ABSTRACT
It has to be admitted at once that the Commentary on Jeremiah has more on its mind, so to speak, than barbarian threats. It is noteworthy, first, for its 'historical' preferences not surprising, given the work's dedication to Eusebius of Cremona, who shared that predilection. The stance is explicitly adopted against Origen; and Eusebius was a loyal although mischievous supporter of Jerome against Rufinus in the 390s, and continued to serve Jerome's polemical interests for some time after his work on this prophet. Against Pelagius, therefore, we find evoked a tradition of error stretching from Pythagoras and Zeno to Evagrius, Rufinus, and even Jovinian all supporters of anamartesia. Jerome was thinking, in other words, in terms of an error 'revived'; but it was also an error that might persist, not least because heretics were a domestic menace, 'born in the church. 'The indignation of the exegete takes on at once a social tone.
