A letter from Jerome (388)

Translated letter:

It is very few days since I interpreted the epistle of Paul to Philemon, and I moved on to Galatians, with many things left unfinished, when suddenly letters were brought to me from the city [Rome], announcing that Albina, the venerable old woman had returned to the presence of the lord, and left Marcella deprived of the companionship of a mother, needing your solace now even more, o Paula and Eustochium. And since this can not be given because of the great distance of sea and land between you, I wish to heal the wound hastily at least with the medicine of scripture. I know her ardor, I know her faith, that she has a flame always in her breast, to conquer her sex, to be unmindful of man, to pass over the Red Sea of this world with the drum of divine volumes resounding. Certainly, when I was at Rome, she never saw me so hastily that she did not ask something about scripture. Nor indeed did she think it right that I answer something in the Pythagorean mode: authority did not hold for her unless it was judged by reason. She examined all things and thought about them with a sharp mind, so that I felt myself to have not so much a disciple as a judge.(1) And so because I think it would be agreeable to her absent and useful to you who are present, I shall approach the work before me making use of the writers in our language and the Greeks, although they are not a few, as the dignity of the work demands. [...] Book III: We have pounded out this third volume on Galatians, o Paula and Eustochium, not unaware of our weakness, and feeling the stream of thin wit rumbling with scarcely a little murmur. For these things are already sought in the churches, with the simplicity of the apostles and the purity of their words laid aside, as fitting to the Athenaeum and the lecture halls to arouse the applause of the by-standers. Speech is painted with the lies of the rhetorical arts, like a prostitute before the public, not to educate the public but to seek their favor and in the sweet manner of a psaltery and singing pipe, it caresses the senses of the hearers. What the lord said to the prophet Ezechiel is quite appropriate to our times: "To them you are like the voice of a lute singing sweetly and well composed, and they hear your words but do not do them" [cf.Ezek.33:32]. But what shall I do? Shall I be silent? But it is written: "you will not appear empty in the sight of the Lord" [Exod.34:20]. And Isaiah, in the Hebrew books, sighs: "Alas poor me that I have been silent" [Isa.6:5]. Shall I speak? But the grating of Hebrew reading has defiled all elegance of speech, and beauty of Latin eloquence. For you yourselves know that it is more than fifteen years since I have held Tully [Cicero] or Maro [Virgil] or any gentile/pagan author in my hands; and if any should steal in while we speak, we recall them as if through the cloud of an ancient dream. What I might accomplish from the indefatigable zeal for that language, I leave to the judgment of others; I know what I have lost in myself. Added to this that for the weakness of my eyes and body I do not write with my own hand, nor can I compensate for the dullness of my eloquence with labor and diligence — what they say about Virgil, that he fashioned his books like bears licking their progeny. With a scribe present, I either dictate immediately whatever comes into my mouth or if I want to think a little, for something better, then he silently reproves me, draws his hand in, furrows his brow, and attests with every movement of his body that he is there to no purpose. Discourse, though it is brought forth from a mind of good quality, distinguished by invention, and adorned with the flower of words, yet unless it is smoothed and polished by the hand of its author, it is not bright, it does not have gravity mixed with beauty, but in the manner of rustic wealth, it is more censured by its riches than adorned by them. Where is all this going? Let it be a response to you and others who might want to read it that I do not write panegyric or polemic but commentary, that is, my intent is not that my words be praised but that what was well said by another should be understood as it was said. My function is to discuss what is obscure, to draw together what is clear, to linger over what is in doubt. That is why many call a work of commentary an explanation. If one seeks eloquence or delights in declamation, s/he has in both languages Demosthenes and Tully, Polemo and Quintilian. The church of Christ is gathered not from the Academy and the Lycaeum, but from the base common people. Whence the apostle says: "Consider your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble; but God chose what are the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and God chose what is weak in the world to confound the strong; and God chose what is ignoble and contemptible in this world, the things that are not, to destroy the things that are" [1Cor.1.26-28]. Since the world did not know God from the order, variety, and constancy of creatures through its wisdom, it pleased God to save believers through the folly of preaching, not in the wisdom of the word, so the cross of Christ would not be voided. For where is the wise man, where the grammarian, where the investigators of natural causes? Not in the persuasive words of wisdom but in the manifestation of virtue and spirit, as the faith of believers is not in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. That is why the Apostle said to the Corinthians: "I came to you, brothers, not through loftiness of speech and wisdom, to announce the evidence of the Lord to you, for I decided that I would know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" [1Cor.2:1-2]. And lest, perhaps, it might be thought that saying this he was a preacher of foolishness, with a prophetic mind he overturns what might be objected. He says, "But God's wisdom which is hidden is spoken in mystery, which no one knew at the beginning of the world" [1Cor.2:7]. For who now reads Aristotle? How many know the books of Plato or his name? Old men with leisure scarcely recall them in their corners. But the whole world speaks of our rustics and fishermen, the entire earth resounds with them. So with simple speech, their simple words are laid out. The words, I say, not the meaning. For the rest if, with you praying, I might have that spirit in expounding the epistles which they had in dictating them, then you would see such majesty and breadth of wisdom in them as there is arrogance and vanity in the lettered men of the world. Briefly I confess the secret of my mind to you: I want any who would understand the Apostle through me not to have difficulty understanding my writings and need an interpreter to know the interpreter. But it is already time to pursue what remains. [...] It is not that I do not know that Caius Marius Victorinus, who taught me rhetoric at Rome when I was a boy, produced commentaries on the apostle; but that he, busy with learning in secular letters, was almost entirely ignorant of holy scripture. And no one, however eloquent, can argue well about what he does not know. Am I therefore a fool or rash to attempt what he could not do? Not at all. But rather, as I seem to myself, more cautious and timid that feeling the weakness of my strengths, I followed the commentaries of Origen. For that man wrote five volumes on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians and completed his exposition with a short discussion in the tenth book of his miscellanies; he also composed various tracts and selections which could suffice on their own. I pass over Didymus, my prophet, and the Laodicean (Apollinaris) who recently left the church, and Alexander the old heretic, and Eusebius Emesenenus, and Theodore of Heraclea, who also left several commentaries on this. From which if I might pluck a few things, it would be something not to be wholly scorned. And so, as I confess simply, I have read all these and collecting many things in my mind, but without retaining a memory of the order or the words or the sense, I summoned a scribe and dictated what was mine or theirs. It is by the Lord's mercy if things well said by others not disappear through our ignorance, and not please in other contexts which pleased in their own. So briefly comprising the argument of this epistle, I remind you in this preface that the matter of the epistle of Paul to the Galatians is the same as what was written to the Romans. But it differs in that he used higher meaning and deeper arguments in the latter, as though he were writing the former to those about whom he says: "you foolish Galatians" [Gal.3:1] and "are you so foolish" [Gal.3:3]. He moderated his speech to such because he was declaiming rather than teaching. And what the foolish could understand, like common thoughts, he clothed in common speech, and those he could not persuade with reason, he summoned by authority. There is no discourse of the Apostle, either by epistle or in person, in which he does not labor to teach that the burdens of the ancient law have been put down and all those things which preceded in types and images, that is the inactivity of the Sabbath, the injury/injustice of circumcision, special months and three solemnities through the year, strict food observance, and baths on individual days with repeated pollution, all cease suddenly with the grace of the gospel, which the faith of a believing soul, not the blood of victims, satisfies. Truly elsewhere in part as if this question presented something else to the one acting, it is disputed and almost reproved. But these two epistles, as I said, contain the end of the old law and the introduction of the new. But Galatians is not written to the Jews who believed in Christ and thought their paternal rituals must be observed, but to the gentiles who had accepted the faith of the Gospel and relapsed, who were discouraged by authority and asserted that Peter and James and all the churches of Judea had mingled the gospel of Christ with the old law. Paul also did one thing in Judea, another preaching to the gentiles; and they believed in the crucified in vain if they thought they could neglect what the princes of the apostles observed. So the mediator moved cautiously between both and did not proclaim the grace of the gospel, nor pressed by the weight and authority of their ancestors did he do harm to their predecessors while he asserted grace; he advanced sideways and secretly as if by underground passages. As he teaches Peter to do for the people committed to circumcision, lest by suddenly departing from the ancient way of living, they be tempted to fall and not believe in the cross, and when the preaching of the gentiles was believed it was just to defend for truth what another would pretend for administration. Not understanding this, that criminal and Bataneotes Porphyrius in the first book of his work against us objected that Peter was reproved by Paul for not moving with the right food to teach the gospel; he wished to imprint the blemish of error on him and accuse him of blindness, and general falsehood of a madeup dogma, when the princes of the churches differed among themselves. Here we lightly touch on the sense of what was said, at your request, and will pursue them more fully in their place. But it is now time to unfold the individual things in the words of that Apostle.

Original letter:

Pauci admodum dies sunt, ex quo epistolam Pauli ad Philemonem interpretatus, ad Galatas transcenderam, multis retrorsum in medio praetermissis; et ecce subito litterae mihi de Urbe allatae sunt, nuntiantes et Albinam venerabilem anum praesentiae Domini redditam, et sanctam Marcellam matris contubernio destitutam, magis nunc vestrum, o Paula et Eustochium, flagitare solatium. Et quia hoc interim fieri non potest, propter grandia maris in medio spatia atque terrarum, repente vulnus impressum saltem Scripturarum vellem curare medicamine. Scio equidem ardorem ejus, scio fidem, quam flammam semper habeat in pectore, superare sexum, oblivisci hominis, et divinorum voluminum tympano concrepante, rubrum hujus saeculi pelagus transfretare. Certe cum Romae essem, numquam tam festina me vidit, ut non de Scripturis aliquid interrogaret. Neque vero more Pythagorico quidquid responderam, rectum putabat: nec sine ratione praejudicata apud eam valebat auctoritas; sed examinabat omnia, et sagaci mente universa pensabat, ut me sentirem non tam discipulam habere, quam judicem. Itaque quod et illi absenti pergratum fore, et vobis quae in praesentiarum estis, utile existimo, aggrediar opus intentatum ante me linguae nostrae scriptoribus, et a Graecis quoque ipsis vix paucis, ut rei poscebat dignitas, usurpatum. [...] Liber tertius: Tertium ad Galatas, o Paula et Eustochium, volumen hoc cudimus: non ignari imbecillitatis nostrae, et exilis ingenii rivulum, vix parvo strepentem murmure sentientes. Jam enim et in Ecclesiis ista quaeruntur: omissaque apostolicorum simplicitate et puritate verborum, quasi ad Athenaeum, et ad auditoria convenitur, ut plausus circumstantium suscitentur: ut oratio rhetoricae artis fucata mendacio, quasi quaedam meretricula in publicum, non tam eruditura populos, quam favorem populi quaesitura, et in modum psalterii et tibiae dulce canentis, sensus demulceat audientium; ut vere illud prophetae Ezechielis nostris temporibus possit aptari, dicente Domino ad eum: Et factus es eis quasi vox citharae suave canentis, et bene compositae: et audiunt verba tua, et non faciunt ea (Ezech. XXXIII, 32). Verum quid agam? Taceamne? Sed scriptum est: Non apparebis in conspectu Domini tui vacuus. Et Isaias (sicut in Hebraeis tamen habetur voluminibus) ingemiscit: Vae mihi misero, quia tacui. Loquar? Sed omnem sermonis elegantiam, et Latini eloquii venustatem, stridor lectionis Hebraicae sordidavit. Nostis enim et ipsae, quod plus quam quindecim anni sunt, ex quo in manus meas numquam Tullius, numquam Maro, numquam gentilium litterarum quilibet Auctor ascendit: et si quid forte inde dum loquimur, obrepit, quasi antiqui per nebulam somnii recordamur. Quod autem profecerim ex linguae illius infatigabili studio, aliorum judicio derelinquo: ego quid in mea amiserim, scio. Accedit ad hoc, quia propter oculorum et totius corpusculi infirmitatem, manu mea ipse non scribo: nec labore et diligentia compensare queo eloquii tarditatem: quod de Virgilio quoque tradunt, quia libros suos in modum ursorum fetum [Al. fetuum] lambendo figuraverit: verum accito notario, aut statim dicto quodcumque in buccam venerit: aut si paululum voluero cogitare, melius aliquid prolaturus, tunc me tacitus ille reprehendit, manum contrahit, frontem rugat, et se frustra adesse, toto gestu corporis contestatur. Oratio autem etsi de bonae indolis ingenio sit profecta, et distincta inventionibus, et ornata flore verborum: tamen nisi auctoris sui manu limata fuerit et polita, non est nitida, non habet mixtam cum decore gravitatem; sed in modum divitum rusticorum, opibus suis magis arguitur, quam exornatur. Quorsum ista? videlicet ut et vobis, et caeteris (qui forte legere voluerint) sit responsum, me non panegyricum, aut controversiam scribere, sed commentarium, id est, hoc habere propositum, non ut mea verba laudentur, sed ut quae ab alio bene dicta sunt, ita intelligantur ut dicta sunt. Officii mei est obscura disserere, manifesta perstringere, in dubiis immorari. Unde et a plerisque commentariorum opus, explanatio nominatur. Si quis eloquentiam quaerit, vel declamationibus delectatur, habet in utraque lingua Demosthenem et Tullium, Polemonem et Quintillianum. Ecclesia Christi non de Academia, et Lyceo, sed de vili plebecula congregata est. Unde et Apostolus: Videte, inquit, vocationem vestram, fratres, quia non multi sapientes secundum carnem, non multi potentes, non multi nobiles; sed quae stulta sunt hujus mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientes: et infirma mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat fortia: et ignobilia hujus mundi, et contemptibilia elegit Deus, et quae non sunt, ut ea quae sunt, destrueret (I Cor. I, 26, 27, 28). Quia enim ex creaturarum ordine, varietate, constantia, non cognoverat mundus per sapientiam Deum, placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis, salvos facere credentes: non in sapientia verbi, ut non evacuaretur crux Christi. Ubi enim sapiens, ubi grammaticus, ubi causarum naturalium scrutatores? Nec in persuasibilibus sapientiae verbis, sed in ostensione virtutis et spiritus: ut fides credentium non esset in sapientia hominum, sed in virtute Dei. Quamobrem et ipse Apostolus ad eosdem Corinthios loquebatur: Et ego veniens ad vos, fratres, veni non per sublimitatem sermonum, et sapientiae, annuntians vobis testimonium Domini. Non enim judicavi scire me aliquid inter vos, nisi Christum Jesum et hunc crucifixum (I Cor. II, 1, 2). Et ne forsitan putaretur, haec dicens, esse insipientiae praedicator, mente praesaga, quod opponi poterat, evertit. Sed loquitur, inquit, Dei sapientiam in mysterio, quae abscondita est: quam nemo principum hujus saeculi cognovit. Quotusquisque nunc Aristotelem legit? quanti Platonis vel libros novere, vel nomen? Vix in angulis otiosi eos senes recolunt. Rusticanos vero et piscatores nostros totus orbis loquitur, universus mundus sonat. Itaque sermone simplici, simplicia eorum verba pandenda sunt. Verba, inquam, non sensus. Caeterum si, orantibus vobis, illum possim [Al. possem] in exponendis Epistolis eorum habere spiritum, quem illi in dictando habuerunt: tunc videritis [Al. videretis] tantam majestatem et latitudinem in his verae fuisse sapientiae, quanta in saeculi litteratis arrogantia et vanitas fuit. Breviter vobis meae mentis fateor arcanum: Qui per me intellecturus est Apostolum, nolo ut mea scripta difficulter intelligat, et ad interpretem cognoscendum, alium quaerat interpretem. Sed jam tempus est, ut reliqua persequamur. [...] Non quod ignorem Caium Marium Victorinum, qui Romae, me puero, rhetoricam docuit, edidisse Commentarios in Apostolum; sed quod occupatus ille eruditione saecularium litterarum, Scripturas omnino sanctas ignoraverit: et nemo possit, quamvis eloquens, de eo bene disputare, quod nesciat. Quid igitur, ego stultus aut temerarius, qui id pollicear quod ille non potuit? Minime. Quin potius in eo, ut mihi videor, cautior atque timidior, quod imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum secutus. Scripsit enim ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit: Tractatus quoque varios, et Excerpta, quae vel sola possint [Al. possent] sufficere, composuit. Praetermitto Didymum, videntem meum, et Laodicenum (Apollinarem) de Ecclesia nuper egressum, et Alexandrum veterem haereticum, Eusebium quoque Emesenum, et Theodorum Heracleoten, qui et ipsi nonnullos super hac re Commentariolos [Al. Commentarios] reliquerunt. E quibus si vel pauca decerperem, fieret aliquid quod non penitus contemneretur. Itaque ut simpliciter fatear, legi haec omnia, et in mente mea plurima coacervans, accito notario, vel mea, vel aliena dictavi, nec ordinis, nec verborum interdum, nec sensuum memoriam retentans. Jam Domini tantum misericordiae est, ne per imperitiam nostram ab aliis bene dicta dispereant, et non placeant inter extraneos, quae placent inter suos. Argumentum itaque Epistolae hujus breviter comprehendens, hac praefatione commoneo, ut sciatis eamdem esse materiam et Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas, et quae ad Romanos scripta est. Sed hoc differre inter utramque, quod in illa altiori sensu et profundioribus usus est argumentis, hic quasi ad eos scribens, de quibus in consequentibus ait: O insensati Galatae: Et: Sic insipientes estis, tali se sermone moderatus est, quod increparet potius, quam doceret: et quem possent stulti intelligere, ut communes sententias, communi oratione vestiret, et quos ratio suadere non poterat, revocaret auctoritas. Nullus quidem Apostoli sermo est, vel per Epistolam, vel praesentis, in quo non laboret docere antiquae Legis onera deposita, et omnia illa quae in typis et imaginibus praecesserunt, id est, otium sabbati, circumcisionis injuriam, Kalendarum et trium per annum solemnitatum recursus, scrupulositatem ciborum, et per dies singulos lavacra iterum sordidanda, gratia Evangelii subrepente cessasse, quam non sanguis victimarum, sed fides animae credentis impleret. Verum alibi pro parte, et ut se aliud agenti haec quaestio obtulerat, ex latere disputatum est, et pene perstrictum. In his autem duabus, ut dixi, Epistolis, specialiter antiquae legis cessatio, et novae introductio continetur. Sed ad Galatas hoc proprium habet, quod non scribit ad eos qui ex Judaeis in Christum crediderant, et paternas putabant caeremonias observandas: sed ad eos qui ex gentibus fidem Evangelii receperant, et rursum retro lapsi, quorumdam fuerant auctoritate deterriti, asserentium Petrum quoque et Jacobum, et totas Judaeae Ecclesias, Evangelium Christi cum lege veteri miscuisse. Ipsum etiam Paulum aliud in Judaea facere, aliud nationibus praedicare: et frustra eos in Crucifixum credere, si id negligendum putarent quod Apostolorum principes observarent. Quamobrem ita caute inter utrumque et medius incedit, ut nec Evangelii prodat gratiam, pressus pondere et auctoritate majorum, nec praecessoribus faciat injuriam, dum assertor est gratiae: oblique vero et quasi per cuniculos latenter incedens: ut [Al. et] Petrum doceat pro commissa sibi circumcisionis plebe facere, ne ab antiquo repente vivendi more desciscens, in crucem scandalizata non crederet, et sibi praedicatione gentium credita, aequum esse id pro veritate defendere, quod alius pro dispensatione simularet. Quod nequaquam intelligens Bataneotes et sceleratus ille Porphyrius, in primo operis sui adversum nos libro, Petrum a Paulo objecit esse reprehensum, quod non recto pede incederet ad evangelizandum: volens et illi maculam erroris inurere, et huic procacitatis, et in commune ficti dogmatis accusare mendacium, dum inter se Ecclesiarum principes discrepent [Al. discreparent]. Quae quidem et nunc, orantibus vobis, leviter quo sensu sint dicta, contingimus, et in suis locis plenius exsequemur. Sed jam tempus est, ut ipsius Apostoli verba ponentes, singula quaeque pandamus.

Historical context:

Jerome composed this commentary at the request of Paula and Eustochium, to whom he addresses the prologue. But when Marcella's mother died, he decided to send it also to her as he explains. The prologue analyzes Paul's lessons in terms of his audience. Jerome also addresses Paula and Eustochium by name at the beginning of the third book in a separate and rather personal letter describing his physical state and apologizing for his style.

Scholarly notes:

(1) Abelard cites this passage in a letter to Heloise, ep.9, and Heloise cites it in her letter accompanying the Problemata.

Printed source:

Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas, Prologus, PL26 c.307-308, 399-411, 308-312

Date:

388