Saint Jerome, Complete Works, Vol. I

I have ordered that those which would receive clear detriment to the discourse, and which could add nothing but bulk to the volume, be thoroughly excluded. If I do present any of this sort, it is only when there might be some use for them, whether so that the genuine ones may be better proved by the comparison of the false, or so that the sons of critics might be able to elicit something sound from the defective. Had I cut them all out indiscriminately, they would perhaps have complained with good reason that what they had preferred by their own opinion had been rejected by me. I have placed the rest continuously; indeed, I have chosen to sin in this direction—that I would admit some that had no good quality within—rather than to cut out what is useful at the risk of losing it. Finally, those that seemed of lesser moment, for the most part extracted from the books of older editions, I have not relegated to the bottom margin, but have marked with an asterisk in the region of the text, so that it might be easy to recognize at a single glance the words to which they refer, and so that the reader need not be bothered to look elsewhere for a trivial cause. Learned men well know the utility of all these things, and I do not think I must labor in this part to overcome the fastidious rusticity of certain people who almost despise them, since I know that there are many others who judge the excellence of an edition by the standard of its variant readings.

38. Observations and notes. — One thing remained: to illustrate the text of the Holy Doctor with our own observations, pursuing them with continuous notes where the subject matter required it. And, primarily, when the old reading has been expunged and a new one substituted for a poorly affected passage from the manuscripts, or an old one previously eliminated has been restored, I append the reasons for the emendation and demonstrate the arguments by which I was led. In other places, not indeed corrupted but more difficult to understand, I spend a little more labor and words, if by my study something might be added to reduce their obscurity. It was my pleasure first to expound the native sense of the author, whatever it may be, and I have always kept before my eyes that most wise axioma axiom/principle of Jerome himself in Epistle 48, to Pammachius, no. 17: It is the office of a commentator not to expound what he himself wants, but what he feels that the one he is interpreting intended. Otherwise, if he says the opposite, he will not be an interpreter so much as an adversary. I have either not touched upon lighter difficulties, which might move someone from the common sort of readers but could be explained from other books (especially lexicographers) and have been explained elsewhere by others intentionally and copiously, or I have indicated the sources from which they should be sought. Regarding those places which have been either wrongly accepted or maliciously translated, if it can be done without injury to the most holy doctor, I have left almost no one’s fault or suspicion unpurged, with some appearance of truth. Finally, since Jerome took great delight in that kind of writing which the Greeks call parodikon parodic, I usually indicate what he received, or appeared to receive, from other writers—especially the Greeks—sometimes citing only the names of the fathers when it seemed not to matter more, and sometimes bringing in the passages in their entirety when they were translated almost word-for-word, and the sense of both writers could be aided. Sometimes those things are also noted which other fathers of a later age copied from our author, but I have done this very sparingly, and only in those places where the cited sentiment lends either light or authority; for if I had wished to pursue everything, I would have scarcely made it worth the effort with such huge labor. For the same reason—namely, to spare the work and the time—I have almost entirely excluded the testimonies of those with which editors of any ancient writer usually burden the margins of their books when they collect similar sentiments from others, which they call paralleloi parallels. In sum, I profess that no means of obtaining brevity has been omitted by me, and I have so tempered my pen that, according to the opinion of a recent, most learned editor, I might believe that my reader should neither know everything, nor again know nothing.

39. Notes of others, and especially of the Benedictines, at the end of the volume. — And so much for those notes which I have added. It had indeed been the intention of all the editors before me to place notes and observations at the end of each volume. But I was recalled from that plan by the judgment of both myself and of prudent men who believed it would be an empty labor and a waste of better hours. For older editors often ramble at great length in places worn thin by everyone's discussion; frequently they repeat what has been said by those before them, following one another with only slightly changed words; finally, they lean upon false readings, in the explanation of which they labor in vain. And I do not deny that some things are sometimes mixed in here that might contribute to the reader's erudition, yet these are extremely few, and their reputation has not been diminished; they could have been—and were—treated by us much more copiously in this light of letters. The notes of Henry Gravius are indeed quite learned, but since he wanted his principal and almost unique plan of work to be the "composing" of Jerome—or comparing thoughts with thoughts—and he expended this labor only upon the epistles and treatises, their utility is sufficiently consulted by a diligent index, and that is better. Nevertheless, I append a few of those that clarify the text, just as I do with eight or ten of the most select ones of Fronto Ducaeus, so that nothing may appear to be missing. But the commentaries of the Benedictine editor were not to be accepted in that way; although they could have been omitted entirely without loss to this edition of ours, I have placed them in their entirety at the end of each volume to deflect the envy of some who might complain that they were cheated of either the conveniences or inconveniences of that labor.

40. Praise of named men. — I have worked on much besides this for the elegance of the work and for the utility of the reader, which I ask that scholarly men receive with an even mind. If I cannot obtain this favor from any one person, I know the Hieronymian sentiment in Epistle 66 to Pammachius: One must stand by the judgment of the crowd, and one is to be feared in a crowd whom, when you see him alone, you would despise. Now it is my part to praise, with grateful recollection, the most excellent men who contributed the aid of their manuscript codices to me. I do not recite their names here in a prepared catalog, lest, since there are many from very many cities of Italy, I perhaps pass over someone without praise; but I give thanks to one and all, and I wish for the benevolent readers to owe them much when they have read the libraries over which they preside. But I should not, without the fault of an ungrateful mind, remain silent about the most illustrious man, Marquis Scipio Maffei, a singular ornament of our fatherland. He first promoted this entire labor of mine with his own aid, and although far away and prolonging his absence long in Gaul, he continues to support it with constant favor: a new ergodioktes overseer of work/taskmaster of Jerome.