[In the following excerpt, Fremantle critically appraises Jerome as translator, expositor, theologian, church and general historian, and letter writer.]

… 1. As a translator, Jerome deserves the highest place for his clear conviction of the importance of his task, and the perseverance against great obstacles which he displayed. This is shewn especially in his prefaces, which are of great value as shewing his system. For the most part he took very great pains, but not with all alike. The Chronicles, for instance, he went over word by word with his Hebrew teacher; Tobit he translated in a single day. His method was, first, never to swerve needlessly from the original; second, to avoid solecisms; third, at all risks, even that of introducing solecisms, to give the true sense. These principles are not always consistently carried through. There is sometimes undue laxity, which is defended in the treatise De Optimo Genere Interpretandi; sometimes there is an unnecessary literalism, which arises from a notion that some hidden sense lies behind the words, but really deprives the words of sense. His versions were during his lifetime both highly prized and greatly condemned. His friend Sophronius translated a great part of them into Greek, and they were read in many of the Eastern churches in Jerome's lifetime. After his death his versions gradually won their way to universal acceptance in the West, and were finally, with some alterations (mostly for the worse), stamped with the authority of the Roman church at the council of Trent.…

2. As an expositor, Jerome lacks originality. His Commentaries are mostly compilations from others; and he gives their views at times without any opinion of his own. This, however, gives these works a special value as the record of the thoughts of distinguished men, such as Origen. His derivations are puerile. His interpretation of prophecy is the merest literal application of it to events in the church. He is often inconsistent, and at times seems to veil his own opinion under that of another. His allusions to the events of his own time as illustrations of Scripture are often of great interest. He wrote in great haste (Pref. to b. ii. of Comm. on Eph. and Pref. to b. iii. of Comm. on Gal.), and from this reason, as well as from his frequently weak health and weak eyes, and also from his great self-confidence, he trusted to his memory too much. His strength and his weakness may be seen in his correspondence with Augustine. He is strong in all that relates to the necessity of translating from the Hebrew, in verbal criticism, and in the quotation of the Greek commentators, but weak in the more philosophical and historical faculty required for the interpretation of such a passage as Gal. ii., which formed the chief subject of controversy between them.

3. The books on Hebrew names, Questions on Genesis, and the site and names of Hebrew places shew a wide range of interest, and are useful contributions to Biblical knowledge, especially the latter, which is often appealed to in the present day. But even here Jerome was too ready to take in the tales of the Jews rather than to exercise an independent judgment.

In theology, properly so called, he is weak. His first letter to Damasus on the Trinitarian controversies at Antioch, while it shews a clear perception of what the church taught, shews also a shrinking from dogmatic questions and a servile submission to episcopal authority. He accepted without question the damnation of all the heathen. His dealings with Origen shew his weakness; he surrendered his impartial judgment as soon as Origen's works were condemned. In the Pelagian controversy the slight sense shewn by him of the importance of the questions at issue contrast markedly with the deep conviction expressed in the writings of Augustine. In some matters, which had not been dealt with by church authority, he held his own; as in the question of the origin of souls, as to which he is decided as a creationist. He puts aside purgatory and scoffs at millenarianism. His views on the Apocrypha and on the orders of the Christian ministry have become classical.

4. For church history he had some considerable faculty, as is shewn by the dialogue with a Luciferian. His knowledge was great, and his sympathies large, when there was no question of church condemnations. His book De Viris Illustribus is especially valuable, and his defence of it against Augustine's criticism shews him a man of wider culture and greater knowledge than his opponent. But the lives of the hermits shew a credulity which would incorporate legend into history. In matters of controversy his ordinary method is to take as absolute truth the decisions of bishops and even the popular feeling in the church, and to use all his powers in enforcing these. His own life and the documents in which its details are imbedded are his best contributions to church history.

5. His knowledge of and sympathy with human history generally was very much like that of the monks of later times. He had much curiosity and considerable knowledge. His translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius shews his interest in history; but it is very uncritical. The mistakes of Eusebius are not corrected but aggravated by the translator; and his own additions shew that his critical faculty was not such as to guard against the admission of considerable errors; and his credulity constantly reveals itself. There is nothing in his writings which shews even the rudiments of a philosophy of history. He knew both the events of his time and facts lying beyond the usual range. He was acquainted, for instance, with the routes to India, and mentions the Brahmans (Ep. xxii. lxx. &c.) and Buddha (Adp. Jov. i. 42). Events like the fall of Rome made a deep impression upon him; but he deals with these very much as the monks of the Middle Ages dealt with the events of their time. He is a recluse; he has nothing of political sagacity, and no sense of human progress.

6. His letters are the most interesting part of his writings, and will always continue to be read with interest. They are very various; they are vivid in their expression of feeling and graphic in their pictures of life. The letters to Heliodorus (14) on the praise of hermit life; to Eustochium (22) on the preservation of virginity in the mixed life of the Roman church and world; to Asella (45) on his departure from Rome; to Nepotian (52) on the duties of the presbyters and monks of his day; to Marcella from Paula and Eustochium (46), giving the enthusiastic description of monastic life among the holy places of Palestine; to Laeta (107) on the education of a child whose grandfather was a heathen priest, whose parents were Christians, and who was herself to be a nun; to Rusticus (125), giving rules which shew the character of the monastic life in those days; all these are literary gems; and the Epitaphia of Blesilla (39), Fabiola (77), Nepotianus (60), Paula (108), and Marcella (127) form a hagiography of the best and most attractive kind.

Style.—

His style is excellent, and he was rightly praised as the Christian Cicero by Erasmus, who contrasts his writings with the monkish and scholastic literature. It is vivid, full of illustrations, with happy turns, such as "lucus a non lucendo," …, "fac de necessitate virtutem," "Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est." The scriptural quotations and allusions are often overdone and forced but there is no unreality or cant in this; and he never loses his dignity except in the case of controversial personalities.

Character.—

A few words must be added on Jerome's character and influence. He was vain, and unable to bear rivals; extremely sensitive as to the estimation in which he was held by his contemporaries, and especially by the bishops; passionate and resentful; but at times becoming suddenly placable; scornful and violent in controversy; kind to the weak and the poor; respectful in his dealings with women; entirely without avarice; extraordinarily diligent in work, and nobly tenacious of the main objects to which he devoted his life. There was, however, something of monkish cowardice in his asceticism, and his influence was not felt by the strong.

Influence.—

His influence grew through his life and increased after his death. If we may use a scriptural phrase which has sometimes been applied to such influence, "He lived and reigned for a thousand years." His writings contain the whole spirit of the church of the middle ages, its monasticism, its contrast of sacred things with profane, its credulity and superstition, its subjection to hierarchical authority, its dread of heresy, its passion for pilgrimages. To the society which was thus in a great measure formed by him, his Bible was the greatest boon which could have been given. But he founded no school and had no inspiring power; there was no courage or width of view in his spiritual legacy which could break through the fatal circle of bondage to received authority which was closing round mankind. As Thierry says in the last words of his work on St. Jerome, "There is no continuation of his work; a few more letters of Augustine and Paulinus, and night falls over the West."