I IK V S V K ) S IX ( 19 MXl

Cato, Romani generis disertissimus (Sallust, Hist. fr. I 4 M. in Jerome)

Je rome ' s celebrated letter to Nepotian on the priestlv lite (Epist. 52) begins with a series of pagati exempla illustratine the scholarl) maturiti that is a concomi-tant of the old age which Jerome himself novv claims to bave reached1 One of the instances at issue is presented in the following terms: nec mirimi, cimi edam Caio. Romani generis disertissimus, censorius ioni et sene.x, Graecas lille ras nec eru-huerit nec desperaverit discere (3.6). Here students ol Je rome ' s debt to the classics are unanimous in pointing merely to a passage of Cicero ' s Cato iunior: quid qui elicmi addiscunt aliquid? ut ... et ego feci, qui litteras Graecas sene.x elidici.' (26) None of these scholars has perceived that the characterization of Cato as Romani generis disertissimus has been taken from Sallust 's Histories, which had described him in exactly the sanie words: Romani generis disertissimus paucis absolvit (Ir. I 4 M . ) The addition of this particular text to the dossier of Je rome ' s indebtedness to Sallust is highly important, since. despite the centrality of the Histories in late antique education . very few imitations oi the large number of surviving fragments have hitherto been detected in Je rome ' s extensive literary output Moreover none

The letter was written in 304 according to F. Cavallera, S. ./cròme: Sa vie et son oeuvre, 1/2. Louvain-Paris 1022. 157; however P Nautin. Eludes de chronologie hiéronymienne (393-397), «REAug» XX (1074) 251-253. places u in 303.

Ci. A. Luebeck, Hieronymus quos noverit scriptores a ex quibus hauserit, Lipsiae 1872. 147; C. Kunst, De S. Hieronymi studiis ciceronianis, Wien-Leipzig 101X. I SS; H Hagendahl, Latin Fathers und the Classics: A Study on the Apologists, ./eroine mul Other Christian Writ-as. Goteborg 1958. 193; I. Hilberg. 5. Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae, I. Wien 1006. 418. Similarly no further source is registered in the extensive treatment ol this letter undertaken recently by A. de Voglie. Histoire littéraire du mouvement monastique dans Fantiquité, E Le monachisme latin; De l'Itinéraire d'Egerie à l'éloge funebre de Népotien (384-396), Paris 1993. 352-363. or in the supplement to Hilberg's apparatus fontium assembled bv M Kamptner, S. Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae. IV, Wien 1996, 304-31 1.

Il this borrowing has hitherto eludei! ali commentators on Jerome, it was recorded as early as 1915 by H. Lackenbacher in ThLL V/l 1378.801. (s.v. disertus). The echo is dui) registered by R. Lunari. C Sallustì Crispi Historiarum fragmenta, I. Amsterdam 1996, 8.

' Ci. Adriana Della Casa, Arusianus Messius: Exempia elocudonum, Milano 1977, 412f. 5 A total of only four passages is listed hv Hagendahl. o.c. in. 2)412; lurihei more while

this scholar managed to add some seventeen echoes ol the Caldine and Jugurtha to those alreadv identified by Luebeck. he could noi limi a single borrowing hom il,e Histories thal was new (ibui. 202-2cM)

2 3 0 VDKIN

oi the echoes previously identified carne from the beginning of the work: since Jerome's penchant for availing himself of phraseology from precisely such intro-ductory seetions is notorious6, this silence in the case of the Histories was neces­sa r i^ surprising. With the reeognition of Jerome's debt in the present passage we now have a borrowing from the preface of the work itself.

Jerome's appropriation of this striking phrase is elearly meant to impress: in particular Romani creates an elegant antithesis to the ensuing Graecas. At the sanie ti me. however. this borrowing also entails an inconsonance; such maladjust-ment is not untypical of Jerome's borrowings from the classics' In the first place the linguistic gaucherie implied in erubuerit and desperaverit is at odds with the proficiency attested by disertissimus9 Secondly the assertion of Cato's oratorical pre-eminence (Romani generis disertissimus) is directly contradicted shortly af-terwards in the sanie letter by the similarly derivative asseveratimi that the pri-macy in Roman rhetoric belonged instead to Cicero: Marcus Tullius, ad tptem pulcherrimum illud elogium est: 'Demosthenes libi praeripuit, ne esses printus orator, tu UH, ne solus' ... (8.3)" Helpful light is shed on Jerome's botehery by comparing it with a text of Arnobius, who had likewise imitated this Sallustian formulation, but instead had applied it to Cicero himself: Tullius Romani disertissimus

Ci. P. Petitmengin, S. Jerome et Tertidlicn, in Y -M. Duval (ed.), ./éròme aure l'Oceident et l'Oria,,. Paris 1088. 50. In this connection, specific reference may be made to the density of citatimi from the opening chapters of the Caldine: ci. Hagendahl. o.c. (n. 2 ) 4 1 2 . to whose material a further eeho is added b> the present writer. The Prologue oj Sallust's Bellini! Catilinae und ./crome. ..Hermes.. CXXV ( 1007) 2401'.

Por a sondar instance ci. the present writer. Terence's Eiinucluis und Jerome. «RhM» CXXXVII ( 1004) 102-104.

The sanie arresting dyad erubescere ... desperare is redeployed in connection with Cato some twenty years later at Epist. 130.13.2; this lime however disertissimus is s ignif icante omitted. On the other band erubescere now clashes with the immediately antecedenl gravitas.

Tlns sentence continues with a quotatimi from Cicero's lost speeeh Pro Quinto Gallio, which contains the phrase plausus et clamores mova. Since no other instance of the specific collocatimi pluusits et clamores is supplied by ThLL 111 1254.80-1250.45 (s.v. clamor, the article on plausus has not yet appeared) or by the principal databases ( viz. Packard Humunities Insuline CD ROM #5.3 | 1991 |. Cetedoc Library of Christian Lutiti Texts, CLCLT-3 [Turnhout 1006| and Patrologia Latina Database [Alexandria, VA 1995]), this Ciceronian formulation would appear to bave inspired Jerome's similar wording at the start of the chapter following bis mei,don of Cato (quae plausus et clamores e.xciteut audicnttmi. 4.1); here e.xcilure has been preferred to Cicero's movere for the sake of the eretie dichoree elausula (cf. M.C. Herron, A Stitdx of the Clausulae in the Writings of Si. Jerome. Washington 1037. 10-23). The present passage should accordinglv be added to the reminiscences of Ciceronian phraseology in this letter that are assemblei! by Hagendahl. o.c. (n. 2) 104 n. 2; for a further modificatimi to this list. et. the present writer. Cicero's Orator and Jerome, «VChr» LI (1007) 26. Two decades later Jerome reproduces the sanie phrase at /;; Ezech. 34.1 1. 261 (eum ... pluusits concitaverint a clamores); as in the letter to Nepotian. the context is once again clerica! charlatanry.

Culi). Rmiimii generis disertissimus (Sallust. Hist. Ir. I 4 \1 in Jerome) 231

generis (Nat. Ili 6) The effectiv eness oi Arnobius ' creative imitation provides a telling contrast to J e rome ' s s lavishness and the self-contradiction it entails .

Jerome again employs Sal lus t ' s description of the Elder Caio a few years later in a letter to his former guest Vigilantius (Finsi. 61 ) " . who was now accus-ing him of Or igenism: me laceras, sanctum fratrem Oceanum in culpam hereseos

vocas, presbvterorum tibi Vincentii et Pauliniani etfratris Eusebii iudicium displicet:

solus es Cato. Romani generis disertissimus, qui testimonio tuo et prudentiae

velis credi (3,3). Here too the Salliistian cebo has so far escaped the notice oi ali Jerome s commentators 1 2 In sud i a context ibis reference to Ca to ' s e loquence is somewhal surprising1 : as in the letter to Nepotian, we bave bere a further case oi

inconcinnitv due lo the intrusion of second-hand ma te r i a l " A final pomi mav be

'" Here Sallust's wording also undergoes slighl variatici il,rough die introduction ol an elegant hyperbaton: Ramimi disertissimus generis.

" Thislettei is assigned to 396 b) C'avallerà. o.c. I n. I) 158; recenti) however S Rebenich, Hieronymus und san Kreis, Stuttgart 1992, 240 has reverted to the view ol N. Pronberger, Beitràge zur Cronologie der Briefe des Id. Hieronymus, \mberg 1913. 50L, who had instead placed the dale ol compositori un Jahre 398 (399)» (Rebenich's «388 oder 399» is a lapsus

( uliimi ). 12 Cf. most recenti) Kamptner, o.< in. 2) 309f. This particulai passage was discussed

twice bv S Seliga (Qiiihus contumeliis Hieronymus adversarios earpserit, «Eos» XXXIv | |032/I033| 410; De invettiva hieronymiana, «CTh» XVI [1935] 174,; on neither occasion was he able to identif) the borrowing.

13 Severa! translators endeavour to solve the problem bv tampering with the scuse ol disertissimus; ci. (e.g.)J. Labourt, 5. Jerome: Lettres, III. Paris 1053. 113 («le plus savant»); S. Cola. S. Girolamo: Le lettere. 11. Roma 1062. 140 («più istruito»). However there is no reason to suppose that Jerome cenici bave assigned such a meaning to disertus; cf. Hill. \7 I 1376,84-1381,9 (s.v.). Moreover recognition ol the Sallustian source makes ibis kind ol seholarlv distortion superiluous. Some other translations are also revealed to he erroneous bv the identification of Jerome's debt; cf. (e.g. I P Leipelt, Ausgewahlte Si Imi,cu des 1,1. Hieronymus, Kempten 1872. 135 («du alleni bist der beredteste Kato des ròmischen Geschlechts»); L. Schade Des hi Kirchenvaters Eusebius Hieronymus ausgewdhlte Briefe, II. Munchen 1937^ 121 («du alien bist des ròmischen Volkes beredter Cato»). Here disertissimus is not used attributive!). but in apposition.

14 li ma) be observed that the ensuing relative chiuse (qui testimonio tuo ... velis credi) likewise contains a radici puzzl,ng reference to another diami, thal Jerome has p.cked up elsewhere He expresses himself with greater fullness at C Ioli. 39 (o ics,mio,,,,mi prò sa na Catoni ereditami); lice Hagendahl. o.c. (n. 2) 168, compares Plut. ( at. Mi. 19,7 (noUouq cbaTcep èv napoipia nvì ^éyeiv, ÒTI ionio pèv où5è Kàicovoc. ^éyovToq rciGavov eoxi). rhe lei.er to Vigilantius has accordingl) applied to the Eidei Caio material tha. belongs properl) t 0 the Younge. This allusion would seem incidentali) to have a hearing on the ep.stle s date VA bile ,. is placed before the Contro lohannem hv C'avallerà, o - (n. I) 158 (with 45), who is followed by (e.g.) J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life. Writings, and Controversies, London 1915, 206f this o rde is reversed bv Rebenich, o.c. (n. I I » 24.) The fuller formulation ol the e ontra lohannem would seem to be an argument for the priorit) ol this treat.se ove, the letter.

2^: V D k l N

made: in the epistle to Vigilantius. Hagendahl was unable to register anv debt whatever to the classics1" The identificatimi oi this phrase from the preface to Sallust's Histories now provides one such echo

Lincoln. Nebraska N i-: I L A D K I N

N Hagendahl. o.c. (n. 2) 403. It would seem that a second borrowing can be deteeted in the ver) nevi sentence.

which continues with the following adjuration: recordare, quaeso, illius dia. quando me de resurrectione et vernate corporis praedicante ex Intere subsultabas et adplodebas pedem et orthodoxum conclamabas. Here the collocation subsultabas et adplodebas pedem vvould ap-pear to have been inspired by Hor. Ars 430 (salici, minici pale tcrrum). The same context ol approbation is shared bv both passages. which in addition evince identica) word-order: the particular juxtaposition at issue would seem to be unattested elsevvhere. For the strong influ-ence which the Ars poetica exereised on Jerome in this period, ci. P. Lardet. /^'Apologie de Jerome cantre Rufin: Un commentane, Leiden 1003, 91 . Horace's formulation occurs near the end of the poem: on Jerome's propensity to borrow especially from the closing sections of a work as well as from the beginning. cf. Petitmengin, o.c. (n. 6) 50. Here he has merely heightened the language à sa facon; in particular adplodere pedem has been appropriated from the recent Epist. 50 (2.2). This imitation of the Ars poetico supplies corroboration for the text of both Jerome (cf. the upp. crtt. in Hilberg, o.t [n. 2] 580) and Horace (cf. C O . Brink, Horace on Poetry: The Ars Poetica. Cambridge 1071, 408).