁶ No wonder if renewed acquaintance with the classics suggested itself to him as a remedy. Later he suspected Rufinus of being a reader of Cicero: Aut ego fallor aut tu Ciceronem occulte lectitas (Adv. Rufin. I. 30; see above p. 174); only so, he says ironically, could he account for the richness of his style (tanta verborum copia, sententiarum lumen, translationum varietas). Jerome speaks from personal experience. At the time of Galatians his own case was the same.

The radical change of procedure is undisguised in the pamphlet against Iovinianus (A.D. 393) with which the third period begins. The introductory chapter (quoted pp. 143 sqq.) could as well have been written by a lettered pagan, some other chapters are entirely filled with pagan topics, others are a mosaic put together from Christian and pagan elements and quotations. And, finally, Jerome declares openly that he will allege exempla saecularis quoque litteraturae, ad quam et ipse (sc. Iovinianus) provocat (I. 4) and mentions as his sources Aristotle, Plutarch and Seneca (I. 49); moreover, a long quotation is passed off under the name of Theophrastus (I. 47). It is quite another matter that we cannot take it for granted that he really read and used precisely those authors, except Seneca (and perhaps Plutarch); there is every probability that he got his knowledge of Aristotle and Theophrastus through Porphyrius, the Neo-Platonic philosopher and enemy of Christianity, whom he plagiarizes unblushingly in II. 6-14, of course without mentioning him.⁶⁷

This reticence as to his real source is as misleading as the boastful reference to authors known only through intermediaries. Both procedures are well-known from other writings of the ten years 393-402. The long borrowings from Cicero's Cato maior in Epist. 52 (pp. 192 sq.) and from Quintilian in Epist. 107 (pp. 197 sqq.) are unacknowledged, and so are also the two quotations of Plin. Epist. II. 3, 8-9 in Epist. 53. Nobody who knows anything about literary technique can doubt that Jerome, when writing, had those authors before him.

On the other hand, nobody will believe that he was familiar, as he says in Epist. 60, with Crantors, Plato's, Diogenes', Clitomachus', Carneades' and Posidonius' consolatory writings; the chances are that his knowledge of them was due to Cicero, whose Consolatio is hinted at in passing. As to his habit of scattering about in his writings the names of Greek philosophers, he was bound to admit, in reply to Rufinus' mockery, that he derived his knowledge of them from Cicero, Brutus and Seneca.

There is a distinct increase in Cicero's influence in this period; in fact, everything goes to show that it was not until then that Jerome took a real interest in Cicero's philosophical writings. The quotations from Virgil, too, increase considerably and reach their height in the last commentaries of the fourth period. It is also a matter of importance that authors who have left no traces in earlier writings make their appearance: Pliny the Younger is quoted only in letters dating from A.D. 395 and 398, Lucanus for the first time in a letter written in 394-395 and then not until the years 408-414. As to Terence, his influence seems to undulate; it suggests that Jerome again and again resumed his reading of the comicus.

Now, what we must infer from our analysis of Jerome's writings, is in perfect harmony with facts of which Rufinus gives us a glimpse (Apol. adv. Hier. II. 8). Firstly, in Rufinus' convent on the Mount of Olives, his monks copied most of Cicero's dialogues on behalf of Jerome, and Rufinus often had the copies in his hands and corrected them, because Jerome paid a higher price for them than for other writings. Secondly, Rufinus himself got from Jerome a codex containing unus dialogus Ciceronis et idem ipse Graecus Platonis. Thirdly, a few years before A.D. 400 Jerome in his convent in Bethlehem performed the duties of a teacher of a grammar school (partes grammaticas exsecutus sit) and explained Virgil, the comedians, the lyrics and the historians to boys (Maronem suum comicosque ac lyricos et historicos auctores traditis sibi ad discendum Dei timorem puerulis exponebat). It is true, we have only Rufinus' word for these data, but, as Jerome does not answer the indictment in his pamphlet against Rufinus, we can take it for granted that they are true.

The alteration of Jerome's attitude, which we have endeavoured to follow step by step, is reflected in Epist. 70 (written in 397). Against reproaches for quoting secular literature Jerome advances in his defence that Moses, the prophets, Solomon and Paul did the same. In comparison with Greek apologists, who answered the enemies of Christianity, Jerome, he says, will be found to be indoctissimus. A long succession of Greek Fathers is passed in review whose works are so filled with pagan philosophy that it is impossible to know, quid in illis primum admirari debeas, eruditionem saeculi an scientiam scripturarum. The same is true of Latin ecclesiastical writers.

Nowhere else has Jerome taken such a firm stand in defence of secular learning. There is the greatest distance conceivable between this attitude and that proclaimed fourteen years before in the letter to Damasus (Epist. 21), and it is thrown into strong relief by the different use made of Deut. 21, 10-13 about the captive woman getting married to an Israelite. At the same time, however, we get new evidence of Jerome's inconsistency. For he repeats substantially the statement made in the preface to Galatians: Invenies nos … imperitissimos et post tanti temporis otium vix quasi per somnium, quod pueri didicimus, recordari (Epist. 70, 3, 2).

He falls back upon the same line of defence in Adv. Rufin. I. 30: Dixi me saeculares litteras deinceps non lecturum: de futuro sponsio est, non praeteritae memoriae abolitio. "Et quomodo", inquies, "tenes, quod tanto tempore non relegis?" The answer is characteristic of Jerome's polemical method. First, he says, he will allege aliquid de veteribus libris and quotes a Virgilian line: 'Adeo in teneris consuescere multum' (Georg. II. 272). Then he begins to talk of his childhood—Quis nostrum non meminit infantiae suae?—of the first years at school and of the declamations before the rhetor. The short tale is coloured by reminiscences of Cicero (Tusc. III. 31), Horace (Epist. II. 1, 70 sq.; ib. I. 2, 69 sq.) and Lucretius (cf. VI. 1074 sqq.). After mentioning his study of dialectics (with a borrowing from Cicero, Tusc. I. 14) he proclaims solemnly: Iurare possum me postquam egressus de schola sum, haec numquam omnino legisse. An inattentive reader can easily be deceived by this oath; in reality, it refers only to dialectics. Lastly he makes a counter-attack and supposes Rufinus to be a reader of Cicero because of his much boasted style.

"This would be my answer", he continues, "if I had made a promise when awake. Now, by an unprecedented shamelessness, he expostulates with me on a dream! Listen to the prophets: dreams are not to be trusted". Non tibi sufficiunt quae de vigilante confingis, nisi et somnia crimineris.

Nobody, I think, will be swayed by such quibbling which only shows to what a state of embarrassment Jerome was brought by the indictment. He denies being bound by a dream; so far his practice is in harmony with his words. But when he gives us to understand that he still quotes from memory, he makes too great a call upon our credulity.

In the fourth period there is nothing new to be seen in his attitude besides the fact that Cicero's and Virgil's influence increases and reaches its maximum.

Writings dating from about the same time often differ considerably as to the use made of secular learning and literature. Generally speaking, the more the style is elaborated, the more frequent are the non-Christian elements, and vice versa. The one extreme is represented by the artless sermons which, with only a few exceptions, are devoid of classical elements, the other by the polemical pamphlets, the necrologies, the didactic and moralizing letters where frequent quotations of the classics, above all of Virgil, serve to enhance and adorn the style. This suggests also that the kind of literature to which a writing belongs plays an important part. Jerome likewise pays regard to the degree of education of those to whom he writes or dedicates a work, as we have seen in the case of Paulinus of Nola (pp. 185 sqq.) and of Pammachius (p. 224). But we are warned not to overstress this point by recalling the difference in classical quotations between In Isaiam and In Ezechielem both of which are dedicated to Eustochium.

The inconsistency of Jerome's attitude easily conveys the impression that he yielded to strong prejudices in the Christian world which he did not dare to brave, and so far we could be, and in some measure also are, entitled to talk of hypocrisy. But we do not do Jerome justice, I think, by laying too much stress upon this point of view. In his case, matters lie deeper. His inconsistency reflects the inner conflict of his soul. He was a Christian ascetic and felt strongly the incompatibility of this ideal and the humanism of pagan antiquity. But he was also a rhetor brought up in the atmosphere of the old cultural legacy. He felt attracted and repelled—at the same time. For a time the one feeling prevailed over the other, but he never reached a stable equilibrium. As a Christian he felt bound to reject pagan literature. But he did not cease admiring it and reading it—apart from a short interruption caused by the dream. To this reading he owes more than his incomparable style. If any Latin Father can be called a humanist, it is certainly Jerome.

Notes

¹Praescr. haer. 7.

²Epist. 22, 29, 7.

³Adv. Pelag. I. 14.

⁴ Cf. Gerard L. Ellspermann, The Attitude of the Early Christian Latin Writers toward Pagan Literature and Learning (The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, LXXXI, Washington 1949), pp. 9 sqq.

⁵ A. D. Leeman, Hieronymus' droom. De betekenis van Cicero voor Christendom en humanisme (Leiden 1952), p. 3: "De zielestrijd in deze mens (sc. Hieronymus), waarin Cicero optreedt als de tegenspeler van Christus, kunnen wij zien als een paroxysme in de strijd tussen twee werelden, twee geesteshoudingen, die van de tijd der kerkvaders tot in onze dagen heeft voorgeduurd". Why and how Cicero played this part, is the subject of this excellent paper (an inaugural lecture at the University of Amsterdam).—Cf. also P. Antin Essaisur saint Jérôme (Paris, 1951), p. 55: "Dans la grande alternative, qui est proposée à Jérôme, cicéronien ou chrétien, Cicéron représente toute la littérature profane, tout l'humanisme gréco-romain".

⁶ Cf. Henri-Irénée Marrou, Histoire de l'éducation dans l'éducation dans l'antiquité (2e éd. Paris 1950), chap. IX, pp. 416 sqq; Ellspermann, pp. I sqq.

⁷ T. Homes Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose (Oxford 1935), I, p. 8.

⁸ E. g. Praef. Iob (PL 28, 1141) = Adv. Rufin. II. 29 In Latino paene ab ipsis incunabulis inter grammaticos et rhetores et philosophos detriti sumus.—On Jerome's education I refer to Grützmacher, I, pp. 111-129; Cavallera, I, pp. 5-17.

⁹ Cf. about Helvidius Virg. Mar. I Hominem rusticanum et vix primis quoque imbutum litteris; ib. 16 Praetermitto vitia sermonis quibus omnis liber tuus scatet; about Iovinianus Adv. Iovin. I. I Verum scriptorum tanta barbaries est et tantis vitiis spurcissimus sermo confusus, ut… (see above p. 143; cf. also Adv. Pelag. prol. 2 p. 695 lovinianus … tam elinguis et sic sermonis putidi, ut magis misericordia dignus fuerit quam invidia); about Vigilantius Adv. Vigil. 4 Est verbis quidem imperitus et scientia et sermone inconditus. Above all he criticizes Rufinus (see p. 174) and advises him to put himself to school again.…

¹⁰ E. g. about the genera dicendi: Epist. 49, 13, 1 (see above p. 158) Adv. Rufin. I. 15 Docebo senex quod puer didici, multa esse genera dictionum; about the panegyric: Epist. 60, 8, 1 Praecepta sunt rhetorum, ut maiores eius qui laudandus est et eorum altius gesta repetantur sicque ad ipsum per gradus sermo perveniat.

¹¹ E. g. Epist. 50, 1, 2 sq.…

¹²Adv. Rufin. 1. 30 Nunc cano et recalvo capite saepe mihi videor in somnis comatulus et sumpta toga ante rhetorem controversiolam declamare. Cumque experrectus fuero, dicendi periculo gratulor me liberatum.

¹³Adv. Ioh. 2 (PL 23, 372) Putes eum non expositionem fidei sed figuratam controversiam scribere. Quod iste nunc appetit, olim in scholis didicimus. Nostra adversum nos dimicat armatura. Adv. Pelag. I. 23 In ipsis controversiis in quibus quondam pueri lusimus. …

¹⁴ Quotations from Seneca rhetor: see p. 297, from Pseudo-Quintilian's Declamationes maiores: pp. 296 sq., from anonymous controversiae: In Mich. 6, 5-7 p. 517, etc.…

¹⁶ I refer to my book La correspondance de Ruricius (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift, LVIII, Goteborg 1952), pp. 93 sqq.…

¹⁹ Cf. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa, II, p. 529: "In der Theorie haben sie (die christlichen Autoren) von den altesten Zeiten bis tief in das Mittelalter hinein fast ausnahmslos den Standpunkt vertreten, dass man ganz schlicht schreiben müsse, in der Praxis haben sie das gerade Gegenteil befolgt".

²⁰ This had been a commonplace since Origen (cf. Norden, op. cit., II, p. 516 n. 1). Sulpicius Severus had luck with his antithesis: Meminerint (sc. lectores) salutem saeculo non ab oratoribus … sed a pisca-toribus praedicatam (Mart. praef. 3 sq.).

²¹ Jerome's attitude, as usual, is inconsistent. Compare e. g. Epist. 22, 30, 2 Si quando … prophetam legere coepissem, sermo horrebat incultus and Epist. 53, 10, I Nolo offendaris in scripturis sanctis simplicitate et quasi vilitate verborum, quae vel vitio interpretum vel de industria sic prolatae sunt, ut rusticam contionem facilius instruerent.

²² Tract. de ps. 78 (Anecdota Maredsolana, III: 2 p. 67, 14: Ego vero simpliciter rusticana simplicitate et ecclesiastica ita tibi respondebo: ita enim apostoli responderunt, sic sunt locuti, non verbis rhetoricis et diabolicis.

²³In Eccles. p. 467 Quemcumque in ecclesia videris declamatorem et cum quodam lenocinio ac venustate verborum excitare plausus, risus excutere, audientes in affectus laetitiae concitare, scito signum esse insipientiae tam eius qui loquitur quam eorum qui audiunt. Epist. 52, 8, 1 Dicente te in ecclesia non clamor populi, sed gemitus suscitetur … Nolo te declamatorem esse et rabulum garrulumque … In Ezech. 33, 23 sqq. p. 404. Tales sunt usque hodie multi in ecclesiis qui aiunt: 'Venite audiamus illum et illum, mira eloquentia praedicationis suae verba volventem, plaususque commovent et vociferantur et iactant manus. lb. 34, Is sqq. p. 412.—Jerome's own sermons (Anecdota Maredsolana, III: 2-3) are so accommodated to the simplicity of the brethren that the style is all but unrecognizable as his.

²⁴ Cf. further In Sophon. 3, 14 sqq. p. 730 Haec scio molesta esse lectori, qui si animadverterit non me controversias et declamationes scribere nec in locis exsultare communibus sed commentarios et commentarios prophetarum, reprehendet potius sicubi rhetorum more ludere voluero quam arguet in tantis obscuritatibus ut dignum est immorantem. In Os. 2, 16-17 p. 25 Neque enim Hebraeum prophetam edisserens oratoriis debeo declamatiunculis ludere et in narrationibus atque epilogis Asiatico more cantare. Ib. 10, 13 p. 118 Neque enim rhetorum more sententias repetimus, verba construimus et audientes vel legentes in laudes nostras declamationibus suscitamus, sed quae obscura sunt, maxime alienae linguae hominibus explanare nitimur. In Ezech. lib. V praef. p. 164 In quo (sc. quinto volumine) nihil ex arte rhetorica, nihil ex compositione reperies et venustate verborum.

²⁵In Is. lib. VIII praef. p. 328 Certe nos studiosis scribimus et sanctam scripturam scire cupientibus, nec fastidiosis et ad singula nauseantibus.

²⁶ "Encore qu'il vise dans ses commentaires à un style dépouillé, simple et claire", says Dom P. Antin (op. cit., p. 158), "il ne peut s'empêcher parfois de parler en rheteur habile et magnifique".

²⁷Epist. 97, 3, 1 In qua laborasse me fateor, ut verborum elegantiam pari interpretationis venustate servarem … et eloquentiae eiusfluenta non perderem.

²⁸ Cf. pp. 111, 143, 166, 173. Cavallera (I: 1, p. 12) cites de Tillemont's judgment: "Quiconque l'a eu pour adversaire a presque toujours et le dernier des hommes".

²⁹In Gal. 2, 11-13 p. 408 (PL 26, 365) Aliquoties cum adolescentulus Romae controversias declamarem et ad vera certamina fictis me litibus exercerem, currebam ad tribunalia iudicum et disertissimos oratorum tanta inter se videbam acerbitate contendere, ut omissis saepe negotiis in proprias contumelias verterentur et ioculari se invicem dente morderent.

³⁰In Ionam 3, 6 sq. p. 420 (PL 25, 1198) Quem non inebriavit non animos eloquentia saecularis? Cuius compositione verborum et disertitudinis suae fulgore perstrinxit? Even though he rejects the carmina poetarum, saecularis sapientia, rhetoricorum pompa verborum as being daemonum cibus (Epist. 21, 13, 4), he cannot hold back his admiration: Haec sua omnes suavitate delectant et, dum aures versibus dulci modulatione currentibus capiunt, animam quoque penetrant et pectoris interna devinciunt.…

³² A few passages referring to school education may be quoted. Epist. 60, 5, 1 Quid agimus, anima? quo nos vertimus? quid primum adsumimus? quid tacemus? Exciderunt tibi praecepta rhetorum et occupata luctu, oppressa lacrimis, praepedita singultibus dicendi ordinem non tenes! Ubi illud ab infantia studium litterarum … ? lb. 69, 6, 1 Reddamus, quod paulo ante promisimus, et de schola rhetorum aquarum laudes et baptismi praedicemus. lb. 117, 12, 1 Haec ad brevem lucubratiunculam celeri sermone dictavi … quasi ad scholasticam materiam me exercens … simulque ut ostenderem obtrectatoribus meis, quod et ego possim quicquid venerit in buccam dicere (cf. Adv. Vigil. 3 p. 389). Adv. Rufin. I. I Videtis nos intelligere prudentiam eius et praedicationis diasyrticae strophis in scholis saepe lusisse?

³³ Cf. In Abd. 20-21 Neque enim ea lenitate (to write laevitate?) et compositione verborum dictamus ut scribimus. Epist. 21, 42 Saepe causatus sum excoli non posse sermonem, nisi quem propria manus limaverit. Itaque ignosce dolentibus oculis, id est ignosce dictanti.

³⁴In Ezech. lib. VII praef. pp. 239-240 Ista quae notariorum stilo cudimus et ad quae emendanda spatium vix habemus. In Zach. lib. II praef. pp. 825-826. Quem (sc. librum) tanta celeritate dictamus, ut paene non sit emendandi spatium. lb. lib. III praef. pp. 881-882 Urget me frater Sisinnius incompta et impolita transmittere, ut non dicam emendandi sed ne relegendi quidem habeam facultatem … et quicquid sensu concipimus, composito non licet ornare sermone. In Is. lib. V praef. pp. 169-170 Dictamus haec, non scribimus, currente notariorum manu currit oratio. Ib. lib. XIII praef. p. 534 Hanc praefationem tumultuario sermone dictavi, ut quae habentur in schedulis describantur et plena emendatio lectoris iudicio reservetur.

³⁵In Matth. prol. p. 5-6.

³⁶ I refer to my remarks in Gnomon XV (1939), 88 sq. about two dissertations on Jerome's prose rhythm: P. C. Knook, De overgang van metrisch tot rythmisch proza bij Cyprianus en Hieronymus (thesis, Amsterdam 1932) and Sister Margaret Clare Herron, A Study of the Clausulae in the Writings of St. Jerome (The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies LI, thesis, Washington 1937).

³⁷Apol. adv. Hier. I. 10 (PL 21, 548).

³⁸ P. 93 …

⁴² Cf. Arthur Stanley Pease, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philogical Association, L, (1919), 161 sq.; Ellspermann, pp. 155 sq.—Tertullian's verdict (Adv. Hermog. 8): Philosophi, patriarchae hereticorum, is quoted with approval in Epist. 133, 2, 1.…

⁴⁴ In Dan. 1,2 Si enim cunctos philosophorum revolvas libros, necesse est ut in eis reperias aliquam partem vasorum Dei, ut apud Platonem fabricatorem mundi Deum, ut apud Zenonem, Stoicorum principem, inferos et immortales animas et unum bonum, honestatem.

⁴⁵In Tit. 1, 2 sqq. (PL 26, 593) Est plane veritas quae non habet pietatem, si quis grammaticam artem noverit vel dialecticam, ut rationem recte loquendi habeat et inter falsa et vera diiudicet. Geometria quoque et arithmetica et musica habent in sua scientia veritatem, sed non est scientia illa pietatis.

⁴⁶ For a survey of their opinions see Rudolf Eiswirth, Hieronymus' Stellung zur Literatur und Kunst (Klassisch-Philologische Studien, herausgegeben von Hans Herter und Wolfgang Schmid. Heft 16. Wiesbaden 1955), pp. 10 sqq.

⁴⁷ The extreme is represented by A. Schöne, who calls Jerome's relation "eines der argerlichsten Musterstücke verlogener Rhetorik, mühsam ausgesonnener Begeisterung und unechter Frömmigkeit" (Die Weltchronik des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hieronymus, Berlin, 1900, p. 240). E. Bickel, "Das asketische Ideal bei Ambrosius, Hieronymus und Augustin", Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Alterium, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur, XIX (1916), p. 456, agrees with Schone.

⁴⁸ Pierre de Labriolle, "Le songe de St Jérôme", Miscellanea Geronimiana (Roma 1920), pp. 227-235.

⁴⁹ Cavallera (I: 2, p. 77) calls special attention to this fact: "Les passages ou il s'en occupe dans la controverse avec Rufin … confirment expressément la réalité du songe. Jérôme ne pense pas à la nier".

⁵⁰ In the preceding letter (Epist. 21, 13,4) it is called daemonum cibus.…

⁵² This line of exegesis goes back to Origen and is followed by both Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine; owing to their influence it was transmitted to the Middle Ages, where it played an important rôle; see Bernhard Blumenkranz' interesting paper "Siliquae porcorum (cf. Luc, XV, 16). L'exégèse médiévale et les sciences profanes", Mélanges d'histoire du moyen âge dédiés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), pp. 11-17.

⁵³ It may be noticed that the same passage is hinted at in Epist. 22, 29, 7.

⁵⁴ Except in two letters to Marcella. …

⁵⁵In Gal. lib. III praef. pp. 485-486.

⁵⁶ Cf. above p. 239.

⁵⁷ P. 18 "Als Gesamtergebnis lasst sich feststellen, dass ernstlich kein Beweis vorliegt, dass Hieronymus nach seinem Traumgelöbnis bis zu den Pauluskommentaren die Klassiker sich neu vorgenommen, wenn er sie auch von Zeit zu Zeit zitiert, um seinen Stil zu heben". Pp. 28 sq. "So scheint es mir im ganzen nicht möglich, aus den von Kunst angefuhrten oder sonst bekannten Beispielen zwingend zu beweisen, dass Hieronymus sein Traumversprechen gebrochen …; ja nicht einmal, dass er die Klassiker wieder gelesen habe … Allerdings zitiert er die Klassiker in späteren Abschnitten seines Lebens wieder häufiger als unmittelbar nach dem Traum. Auch sind die Zitate bisweilen umfangreicher. Doch is nirgends mehr als sein gutes Gedächtnis zur Erklärung notwendig". Eiswirth, here as elsewhere, makes too great a demand upon a scholar's credulity: hundreds of passages quoted word for word over more than fifty years without any refreshing of the memory! Psychologists could teach him something about the capacity and function of memory. Eiswirth is preceded by Lübeck who says (p. 9): "Probabile est quae postea ex 'gentilibus' scriptoribus affert ea memoriae magis quam iteratae lectioni deberi".

⁵⁸ A. Rostagni, Storia della Letteratura Latina, II (Torino, 1952), p. 664.

⁵⁹ J. Geffcken, "Antike Kulturkämpfe", Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur, XXIX (1912), p. 606 n. 1: "Hieronymus hat sich jedoch ziemlich schnell von seiner geistigen Beklemmung erholt".

⁶⁰ Op. cit., p. 176 "Hoc quidem promisso stare nequivit ac perbrevi vetus studium et consuetudo diuturna revixerunt".

⁶¹ Op. cit., I, p. 154 "Lägere Zeit hat er dieses Gelübde auch gehalten".

⁶² Op. cit., I: 1, p. 31 "II est incontestable toutefois qu'au moment même et de longues années encore, l'impression persista profonde et se traduisit par le renoncement absolu à toute lecture profane n'ayant pour but que le divertissement".

⁶³ Op. cit., p. 15 "Lasst man den Prolog so auf sich wirken, dann hat man den Eindruck, dass Hieronymus zwei Seelen in seiner Brust hat", etc.

⁶⁴Vita Malchi 1 p. 41 Ego qui diu tacui … prius exerceri cupio in parvo opere et veluti quandam rubiginem linguae abstergere.

⁶⁵In Gal. lib. III praef. pp. 485-486.

⁶⁶ Ib.

⁶⁷ I refer to Bickel's Diatribe in Senecae philosophi fragmenta and to my account in Chap. 4, pp. 150 sqq. Eiswirth mentions Bickel's book once (p. 23: "Bickel hat ja glänzend nachgewiesen, dass er in adv. lovinian u. a. auch Seneca benutzt hat", etc.), but he has not been much influenced by this research, the most penetrating that exists into Jerome's method of using sources. Nor does he pay regard to Adv. Iovin., where pagan topics and quotations take up a greater deal of space than in any other work of Jerome's.…