CHROMATIUS VS. JEROME: THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSY RECONSIDERED

Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia, was closely acquainted with Jerome and Rufinus, the two main protagonists of the Origenist controversy in the Latin west. When hostilities between Jerome and Rufinus were renewed in 397 ce , Chromatius wrote to Jerome, urging him to be silent. Jerome demurred. In the years that followed, Chromatius continued as Rufinus’ patron, first asking Rufinus to translate Eusebius’ Ecclesiastica Historia and then requesting that Rufinus translate Origen’s Homilies on Joshua . Scholars have viewed Chromatius’ role in two ways, as either a pacific intermediary or subtly inclined towards Rufinus. This article argues that Chromatius was far more sympathetic to Rufinus. It examines first the relationship between Jerome and Chromatius prior to 397, then Jerome’s use of Chromatius’ name in his Apology and his epithets for Chromatius after Rufinus’ translation of Origen’s Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν in 397, which markedly change, losing the honorifics typical for the address of a bishop. This is set against Chromatius’ continued patron-age of Rufinus, including his request in 403/404 for Rufinus to translate Origen’s Homilies on Joshua , and Chromatius’ use of Origenist ideas in his own work. Together, these arguments indicate that Jerome’s relationship with Chromatius increasingly deteriorated as the Bishop of Aquileia’s actions


Introduction
In the 360s Chromatius, Rufinus, and Jerome were part of a monastic community in Aquileia; 1 both Jerome and Rufinus then Thanks are due to Christa Gray for her comments on an earlier draft of this article, Stephen Carlson for our various discussions about Rufinus and Chromatius, and Leah O'Hearn for her help.I am grateful to Prof. Drs.Hans Bernsdorff, Hartmut Leppin, and Thomas Paulsen for the invitation to present some of this research in the Colloquium Classicum during my Humboldt Fellowship at Goethe-University, Frankfurt. 1 Hier.Chron.anno 374 (ed.R. Helm, GCS 47 [1956], p. 240): Aquileienses clerici quasi chorus beatorum habentur; Ruf.Apol.adv.Hier.1.4 (ed.M. Simonetti, CCSL 20 [1961], p. 39).Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/74/1/189/7083705 by guest on 03 July 2024 departed for the east. 2 In 381 the Emperor Gratian convened the first council of Aquileia, which counted among its attendees Ambrose, the influential bishop of Milan, and Chromatius, then a mere presbyter. 3Chromatius' remarks are the only dialogue recorded in Ambrose's acta that were spoken by a presbyter in their own right (as opposed to the presbyters who were deputizing for a bishop). 4His language is forthright, as he accuses the Arrianist, Paladius of Ratiaria, of denying everything 'which the Catholic faith professes'. 5Chromatius clearly already enjoyed a position of some significance in the church as early as the 380s, prior to the beginning of his episcopacy.In late 388 Chromatius was elected the bishop of Aquileia, following the death of Valerian. 6hen the monk Atarbius sought to have Origen and his work censored in 393, Rufinus and Jerome found themselves on opposite sides of the petition. 7A year later Jerome translated into Latin a letter from Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem (Ep.51) in which Epiphanius accused John of being an Origenist.Criticism soon followed from unknown quarters leading Jerome to suspect that Rufinus was the instigator. 8In 397 Rufinus published his translation of Origen's Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν.In a prefatory letter that Rufinus sent to Macarius (preserved as Jerome, Ep. 80), Rufinus claimed that Jerome's translation of two of Origen's homilies on the Song of Songs had inspired Rufinus (and others) to take an interest in Origen. 9erome's initial response to Rufinus, Ep. 81, written in 399, claimed that Rufinus' remarks in the letter to Macarius could only be understood as a stain on their friendship. 10The tone that Jerome adopts is consistent with the epistolary conceit of private communication, but at the end of the letter Jerome indicates his intent to publicize his response: Frater meus Paulinianus necdum de patria reversus est et puto, quod eum Aquileiae apud sanctum papam Chromatium videris. . . .ceterisque amicis eadem significavimus: 'ne mordentes invicem consumamini ab invicem.' 11 iam tuae moderationis est et tuorum nullam occasionem inpatientibus dare, ne non omnes mei similes invenias, qui possint figuratis laudibus delectari. 12 brother Paulinianus has not yet returned from his homeland and I think that you might have seen him at Aquileia at the house of the holy father Chromatius. . . .I have sent the same remarks to the rest of my friends: 'lest biting one another, you be consumed by one another.'It only remains for you and your friends to show your moderation in giving no offence to those who do not tolerate it.You will not find that everyone is like me; they cannot be pleased by fake praise.
Rufinus responded to Jerome's letter with an extended, polemical defence, his Apologia contra Hieronymum, written in 400, which Jerome responded to with his Apologia contra Rufinum in 402.While Jerome's letter was not the beginning of the acrimony between the two Christian thinkers, its tone was likely the instigation for the significant increase in their hostilities in the early 400s. 13hromatius' role in the Origenist controversy has not been a central concern to scholars, even though both Rufinus and Jerome mention him in their respective apologies. 14When scholars have considered Chromatius' role, he is generally considered a friend to both men, who acted in an intermediary capacity in trying to stop both sides from further dispute.For example McEachnie offers the following assessment in his 2017 monograph: Chromatius intervened by asking both combatants to cease their venom.Rufinus agreed and sent a private letter to Jerome, but Jerome felt he could not remain silent, even though he recognised the wisdom of Chromatius' advice. 15ere is no evidence that Chromatius ever asked Rufinus to stop his attacks against Jerome; that Rufinus did not respond to Jerome's Apology is not evidence of Chromatius' intervention with the Aquileian monk. 16McEachnie's characterization of Chromatius' involvement relies on a plain reading of Jerome's remarks at Apologia contra Rufinum 3.2.These only confirm that Chromatius asked Jerome to keep quiet, and that Jerome's recognition of the wisdom of Chromatius' advice fell short of actually following it. 17 far more convincing position is adopted by Fürst: as an intermediary between the two disputing churchmen.This inclination results from one of Jerome's claims in his Apology, that Chromatius was one of the unnamed targets of Rufinus' criticisms that clergy were surreptitious users of Origen; 19 but as Hitchcock, writing in 1948, first recognized, Jerome's claim that Rufinus' relationship with Chromatius soured over Rufinus' use of Origen has very limited evidentiary value, given Jerome's bias against Rufinus. 20o try to gain insight into Chromatius' relationship with Jerome, and his relationship with Rufinus during this period, scholars have turned to specific details.Beatrice, for example, interpreted Chromatius' reluctance to use the beginning and end of the book of Jonah as a rebuke of Jerome's commentary and translation, which included taking the Hebrew qiqeion as hedera (ivy), which was too distant from the traditional rendering of the Greek κολοκύντη into Latin as cucurbita (gourd). 21Beatrice suggests that Chromatius' avoidance of these passages of Jonah (and this passage in particular) indicates that Chromatius agreed with Rufinus' outrage at Jerome's translation, but the conspiracy of thought may run even deeper. 22In his Apology against Jerome, Rufinus states: Aquileia a third-century mosaic floor remains intact in the nave.Among the various biblical scenes that it depicts is an image of Jonah clearly taking shade under a gourd vine (Fig. 1 below). 24erome's translation, if accepted, would invalidate this depiction.This suggests that Rufinus may have had exceedingly local concerns in mind, including the validity of this mosaic in Chromatius' church in Aquileia, when he chose that specific example to illustrate his rejection of Jerome's translation of the book of Jonah.
The evidence to suggest that Chromatius remained on friendly terms with both antagonists is weak. 25It has three parts: Jerome's claim in his Apology that Chromatius wrote to him, asking him to keep silent; Jerome's dedication of two translations to Chromatius, the books of Solomon and Tobit; and Chromatius' request to Rufinus to translate Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica (which has been interpreted as a Chromatian ruse aimed at distracting Rufinus from his quarrel with Jerome). 26This article reinterprets this evidence, and so offers a reassessment of Chromatius' relationship to Jerome, first by examining Jerome's references to Chromatius in his Apology against Rufinus and the dedicatory letters that preface his translations of the books of Solomon and Tobit.It then extends the claim that Chromatius remained on friendly terms with Rufinus by considering Chromatius' request for Rufinus' translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, and Rufinus' response, alongside Chromatius' request for Rufinus to translate Origen's homilies on Joshua.It argues that Chromatius' request for Rufinus to translate Origen's homilies aligns Chromatius with Rufinus in the wake of Jerome's criticism of Origen (and Rufinus).

I. Chromatius' Relationship with Jerome before 397
Jerome and Chromatius were clearly once on quite friendly terms.Chromatius was one of the addressees of Jerome's Ep. 7 (c.375)along with Jovinus and Eusebius. 27In that letter Jerome repeatedly refers to his affection and love for his three correspondents. 28Jerome's next letter, addressed to Niceas, the sub-deacon of Aquileia, uses the epithet beatus to refer to Chromatius. 29Similarly, in Jerome's famous letter of consolation, addressed to Heliodorus, Chromatius is referred to as beatus papa, 30 while in Jerome's letter to Rufinus, Ep. 81, Chromatius is sanctus papa.A similarly positive tone toward Chromatius may be found in Jerome's prefaces dedicated to Chromatius prior to 398.The preface to his commentary on Habakkuk (393) 32 drew attention to Chromatius' pre-eminent learning: Chromati episcoporum doctissime ('Chromatius, most learned of bishops'), 33 language that also features in Jerome's preface to his translation of the Paralipomena (396): 34 mi C[h]romati, episcoporum sanctissime atque doctissime ('my Chromatius, most holy and most learned of bishops'). 35The unusual (at least in Jerome's correspondence) combination of two superlatives, which respectively draw attention to Chromatius' holiness and knowledge, indicates the respect that Jerome has for Chromatius, while the possessive adjective mi is consistent with the affection of a personal relationship. 36Jerome also uses this personal possessive to address Chromatius later in his commentary on Habakkuk: mi Cromati, papa uenerabilis ('my Chromatius, venerable father'). 37The same noun and adjective combination features in his preface to his commentary on Jonah (396): Chromati papa venerabilis ('Chromatius, venerable father'). 38erome clearly courted Chromatius in the period prior to the breakdown of Jerome's relationship to Rufinus in 397.Together these glowing references and epithets provide an important contrast for Jerome's change in tone towards Chromatius in the years that followed.

II. Chromatius' Request for Silence
In his Apology against Rufinus, Jerome claimed that Chromatius wrote to him, asking him to keep his silence: testem inuoco Iesum conscientiae meae, qui et has litteras et tuam epistulam iudicaturus est, me ad commonitionem sancti papae Chromatii uoluisse reticere, et finem facere simultatum, et uincere in bono malum.Sed quia minaris interitum, nisi tacuero, respondere compellor, ne videar tacendo crimen agnoscere, et lenitatem meam, malae conscientiae signum interpreteris. 39 call upon Jesus as a witness upon my conscience, who will judge both this letter and your epistle, that at the instigation of the holy father Chromatius I wanted to keep silent, and end our dissensions, and to overcome evil with good.But, now that you threaten me with destruction, I am compelled to reply; otherwise, my silence will be taken as an acknowledgment of the crime, and you will interpret my moderation as the sign of an evil conscience.
Jerome's public naming of Chromatius as the source of a request that he then refused must surely have irked the bishop of Aquileia, especially given Chromatius' growing episcopal authority.The conceit is readily apparent; Jerome could easily have refused Chromatius' request, without publicly indicating that he had done so.
In the second book of his Apology, Jerome names Chromatius as the target of Rufinus' claim that Christians secretly used Origen without acknowledging that use: Qui sunt isti, qui in Ecclesia disputare latius solent, qui libros scribere, qui totum de Origene loquuntur et scribunt, qui, dum sua nolunt furta cognosci, et ingrati sunt in magistrum, idcirco simplices ab illius lectione deterrent?Nominatim debes discere et ipso homines denotare.Ergo beati episcopi Anastasius et Theophilus et Venerius et Chromatius, et omnis tam Orientis quam Occidentis catholicorum synodus, qui . . .illum haereticum denuntiant populis, fures librorum illius iudicandi sunt? . . .Non tibi sufficit passiua contra omnes detractatio, nisi specialiter contra beatum et insignem Ecclesiae sacerdotem stili tui lanceam dirigis? 40o are these men who are wont to dispute at such great length in the churches, and to write books, and whose discourses and writings are taken wholly from Origen; these men who are afraid of their literary thefts becoming known, and show ingratitude towards their master, and who therefore deter men of simple mind from reading him?You ought to mention them by name, and designate the men themselves.Are the reverend bishops Anastasius and Theophilus, Venerius and Chromatius, and the whole council of the Catholics both in the East and in the West, who . . .denounce him as a heretic, to be esteemed to be plagiarists of his books? . . .Is it not enough for you to disparage them all in general, but you must specially aim the spear of your pen against a reverend and eminent priest of the church?
Jerome names four clergy as potential targets for Rufinus' claims, which he then expands to include the entire council of Catholics.
Jerome clearly meant these examples to be absurd.The idea that Anastasius or Theophilius, both of whom publicly opposed Origen and his thought, might be the target of Rufinus' claims that there are surreptitious users of Origen is easily recognized as reductio ad absurdum, but in Chromatius, Jerome may have inadvertently hit his mark.Several of Chromatius' homilies and his tractate on Matthew include Origenist claims. 41While it remains unclear whether these were from direct knowledge or allusion to Ambrose's use of Origen, and when these were composed and then delivered, 42 the indisputable fact remains that Chromatius requested Rufinus to translate Origen's Homilies on Joshua in 403/4, a couple of years after Jerome listed Chromatius as an absurd example of Rufinus' criticisms of covert Origenist use.
Scholars have largely overlooked the political ramifications of Jerome's use of Chromatius' name in his Apology, because Chromatius, it seems, continued to patronize Jerome's translations, to which we now turn.

III. Jerome's Prefatory Letter to the Books of Solomon
In 398, either in the summer or autumn of that year, Jerome dedicated his translation of the books of Solomon (Proverbs, Eccelesiastes, and the Song of Songs) to Chromatius and Heliodorus: Chromati et Heliodoro episcopis Hieronymus.Iungat epistola quos iungit sacerdotium: imo charta non dividat, quos Christi nectit amor. 43rome to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus.Let a letter join those whom the priesthood has joined: indeed let no document divide those whom the love of Christ entwines. 41E.g.Chromatius, Tract.Mat.51A, 3; 54.3, for discussion of which see Beatrice, 'The Sign of Jonah', pp.27-8, 42, 54.Joseph Lemarié (SC 154 [1969]) suggests some further broad parallels between Chromatius and Origen, e.g.Chromatius, Serm.2.5, 3.5, 3.8, 4.1, but none of these is specific enough to show clear or exceptional use of Origenist thought or language by Chromatius.
The epithets used at the beginning of the preface are strictly formal, noting merely Chromatius' episcopal rank, not as in the earlier prefaces, his holiness, blessedness, or pre-eminent learning. 44he opening line of the body of the preface deploys the epistolary trope that a letter may bring together those who are physically distant. 45Jerome's opening comment comes close to the first words of his letter sent to Chromatius, Eusebius, and Jovinus, written some 20 years earlier: non debet charta dividere, quos amor mutuus copulavit ('a document should not divide those whom mutual love has linked'). 46The remarks are similar, but the phrase amor Christi is clearly not as personal as amor mutuus.Jerome could well have claimed a shared love of Christ with any clergy or even with any Christian, but mutual affection indicates a personal relationship, full of respect and love.The differences are subtle, but letters were read very closely by Jerome and other Christian authors in late antiquity.As Ebbeler has shown, Jerome and Augustine's correspondence was full of carefully formed barbs. 47For example, Jerome's use of the word liber to refer to Augustine's book of letters, rather than the standard libellum, a diminutive that gestures at the generic expectation that a letter should be brief, builds on his criticism that Augustine's letters were too long.Chromatius, as an addressee of both letters, would certainly have recognized the removal of positive epithets, and likely detected the intratextual allusion to Jerome's Ep. 7, especially as both phrases are at the very beginning of the respective letters.Jerome does not use comparable language elsewhere in his extant letters, which suggests that he had in mind the incipit to his earlier letter to Chromatius and the others, when he wrote the beginning of his dedicatory letter to his translations of the books of Solomon.Other readers may also have dedicated the change in phrase, especially as Ep.7 was almost certainly included in Jerome's Liber Epistolarum ad diversos. 48n his Apology against Rufinus, Jerome recalls the dedicatory prefaces of two of his works.The first is his preface to the Paralipomena.Jerome quotes directly from the text: In libro Temporum, id est Paralipomenon, qui hebraice dicitur 'dabre iamim', hac ad sanctum papam Chromatium praefatiuncula usus sum: 'Si Septuaginta interpretum pura et ut ab eis in graecum uersa est editio permaneret, superflue, mi Chromati, episcoporum sanctissime atque doctissime, impelleres ut hebraea volumina latino sermone transferrem.' 49 Chronicles, that is Paralipomenon, which in Hebrew is called dabre iamim, I used this prefatory note for the holy father Chromatius: 'If the version of the Seventy translators is pure and has remained as it was rendered by them into Greek, you would be urging me on superfluously, my Chromatius, most holy and most learned of bishops, that I translate the Hebrew scrolls into Latin words.'His positive language towards Chromatius is a direct quotation from his earlier work, 50 and so cannot be taken to represent his attitude towards Chromatius when he wrote the Apology against Rufinus.
The second preface to be quoted is to his translation of the books of Solomon: Salomonis etiam libros . . . in latinum verteram, ex hebraico transferens et dedicans sanctis episcopis Chromatio et Heliodoro, haec in praefatiunculae meae fine subieci: 'si cui Septuaginta interpretum magis editio placet, habet eam a nobis olim emendatam. 51deed the books of Solomon . . .I had turned into Latin, transferring them from the Hebrew and dedicating them to the holy bishops 48 Cain, 'The Letter Collections of Jerome of Stridon', p. 224: 'he [Jerome] assembled them [Ep.2-13, 15-17] for a readership that extended beyond their original recipients: not in isolation from one another but rather as members of the same body, as intertwined pieces of a unified literary work that, despite the miscellaneity of their addressees and the diversity of their content, work in concert with one another toward the common goal of idealized self-presentation.'The collation and distribution of these letters in a single book also make them a prime intertextual target for Jerome's later work, including his epistolary prefaces. 49 The epithet semper venerabilis is not a standard form. 56Rufinus uses the related word venerandus in his epithet for Chromatius in the preface to his Historia Eccelesiastica, which was probably written a couple of years after his translation of Origen's homilies on Joshua.
The only other uses of venerabilis to describe Chromatius are found in Jerome's commentaries on Habakkuk and Jonah, mentioned briefly above, where Jerome addresses the bishop as Chromati papa venerabilis.Rufinus' remark in his prologue to his translation of Origen's homilies on Joshua, that Chromatius will always be venerabilis to him, is particularly apt if Rufinus realized that Jerome had removed his positive epithets for Chromatius in his preface to the books of Solomon, and wanted to remind Chromatius that their relationship would always be respectful.This interpretation is supported by Rufinus' use of the first-person dative pronoun mihi, highlighted by his immediate shift to the authorial plural nobis, which adds a personal level of intimacy to Rufinus' epithet for Chromatius that subtly implies that Chromatius is no longer venerabilis to everyone, that is, to Jerome.In his preface to his translation of Origen's homilies on Joshua, Rufinus targets Jerome in other ways, repeating the assertion that he (Rufinus) should not be credited as the author of Origen's words that he had translateddespite Jerome's repeated call that his alterations to Origen's text were beyond the scope of a translator.At the same time, Rufinus continues with his respectful tone towards Chromatius, who is credited with the ability to discern which of Origen's remarks are worthy. 57he other letters that Jerome sent to bishops do not show a marked change in the epithets used.Jerome's correspondence with Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, is a useful point of comparison.Six of Jerome's letters to Theophilus are extant: Ep. 63, 82, 86, 88, 99, and 114.Ep. 82, for example, sent to Theophilus, in the CSEL edition includes the address ad Theophilum.The manuscript tradition offers two longer and more respectful variants.Berolinensis lat.17, dating to the ninth century (and therefore among the oldest), has ad theophilum papam, while Ambrosianus H. 59, a thirteenth-century manuscript, but representing a distinct tradition, has ad theophilum papam contra quendam episcopum.Domino vere sancto et beatissimo pap [a]e theophilo Hieronymus in xpo salutem. 58It is most likely that the stemmata that list only ad Theophilum simply cut out the additional material as if it were superfluous, and so Jerome's epithets to Theophilus, the powerful bishop of Alexandria, in those letters were in fact papa, domino vere sanctus, and beatissimus.Jerome's other epithets for Theophilus are equally positive.Thus, Ep. 86 is addressed: beatissimo papae Theophilo Hieronymus, so too Ep.88 and Ep.99, the latter with the addition of episcopo. 59Unlike Jerome's dedicatory letters to Chromatius, his correspondence with Theophilus shows no indication that there was any change in their relationship.
If we return to Jerome's dedicatory letter to the books of Solomon, other aspects suggest a deterioration in Jerome's relationship to his patrons.He claims that Chromatius and Heliodorus have made multiple demands on him, refers to the diverse numbers who make similar requests, and claims that he has worked to meet their demands at the expense of his health: Itaque longa aegrotatione fractus, ne penitus hoc anno reticerem et apud vos mutus essem, tridui opus nomini vestro consecravi[.] 60d so, even though I have been shattered by a long illness, so that I am not completely silent this year and mute among you, I have dedicated the three works to your name.
Jerome's claim is not that the illness has broken, but that he has been broken by the illness.His addressees come across as demanding taskmasters, insisting that Jerome meet his commitments despite his illness.Still, Chromatius and Heliodorus, Jerome tells us, provided him with the logistical and financial means to complete the work.This claim advertises their support for him, and so acts as a reminder, in the midst of the Origenist controversy (398), to Chromatius, Heliodorus, and others, that they had directly supported his endeavours.

IV. Jerome's Prefatory Letter to Tobit
Initial efforts by Skemp claimed a date range for Jerome's Tobit of 391-405. 61Shanzer offered an important addition to Skemp's claim, noting that Jerome's commentary on Job 2.9 imitates Tobit 2.22, but Jerome's language does not follow the words that he uses in his translation of Tobit. 62This suggests that Jerome's translation of Tobit was written after his commentary on Job.Gamberoni, and following him Kelly, advocated a date around 405, claiming that the preface assumes that Jerome's translation of the Septuagint was already well known. 63The dedicatory letter is addressed to Chromatius and Heliodorus: Chromatio et heliodoro episcopis hieronymus in domino salutem.mirari non desino exactionis uestrae instantiam. . . .feci satis desiderio uestro, non tamen meo studio.arguunt enim nos hebraeorum studia, et inputant nobis, contra suum canonem latinis auribus ista transferre.sed melius esse iudicans pharisaeorum displicere iudicio et episcoporum iussionibus deseruire [.]  64 To the bishops Chromatius and Helidorus Jerome sends greeting in the Lord.I do not stop marvelling at the insatiability of your demands. . . .I have done enough for your desire, but not enough for interest.For the study of the Hebrew books accuses me, and judges me, for translating these words for Latin ears against their canon, but I judged it better to displease the judgement of Pharisees than to abandon the orders of bishops [.]As in the preface to the books of Solomon, Jerome does not include any positive qualifier for the epithet episcopis.His tone towards Chromatius and Heliodorus deserves careful consideration.Jerome labels their request as an exactio, a word which has negative associations, derived from its use for the recollection of debts or the imposition of taxation. 65This negativity is compounded by the tone of instantia which conveys a degree of force and urgency.Jerome uses forensic language (arguunt, inputant, iudicio) to draw attention to his reputational risk in translating the book of Tobit, given its non-canonical status.This both protects Jerome from this criticism, and impugns Chromatius and Helidorus as the ones who deserve any blame for the translation-Jerome was just following episcopal orders, despite his reluctance and general lack of enthusiasm for the project.
The preface concludes with Jerome outlining the curious method that he used to complete the translation, using a bilingual Chaldean and Hebrew speaker to render Tobit's Chaldean into Hebrew, which Jerome then translated into Latin.Jerome claims that the whole process took a single day. 66Such claims should generally be considered critically, as speed of composition is a trope aimed at highlighting the skill of the author; 67 Jerome certainly was aware of this, as he criticized Rufinus for his claim that he composed his Apology in two days. 68The extreme brevity in this case is consistent with the reluctant attitude towards the task Jerome expresses earlier in the prologue, where he claims to have done just enough to please the bishops (feci satis desiderio uestro).The tone of this dedicatory letter is in stark contrast to Jerome's exchanges with Chromatius prior to 398, examined in section I, and is in keeping with Jerome's cold tone in the preface to the books of Solomon.
In this light Jerome's explicit reminders of Tobit's non-canonical status take on a new hue.In the preface to the commentary on Jonah there is a brief mention: Liber quoque Tobiae, licet non habeatur in Canone, tamen quia ursupatur ab ecclesiasticis viris ('Also the book of Tobit, admittedly not thought of as being in the Canon, but nevertheless it is still used by churchmen'). 69The verb ursupo has the capacity to convey illicit use. 70In the preface to the books of Solomon, Jerome provides further explanation as to how Tobit may be used: This warrants reassessment.In a homily Chromatius quotes from Tobit 4.23: Pauperem quidem, fili, gerimus vitam; sed omnia bona habes si Deum timueris. 73The language varies from Jerome's vulgate for the same line in four ways.Firstly, the noun fili is placed after Pauperem quidem, instead of before, and is not qualified by the possessive adjective mi; the verbs habes and timueris are in the second person singular, rather than first person plural; the adjective omnia is used instead of Jerome's multa; and the word order of gerimus vitam and Deum timu* is reversed.These changes are extensive, for what is a reasonably simple line.Even if some allowance is made for the changing of the person of the verbs to fit Chromatius' homiletic mode, together these changes indicate that when Chromatius wrote his fifth homily, he did not have access to Jerome's translation of Tobit or he refused to use it.Indeed, Chromatius' use of the line from Tobit is the only extant biblical quotation in his homilies from a non-canonical source.In serm.19 Chromatius expresses an overwhelming preference for the gospels.He may have welcomed a new translation of Tobit, he may even have asked Jerome for it, but this falls short of confirming that Chromatius was pleased to be linked to a non-canonical work that could not confirm ecclesiastical dogmas.
V. Jerome, Chromatius, and Rufinus (397-407) Jerome's relationship with Chromatius post 397 can now be reconsidered.The mere fact that Jerome dedicated his translation of the books of Solomon and Tobit to Chromatius cannot be relied upon to indicate a good relationship given Jerome's tone towards the bishop of Aquileia.Chromatius' intervention in the dispute, specifically the letter that he wrote to Jerome asking him to be silent, must also be dismissed as evidence of a strong relationship between presbyter and bishop, or even as an indication of Chromatius' friendly intent towards Jerome.Not only did Jerome refuse to comply with Chromatius' request, but he also publicized this refusal, highlighting the limitations of the bishop's influence over him.
The evidence pointing towards a deterioration in their relationship is far more compelling.First, we have Jerome's omission of positive epithets from his addresses to Chromatius, beginning in 398 and continuing to c.405.Then there is the tone of Jerome's dedicatory letters; the first complains that Chromatius' requests are endless, even during Jerome's sickness.The second similarly stresses Chromatius' constant demands.The claim that an author is writing in response to a request is a prefatory trope, but Jerome's claims go far beyond this trope. 74Then, there are Jerome's reference to Chromatius in his Apology against Rufinus, in which Jerome names Chromatius as a possible secretive borrower of Origenist claims, and refuses to acquiesce in Chromatius' urging that he not respond to Rufinus.Lastly, we have Chromatius' enduring relationship with Jerome's opponent, Rufinus, to which we now In 400 Anastasius, the bishop of Rome, convened a council which condemned Origen as unfaithful to the Catholic Church. 75Some, including Jerome, urged Anastasius to excommunicate Rufinus for his translations of Origen, but he eventually decided against taking that course of action following correspondence with both Rufinus and Venerius, the bishop of Milan, who interceded on Rufinus' behalf. 76nastasius died c.401-2.A year of two later Chromatius asked Rufinus to translate Origen's homilies on Joshua, which he completed in 403/404.If Chromatius had made this request when Anastasius was still alive, he may have sown further discord between the anti-Origenist movement and Rufinus.Anastasius, however, was not the only critic of Origen and Rufinus; Chromatius must have known that asking Rufinus to translate further Origenist works after the council of 400 would be an affront to those who had condemned the Christian philosopher and his Aquilean translator, including Jerome.This provides important context for why Jerome did not include positive epithets for Chromatius in his dedicatory letter which accompanied his translation of Tobit in 405.By asking Rufinus to translate Origenist works, following the ecclesiastical strife of the late 390s and early 400s, Chromatius had effectively taken sides against Jerome.
Epilogue: Chromatius Reconsidered (397-407) In the 1960s the discovery that Chromatius had authored a collection of sermons prompted renewed scholarly interest in 74  the bishop of Aquileia.This article shows that Jerome's relationship with Chromatius deteriorated after the renewal of hostilities between Jerome and Rufinus, and so sheds new light on Chromatius' leadership in the final years of his episcopacy and the growing importance of his see of Aquileia.In 397, one of Chromatius' key supporters, Ambrose, the powerful bishop of Milan, died.This left Chromatius somewhat exposed when his close friend, Rufinus, came under criticism for translating Origen's Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, including from Pope Anastasius I.After Anastasius I died c.401-2, Chromatius asked Rufinus to translate two works, Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica and Origen's Homiles on Joshua.Both requests were linked to the Origenist controversy.By asking Rufinus to translate Eusebius' history, Chromatius provided Rufinus with the scope to present Eusebius as less Arian, which was important given Jerome's criticism of Eusebius' sympathies for Origen, and even to present Origen himself in a more favourable manner. 77The request for Rufinus to translate Origen broadcasted that Chromatius had no issue with Origenist thought and was not bound by the pressure that Jerome and others had tried to exert.That there were no ramifications for Chromatius in making this request-other than Jerome's cool tone toward him-indicates that Chromatius had not overplayed his hand.In fact, in the final years of his life, Chromatius came to assume a key position of leadership in the ecclesiastical circles of Northern Italy.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.A depiction of Jonah at rest on the fourth-century mosaic floor of the Basilica of Aquileia.
55 the books of Solomon, and then tried to pass off this elision as an oversight by claiming that the work was dedicated to the holy bishops (sanctis episcopis) in his Apology.Rufinus, and others, may well have noticed.In his preface to his translation of Origen's Homilies on Joshua, written in 402, Rufinus uses an unusual formula in his epithet for Chromatius:Idcirco namque Beselehel ille repletus esse dicitur omni sapientia a Deo, ut intelligens singula haec quibus usibus apta sint, nihil ex offerentium devotione repudiet.Quia ergo et tu, o mihi semper venerabilis pater Chromati, iniungis, et praecipis nobis, ut ...conferamusOratiunculus XXVI in Jesum Nave, quas ex tempore in Ecclesia peroravit Adamantius senex[.]55Infact, the well-known Bezalel is said to have been filled by God with all wisdom so that, understanding for what uses individual things are suited, he rejected none of the sacrificial offerings.O Chromatius, you are always a venerable father to me, you request and order . . .me to translate the twenty-six homilies on Joshua, which Origen as an old man completely delivered extemporaneously in the church.