Sulpicius Severus' Use and Abuse of Jerome in the Dialogi

Home , Vigilantius

Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 58, No. 2, April 2007. f 2007 Cambridge University Press 189 doi:10.1017/S0022046906008931 Printed in the United Kingdom

Vir Maxime Catholicus: Sulpicius Severus’ Use and Abuse of Jerome in the Dialogi

by RICHARD J. GOODRICH

This article examines Sulpicius Severus’ use of the image of St Jerome in his Dialogi, a work intended to defend Sulpicius’ earlier Vita Martini, as well as to censure the low standards of the Gallic clergy and ascetics. Sulpicius, by misrepresenting the contents of Jerome’s epistle xxii, was able to offer an indirect critique of his compatriots. Moreover he played to a secondary pro-Rufinian audience by reworking Rufinus’ arguments and casting them in Jerome’s face. These included such sore points as the reception of Jerome’s epistle xxii, his volte-face on the question of Origen and his excommunication by John of Jerusalem. This use of figured speech adds another dimension to this text, one which suggests that Sulpicius was not as friendly towards Jerome as has previously been thought.

ieronymus Stridonensis, St Jerome, has never lacked for critics or detractors. The image of Jerome has always excited strong feelings. H The term ‘image’ is employed deliberately here. In speaking about Jerome, we are really discussing a literary doppelga¨nger, a calculated projection of the man. We know Jerome only through his works and are forced to form an impression of him based on the persona that emerges in those pages.1 But this limitation is not unique to our age; the great majority of late fourth- and early ﬁfth-century readers also knew Jerome through a glass darkly. Jerome spent the last thirty years of his life tucked away in Bethlehem, a backwater far removed from the main centres of Roman political, social and theological activity.2 Jerome existed largely as an image built up in the minds of his readers.

This paper has benefitted from the constructive criticism of a number of individuals, including Gillian Clark, the anonymous reader for this JOURNAL and those who heard it read at the Edinburgh Patristics Seminar and the Jerome of Strido Conference (Cardiff 2004). 1 See Mark Vessey, ‘Jerome’s Origen: the making of a Christian literary persona’, Studia Patristica xxviii (1993), 136–7, for the classical definition of a persona as the mask one dons before appearing before the public. 2 Jerome’s isolation from the world was a recurrent theme in his works. See, for instance, Jerome, ep. cxvii.4. For Jerome’s use of distance to construct a place for himself in other 190 RICHARD J. GOODRICH Although this is true to a certain extent of any writer, Jerome is dis- tinguished by the effort he devoted to crafting, projecting and defending his image through his writings. Whereas the personalities of some writers almost vanish behind their texts,3 Jerome’s overt self-promotion colours all his work. He portrays himself as an ascetic authority par excellence, a biblical exegete with the stature of an Origen4 and as a dogged exponent of orthodoxy – the hound of the heretics. One of my favourite images of Jerome may be found in his ep. xlv to Asella. Having just been driven out of Rome on charges that do not survive, Jerome wrote that ‘Before I became acquainted with the household of the saintly Paula, the entire city (Rome) resounded with my praises. Nearly everyone agreed in judging me worthy of the highest priesthood (i.e. the papacy). Damasus, of blessed memory, spoke my words. I was called holy, humble, eloquent.’5 Had events unfolded differently, hints Jerome, writing aboard the ship that would bear him away from Rome forever, the pontificate of Damasus might have yielded to a Hieronymian papacy. From this personal nadir, Jerome could not resist signalling the heights from which he had fallen, planting in his readers’ minds a hint of the glory that might have been. Jerome was a singularly important man and he had no intention of allowing his readers to forget it. Those who court the approbation of a fickle public run the risk of mockery or rejection. As will be argued in this paper, one reader of Jerome was clearly aware of the possibilities latent in Jerome’s relentless self-promotion. This man was Sulpicius Severus, the west’s leading exponent of St Martin of Tours, who employed Jerome to good effect in his Dialogi. In the following pages I will consider how Sulpicius used Jerome in two significant ways: to upbraid a Gallic audience that questioned Sulpicius’ custodianship of the reputation of St Martin of Tours; and to amuse a pro-Rufinian audience that had praised his earlier work, Vita Martini. Sulpicius, as we shall see, employed Jerome as a character in his staged debate, creating a mouthpiece for a hostile critique of Gallic practices and morals. But his aspirations went much farther than this limited goal; I will argue that in the Dialogi – a work that is extremely sophisticated6 and in my opinion largely people’s worlds see Philip Rousseau, ‘Jerome’s search for self-identity’, in Prayer and spirituality in the early Church, Queensland 1998, 132–4. 3 John Cassian is an excellent example of this. His reticence about himself makes it quite difficult to develop a sense of the man behind the texts. On Cassian’s elusiveness as a writer see Columba Stewart, Cassian the monk, Oxford 1998, 3. 4 Stefan Rebenich, Jerome, London 2002, 56; Vessey, ‘Jerome’s Origen’, passim. 5 ‘Antequam domum sanctae Paulae nossem, totius in me urbis studia consonabant. omne paene iudicio dignus summo sacerdotio decernebar; beatae memoriae Damasi os meus sermo erat; dicebar sanctus, dicebar humilis et disertus’: Jerome, ep. xlv.3, CSEL liv.325.6–9. 6 This sophistication has been pointed out by Bernd Reiner Voss, Der Dialog in der fru¨hchristlichen literatur, Munich 1970, 312, who demonstrated Sulpicius’ use of Cicero’s dialogues SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 191 undervalued – Sulpicius took great liberties with Jerome’s literary image, employing what David Ahl labels ‘figured speech’ to poke fun at the master in a very subtle, clever way.7 Although this interpretation of Sulpicius’ work diverges from other recent studies of the Dialogi,8 it does go a long way toward explaining some of the distinctly peculiar features in Sulpicius’ treatment of the simple Bethlehem monk.

The two audiences

Sulpicius Severus’ Dialogi were written c. 404–6.9 The work purports to be the record of a discussion between Sulpicius Severus, an unnamed Gallic monk (Gallus) and Postumianus, a friend who had just returned from visiting the monks of Egypt. The work is divided into three books. In the first book Postumianus offers an account of his journey, seasoning it with marvellous stories about the sanctity and miracle-working abilities of the monks he had visited in the east. Book 2 stands as a counterpoint to book 1. Here the Gallic monk (Gallus) presents a number of tales about the incredible Martin of Tours, anecdotes intended to emphasise the superiority of Martin. Book 3 presses home this theme, although now, word having spread throughout the neighbourhood that Martinian stories were on offer, a large crowd gathers to witness the event. The work concludes with a summing-up by Sulpicius Severus (who has remained largely silent throughout the discussions) in which he avers that while the eastern monks are to be revered, in truth, there is no one anywhere in the world who can trump the example of Martin. The Dialogi were written with at least two audiences in mind. The obvious audience consists of the Gallic monks, priests and bishops who had read and doubted the stories contained in Sulpicius’ Vita Martini. Sulpicius, drawing on a handful of visits with Martin, had produced a hagiographical account of the great man that strained credulity and seemed to have met resistance among those who had known Martin. Scepticism about Sulpicius’ account is as a framework for his own. This extended to the appropriation and incorporation of a number of Ciceronian phrases (p. 312 n. 23). 7 David Ahl, ‘The art of safe criticism in Greece and Rome’, American Journal of Philology cv (1984), 174–208. 8 Clare Stancliffe, St Martin and his hagiographer, Oxford 1983, remains the most important account of Sulpicius’ work; of particular relevance to this article is Yves-Marie Duval, ‘Sulpice Se´ve`re entre Rufin d’AquileéetJe´roˆme dans les Dialogues 1,1–9’, 199–222, in Me´morial Dom Jean Gribomont, Rome 1988, a study that suggests the tension that Sulpicius might have felt if caught between a warring Rufinus and Jerome. Both of these studies build on the premise that the Postumianus character in Dialogi was sincere in his praise of Jerome. The approach developed in this article doubts the sincerity of this apparent flattery. 9 P. Coleman-Norton, ‘The use of dialogue in the Vitae sanctorum’, JTS xxvii (1926), 388; Stancliffe, St Martin, 6. Duval, Sulpice, 202, prefers 403–6 or 407. 192 RICHARD J. GOODRICH signalled by a speech near the end of book 1. Postumianus, having told how the Vita Martini had been reverently received all around the Mediterranean basin, turned his wrath on the local Gauls who disputed Sulpicius’ version: I shudder to recount what I heard recently, that some wretched man said that you lied repeatedly in that book of yours. This is not the voice of a man, but of the Devil! For he does not drag down Martin in this manner, but trust is drained from the Gospels. For since the Lord himself attested that the types of works which Martin has carried out were works that were to be done by all of the faithful, he who does not believe that Martin did these things does not believe that Christ said them. But the wretched, the degenerate, the somnolent, who themselves are unable to do these things, are shamed by the acts of that man, and they would rather deny his virtues than confess their own torpor.10 Sulpicius proposes (through the voice of Postumianus) an explanation for the negative reception of the Vita Martini: his detractors are so ashamed of their degenerate lives that they would rather disbelieve the Martinian stories than confront their own spiritual poverty. This failure to live an appropriate lifestyle has blinded them to higher realities, and explains why they were unable to see in Martin what his worthy followers saw. The obduracy of the mediocre is suggested by one of Gallus’ first stories about Martin. As the bishop blessed the altar in preparation for communion, a great ball of fire shot out of his head and rose into the sky. Among the great crowd gathered for the service, only a handful (Gallus, a priest, a virgin and three other monks) was able to see the divine flames. ‘Why the others were not able to see it, it is not possible for me to judge’, asserted Gallus, primly.11 That Sulpicius was also worthy to be counted a privileged insider emerges in a later story. According to Gallus, he and Sulpicius had stood outside Martin’s cell, eavesdropping on a conversation that filled them with awe and amazement. After two hours, Martin opened his door and emerged from an empty cell. Sulpicius pressed him concerning the voices they had heard. This intrusion on Martin’s privacy was not deemed inappropriate for, as Gallus said, ‘no one spoke more familiarly with Martin than Sulpicius’.12 Eventually Martin was persuaded to reveal the names of his visitors for ‘there was really

10 ‘horreo dicere quae nuper audivi, infelicem dixisse nescio quem, te in illo libro tuo plura mentitum. non est hominis vox ista, sed diaboli, nec Martino in hac parte detrahitur, sed fides Evangeliis derogatur. nam cum Dominus ipse testatus sit istiusmodi opera, quae Martinus implevit, ab omnibus fidelis esse facienda, qui Martinum non credit ista fecisse, non credit Christum ista dixisse. sed infelices, degeneres, somnulenti, quae ipsi facere non possunt, facta ab illo erubescunt, et malunt illius negare virtutes quam suam inertiam confiteri’: Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.26.4–6, CSEL i.178.24–179.3. In this article all citations of the Dialogi will be drawn from Sulpicii Severi: libri qui supersunt, ed. Charles Halm, CSEL i, Vienna 1866; all translations are my own. 11 ‘ceteri cur non viderint, non potest nostri esse iudicii’: ibid. 2.2.2, CSEL i.182.4–5. 12 ‘ac tum iste Sulpicius, sicut apud eum nemo familiarius loquebatur, coepit orare’: ibid. 2.13.3, CSEL i.196.2–3. SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 193 nothing that Sulpicius could not get out of Martin, even against his will’.13 As it turned out, Martin had been speaking with Agnes, Thecla and Mary. At other times he received visits from Peter and Paul. His ethereal companions were not always holy; on occasion he struggled with demons, among whom he found Mercury to be an annoyance, while Jupiter was stupid and a bit of a dolt.14 Quite naturally, knowledge of Martin’s celestial contacts was not widespread; the majority of the monks living in Martin’s monastery had been denied this insider information. Nevertheless, those who chose to hear these stories with a simple faith would immediately recognise the truth in them, for how could Martin have been so famous for his piety without working miracles of this sort? Nor was it surprising that there were many who doubted, for those wretches did not even believe the Gospels.15 Supporting Sulpicius’ Vita Martini and providing ‘independent’ confir- mation of Sulpicius’ status as a Martinian insider was one of the important goals of this text. Another was the work’s attempt to persuade its local readers to amend their lives and adopt Martin’s ascetic standards. According to Sulpicius, the entire world had taken Martin to heart, honouring him as one of the great holy men of the age. It was only in Gaul, only among those who had the best opportunity to learn firsthand from his example, that men and women despised Martin. Preferring their own degeneracy and lax ways, the clerics, virgins and monks of Gaul spurned the salutary model of the bishop of Tours. Although his task of persuading a local audience to adopt the example of St Martin occupies a great deal of the Dialogi, there was a second audience for Sulpicius’ work: those who had read the Vita Martini and approved of the work. This readership is mentioned near the end of Dialogi 1. Here Postumianus details the wide range of readers he had discovered in his travels. The book had made inroads in Africa, and while Postumianus sojourned in the deserts of Egypt, he met a desert Father who begged him to pass on a request to Sulpicius for more Martinian stories.16 The most famous person to have a copy, however, was the senator-turned-ascetic, Paulinus of Nola. According to Postumianus, Paulinus had been the first to introduce the work to the city of Rome. The book had been warmly received in that city and indeed had become a great favourite among the booksellers, who appreciated the demand for the work and the fact that they could sell it for a great deal of money.17 While the idea of a large Mediterranean readership could be discounted as a rhetorical trick designed to put pressure on local sceptics, it does appear

13 ‘sed nihil erat quod ei Sulpicius non extorqueret invito’: ibid. 2.13.4, CSEL i.196.8–9. 14 Ibid. 2.13.6. 15 Another episode casting Sulpicius as an insider is related at the end of this chapter: Sulpicius and Martin were travelling aboard a ship when an angel appeared to tell Martin the results of a synod meeting at Nemausus: ibid. 2.13.8. 16 Ibid.1.23. 17 Ibid. 194 RICHARD J. GOODRICH that Paulinus did have a role in promoting the Vita Martini. Paulinus’ ep. xxix to Sulpicius described two public readings of the work in Nola. The audience for one of these readings had been Bishop Nicetas of Remesiana, a visitor to Nola in 400.18 A separate reading had been offered to the prestigious ascetic, Melania the Elder and her entourage during the party’s sojourn in Nola.19 Nola had been Melania’s first stop in Italy after returning from a twenty-seven-year stay in the Holy Land.20 Not only was her presence important for raising the prestige of Paulinus’ foundation at Nola, but this visit also had symbolic import for the factions headed by Jerome and Rufinus. Coming as it did at the height of the bitter feud between Jerome and Rufinus, the visit and the extended panegyric Paulinus would write about Melania – Rufinus’ powerful patron – would leave Jerome and his supporters with no doubts about where Paulinus’ sympathies lay.21 This pro-Rufinian posture was undoubtedly driven by a growing friendship between Paulinus and Rufinus. Paulinus had met Rufinus sometime between 397 and 399,22 and in 404 he labelled Rufinus ‘a man who has been joined to me by the most profound affection’.23 The pair entered into an extended literary correspondence,24 and Paulinus, who had previously sought ascetic and exegetical advice from Jerome, now directed his queries to Rufinus and Augustine. Of more interest to this article is the way Paulinus portrayed these new relationships in his letters to Sulpicius Severus. Although there are no references to Melania and Rufinus in Paulinus’ letters before the year 400, four of the five extant letters to Sulpicius that postdate Melania’s return from Jerusalem mention either Rufinus or Melania. Paulinus writes about the pair with the enthusiasm of a fresh

18 Paulinus of Nola, ep. xxix.14. For the date see Sigrid Mratschek, ‘Multis enim notissima est sanctitas loci: Paulinus and the gradual rise of Nola as a center of Christian hospitality’, Journal of Early Christian Studies ix (2001), 541. 19 Paulinus, ep. xxix.14. Paulinus wrote about the great carriages filled with important aristocrats that followed Melania during her adventus (ep. xxix.2). For the identity of some of the members of this entourage see Dennis E. Trout, Paulinus of Nola: life, letters, and poems, Berkeley, 20 CA 1999, 207; Mratschek, ‘Multis’, 540–1. Mratschek, ‘Multis’, 539. 21 The best discussion is to be found in Trout, Paulinus, 207, 218–27. See also Pierre Courcelle, ‘ Paulin de Nole et Saint Je´roˆme’, Revue des´ etudes latines xxv (1947), 274–80; Francis Murphy, ‘Rufinus of Aquileia and Paulinus of Nola’, Revue des´ etudes latines ii (1956), 79–91; and C. P. Hammond, ‘The last ten years of Rufinus’ life and the date of his move south from Aquileia’, JTS xxviii (1977), 372–429. 22 Murphy, Rufinus and Paulinus, 80–1, is doubtful about a meeting this early, but Trout, Paulinus, 223–4, follows G. Santaniello, ‘Un’amicizia sofferta in silenzio: Rufino di Concordia e Paolino di Nola’, Teologia e vita v (1997), 76–7, in proposing a meeting between the pair in Rome. 23 ‘ob hoc intima mihi affectione coniunctum’: Paulinus, ep. xxviii.5, CSEL xxix.246. 2–3. 24 See Trout, Paulinus, 226, esp. n. 162. SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 195 convert. His letters to Sulpicius have an evangelistic zeal that certainly could be read as an attempt to recruit Sulpicius to Rufinus’ cause. Two of these letters were accompanied by gifts from Melania to Sulpicius. In ep. xxix Paulinus uses the gift of a tunica to launch a panegyric on her behalf. Sulpicius deserved the tunica because he shared a similar quality of faith with the noble Melania. Not only were Sulpicius and Melania pressed from the same mould, but she was quite similar to Sulpicius’ favorite ascetic, Martin of Tours. Melania is said to have become a devoted admirer of St Martin, based on what she had learned about him from the Vita Martini.25 Paulinus’ ep. xxviii can also be read as an attempt to foster ties between Sulpicius and Rufinus.26 Sulpicius had asked some questions about the history of the Church which Paulinus was unable to answer. Nevertheless, Paulinus asserted, Melania’s companion and his good friend (Rufinus) should be able to answer these queries. If he could not, then Paulinus feared that consultation of any western authority would be in vain.27 Approximately three years after Paulinus sent his gift of Melania’s tunic to Sulpicius he passed on a second gift which also originated with her. Sulpicius was looking for relics to place in the basilica he had constructed in Primuliacum. Paulinus sent him a sliver of the one true cross, a gift from Bishop John of Jerusalem that had been carried west by Melania.28 Considering the spiritual value of a relic of this sort, one is inclined to suspect that this second gift signals that Sulpicius had proved sympathetic to Paulinus’ new acquaintances. Nor should this be surprising; Sulpicius had no obvious contact or connection with Jerome. On the other hand, he was engaged in a deep and abiding friendship with Paulinus of Nola. In a world where social networks could be more important than issues, it should not be startling to find Sulpicius making common cause with the friends of his friend. Sulpicius wrote the Dialogi with this second audience – Paulinus, Melania, Rufinus and a Roman circle of elite readers that gathered around these famous ascetics29 – in mind. Indeed, at the end of the work, Sulpicius enjoined Postumianus to retrace his journey east, carrying with him a record of the ‘discussions’ that had been recorded in the Dialogi. Most important, he was to make sure that nothing prevented him from placing a copy of the work in the hands of Paulinus, a man who would, just as he had done with the Vita Martini, ensure that Rome was acquainted with the new volume.30 Paulinus

25 Paulinus, ep. xxix.14. 26 Peter Walsh, Letters of St Paulinus of Nola, ii, New York 1967, 321, places this letter (probably written in 402) chronologically after ep. xxix. 27 Paulinus, ep. xxviii.5. 28 Idem, ep. xxxi.1–2. 29 See John Curran, ‘Jerome and the sham Christians of Rome’ this JOURNAL xlviii (1997), 218–23, for a description of the elite Roman class that took an interest in theological works and provided an audience for competing ascetic writers. 30 Sulpicius, Dialogi 3.17. 196 RICHARD J. GOODRICH was to repeat his function as a publicist for Sulpicius’ work, making sure that it reached the pro-Ruﬁnian audience that would appreciate the sophisticated, hidden messages that Sulpicius had placed within its pages.

Jerome in the Dialogi

Having delineated two possible audiences for the Dialogi, I would now like to turn to the question of how Sulpicius co-opts Jerome’s image to advance the argument of his work. Jerome is mentioned or alluded to several times in the first book of Dialogi. For the sake of an orderly exposition, I will first consider those places in which Jerome is used to chastise the local, Gallic audience. Following that, I will take up the remaining references, in which Sulpicius seems to be playing with the image of the Bethlehem scholar for a different group of readers. The core of the Jerome material in the Dialogi occurs in chapters 8–9 of book 1. Postumianus has just related the state of affairs in Alexandria (to which we shall return shortly). He leaves that city in disgust, his gaze turned to the east. His destination is Bethlehem, where he intends to visit the presbyter Jerome. According to Postumianus, he had first met Jerome on an earlier trip, and the priest had made such an impression on him that he now held no one in higher esteem. Jerome was a skilled polyglot, famed for his mastery of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. In fact, stated Postumianus, it would be very surprising if the Gauls had not heard of Jerome, because his works were read throughout the known world. At this point, Gallus admits that the Gauls were indeed familiar with Jerome. In fact, five years earlier, Gallus had read a certain book written by Jerome, in which the author had abused and slandered the entire population of Gallic monks. The book had been so condemnatory that even now a certain monk from the north (Belgica) would grow enraged at a mention of the work because Jerome had stated that it was customary for the Gallic monks to stuff themselves with food to the point of vomiting. Having suggested the Gallic reception of Jerome’s criticism, Gallus then strikes a more conciliatory pose. He is inclined to forgive Jerome this harsh condemnation, preferring to believe that gluttony can only be deemed a fault among eastern monks. A Gaul, by nature, has a healthy appetite. Sulpicius chooses to interject a question at this point: did Jerome restrict his criticism to the vice of gluttony? No, answered Gallus. There was no vice that he did not ‘carp over, lacerate, or expose’.31 He attacked vanity, avarice, pride and superstition. Nevertheless, affirms Gallus, he was entirely justified in his denunciation of the inappropriate familiarities between virgins, clerics

31 ‘carperet, laceraret, exponeret’: ibid.1.8.6, CSEL i.160.14. SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 197 and monks. Because Jerome had attacked these unholy relationships, there were certain people (whom Gallus will not name) that grow just as angry about Jerome as the Belgaean monk. Sulpicius now cuts Gallus short, warning him that he had gone too far. Be careful, he says, or the people of Gaul will cease to love you, just as they do not love Jerome. He then admonishes Gallus with a deserved aphorism from Terence: ‘indulgence procures friends, but truth gathers hatred’.32 It would be much better for all parties if the conversation were steered back to Postumianus’ account of his journey. Postumianus leaps eagerly into the breach. Apparently upset that his eastern hero has been slighted, he resumes his panegyric on the qualities of Jerome.33 He claims to have stayed with Jerome for six months; during that time he observed firsthand how diligently Jerome worked to restrain the flood of heresy. His unrelenting offensive against impiety has stirred up all the degenerate. The heretics hate him because he does not stop attacking them, the clerics hate him because he has weighed in against their decadent lifestyles and vices. But, without a doubt, the good love Jerome. Those people who call him a heretic are mad. His knowledge is catholic and his doctrine is sound. He is completely devoted to study and writing, never resting, working day and night. In fact, concludes, Postumianus, if he had not already determined to visit the Egyptian ascetics and, indeed, made a vow to God to do so, he would have been content to spend his entire visit with Jerome in Bethlehem. After a six-month sojourn, Postumianus handed over all of his possessions to, the family that had followed him to Bethlehem and sadly set off for the desert.

Sulpicius and Jerome

Although some scholars have read these chapters as evidence for the idea that Sulpicius respected and admired Jerome,34 when evaluated against the

32 Ibid. 1.9.3, CSEL i.161.1–2, citing Terence, Andria 1.1.41. Terence, Cicero, Sallust and Virgil were the primary authors studied in a Roman education. Terence was used by Augustine (and here by Sulpicius) ‘in short, sententious extracts, usually to lend rhetorical colour and force in moralizing contexts’: Gerard O’Daly, Augustine’s city of God: a reader’s guide, Oxford 1999, 234–5. 33 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.9.4–6. 34 See, for instance, Stancliffe, St Martin, 67: ‘Sulpicius explicitly expresses his admiration for Jerome, whose castigations he regards as particularly apposite for church life in Gaul.’ Duval, Sulpice, sees Sulpicius as caught between a warring Jerome and Rufinus, while Stefan Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis, Stuttgart 1992, 258, attributes Sulpicius’ ambivalent treatment of Jerome to the mixed reception Jerome received in Gaul. David G. Hunter, ‘Vigilantius of Calagurris and Victricius of Rouen: ascetics, relics, and clerics in late Roman Gaul’, Journal of Early Christian Studies vii (1999), 410–11, locates this less-than-favourable opinion of Jerome with Vigilantius and the Gallic bishops who opposed ascetic practices. All of 198 RICHARD J. GOODRICH backdrop of the well-publicised breakdown in relations between Jerome and Rufinus, it becomes apparent that another interpretation is possible. Indeed Jerome is praised in the Dialogi, but he is only praised by one voice, that of Postumianus, the less-than-constant advocate for the east. The other characters in the Dialogi are much more circumspect about Jerome. Sulpicius, for instance, does not endorse Postumianus’ praise of Jerome. In fact, his only direct comment on Jerome is a warning to Gallus to be careful or he might become a target of Gallic hatred, just like Jerome.35 As a character in the Dialogi, Sulpicius adopts a judiciously neutral posture, while planting the idea that Jerome is loathed in Gaul. Through the voice of Gallus, however, Sulpicius is able to assert a less complimentary position. When Gallus responds to Postumianus’ initial panegyric praising Jerome, he uses the phrase ‘indeed he is well-known, even excessively well-known, to us’.36 This reduplication of the adverb, ‘nimium nimiumque’, suggests a Gallic overexposure to the diatribes of Jerome. The vehicle for Jerome’s criticism was a ‘certain book’ written by Jerome, which, based on Gallus’ citation of that work, proves to be Jerome’s ep. xxii to Eustochium.37 This book is said to contain a sweeping indictment of Gallic practices. It has been so excessive that the brother from Belgica is reduced to fury every time he thinks about it. For a local audience, Jerome’s major role is to serve as an external critic of Gallic practices. Postumianus’ introductory praise of Jerome establishes his credentials and brings him into the text. Postumianus sets Jerome up as an authority figure, one whose opinions are received throughout the world. Gallus then offers a Gallic view of Jerome: he is an author who has stirred up a great deal of animosity in Gaul. Most certainly he is mistaken in calling the Gallic monks gluttons. On the other hand, although his criticisms are harsh, they are apposite. Gallus aligns himself with Jerome’s criticisms, if not the spirit in which they were offered. This is especially true when it comes to the censure of clerical practices. Jerome, for Gallus, is not necessarily an admirable figure; he is simply a person who is right when he describes the errors of the Gauls. Postumianus imports Jerome into the text by focusing on the image of the scholar, the Jerome who is the masterful theologian and biblical scholar. Gallus reinterprets this image, casting Jerome as Gaul’s greatest (and most loathed) critic.

these readings presuppose that Sulpicius had a favourable view of Jerome, a notion that will be challenged here. 35 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.9.3. 36 ‘Nobis vero, Gallus inquit, nimium nimiumque conpertus est’: ibid. 1.8.4, CSEL i.160.4–5. 37 Gallus cites a portion of Jerome, ep. xxii.14, CSEL liv.162.4–7: ‘Frater sororem virginem deserit, caelibem spernit virgo germanum, et, cum in eodem proposito esse se simulent, quaerunt alienorum spiritale solacium, ut domi habeant carnale commercium’, at Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.9.2, CSEL i.160.22–4: ‘caelibem spernit virgo germanum, fratrem quaerit extraneum’. SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 199 The Sulpicius character reinforces the image of Jerome as hated critic by closely questioning Gallus about the nature of the criticisms, and then warning him to be careful if he did not want to become as unloved among the Gauls as Jerome. As a literary device, this works to distance Sulpicius from the criticisms offered by his characters. He is not attacking Gallic practices – that job is left to Jerome, Gallus and, later, Postumianus. Postumianus’ second panegyric to Jerome, in Dialogi 1.9, buttresses the image of critic created by Gallus. The emphasis in this second part has shifted from scholarly attainments to Jerome’s orthodoxy and the ceaseless war he wages on heretics. Jerome is a fierce antagonist, asserts Postumianus. The heretics and clerics hate him because he never stops attacking them in his battle for the orthodox, catholic faith. He is an unrelenting hound of the heretics, loved only by those whose lives are upright and admirable. This passage confirms Jerome as a critic of inappropriate practices and suggests that anyone who opposes the reforms proposed by Sulpicius (and by extension Jerome) throughout Dialogi, are in fact heretical and evil. Jerome slips off stage for twelve chapters while Postumianus continues the account of his visit with Egyptian ascetics, but re-emerges as a critic of the Gauls in chapter 21. Here, Postumianus offers an extended account of the failings of the Gallic monks and clergy. Praise, directed to a Gallic holy man or woman, fuels vanity. If a man is made a cleric, he immediately enlarges the fringes of his robe, rejoices in those who address him as presbyter (lit: ‘rejoices in salutations’),38 swells with self-importance because of those who seek him out, and spends his days scurrying around visiting people. He buys a great steed to carry him, where once he had been content to walk. His dwelling must be expanded and refitted; he orders the church widows and virgins to produce soft, embroidered robes for his use.39 Postumianus ends his condemnation of local clerics with the words: ‘but let us leave the description of these things to the more biting commentary of the blessed Jerome’.40 Jerome has resurfaced as the critic of Gallic practices. Postumianus implies that Jerome is in full agreement with his statement, and indeed, that a further treatise on abuses of this kind might be required in order to drive the Gallic clerics back to orthodoxy. The response to this position is once again placed in the mouth of Gallus: I do not know what remains for Jerome to say. You have dealt with our practices so briefly and comprehensively, that these few words of yours will be of great benefit to

38 ‘gaudet salutationibus’: Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.21.3, CSEL i.173.25. Rejoices in the greetings of others seems to be the force of the clause, although it could certainly be interpreted as rejoices in the morning meetings (the salutatio) he now holds as a patron. 39 Ibid. 1.21.3–4. 40 ‘verum haec describenda mordacius beato viro Hieronymo relinquamus’: ibid. 1.21.5, CSEL i.174.5–6. 200 RICHARD J. GOODRICH them, if they listen calmly and weigh them patiently, so that they will not require the bridle of Jerome’s books hereafter.41 Once again Jerome is confirmed as the historical critic of the Gauls, but here a new theme, the possibility of Gallic self-determination, is introduced.42 If the Gauls will only heed Postumianus’ critique, then they will be able to free themselves from the vitriol of Jerome’s works. Indeed, chapter 21 marks a turning point in the work, for after a final story about the east, the emphasis turns to Sulpicius’ main argument, namely that the Gauls do not need external examples or critics, for they have had the blessing of Martin, the greatest example of pious living that anyone could want. From this point the condemnation of Gallic clerics and ascetics is referenced by the piety of Martin. Jerome and the eastern monks exit gracefully, their duties as external critics completed. Jerome is aimed as the critic par excellence at an audience of Gallic monks, priests and bishops. He serves as a buffer between Sulpicius and his immediate audience. Sulpicius never criticises his Gallic counterparts directly; that job is left to Jerome, Postumianus and Gallus. Sulpicius presents himself as a neutral party in the dialogue. When Postumianus implores Sulpicius to speak about the lax practices of the Gallic clerics, Sulpicius replies, ‘I am not only silent now, but for some time I have been disposed to be silent concerning these things … therefore I beg you to be quiet lest what you are saying might increase their jealousy toward me.’43 These words, along with those in which he cautions Gallus against criticising the Gauls,44 open a literary distance between Sulpicius and the views expressed by his characters. He portrays himself as a judicious listener rather than a critic of his primary audience.

41 ‘Tu vero, inquit Gallus meus, nescio quid Hieronymo reliqueris [disputandum]: ita breviter universa nostrorum instituta conplexus est, ut pauca haec tua verba, si aequanimiter acceperint et patienter expenderint, multum eis arbitrer profutura, ut non indigeant libris posthac Hieronymi coerceri’: ibid. CSEL i.174.7–11. 42 Prior to this, the Gauls have been held up to the standard of the eastern monks. The stories of the Egyptian ascetics that make up the bulk of book 1 of the Dialogi can be read as an implicit criticism of Gallic practices. For instance, the case of the Cyrene presbyter whom Postumianus encounters in Dialogi 1.4–5 serves as counterpoint to the behaviour Postumianus castigates in chapter 21. Whereas ordination equates to upward mobility for a Gaul, the Cyrene presbyter is the model of humility, living free from avarice, luxury and inﬂated self- opinion. He lives in a shack in the middle of the desert; he shares his spare meals with his visitors (a bundle of herbs and half a barley cake); his clothing is made of animal skins; it takes seven days in his company before the visitors discover that he is a priest, and on their parting, when Postumianus attempts to oﬀer him a few gold coins, he refuses the gift. A marked contrast to the Gauls. 43 ‘Ego vero, inquam, non solum modo taceo, sed olim de istis tacere disposui … unde quaeso taceatis, ne etiam quod vos loquimini ad meam referatur invidiam’: Sulpicius, Dialogi 2.8.3,4, CSEL i.189.21–2; 190.5–6. 44 Ibid. 1.9.3. SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 201 Misrepresenting the master

There was, however, more than one audience for this work. This article has considered how Sulpicius employed Jerome’s image to chastise his Gallic readers. But is there more to this text than what readily meets the eye? Did Sulpicius have fun with Jerome’s image to amuse a pro-Rufinian audience, his second group of readers? We need turn only to Sulpicius’ presentation of Jerome as a Gallic critic. Gallus, as noted above, stated that he had read Jerome’s ep. xxii to Eustochium, and asserted that it offered a condemnation of both Gallic gluttony and the inappropriate relationships between virgins and clerics/monks. Gallus even goes so far as to quote ep. xxii, where Jerome scourges the virgins who are entering into illicit relationships with the clergy. Moreover, the book has so harshly criticised the Gauls that certain people, such as the brother from Belgica, fly into a rage whenever Jerome is mentioned. What then are we to make of the fact that nothing Gallus has said about the letter is actually true? There is no condemnation of Gallic monks, presbyters or virgins in the pages of ep xxii. Jerome does not castigate the Gauls for their gluttony. Nor does he single out illicit Gallic relationships for censure. In the middle of his description of the three kinds of monks to be found in Egypt, Jerome does attack the gluttony of the remnuoth – the worst class of monk and the principal variety found in his home province (Pannonia).45 These despised monks, on feast days, stuff themselves to the point of vomiting (‘saturantur ad vomitum’).46 The parallel with Sulpicius Severus’ ‘we are accustomed to stuff ourselves to the point of vomiting’ (‘nos usque ad vomitum solere satiari’)47 is clear; what is not as evident is why Jerome’s attack on Egyptian and Pannonian monks would stir up the Gallic monks. In fact, Sulpicius has appropriated Jerome’s condemnation of one class of eastern monks, reapplied it to the west, and then brazenly stated that Jerome had attacked the Gallic monks and fomented great anger among them. A similar deception undergirds Jerome’s ‘criticism’ of inappropriate relations between Gallic clerics and virgins. When the text that Gallus quoted is read in its proper context,48 we discover that Jerome was actually condemning the behaviour of the clerics and virgins of the city of Rome (where he was living when he wrote the letter). While Jerome would certainly not countenance impropriety between the sexes, there is simply no sense in which this passage can be considered an attack on the Gauls.

45 Jerome, ep. xxii.34, CSEL liv.197.1–2. 46 Ibid. CSEL liv.197.12–13. 47 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.8.5, CSEL i.160.6–7. 48 Jerome, ep. xxii.14. For Jerome’s tortured relationship with wealthy Roman Christians and the clerics and monks who were their clients see Curran, ‘Jerome’. 202 RICHARD J. GOODRICH I would like to argue that this misrepresentation is deliberate, an instance of what Ahl terms ‘figured speech’,49 a discourse that appears simple and straightforward on the surface, but takes on an entirely different meaning when the reader interprets it using knowledge of what he or she knows about a situation. What is left out, what the reader brings to the text from their own understanding, is more forcefully emphasised than if the speaker had made the point directly.50 The earliest handbooks of rhetoric stated that figured speech was to be used to express dissent when it was not politically safe to speak forthrightly, or in situations where direct speech was not in good taste. A third circumstance was added by Quintilian: figured speech could be adopted for pleasurable effect in order to delight an audience.51 Sulpicius’ use of Jerome seems to fit this category: he entertains a crowd of sophisticated readers by stretching the views of the Bethlehem monk. Those who have read ep. xxii will appreciate how clever Sulpicius has been in co-opting Jerome’s well-known belligerence in order to make his case. Moreover, by importing Jerome into the text, Sulpicius can also create an opportunity to suggest Gallic antipathy for the great man.52 Even more astonishing, however, is how Sulpicius echoes the attack Rufinus had launched on ep. xxii in his Second apology against Jerome. Rufinus had characterised this letter as a particularly vitriolic attack – not just on monks or presbyters – but on all Christians.53 There was no one, according to Rufinus, that Jerome had not castigated, and his work had become a scurrilous sourcebook for the enemies of Christianity. Jerome’s extremism had discredited all Christians. Sulpicius echoes these charges in Dialogi 1.8. Here Gallus states that Jerome ‘had vehemently abused and slandered the entire race of monks’.54 When Sulpicius asked Gallus if Jerome had limited his attack to monks in ep. xxii, Gallus replied ‘No, I admit that it seemed to me that he depicted the vices of the many.’55 There was nothing, Gallus stated, that Jerome did not ‘carp over, lacerate, or expose’.56 Yet, as discussed above, this simply was not the case. Jerome had not attacked Gallic monks, virgins or presbyters. Sulpicius expropriated Rufinus’ interpretation of ep. xxii and placed it in the mouth of Gallus. Moreover, Sulpicius repeatedly alludes to the anger that Jerome’s work has engendered among the Christians of Gaul, stating bluntly what Rufinus had only implied: that Jerome had offended all his fellow Christians.57 Another similarity may be

49 Ahl, Safe criticism, 174. 50 Ibid. 178. 51 Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.66; cf. Ahl, Safe criticism, 189. 52 See, especially, Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.8; 1.21. 53 Rufinus, Apologia 2.5. 54 ‘in quo tota nostrorum natio monachorum ab eo uehementissime uexatur et carpitur’: Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.8.4, CSEL i.160.5–6. 55 ‘Immo uero, inquit … uere fatebor, pinxisse mihi uidetur uitia multorum’: ibid. 1.8.6, CSEL i.160.13–17. 56 ‘non carperet, laceraret, exponeret’: ibid. CSEL i.160.14. 57 The brother from Belgica (ibid. 1.8); other unnamed Gauls (ibid. 1.9). SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 203 found in the passages that Rufinus cites from ep. xxii in which Jerome claims that certain men only seek the office of presbyter or deacon so that they have greater opportunity to visit women.58 This finds its parallel among Gallus’ vices of the many: the intimacies between virgins, monks and even clerics.59 Although Gallus regards some of Jerome’s criticisms as apposite, the structure of the text calls to mind the very harsh attack Rufinus had levelled at ep. xxii and its writer.60 Even though Gallus appears to endorse Jerome’s positions (and note that Sulpicius does not, but rather warns Gallus against going too far and incurring the enmity reserved for Jerome)61 the well- informed reader would inevitably pick up the allusion to the negative views of the work found in Rufinus’ Apology, a subtle nuance that adds another dimension to Sulpicius’ outward show of approbation. Although this interpretation of these passages may seem counter- intuitive,62 the fact that Jerome accuses Rufinus and his supporters of doing this very thing (offering him slanted praise, accolades that mask ridicule) suggests that this practice was more common in patristic discourse than we might expect.63 Indeed, there are at least two other instances in the Dialogi where Sulpicius plays with Jerome’s image in ways that conform to the conventions of figured speech.

The Origen controversy

The first of these may be found in Postumianus’ account of his first visit to Alexandria, where he encountered the fallout after the recent controversy over the works of Origen.64 Postumianus had travelled to Egypt by sea, touching first at Carthage in order to worship at the tomb of Cyprian.65 The ship then sailed south, narrowly missed being driven onto Syrtis and anchored near Cyrene.66 Postumianus spent some time with a monk/presbyter he

58 Rufinus, Apologia 2.5, citing Jerome, ep. xxii.28. 59 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.9. 60 Cf. Rufinus, Apologia 2.43. 61 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.9.3. 62 ‘in figured speech the speaker wishes us to understand something beyond, or something different from, what the superficial meaning of his words suggests. Most important, if this was the popular notion of figured speech, we may be sure the speaker’s audience was as ready to detect and decipher such allusions as the speaker was to provide them’: Ahl, Safe criticism, 192. 63 Jerome, Rufinus 1.1–2, 30. 64 Stancliffe, St Martin, 300–1, 308–9, follows G. K. Van Andel, ‘Sulpicius Severus and Origenism’, Vigiliae Christianae xxxiv (1980), 285, in interpreting Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.6–7, as an attempt to disassociate himself from the Origenistic sentiment that Martin had expressed in Sulpicius, Vita Martini 22. I am not convinced that this was the raison d’être for this passage. The fact that Sulpicius ultimately takes no strong stand on Origen leads me to believe that the Origen controversy was a handy vehicle for some apposite words on tolerance and the need for the Church to settle disputes without recourse to civil authority. The execution of Priscillian in 385 lurks beneath this passage, an incident that was of more interest to a western readership than the orthodoxy of Origen; cf. Duval, Sulpice, 215; Van Andel, Sulpicius Severus, 279. 65 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.3. 66 Ibid. 204 RICHARD J. GOODRICH discovered there, and then returned to the ship to complete the journey to Alexandria. When Postumianus reached the city, he discovered that ‘detestable fights were being waged between the bishops and the monks’67 over the works of Origen. The priests and bishops of Alexandria, meeting in synods, had passed decrees forbidding both the reading and the possession of the great theologian’s works. Heresy was the rationale for this harsh injunction; according to the bishops, Origen had been an able exegete of Scripture, but his books contained a number of propositions that the Church did not receive. The example cited in the Dialogi is the view that Satan would eventually be saved through Christ’s redemptive suffering. Because Christ had sacrificed himself for all, mercy would be extended universally, even to the foulest of demons.68 Since this view and others like it would poison the faith of the weak-minded, the clergy of Alexandria deemed it best to condemn Origen and his works. The opposing point of view was proffered by certain monks of the city and neighbouring regions. While not disputing the questionable nature of some of Origen’s writings, they took the position that erroneous passages had been inserted by later heretics. There was nothing remarkable in this, asserted the defenders, for the alteration of modern Christian writings by heretics was a well-known phenomenon and, in fact, some heretics had gone so far as to alter the Gospels themselves. Since these works were not condemned, it was wrong to attack Origen’s altered works – the discerning reader would be able to separate the heretical chaff from the true wheat of the Catholic faith. The question of Origen’s work vexed Postumianus. Moved by curiosity to read a book by the Alexandrian, he discovered many things that pleased him and others that were clearly worthy of blame. ‘I am amazed’, he said, ‘by how one and the same man could be so different from himself. In the portion of his work that is approved, he has no equal after the Apostles; in the part that is justly refuted, no one has erred more disgracefully.’69 Once again, as has been noted by other scholars, Sulpicius has drawn his arguments from one of Rufinus’ works.70 In this case it was Rufinus’ De adulteratione librorum Origenis, which accompanied his translation of Pamphilius’ Apology for Origen. In this work, Rufinus defended his theory that

67 ‘foeda inter episcopos adque monachos certamina gerebantur’: ibid. 1.6.1, CSEL i.157.24. 68 Ibid. 1.7.1. This possibility is also proffered by Martin (Sulpicius, Vita Martini 22.5) when he tells the devil that it may not be too late for him to repent. 69 ‘ego miror unum eundemque hominen tam diuersum a se potuisse, ut in ea parte, qua probatur, neminem post Apostolos habeat aequalem, in ea uero, qua iure reprehenditur, nemo deformius doceatur errasse’: Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.6.5, CSEL i.158.15–19. 70 Stancliffe, St Martin, 307–8, notes that Sulpicius copies Rufinus’ arguments and at points, his very words in this passage. See also Duval, Sulpice, 207, and Van Andel, Sulpicius Severus, 284, 286 nn. 42, 43. SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 205 heretics were responsible for the questionable parts of Origen’s works. Like Postumianus, Rufinus begins with the observation that while Origen’s works contain a great deal that is in accord with the ‘Catholic opinion’,71 there are passages that are repugnant to this truth and cannot be received. And even if one were to suspect a change of opinion between earlier and later writings, how could one account for the contrary opinions expressed in the same passage, even in almost successive sentences? Clearly, argued Rufinus, there was no way that a man so learned and wise could have written those things that were so repugnant to him. The only obvious explanation for these errors was that later heretics had interpolated the objectionable material.72 Rufinus then goes on to discuss other church writers who had received similar treatment at the hands of heretics (Postumianus’ modern writers), and the alterations to the Gospel and apostolic letters. The parallels are striking; by using Rufinus’ arguments almost verbatim, Sulpicius imports him into his text without mentioning his name. Nevertheless, a contemporary reader would recognise the source of these arguments. Sulpicius offers a version of Rufinus’ case in the well-known debate over Origen. The significance of this act is obscured to a certain degree by the fact that Postumianus does not ultimately support Rufinus’ theory of interpolations. According to Postumianus, there was no doubt that the questionable passages had been the work of Origen,73 but this is a light chafing in comparison to the treatment Sulpicius accords Jerome. Whereas Rufinus is introduced through allusion, Jerome is brought directly onstage with the following line: ‘This influenced me greatly, that Jerome, a man most catholic and deeply skilled in the sacred law, was believed at first to be a follower of Origen, but now, above all others, the same man condemns all the writings of that man.’74 How is this strange sentence to be interpreted? At first glance it rings as straightforward praise. Jerome is the great catholic writer, the profound exegete. Once he had been thought to have been a follower of Origen, but now he has exceeded all others in condemning Origen’s entire corpus. Nevertheless, as with much of Sulpicius’ writing, there is more here than is immediately obvious. Having consciously constructed his account of the events in Alexandria as a commentary on the larger debate between Jerome and Rufinus, Sulpicius now managed to stick a needle into one of Jerome’s very sore spots: his relationship to the literary legacy of Origen. Jerome’s credibility with his audience had been strained by his rejection of Origen. In 393, after years of championing the Alexandrian exegete, Jerome had executed a stunning

71 ‘catholicum inesse sensum’: Rufinus, De adulteratione librorum Origenis 1, CSEL xx.7.7. 72 Ibid. 73 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.4. 74 ‘illud me admodum permovebat, quod Hieronymus, vir maxime catholicus et sacrae legis peritissimus, Origenem secutus primo tempore putabatur, qui nunc idem praecipue vel omnia illius scripta damnaret’: ibid. 1.7.3, CSEL i.159.4–8. 206 RICHARD J. GOODRICH volte-face when confronted by representatives of Epiphanius of Salamis.75 The man who had been one of the foremost advocates of Origen,76 the man who had translated a number of Origen’s works into Latin, suddenly changed course and began vigorously proclaiming that: (1) Origen was a heretic; and (2) he was not (and never had been) a disciple of Origen.77 This claim was derided by Rufinus, who took a much softer line on Origen.78 Rufinus claimed that Jerome was lying when he asserted that he had never been an Origenist. This charge is ultimately damning because it is true, and Jerome wasted a great deal of ink trying to defend himself against it.79 Much like Jerome’s ep. xxii, the controversy between Rufinus and Jerome was very well known in the west.80 At issue was whether Jerome had subscribed to some of Origen’s heretical ideas and whether he had shown himself a turncoat by his sudden denunciation of his master when pressured by Epiphanius. Moreover, where Sulpicius correctly represents (and then discounts) Rufinus’ views, in this passage he opted again to misrepresent Jerome’s position. His claim that Jerome now condemned all of Origen’s writings appears deliberately provocative when placed alongside the words Jerome had written to Sulpicius’ friend, Paulinus of Nola, in 400: ‘Do not suppose that I am a complete buffoon, who condemns everything written by Origen (as his ill-timed enthusiasts slander me) or also as they charge, that I have suddenly changed my mind like the philosopher Dionysius. I repudiate only his perverse doctrines.’81 Although Jerome had been forced to recant his earlier approbation of Origen, not even in his most heated self-defence, his Apology to Rufinus, did he ever go so far as to condemn indiscriminately all the works of the Alexandrian. Origen was a heretic and held many heretical opinions, but, as with other heretical writers such as Tertullian and Didymus,

75 J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: his life, writings, and controversies, London 1975, 198. Rebenich, Jerome, 43–4, explains this act as one that was driven by Jerome’s fear for his reputation: if Origen’s works were banned, then there was a danger that Jerome’s treatises would receive similar treatment. See also Vessey, Jerome’s Origen, 137. 76 See for instance Jerome, De viris illustribus 54, where Jerome labels Origen an ‘immortal genius’. 77 Jerome claimed to have read Origen in the same way he took lessons from the Jewish teacher Baranina: Jerome, Aduersus Rufinum 1.13. 78 Rufinus, Apologia 1.22–3; 2.13–22, 28. Jerome notes that Rufinus was claiming that he ( Jerome) had written in favour of Origen and, by his praises, had exalted him to the skies: Jerome, Aduersus Rufinum 1.1, 24. See also, Kelly, Jerome, 250; Rebenich, Jerome, 27, 35, 43. 79 Jerome, Aduersus Rufinum 1.11, 13, 15. Jerome’s disavowal of the charge of Origenism may be found in his epp. lxi.1; lxxxiv.3; xcvii.1. 80 This is suggested by Jerome’s letter to Vigilantius (Jerome, ep. lxi) which he writes when he learned that Vigilantius had been telling the Gauls that Jerome was an Origenist. 81 ‘ne me putes in modum rustici balatronis cuncta Origenis reprobare, quae scripsit – quod in me criminantur ajkairozpoudastai eius et quasi Dionysium philosophum arguunt, subito mutasse sententiam: sed tantum prava dogmata repudiare’: Jerome, ep. lxxxv.4, CSEL lv.137.7–10. Similar sentiments are offered in ep. lxxxiv.7. SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 207 ‘we admire his knowledge of the Scriptures while rejecting his false doctrine’.82 This formulation is repeated in several works and letters, and indeed, after the controversy settled into the coals, Jerome continued to use and acknowledge his debt to the commentaries of Origen.83 Sulpicius misrepresented Jerome by stating that he, above all others, now condemned all of Origen’s works. Sulpicius pushed Jerome to the far end of the Origenist spectrum; he then added insult to injury by stealing Jerome’s true position (reading Origen with discernment and discarding the errors) and attributing it to Postumianus. Sulpicius’ final act of violence toward Jerome’s literary image comes when he groups him with those who had persecuted the pro-Origen monks and clerics of Alexandria. When the bishops were unable to impose their will upon the monks and their supporters through reasoned argument, they appealed to the prefect of Alexandria to quell the rioting. This ‘perverse precedent’,84 using the secular arm to enforce church discipline, forced the monks and their supporters to flee the city. Decrees were issued against them, and the refugees found no place to rest.85 Postumianus conveyed his disdain for this maleficent act by refusing an invitation to stay with the bishop of the city (presumably Theophilus, archbishop of Alexandria), despite the fact that this bishop had received him kindly. There simply was no excuse for Christians to persecute other Christians, especially when the persecutors were charged with the care of the flock.86 Although Postumianus asserts that the defenders of Origen probably should have obeyed the decrees of the bishops, this sentiment is hedged with conditional qualifiers, as if it might not have been the best course in light of the events that followed: ‘Although, perhaps, it may appear that they should have obeyed the bishops.’87 The clause which completes this sentence leaves the reader in no doubt about Sulpicius’ position on the bishops, and by extension those who applauded their deeds ( Jerome): ‘still there was not from this cause sufficient reason that so many people living under the confession of Christ, should have been persecuted, especially by the bishops’.88 The monks had been hounded out of Egypt by Theophilus and his minions; the shepherds of the Church had exchanged their crooks for

82 ‘In Origene miramur scientiam Scripturarum, et tamen dogmatum non recipimus falsitatem’: Jerome, Aduersus Rufinum 3.27, SC ccciii.286.10–11. 83 Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist controversy: the cultural construction of an early Christian debate, Princeton 1992, 147; Rebenich, Jerome, 55. 84 ‘scaevo exemplo’: Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.7.2, CSEL i.159.1–2. 85 Confirmed by Jerome in Aduersus Rufinum 1.12. 86 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.7.6. 87 ‘nam etsi fortasse videantur parere episcopis debuisse’: ibid. CSEL i.159.17–18. Of course Postumianus, reading the works of Origen in order to formulate an opinion, also disobeys the decrees of the bishops. 88 ‘non ob hanc tamen causam multitudinem tantam sub Christi confessione viventem, praesertim ab episcopis, oportuisset adfligi’: ibid. CSEL i.159.18–20. 208 RICHARD J. GOODRICH cudgels. As a result, according to Sulpicius, some of the brethren had been destroyed.89 Although Jerome is not directly mentioned here, those readers familiar with the events in Alexandria through Jerome’s letters would remember that Jerome had applauded Theophilus’ misdeeds. Postumianus’ presentation of Jerome’s views firmly locates Jerome with the persecuting bishops,90 men whose deeds he finds contemptible and worthy of censure. The question of whether Origen’s works are to be read or burned is unclear; even the most learned of men take different sides on the issue.91 The only certainty in this case was the fact that the clergy of Alexandria (and their supporters such as Jerome) had violated the precepts of Christianity by persecuting and killing their fellow Christians.

Leadership of Bethlehem church

Another instance of Sulpicius taking liberties with Jerome’s image in the Dialogi may be found at the beginning of Postumianus’ ﬁrst panegyric to Jerome.92 Here he asserts that the priest Jerome rules (regit) the church in Bethlehem. It is an innocuous statement, but Jerome was always quite explicit in stating that he exercised no priestly function in Bethlehem. Indeed, Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, claimed that he was forced to ordain Jerome’s brother, Paulinian, because Jerome refused to exercise his rights as a presbyter.93 Humility was Epiphanius’ explanation for Jerome’s reluctance to exercise clerical oﬃce. A plausible interpretation would suggest that if Jerome did serve as a priest in Bethlehem, he would place himself under the authority of Bishop John of Jerusalem. Following Epiphanius’ visit to Jerusalem, Jerome and his bishop had a well-publicised falling out.94 The relationship became so acrimonious that John excommunicated Jerome in 39495 and eventually obtained a decree from the emperor to have him exiled.96 The controversy

89 ‘ubi recens fraternae cladis fervebat invidia’: ibid. 1.7.5, CSEL i.159.17. 90 In this Jerome is presented fairly. See Jerome, ep. lxxxvi, where Jerome congratulates Theophilus on his vigorous action against the basilisks of heresy. 91 Sulpicius, Dialogi 1.7.3. 92 Ibid. 1.8.2. 93 Epiphanius’ letter to John was translated by Jerome and is found among Jerome’s letters (ep. li). The claim that Jerome and Vincent refused to carry out their priestly offices because of their ‘humility’ may be found in Jerome, ep. li.1. 94 See Jerome, ep. lxxxii. The chronology of this controversy is worked out in Pierre Nautin, ‘E´ tudes de chronologie hie´ronymienne (393–397)’, Revue des´ etudes augustiniennes xix (1973), 76–86. A more detailed account of these events may be found in Pierre Nautin, ‘L’ Excommunication de saint Je´roˆme’, Annuaire-Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes Section 5 lxxx–lxxxi (1972–3), 7–37. 95 Nautin, ‘L’Excommunication’, 14–17. 96 For the excommunication see Jerome, Aduersus Ioannem Hierosolymitanum 42; Nautin, ‘L’Excommunication’, 14–17; and Kelly, Jerome, 201. For John’s abortive attempt to exile SULPICIUS SEVERUS AND JEROME 209 did not abate until 397 when Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria intervened as mediator between the pair.97 In view of the public nature of this controversy, it is implausible that Sulpicius would not know that Jerome refused to exercise his office in the service of John. Even more unlikely is the suggestion that Postumianus, having allegedly stayed with Jerome for six months, would not have known this. Once again, Sulpicius offers the reader an opportunity to bring additional knowledge to his apparently positive sketch of Jerome. He plays to a pro-Rufinian audience with his subtle sniping at Jerome.

Jerome’s response

The idea that what reads as praise in Sulpicius’ work was not intended to flatter Jerome also suggests a context for the negative tone of the remarks Jerome may have made about Sulpicius and Martin.98 As Clare Stancliffe has noted, the one direct reference in Jerome’s works to Sulpicius is a derogatory comment in his Commentary on Ezekiel in which Jerome states that along with a host of other writers, Sulpicius, in his Dialogi, had misinterpreted Ezekiel xxxvi.1–15.99 Stancliffe has also identified two other negative remarks in Jerome’s writings which might refer to Sulpicius. The likelier of the pair dates from 408/10. Here, in Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah, he notes that Christ did not command that a cape was to be cut in two and half given away to curry popular favour.100 The second occurs in Jerome’s remarks concerning Nepotian: according to Jerome, another writer (a writer like Sulpicius?) would have told stories about the soldier Nepotian wearing sackcloth beneath his military cloak, a move that Jerome would avoid.101 It is also possible, though by no means certain, that Jerome’s ep. cxxv to the Gallic monk Rusticus may contain an allusion to Sulpicius’ works, when he writes that he prefers monks ‘who are not like some of those silly men who fabricate far-fetched stories of demons attacking them, so that in the presence of the inexperienced and the rabble they might seem miraculous and then

Jerome see Jerome, ep. lxxii.10; Jerome, Aduersus Ioannem Hierosolymitanum 43; Nautin, ‘Chronologie’, 78–9; and Kelly, Jerome, 203–4. 97 ep. lxxxii is Jerome’s response to this intervention. 98 That Jerome knew the works of Sulpicius is indisputable; cf. Rebenich, Hieronymus, 254–5. 99 ‘et nuper Seuerus noster in dialogo cui ‘‘Gallo’’ nomen imposuit’: Jerome, Commentariorum in Ezechielem libri xvi 11, CCSL lxxv.500.661–2. See also Stancliﬀe, St Martin, 297–8. 100 Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii 16.58.8. 101 Idem, ep. lx.9. See discussion in Stancliﬀe, St Martin, 298–9, especially her concern that this letter, written in 396, possibly predates the Vita Martini. 210 RICHARD J. GOODRICH they bilk them of their money’.102 Although Sulpicius is not named, it could be argued that ‘far-fetched stories of wars with demons’ was one of the distinguishing features of Sulpicius’ writings. Since the addressee of the epistle (Rusticus) was a Gaul, this might have been Jerome’s way of making his own subtle dig at Sulpicius. It should also be noted that there are no positive references to either Sulpicius or Martin in Jerome’s works despite the fact that the note in his Commentary on Ezekiel suggests that Jerome was aware of Sulpicius’ Dialogi. This ‘silence or veiled-hostility shown toward Sulpicius’ Martin’103 seems a natural reaction considering the liberties Sulpicius had taken with Jerome’s image.

The Dialogi of Sulpicius Severus were a cleverly and carefully constructed attempt to win adherents for the proposition that the Gallic clergy and ascetics ought to accept Sulpicius’ version of Martin’s life as a norm for proper Christian behaviour and conduct. As we have seen, Sulpicius used this work to defend his version of Martin as well as to argue for clerical and ascetic reform. By employing various characters to make his arguments for him, he fostered the illusion of an emerging consensus for his views, and distanced himself from the critique of Gallic standards offered in his work. Yet there was more than one audience for Sulpicius’ work. The works of Rufinus underpin the views expressed by Sulpicius’ characters in the Dialogi. These instances of figured speech can be read as attacks, wrapped in the soft cloth of insincere praise. Sulpicius used the Dialogi to hurl a couple of well- aimed barbs at the great man, reminding his readers of Jerome’s attack on all Christians in ep. xxii, his inexplicable conversion on the question of Origen, his shameful advocacy of the persecution of Origenists and his conflict with John of Jerusalem. Although the image of Jerome proved useful in making points about ecclesiastical morals in Gaul, the subtle digs at the Bethelehem monk suggest that Sulpicius consciously constructed his work to appeal to a broader, pro-Rufinian readership.

102 ‘qui nesciunt secundum quosdam ineptos homines daemonum obpugnantium contra se portenta confingere, ut apud inperitos et uulgi homines miraculum sui faciant, et exinde sectentur lucra’: Jerome, ep. cxxv.9, CSEL lvi.1.128.18–129.3. 103 Stancliffe, St Martin, 297. Stancliffe attributes this hostility to differences in ascetic ideals (p. 300), Martin’s questionable ideas (pp. 300–1) and his association with Vigilantius (p. 301). To these might be added the complementary proposition that Sulpicius had used Jerome’s image in a less than flattering manner.