GIROLAMITI

GIROLAMITI. – This name was given to several congregations of hermits that arose in Spain and Italy in the 14th and 15th centuries. They followed the

I. LIFE

Son of Eusebius, born in Stridon, a fortress destroyed by the Goths on the borders of Dalmatia and Pannonia. The holy Doctor himself transmitted these details among his autobiographical notes in chapter 135 of the *De viris*, written in 392. Those lines concern the family, the date and place of birth of St. J., and many often-debated problems, most of which, in the absence of necessary documents, cannot receive a fully satisfactory solution. His parents were Catholics, and he received a Catholic upbringing. The name of his mother is unknown; only that of a maternal aunt, Castorina, is known, with whom he later had difficulties. He had fond memories of the kindness of his nurse, but he left no memory of his mother. The family enjoyed a certain prosperity, and despite the Gothic devastations, the family property was still in sufficiently good condition that in 398 J. could hope to profit from its sale. He had a sister who for some time caused him worry and whom he entrusted to the clergy of Aquileia; and a younger brother, Paulinian, who later joined him in Bethlehem and practiced the monastic life with him. The date of birth of St. J. is fixed by the chronicle of Prosper, but it does not agree with the numerous details that St. J. himself gives about his early years. It seems rather that his birth should be placed in 347 A.D., a date with which all his accounts of his early education and life in Rome agree. As for the exact location of Stridon, it is impossible to determine it: no document other than the notice given by St. J. mentions this place. Thus, the most disparate and unlikely conjectures have been made about II. One of these, which had won over scholars such as G. Morin and F. Bulic and placed Stridon at Grahovopolje in Bosnia, not far from Glamoč, near the border of present-day Dalmatia, because of an inscription mentioning the Stridones, had to be abandoned because it rested on a serious forgery, recognized as such by the author himself. Following D. Vallarsi, A. Vaccari and F. Cavallera believed it better to seek ancient Stridon in the vicinity of Aquileia and Haemona, toward which the data of St. J.’s correspondence with his relatives and friends point. Morin had accepted this hypothesis, but in April 1941 he changed his mind once more and, in an article in *Nova et Vetera*, strongly argued the untenability of this solution, proposing instead to locate Stridon much farther east, on the line where itineraries mark *ad fines* and more probably where Qrin is now found. Vaccari seems to have abandoned his former opinion, but Cavallera, without discussing the new hypothesis, attempted to demonstrate in a recent article that the arguments invoked for the Aquileia area retained all their force (*La patrie de st Jérôme*, in *Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique*, 47 [1946], pp. 60-64).

Be that as it may, J. first received in his father’s home a very careful education, about which he recalls the severity of his teacher, a new Orbilius, and the games in the great family house.

When the time came to perfect his education and indulge his taste for liberal culture, J. was sent to Rome to study under the most prominent grammarians and rhetoricians, and he became a diligent pupil of Donatus. A serious student, he took a deep interest in literature and all branches of knowledge cultivated at the time, including law and philosophy. Though he did not pursue the study of Greek deeply, he was already concerned at that time with building a select library. Among his fellow students were some young men from his own region, such as Bonosus and Rufinus, or of Roman origin like Pammachius, the future senator and son-in-law of Paula.

According to some accounts, J. would have led at that time, with the young Romans, a life of dissipation and frivolity. But even more he was captivated by the appeal that Christianity exercised in the city, which had seen the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul. On Sundays he attended the school at Aquileia, where he taught.

He visited the catacombs with some friends who shared his Christian ideas, and soon decided to receive Baptism, which, according to the custom of the time, he had long postponed.

After completing the normal course of his studies, he left Rome with a childhood friend, Bonosus, to go to Trier: his correspondence with Rufinus shows him occupied in copying manuscripts of Christian authors for himself and his friends. At the same time he felt the first impulse toward the monastic vocation.

The reasons for this journey to Trier and the length of his stay there are unknown. By 373 he was back in Italy and is found at Aquileia in a circle of fervent young men gathered around Bishop Valerian to lead, in J.’s words, a “heavenly life.” But the group, for reasons unknown, dispersed a few months later. J. took advantage of this to set out for the East. Through Illyricum, Thrace, Pontus, Cappadocia, Bithynia, Galatia, he arrived in Antioch in 374. He left some recollections of this journey, in particular of his passage through Athens.

At Antioch he was first the guest of Evagrius, whom he had recently met in Italy and who, during a long and serious illness, had attended him with great devotion. It was then that he had the dream in which he was severely punished for his attachment to profane letters and vowed never to concern himself with them again. As soon as he was able, abandoning his plan to visit Jerusalem, he pushed into the desert east of Antioch, among other monks who set him an example and devoted themselves to penitential exercises and prayer, sometimes troubled by memories of his Roman youth. During this period he also began the study of Hebrew, in order to better understand Holy Scripture, despite encountering great difficulties. He lived in that desert for almost two years, apparently happily and resolved to persevere, when the demon of discord began to stir in the desert. The cause was the question of the schism at Antioch, which was then tearing apart the whole Church of the East. The monks immediately took sides, and each was asked for his preference and his creed. Jerome at first fought on one side, then, weary of the struggle, wrote to Pope Damasus to ask with whom he should communicate. Receiving no reply, he abruptly decided to leave the desert. Evagrius took him in again, and since Evagrius himself had sided with Paulinus against Meletius, he had little difficulty in persuading Jerome to do the same. Jerome no longer appreciated the importance of such an adherence, and to strengthen it Evagrius persuaded him to receive priestly ordination at his hands. Jerome made it a condition that he be allowed to continue the monastic life: this was what he wished to safeguard above all else. At the same time, continuing his scriptural studies, he had occasion to attend some lectures by Apollinaris and to visit the Nazarenes at Beroea, where he was able to see their exemplar of the Hebrew Gospel, and he made his first attempts at composition. Up to that point he had been content to write with great care and some elegance a few letters to his friends in the East and West. He also attempted a small commentary on Abijah and perhaps also his Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi. Meanwhile the great capital of the East, which Theodosius had restored to Nicene orthodoxy and in which Gregory Nazianzen was exercising such fruitful and luminous apostolate, attracted him. He went there, it seems, in 379, and became Gregory’s assiduous disciple, living through with him the stormy days of the Council of 381, which also gave him the opportunity to meet St Gregory of Nyssa and St Amphilochius. Under their guidance Jerome improved his knowledge of Greek and above all learned to esteem Origen, of whom he began to translate a certain number of homilies on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. Ecclesiastical history also interested him. At the request of his friends Vincent and Gallicanus he translated and continued Eusebius’ Chronicle up to his own time, in the hope (which he never fulfilled) of writing a Historia of his own time.

It is not known under what circumstances Jerome made the acquaintance of St Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis. In 382 Paulinus of Antioch and the latter, desirous of going to Rome, took him with them. Jerome then felt the old charm of the Eternal City draw him, and in the spring of 383 he let his two friends depart alone. He had indeed won the full confidence of Pope Damasus, who readily employed him in official correspondence and also in the study of Holy Scripture, in which Jerome was already an undisputed master.

During this Roman sojourn Jerome applied himself with a zeal that difficulties only increased to a twofold task, pursued tirelessly: the propagation of the monastic life, especially among the women of the Roman aristocracy, and the study of Holy Scripture in the original Hebrew. Among the tasks imposed by the trustful friendship of the aged Pope Damasus must also be reckoned the revision of the Latin text of the Gospels: Jerome himself collated the Hebrew text of the Bible with that supplied by some manuscripts used by the Jews of Rome. Above all, he had organized in the house of Marcella on the Aventine kind of conferences, where he taught the noble lady and her daughters to understand the original text of the Psalms, which they could thus sing with greater understanding and piety; and he answered orally or in writing the difficulties they encountered in reading the sacred text.

This twofold apostolate, especially that in favour of the monastic life, soon aroused lively opposition, to which Jerome replied with stinging reproaches for the lax life of too many Christians and especially of the clergy or of monks and virgins too little faithful to their ideal. Witness to this are his letters of the time, notably the famous Letter XXII to Eustochium, daughter of Paula, one of his most illustrious and faithful adherents. Other letters in the form of funeral orations, on Blesilla, another daughter of Paula, on the widow Lea, whose blessed lot he contrasted with that of Praetextatus, to whom the widow had rendered vain honours in paganism after his death, enabled him to renew with his criticisms the replies to the continual attacks to which he was subjected, and the intense propaganda for Christian perfection and for scriptural studies. As long as Damasus lived, the Pope’s favour was enough to protect him. Indeed, some thought of him for the succession. But when Damasus died on 11 December 384 and Siricius was elected pope, and since the latter did not seem to show particular esteem for Jerome, the enmities against him found free vent: infamous accusations were made against him, to which he replied victoriously but which inspired in him an insurmountable desire to leave that Babylon of a city. In August 385, pouring out all his bitterness in a farewell letter to Asella, he finally embarked for the East, which he was never to leave again.

Rejoined at Salamis in Cyprus by Paula, who with her daughter Eustochium had also left Rome for Palestine, he set out in easy stages, through the lauras of Egypt and the biblical cities of Palestine, towards Bethlehem, where the women’s monasteries founded by Paula soon rose, and the monks’ house which Jerome was to direct, with the hospice for pilgrims where he exercised the widest hospitality.

He was to leave it only for a few brief journeys in Palestine itself, such as, for example, to consult at Caesarea the single copy of the Hexapla compiled by Origen himself, or to flee persecution.

He also devoted himself to the Latin text of the Psalter, especially to adding the diacritical signs. While all agree in attributing the Gallican Psalter to him, the authenticity of the Roman Psalter is still debated. As for the rest of the Old Testament, Jerome affirms that he translated it in its entirety but was robbed of II. Of the work there remains the revision of Job and what represents the text of the Septuagint in his commentaries on the major and minor prophets.

Volgata. — Soon after settling permanently in Bethlehem, JEROME, while continuing to perfect his knowledge of Hebrew, decided to translate the Holy Scriptures from the original text. He began this work in 389 and pursued it tenaciously, amid various occupations, until 405, when he considered it finished, setting aside Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Baruch, and various other parts whose canonicity seemed to him questionable. An eminently meritorious work, generally very accurate, it provided the Latin world with a Bible version far superior not only to the one it already possessed but also to all other versions combined, with the exception of the Septuagint. Despite some shortcomings, Jerome succeeded in combining concern for elegance with fidelity to the text. His work earned him unwavering encouragement and opposition, the latter certainly not least from St. Augustine himself, who was deeply attached to the old Vulgate out of exaggerated pastoral concerns. The work, long debated, ultimately imposed itself unanimously from the 7th century onward and received from the Council of Trent the great honor of becoming the official (authentic) Latin translation. However, out of respect for the habits of the Christian people, the translation of the Psalms did not replace the Gallican Psalter, which Jerome himself had also corrected. The Benedictines of the monastery of St. Jerome in Rome, entrusted by the Holy See with publishing the critical edition of the Vulgate, published in 1948, with the Liber Verborum dierum, the seventh volume of their edition.

Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. — It seems that St. Jerome’s first literary ambition was to translate as many as possible of the works of Origen, whom he passionately admired at the time, as well as other Greek Christian authors, while also practicing composition himself. In addition to the minor works already mentioned, he commented twice on Is. 6; translated two homilies of Origen on the Song of Songs, began in Rome the translation of Didymus’s treatise on the Holy Spirit. With Ecclesiasticus, he provided lessons on detachment from the world. He turned to the Epistles of St. Paul, following their original exegesis perhaps more closely than he should, especially in his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians; he also commented on the Epistle to the Galatians, to Titus, and to Philemon. Dissatisfied with Ambrose’s commentary on St. Luke, he translated 39 homilies of Origen on this Gospel and at the same time composed on his own, highlighting rabbinic traditions, the *Liber Hebdomadarum quaestionum in Genesim*. The Psalms attracted him, and after the *Commentarioli*, which are brief notes, he composed much more extensive treatises with a more pronounced scholarly character. Meanwhile, he continued his translation of the Bible from Hebrew, and an extensive commentary, first on the Minor Prophets, then on the four Major Prophets (*In XVI prophetas*), leaving that on Jeremiah unfinished, though it is unclear whether illness interrupted his work. This is his great exegetical work, in which, without realizing it, he followed in the footsteps of Origen, who now stood out for his intense use of the spiritual sense and his constant opposition to the *vulgus litterae*, though always carefully established. At the same time, in response to a request from his friend Eusebius of Cremona, who was returning to the West, he wrote a commentary on St. Matthew that was purely literal, at least in intention—a commentary that remains among his most useful works today. The others are stuffed with sacred and profane erudition, anecdotes, and quotations from sacred authors and are far more interesting in this regard than for their direct exegesis, which presents, in wearisome monotony, the ordinary themes of spiritual interpretation, finding in the Jews and their enemies the symbols of Christ’s struggles and those of the Church, the devil, heretics, and

the Blessed Virgin (384) against Helvidius, where he triumphantly refutes objections drawn from the Gospel against Mary’s virginity and where he first affirms the virginity of St. Joseph. From 393 are the *Books against Jovinian*, Jerome’s most brilliant polemical work, though often under the influence of Tertullian, with its excessively harsh language and exaggerated severity toward marriage. Pammachius urged him to provide some reassuring explanation on the subject, which Jerome did most willingly (Letters 48–50), but this did not prevent St. Augustine, in 400–401, from feeling obliged to clarify the matter in *De bono coniugali*. In 396, Jerome wrote a letter of reproach to Vigilantius, and in 406 a still harsher treatise against the same. But by this latter date, the lively anti-Origenist controversy had unfolded, and Jerome, not content to fight Rufinus on his own account, had also become the tireless assistant, through his translations and actions, of Theophilus of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius. In addition to numerous letters, he composed the treatise against John of Jerusalem, the response to Rufinus’s attacks under the title *Apologia*, and even, at the urging of Pammachius and Marcella, the excessively literal translation of Origen’s *Periarchon*, unfortunately lost. Then came the Pelagian controversy, in which Jerome deserves credit for being among the first to intervene, first with Letter 133 to Ctesiphon, then with the *Dialogus adversus Pelagianos*, where, in his own way, he refutes his adversaries chiefly with the help of scriptural texts.

Jerome was equally at home in the field of hagiography, to which he contributed repeatedly and which is closely connected to the funeral orations he composed during his Roman sojourn: the eulogies of Nepotian, Paula, Fabiola, and others. He also composed the legendary life of St. Paul of Thebes, that of St. Hilarion, and added the charming tale of the hermit Malchus. His taste for monastic life also led him to translate some documents of Egyptian origin, of which Bousset recently published a critical edition under the title *Pachomiana latina* (Rules of St. Pachomius and St. Theodore). To these may be added the strange sermons recently discovered and published by Morin in the third volume of the *Anecdota Maredsolana*: familiar sermons addressed to his monks on the duties of monastic life, which vividly reveal the transformation texts underwent when intended for the general public.

This body of work, without entering into further detail, is sufficient to give a broad sense of the prodigious labor Jerome accomplished over the course of his long career, of that power of work which enabled him to pursue, in his immense and daily correspondence, studies so diverse as to demand truly stubborn effort.

### III. Doctrine

S. G. occupies a quite singular place in the history of dogma. He never attempted to synthesize Christianity nor to expound particularly original points of view on dogmatic matters. What best characterizes him, it seems, is the expression—already dear to Origen, which he gladly made his own—of *vir ecclesiasticus*, the man whose sole concern is to remain faithful to the teaching of the Church. He gladly exercised his freedom in the realm of free opinions and, with a certain pedantry, often displayed his erudition in this regard, meticulously expounding strange or unusual opinions he encountered along the way, though he did not normally adopt them. But in the realm of revelation, he was content to be an echo: he coined admirable formulas to express it, yet generally did not go beyond this. He did not seek to enhance it with personal reasoning but preferred to let Scripture speak or to find in his extensive sacred and profane erudition complementary testimonies that would lend the weight of their venerable authority to his words.

Thus, it is much easier to gather from him, as C. Schulting did in his *Confessio Hieronymiana* (4 vols., Cologne 1645), abundant elements for a very rich and highly orthodox anthology than to discern extended demonstrations or detailed speculative expositions, even in scriptural matters that were the usual object of his concern. On the other hand, writing quickly and most often dictating, he was often carried away, under the influence of his immense erudition and his memories, to use formulas and to point out, without the necessary reservations, opinions that left something to be desired. One would risk distorting his true thought if these oddities were given an importance that confessional polemics have often exaggerated. Despite this, he is very often an excellent interpreter of common doctrine, e.g., on the authority of Scripture, its divine origin, the unity of the Church and the papal primacy, the virginity of Mary, the legitimacy of the cult of the saints and the usual manifestations of piety, and the excellence of virginity. On the other hand, his thought has often given rise, in every age, to endless discussions not only regarding the canon of Scripture, where he was at odds with St. Augustine and the doctrine defined at Trent, but also on the eternal fate of Catholics who die in sin, on the origins of the episcopate, and on the power of the keys.

Overall, his works remain an inexhaustible source of information of every kind, both for the theologian and for the scholar. Above all, G. has left to all an incomparable example of a life entirely sanctified by prayer and unremitting labor, which neither frequent illnesses nor the most bitter opposition ever succeeded in interrupting. The harshness of a difficult character, though sensitive to the charm of friendship, is little in comparison with these fundamental qualities and the extraordinary services he rendered to the Church through his biblical works, and especially through his translation from the Hebrew.

**

Recent studies: G. Grützmacher, *Hieronymus*, 3 vols., Berlin 1901, 1906, 1908; F. Cavallera, *St Jérôme, sa vie et son œuvre*, part 1, 2 vols., Louvain 1922; A. Penna, *S. G.*, Turin 1949. On other excellent publications, see the critical and bibliographical notes in Bardenhewer, III, pp. 605–54; Schanz, IV, pp. 429–90; P. Vaccari, *S. G., studi e schizzi*, Rome 1921. Among various studies and monographs, besides the *Miscellanea Geronimiana*, Rome 1921, see L. Sanders, *Etudes sur St Jérôme*, Brussels 1903; T. Trzcinski, *Die dogmatischen Schriften des hl. H.*, Posen 1917; D. Gorce, *La «lectio divina», st Jérôme et la lecture sacrée*, Paris 1925; J. Forget, s.V. in DThC, VIII, 1 (1924), cols. 894–983; F. Cavallera, s.V. in DB, IV (1949), cols. 889–97; J. P. O’Connell, *The eschatology of st. Jerome*, Mundelein 1948; A. Penna, *Principi e carattere dell’esegesi di S. G.*, Rome 1950.

Ferdinando Cavallera

---

### IV. Law

Numerous are the passages of a juridical nature in the works of G. Indeed, one might think that they find their justification in his intention of pursuing a political career. Some writers, for this very reason, attributed to him the *Colonia legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum*.

He touches upon, in his writings, all fields of law, from private to penal and procedural law.

The most interesting insights, however, are those relating to the law of persons and the family. Thus, we find the treatment of slavery, with a particular investigation into the well-known question of the *servus fugitivus* (PL 26, 638 ff.); we find exalted, in connection with marriage and in contrast both with Roman legislation and with Jewish law, the *favor pudicitiae*; we encounter the assertion that marriage is contracted by the initial consent and is dissolved only by the death of one of the spouses (PL 22, 1084–9); passages deal with the Pauline privilege and the impediment of disparity of cult (PL 22, 233–34).

But equally important statements are found on other topics: thus, the one on the subject of property, that goods are given for the use of all men, and that he who does not give to his brothers what has been created by God for all to use is unjust (PL 22, 1019). Special duties of clerics in the use of temporal goods are affirmed, and severe statements are found such as this: *"Negotiatorem clericum et ex inope divitum... quasi quandam pestem fuge"* (PL 22, 531).

Of particular interest are also the references to the duty of remaining faithful even to simple promises, in contrast to the Roman principle: *Nuda pactio obligationem non parit*. It has, however, been astutely observed that, in comparison with the great number of passages of juridical content, the references to Roman law are not very abundant, even though G. knew it well and it constitutes the framework of his juridical culture; the scarcity of direct references is an interesting confirmation of that phenomenon known as the autonomy of patristic thought.

V. Iconography

First portrayed on the diptych of Boethius in Brescia (after 602), St G. is invested, from the end of the 13th century, with the cardinal’s hat, and already in a fresco by Tommaso da Modena (1352) he is also depicted in the robes of a cardinal, under which guise he becomes one of the most frequently represented saints. He often appears, frequently with the lion of the legend as his individual attribute, either alone or enthroned, in “sacred conversations” or alongside the other Doctors of the Church.

In addition to this, two principal types of Girolamine images developed in the late Middle Ages. The first, corresponding to the humanistic current and ultimately deriving from the so-called “author portraits” of illuminated manuscripts, represents the Saint in his study, surrounded by books, as in the works of Colantonio in Naples and Antonello da Messina in London, the fresco by Domenico Ghirlandaio in Ognissanti in Florence, Dürer’s engraving *Hieronymus im Gehäus*, paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder, etc.; the second, perhaps even more deeply rooted in the spirit of the age, depicts St G. in penitence in the desert, flogging himself with a stone before a crucifix. This latter subject, especially beloved by the engravers of late German Gothic art, was treated throughout the Renaissance with great commitment by leading Italian and other European painters. We may mention only the works of Cosmè Tura (London), Bartolomeo Montagna (Milan, Museo Poldi Pezzoli), Leonardo da Vinci (Pinacoteca Vaticana), Lorenzo Lotto (Paris and Madrid), Titian (Louvre and Brera), Jacopo Bassano (Venice, Accademia), and Gerard David (Frankfurt and London); while, on the other hand, artists of the Baroque period—Caravaggio, Ribera, Rubens, van Dyck, for example—also depicted a variant of the theme, pre-existent in Flemish Mannerism and in Dürer’s painting in Lisbon: St G. contemplating the skull, symbol of vanity. Narrative cycles of the legend of the Saint begin to appear in the miniatures of the