Cicero's pro milone and Jerome.
Grounds can however be adduced which suggest that Jerome's wording may not in fact have been borrowed directly from Cicero himself. The phrase of the Pro Milone at issue was famous (6). Cicero's wording is quoted on no fewer than three occasions by Quintilian alone (7). Of these Quintilianic passages the last one, which explicitly identifies the words as coming from Cicero, is moreover located at the very end of the fifth book of the Institutio. While any quotation naturally draws attention to the words that are quoted, citation in such a prominent locus as the conclusion of a book necessarily imprints the wording even more strongly on the mind (8). Jerome was thoroughly familiar with Quintilian's Institutio (9). It can be shown that elsewhere Jerome is in fact borrowing from a quotation in Quintilian rather than from the Ciceronian original itself (10). In the case of Quintilian's citations from the pro Milone it may be observed that he quotes this text as part of a discussion of enthymemes and epicheiremes: this is also the way Jerome himself uses the same text (11).
Here Jerome in fact enhances a sa facon the stylistic register of the language found in both Quintilian and Cicero (12). Three points may be made in this connection. Firstly Jerome introduces a question: quanto magis studia scripturarum? (13) Such an interrogative format is preferable, because it magis ardet (14). Instead however of straightforward interrogatio the present case evinces the choicer variety qualified by rhetoricians as pusma: the former merely requires a "yes" or a "no", whereas pusma "speziellere Antworten erheischt" (15). Secondly Jerome amplifies the pusma with a subnexio (16): quanto magis studia scripturarum, quae et librorum multitudine ... indigent? The third and final point concerns Jerome's alteration of the actual wording given by Quintilian and Cicero, who both have leges inter arma, which Jerome changes to inter arma leges. Whereas therefore in Cicero and Quintilian the terminal dichoree (inter arma) was preceded by a spondee (leges), in Jerome the final dichoree (arma leges) now follows another choree (inter): the resultant clausula was considered less good than the Ciceronian and Quintilianic one (17). The Hieronymian transposition does however generate a species of elegantly epiphoric disiunctio (18): silent inter arma leges / quanto magis studia scripturarum.
If then the sole passage of the Pro Milone to be adduced in Hagendahl's canonical study (11: silent enim leges inter arma) cannot after all be shown to have exercised an indubitably direct influence on Jerome's oeuvre, such an unmediated debt can evidently be posited in connection with a later passage of the same speech: it is accordingly possible to demonstrate that Jerome was in fact familiar with the Pro Milone at first-hand, even though Hagendahl's own study fails to establish such familiarity. Near the end of this speech (19) Cicero affirms his willingness to share the fate of his client Milo, whom he addresses as follows (100): quid iam restat? quid habeo quod faciam pro tuis in me meritis nisi ut eam fortunam quaecumque erit tua ducam meam? non abnuo, non recuso. Here the last four words (non abnuo, non recuso) are very impressive indeed: it is precisely such rhetorically striking material that Jerome remembers and reproduces (20). This four-word unit in fact evinces far more rhetorical figures than words. They may be briefly enumerated: anaphora, asyndeton, Behaghel's law (21), expolitio in the form of epiphoric disiunctio (22), homoeoteleuton, parison (23). Such rhetorical finesse cannot have failed to catch Jerome's eye.
Particular importance attaches to Jerome's Letter 18A (24), since it is his earliest extant work of independent exegesis (25). This treatise, which was written at Constantinople in 380 (26), was later dedicated to Pope Damasus: it expounds Isaiah's famous inaugural vision of Yahweh and the seraphs. Two-thirds of the way through this work Jerome refers to the episode in which at the Last Supper Christ washes his disciples' feet: according to Jerome this pedilavium has both a literal and an allegorical sense. In connection with the former Jerome states (epist. 18A, 12, 1): esto, doceat (sc. dominus) humilitatem, ut nobis invicem ministremus: non abnuo, non recuso. For the phrase non abnuo, non recuso neither the online Library of Latin Texts nor the Patrologia Latina Database provides any further instance besides the present passage of Jerome's Letter 18A and the aforesaid passage of Cicero's Pro Milone (27). In both Jerome and Cicero exactly the same wording is employed in exactly the same way: both verbs are used absolutely in order to indicate assent to a hypothetical subjunctive that immediately precedes. For both verbs synonyms galore were available (28). It may therefore be supposed that the occurrence of the identical and otherwise unattested four-word unit non abnuo, non recuso in both Jerome's Letter 18A and Cicero's Pro Milone is due to direct dependence of the former on the latter.
Jerome's imitation calls for a number of observations. In this connection four points may be made. In the first place it is not unusual for Jerome to be thus alone in the appropriation of such striking phraseology (29). Secondly Jerome has streamlined his Ciceronian source: whereas in the Pro Milone the dicolic phrase (non abnuo, non recuso) is followed by a long-winded third element (30), Jerome himself stops immediately after the dicolon. Again such streamlining can be paralleled elsewhere in Jerome's work (31). The third point has to do with textual criticism: Jerome's imitation supports the reading non abnuo, non recuso in the Pro Milone against other-way-round non recuso, non abnuo, which is transmitted by part of the Ciceronian paradosis (32). Finally this borrowing in Letter 18A is over three decades earlier than the putative reminiscence of the Pro Milone in Letter 126 (silent ... leges), which was discussed at the beginning of this article. The present literal quotation in an early work of exegesis accordingly belongs to the middle of Hagendahl's "first period" (374-385), in which he affirms that "literal quotations do not appear in writings intended for the public" (33). This statement requires modification in the light of the "literal quotation" just identified in Jerome's exegetical tract (34).
In this particular work the occurrence of such a stylish borrowing is in fact noteworthy for a number of reasons. Although this treatise is very long, Hagendahl was not able to identify anywhere within it a single reminiscence of the classics, whether "literal" or no. Jerome himself stresses that he dictated the work "impromptu" (35): he was therefore quoting from memory (36). This Letter 18A is moreover exegesis pure and simple: Jerome affirms repeatedly that such exegesis is antithetic to Ciceronian eloquence (37). Letter 18A is in fact strongly marked by colloquialism: two examples may be cited. In the first Jerome says: in praesenti volumine Esaiae ab eo, qui sedet in throno, "ubetur, ut dicat: aure audietis ..." (18A, 4, 3). Such use of iubeo with a dative is non-standard (38). The second example of colloquialism is the threefold use of quia instead of A. c. I. after verba sentiendi (39). In a work of such shirt-sleeve exegesis it is accordingly remarkable to find a snazzy phrase straight from Ciceros Pro Milone (40).
This Ciceronian styleme (non abnuo, non recuso) is in fact very chi-chi indeed. Abnuo is not found anywhere else in the entire corpus of Ciceros speeches (41), while the verb is avoided altogether by Caesar. The Pro Milone accordingly glosses abnuo fittingly by the addition of recuso. Since however abnuo later became more common, there was no reason for Jerome himself to add the same gloss. The resultant perissology is significantly absent from a passage that employs synonymous rennuo shortly afterwards in the same Letter 18A (15, 6): here Jerome says simply non rennuit (42). The purpose of Jerome's non abnuo, non recuso is to signal assent to a literal interpretation of Christ's pedilavium as a lesson in humility. It is therefore noteworthy that exactly the same literal sense of this episode had been taken for granted in a letter written shortly before 18A (43). If then the point at issue in this passage of Letter 18A was self-evident, there was no need to signify acceptance of it with such an altiloquently battological form of expression as non abnuo, non recuso. Such "altiloquence" would seem all the more mal-a-propos, since the point of the "humbly" literal sense is an explicit lesson in "humility": doceat humilitatem. Here Jerome's resort to flamboyant phrasing would accordingly appear to entail a certain infelicity: this kind of inconcinnity is characteristic of such Hieronymian borrowings from elsewhere (44).
This time the inconcinnity is compounded by failure to take account of the original context of this passage of the Pro Milone (45). Two points may be made in this connection. Whereas Ciceros grandiloquent non abnuo, non recuso had aptly proclaimed a readiness to share his client Milo's entire fortuna, Jerome's use of the same grand dicolon abundans proclaims his own readiness to assent to no more than the literal sense of one single text of scripture. If in Cicero form and content had dovetailed, in Jerome they no longer do. The second contextual point compounds stylistic with moral impropriety. Jerome was no doubt aware that when Cicero produced the written version of the Pro Milone, his client had already gone into exile at Marseille, where Cicero never in fact joined him (46). It will therefore have been clear to Jerome that the Ciceronian non abnuo, non recuso was a lie. Jerome accordingly uses a patent dishonesty on Cicero's part to affirm his own "honest" adherence to the literal sense of the Lord's teaching (47).
After Jerome's assent in non abnuo, non recuso to the literal interpretation, his very next words then proceed to the allegorical sense: quid est, quod Petro recusanti dicit: "nisi lavero pedes tuos, non habebis partem mecum"...? Allegorically the feet-washing is an epuration from sin. Here the phrase Petro recusanti entails a repetition of recusare after a mere five syllables: non recuso. recusanti. Such use of exactly the same lexeme in so short a compass might be thought inconcinnous, especially since each of these verbs, which are here employed absolutely and without qualification, bears a different sense (48). In each case the particular reference is also correspondingly disparate: while the first instance of recusare denotes Jerome's (non-) "refusal" of a literal sense of scripture, the second one signifies St. Peter's (actual) "refusal" of the quite different matter of a foot-washing by Jesus. It may also be noted that no warrant whatsoever for such use of recusare in connection with this pedilavium is supplied by the appurtenant biblical text (Jn. 13, 8), which reads simply: dicit ei Petrus: "non lavabis mihi pedes" (49). Why then should Jerome have resorted to such an inconcinnous repetition?
Jerome was as prone to borrow phraseology from himself as from others (50). Earlier in the same year as his Letter 18A Jerome had translated nine homilies of Origen on Isaiah (51). Here Jerome had written (hom. Orig. in Is. 6, 3 p. 272, 9-10): ait salvator ad recusantem Petrum et dicentem: "non lavabis pedes meos" (Jn. 13, 8). For this combination of Petrus and recusans not a single further instance is supplied by the whole of the vast Patrologia Latina Database besides this text of Jerome's translation and his Letter 18A: evidently therefore the latter is a self-imitation of the former (52). Jerome's Letter 18A accordingly juxtaposes a Selbstzitat from a translation of Origen with a borrowing from Cicero's Pro Milone: this centoistic technique is found elsewhere in his oeuvre (53). The above-mentioned inconcinnities that result from Jerome's resort to such combination of second-hand material can likewise be paralleled (54).
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill--USA
* Recebido em 17-01-2013; aceite para publicacao em 07-03-2013.
Works are cited according to Thesaurus Linguae Latinae: Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum, Leipzig, 19902, and its online Addenda at http://www.thesaurus.badw.de/pdf/ addenda.pdf.
(1) Quaest. hebr. in gen. p. 1, 12. For Jerome's debt to Cicero in general and to the speeches in particular cf. the masterly investigation by H. HAGENDAHL, Latin Fathers and the Classics: A Study on the Apologists, Jerome and Other Christian Writers, Goteborg, 1958 (Acta Univ. Gothob., 64, 2), pp. 284-292, and the same author's Nachlese ("Jerome and the Latin Classics", VChr, 28, 1974, pp. 216-227, on 220-222). For retouches to the picture of Jerome's borrowings from the speeches cf. the present writer, "Hieronymus Ciceronianus: The Catilinarians in Jerome", Latomus, 51, 1992, pp. 408-420; id., "Cicero, Pro Marcello 12 and Jerome", Philologus, 141, 1997, 137-140; id., "Biblia Catilinaria", Maia, n.s. 55, 2003, pp. 93-98; id., "Catullus in Jerome? Notes on the Cohortatoria de paenitentia ad Sabinianum (Epist. 147)", VChr, 65, 2011, pp. 408-424, on pp. 418-420 (the Divinatio in Caecilium).
(2) So A. C. CLARK, M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro T. Annio Milone ad iudices oratio, Oxford, 1895, repr. Amsterdam, 1967, p. 1 (for the canonical status of this commentary cf. [e.g.] P. FEDELI, Cicerone, in difesa di Milone [Pro Milone], Venice, 19902, repr. 2000, p. 37: "vero monumentum aere perennius").
(3) So Asconius, Mil. p. 37, 16-17 (scripsit [sc. Cicero Milonianam] ... ita perfecte, ut iure prima haberi possit).
(4) Epist. 126, 2, 2. Marcellinus was an influential figure, being Honorius' appointee to settle the Donatist schism as well as Augustine's choice as dedicatee of The City of God. This epistle of Jerome is also no. 165 in the corpus of Augustine's letters.
(5) H. HAGENDAHL, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 259-260; cf. p. 399. This identification is found already in A. LUEBECK, Hieronymus quos noverit scriptores et ex quibus hauserit, Leipzig, 1872, p. 137, where it is likewise given as the sole Hieronymian debt to this speech.
(6) It is qualified as "ein geflugeltes Wort" by A. Otto, Die Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Romer, Leipzig, 1890, repr. LaVergne, Tenn., 2010, p. 192 (no. 946); cf. also R. HAUSSLER, Nachtrage zu A. Otto, Sprichworter und sprichwortliche Redensarten der Romer, Hildesheim, 1968, p. 311.
(7) Viz. inst. 5, 14, 17 (bis); 5, 14, 35. It is also cited by Iulius Victor (rhet. p. 66, 30), Servius (ecl. 9, 11) and Martianus Capella (5, 512).
(8) Cf. P. PETITMENGIN, "S. Jerome et Tertullien" in Y.-M. DUVAL (ed.), Jerome entre lOccident et l'Orient. XVIe centenaire du depart de S. Jerome de Rome et de son installation a Bethleem. Actes du Colloque de Chantilly (septembre 1986), Paris, 1988, pp. 43-59, on p. 50: "des emprunts incontestables, faits souvent ... a la fin d'un traite ..., c'est-a-dire aux passages qui restent le mieux graves dans la memoire".
(9) Cf. H. HAGENDAHL, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 412. Further evidence is adduced by the present writer, "The Ninth Book of Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria and Jerome", Arctos, 32, 1998, pp. 13-25; id., "The Eleventh Book of Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria and Jerome", Eos, 89, 2002, pp. 315-319.
(10) Cf. the present writer, "Cicero's Orator and Jerome", VChr, 51, 1997, pp. 25-39, on p. 27. Here the Hieronymian text in question is the letter to Demetrias (130, 6, 1), which belongs to exactly the same period as the one addressed to Marcellinus (epist. 126) currently at issue. Letter 130 was written in 414; cf. F. Cavallera, S. Jerome: Sa vie et son oeuvre, I, 2, Louvain and Paris, 1922, repr. 1985 (Spic. Sacr. Lovan., 2), p. 54. For the date of letter 126 cf. most recently C. FRY, Lettres croisees de Jerome et Augustin, Paris, 2010, p. 293 ("Par defaut, on situera la Lettre 143 [but read '126'] de Jerome quelque part aux alentours immediats de 412"); this letter had been assigned to 412 itself by M. MOREAU, "Le Dossier Marcellinus dans la Correspondance de S. Augustin", RecAug, 9, 1973, pp. 3-181, on p. 81.
(11) Jerome says: quodsi ... silent inter arma leges, quanto magis studia scripturarum, quae et librorum multitudine ... indigent? It may be added that Quintilian's second and third citations of this text likewise match Jerome's in omitting the Ciceronian enim.
(12) On this titivatory feature of Hieronymian imitatio cf. the present writer, "Athanasius' Letter to Virgins and Jerome's Libellus de virginitate servanda", RFIC, 120, 1992, pp. 185-203.
(13) So the punctuation of (e.g.) J. LABOURT, S. Jerome: Lettres, VII, Paris, 1961, repr. 2003, p. 136, who rightly prefers a note of interrogation to an exclamation mark.
(14) Thus Quintilian, inst. 9, 2, 8.
(15) So H. LAUSBERG, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, Stuttgart, 20084, pp. 380-381 (no. 770).
(16) Cf. H. LAUSBERG, op. cit. (n. 15), p. 428 (no. 861): "Die subnexio ist die Anfugung eines erlauternden, meist eines begrundenden (Neben-)Gedankens ... an einen Hauptgedanken".
(17) Cf. M. C. HERRON, A Study of the Clausulae in the Writings of St. Jerome, Washington, 1937 (Cath. Univ. Am. Patr. Stud., 51), pp. 16-17.
(18) For this figure cf. (e.g.) Quintilian, inst. 9, 3, 45: aliquando ... initia quoque et clausulae sententiarum aliis sed non alio tendentibus verbis inter se consonant.
(19) For Jerome's propensity to appropriate phraseology from such terminal passages cf. n. 8 above. It was pointed out there that Quintilian's citation of Mil. 11 likewise occupies a conspicuously final position.
(20) Cf. the present writer, "Some Features of Jerome's Compositional Technique in the Libellus de virginitate servanda (Epist. 22)", Philologus, 136, 1992, pp. 234-255, on pp. 251-252.
(21) Cf. M. VON ALBRECHT, Masters of Roman Prose from Cato to Apuleius, revised Engl. transl. by the present writer, Leeds, 1989 (ARCA, 23), index s.v. "law of increasing members". In the Ciceronian phrase a quinqueliteral verb (abnuo) is followed by one with six letters (recuso). Besides increased word-length this language may also be felt to entail a semantic amplificado: whereas abnuo denotes a mere "nod", recuso, like accuso, was etymologized from causa, "a (good) cause". Such auxesis is appropriate: augeri enim debent sententiae et insurgere (Quintilian, inst. 9, 4, 23; cf. 8, 4, 27 verbis omnibus altius atque altius insurgentibus).
(22) Cf. n. 18 above.
(23) The final point may be made that this phrasing is also marked by a particularly choice clausula. For the cretic dichoree cf. M. C. Herron, op. cit. (n. 17), pp. 19-23. It corresponds accentually to the cursus velox. There is also concord here between metrical ictus and linguistic accent.
(24) Jerome qualifies it as a libellus at in Is. 3, 6, 1c l. 10 G. and as a liber at epist. 84, 3, 4. He gives its title as De seraphim at vir. ill. 135, 2.
(25) This Letter 18A has been studied recently by A. Furst, "Jerome Keeping Silent: Origen and his Exegesis of Isaiah", in A. CAIN, J. LOSSL (eds.), Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy, Farnham, Surr. and Burlington, Vt., 2009, pp. 141-152; cf. also the substantial treatment by P. Nautin, "Le De seraphim de Jerome et son appendice Ad Damasum", in M. Wissemann (ed.), Roma Renascens: Beitrage zur Spatantike und Rezeptionsgeschichte Ilona Opelt von ihren Freunden und Schulern zum 9.7.1988 in Verehrung gewidmet, Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York and Paris, 1988, pp. 257-293. Neither study deals with the particular passage at issue below.
(26) For the date cf. P. NAUTIN, art. cit. (n. 25), pp. 276-277.
(27) In Beatus of Liebana (comm. in Apoc. 4, 6, 32) the occurrence of the phrase is merely due to the author's reproduction in extenso of Jerome's Letter 18A.
(28) For abnuo cf. Synon. Cic. p. 416, 3-4 (abnegat. infitiatur. infitias it. abnuit. rennuit. contradicit. retractat. detrectat. reclamat); p. 430, 21 (infitiatur. abnuit. negat. renuit. resistit. contradicit). For recuso cf. Synon. Cic. p. 425, 31-32 (fastidit. gravatur. repellit. despicit. aspernatur. contempnit. respuit. reicit. recusat. repudiat. refutat); p. 442, 6 (recusat. respuit. rennuit).
(29) Cf. the present writer, "Tertullian's De ieiunio and Jerome's Libellus de virginitate servanda (Epist. 22)", WS, 104, 1991, pp. 149-160, on pp. 154-159.
(30) Viz. non abnuo, non recuso, vosque obsecro, iudices, ut vestra beneficia quae in me contulistis aut in huius salute augeatis aut in eiusdem exitio occasura esse videatis.
(31) Cf. the present writer, art. cit. (n. 20), pp. 235-236.
(32) This lection non recuso, non abnuo is to be found in (e.g.) A. FORCELLINI, Lexicon Totius Latinitatis, I, Padua, 1940, repr. 1965 (s.v. abnuo), p. 14. For a similar case in which a Hieronymian imitation has a bearing on Ciceronian Textkritik cf. the present writer, "Cicero, Catilinarians 2, 11: intus insidiae sunt", AC, 62, 1993, pp. 213-217.
(33) H. HAGENDAHL, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 320.
(34) Hagendahl's statement is made in connection with his belief that Jerome is keeping the vow he made in his famous dream about reading classical literature. For a corrective to Hagendahl's influential views on this subject cf. the present writer, "Jerome's Vow 'Never to Reread the Classics': Some Observations", REA, 101, 1999, pp. 161-167.
(35) Cf. epist. 18A, 16, 2; in Is. 3, 6, 1c ll. 8-9 G. (dictasse subitum ... tractatum). For subitus meaning "impromptu" cf. Oxf. Lat. Dict., II, 20122, p. 2030 (s.v., 5b: "[of speech, etc.] extempore, impromptu").
(36) For Jerome's endowment with a vast memory as well as with a magpie mind cf. the present writer, art. cit. (n. 20), p. 251.
(37) So in Is. lib. 8 praef. ll. 11-15 G. (si flumen eloquentiae ... desiderant, legant Tullium ...; nobis propositum est Esaiam per nos intellegi); in Gal. lib. 3 praef. ll. 49-52 (commentariorum opus explanatio nominatur. si quis eloquentiam quaerit, ... habet ... Tullium); epist. 29, 1, 3 (licet de scripturis sanctis disputanti non tam necessaria sint verba quam sensus, quia, si eloquentiam quaerimus, ... legendus ... Tullius est); epist. 36, 14, 1-2 (nec de flumine Tulliano eloquentiae ducendus est rivulus ...; pedestris et cotidianae similis et nullam lucubrationem redolens oratio necessaria est, quae rem explicet).
(38) Cf. the present writer, "The Letter of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella: Some Notes", Maia, n.s. 51, 1999, pp. 97-110, on p. 97. This passage of Letter 18A is misunderstood in the influential translation by J. LABOURT, S. Jerome: Lettres, I, Paris, 1949, repr. 2002, p. 58, who misconstrues Esaiae as a genitive dependent on volumine instead of a dative governed by iubetur: "Dans le present rouleau d'Isaie, celui qui siege sur le trone ordonne au prophete de dire" (so too D. RUIZ BUENO, Cartas de S. Jeronimo: Edicion bilingue, I, Madrid, 1962, repr. 1972 [Bibl. Aut. Crist., 219], p. 99 ["en el presente rollo de Isaias"]; C. C. MIEROW and T. C. LAWLER, The Letters of St. Jerome, I, London and Westminster, Md., 1963, repr. 1988 [Anc. Chr. Wr., 33], p. 83 ["in the present roll of Isaias"; Mierow and Lawler are evidently uncomfortable with this translation, since they feel obliged to add a special note giving the Latin]; S. COLA, S. Girolamo: Le Lettere, I, Rome, 1996, p. 123 ["nel presente volume di Isaia"]; E. CAMISANI, Opere scelte di S. Girolamo, I, Turin, 19992, p. 298 ["nel presente volume d'Isaia"]).
(39) Viz. epist. 18A, 7, 6 (sciendum ... quia.); 18A, 12, 4 (sciens ... quia ...); 18A, 15, 6 (putans quia ...). This usage is qualified as "volkstumlich" by J. B. HOFMANN and A. SZANTYR, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, Munich, 1965, repr. 1997 (Handb. d. Altertumsw., 2, 2, 2), p. 576. A similarly heavy incidence of colloquialism also marks Jerome's Letter 22; cf. the present writer, "Some Notes on the Style of Jerome's Twenty-Second Letter", RFIC, 112, 1984, 287-291. While however this Letter 22 is three times as long as Letter 18A, it contains only a single instance of the aforementioned use of quia (epist. 22, 39, 2). There the quia is moreover part of a quotation from the Old Latin: significantly this is not the case with any of Letter 18A's three quias.
(40) A parallel is however supplied by the presence of a similarly flashy phrase from Tertullian in Jerome's similarly unpretentious Tractates; cf. the present writer, "Tertullian's De idololatria and Jerome Again", Mnemosyne, n.s. 49, 1996, pp. 46-52.
(41) For Ciceronian usage cf. A. C. CLARK, op. cit. (n. 2), p. 90.
(42) It may be observed that the redundancy of non abnuo, non recuso is accentuated by Jerome's omission of Cicero's ensuing third element; cf. n. 30 above.
(43) Viz. epist. 12, 1. This letter begins thus: dominus noster humilitatis magister. (cf. doceat [sc. dominus] humilitatem [epist. 18A, 12, 1], just before non abnuo, non recuso). This Letter 12 was written "c. 375-377" (so A. Cain, "Vox clamantis in deserto: Rhetoric, Reproach, and the Forging of Ascetic Authority in Jerome's Letters from the Syrian Desert", JThS, n.s. 57, 2006, pp. 500-525, on p. 502).
(44) Cf. the present writer, art. cit. (n. 20), pp. 236-238.
(45) For Jeromian imitations that evince similar indifference to context, which may be quite disparate, cf. the present writer, "Tertullian's De idololatria and Jerome", Augustinianum, 33, 1993, pp. 11-30; id., "Terence's Eunuchus and Jerome", RhM, N.F. 137, 1994, pp. 187-195.
46 Asconius ends his commentary on this speech thus (Mil. p. 45, 23-24): Milo in exsilium Massiliam intra paucissimos dies profectus est. For the later, written version of the speech cf. (e.g.) Schol. Cic. Bob. p. 112, 12-13: hanc orationem postea legitimo opere et maiore cura, utpote iam confirmato animo et in securitate, conscribsit. Jerome had read Cicero's speeches with this kind of "commentary"; cf. adv. Rufin. 1, 16. He was in fact "un grand lecteur" of such "scoliastes" (so M. J. Doignon, "Le trait du livre III du De re publica de Ciceron sur le nomen de Sardanapale: Sa posterite chez S. Jerome, ses rapports avec un fragment d'Aristote", in R. Chevallier (ed.), Presence de Ciceron: Actes du colloque des 25, 26 septembre 1982: Hommage au R. P M. Testard, Paris, 1984 [Caesarodunum, 19bis], pp. 107-115, on p. 110, n. 24).
(47) For a similarly complete inversion of ethical tone in a Jeromian borrowing cf. the present writer, "Tobit and Jerome", Helmantica, 45, 1995, pp. 109-114, on p. 112.
(48) Whereas in the first case (non recuso) the meaning is "not to accept or consent to, decline, reject" (so Oxf. Lat. Dict., II, 20122, p. 1749 [s.v., 2]), on the second occasion (recusanti) the sense is "(in general) to make an objection, protest" (ibid., p. 1749 [s.v., 1b]).
(49) So the Vulgate, which is the same as the Old Latin given by P. SABATIER, Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, III, Reims, 1743, repr. Turnhout, 1991, p. 453.
(50) For Jerome's partiality for such Selbstzitate cf. the present writer, "Self-Imitation in Jerome's Libellus de virginitate servanda (Epist. 22)", Athenaeum, n.s. 83, 1995, pp. 469-485.
(51) For the date ("380 in Konstantinopel") cf. A. FURST and C. HENGSTERMANN, Origenes: Die Homilien zum Buch Jesaja, Berlin and New York, 2009 (Origenes: Werke mit deutscher Ubersetzung, 10), p. 170.
(52) In most of the Selbstzitate identified by the present writer, art. cit. (n. 50), the source is likewise Jerome's translations from Origen. For a further phraseological debt to the homilies on Isaiah themselves cf. id., art. cit. (n. 50), p. 481.
(53) Cf. the present writer, "Jerome as Centoist: Epist. 22, 38, 7", RSLR, 28, 1992, 461-471.
(54) Cf. the present writer, "Some Notes on the Content of Jerome's Twenty-Second Letter", GB, 15, 1988, 177-186, on 182-186; id., "Tertullian in Jerome (Epist. 22, 37, 1-2)", SO, 68, 1993, 129-143, on 131-135. The work at issue in these two articles and in the one cited in the previous note (Epist. 22) belongs to Jerome's time at Rome in the mid-380's. The present paper would seem to have shown that exactly the same compositional methods are already discernible in the earlier stage of his career: Constantinople.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||II STVDIA BREVIORA|
|Publication:||Euphrosyne. Revista de Filologia Classica|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Remus, Remulus, and other tiburtines.|
|Next Article:||Imitation in sixteenth-century Portuguese eclogues: Diogo Bernardes, Camoes, Antonio Ferreira.|