1. Isidore of Seville, De viris illustribus 15. Cf. Severus' note that Ithacius initially defended the appropriateness of his participation in the criminal lawsuit (perhaps in part by arguing for the seriousness of Priscillian's crime?), but later shifted his strategy and accused the allies who had advised his course of action ( Chron. 2.51).

2. Prosper, Chron. 1193; Severus, Chron. 2.51.

3. Babut, Priscillien , pp. 33-56.

4. Babut's source theory has been most recently endorsed by Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 22, 152, 201.

5. Filastrius, Diversarum hereseon liber 84. This dual association of Priscillian's movement with gnosticism and Manichaeism may be because of the strict ascetic practices attributed to both heresies, as to Priscillian's movement, and to Priscillian's use of apocryphal writings deriving from both gnostic and Manichaean circles. Although fourth-century texts do not explicitly refer to the Manichaeans as "gnostics," some link between Manichaeism and gnosticism was commonly acknowledged. Fourth-century writers draw upon the heritage of anti-gnostic polemics in their denunciations of the Manichaeans, who are deemed guilty of similar "errors" of christology and cosmology. The influential Acta Archelai hints at parallels between the life of Mani and the life of the first "gnostic," Simon Magus (Samuel N. C. Lieu, ''Some Themes in Later Roman Anti-Manichaean Polemics: I,'' Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 68 [1985-86]: 446), and Cyril of Jerusalem, relying in part on the Acta Archelai , explicitly describes Mani as the successor of the "gnostics" refuted by Irenaeus: Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Menander, Carpocrates, the Ebionites, Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus ( Catecheses 6.14-33).

6. For the dating of Jerome's works, I have generally followed Ferdinand Cavallera, Saint Jérôme: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Louvain: "Specilegium Sacrum Lovaniense" Bureaux, 1922), vol. 2.

7. Jerome, De viris inlustribus 121.

8. Ibid.

9. As noted above, Babut proposes that Ithacius had already linked Priscillian with the Irenaean Mark ( Priscillien , pp. 37, 45-56). Ithacius had likewise identified this Mark as a disciple of Mani; Babut suggests, therefore, that Jerome, or perhaps an intermediary source like Lucinus, had "corrected" Ithacius' hypothetical error of chronology by omitting mention of Mani.

10. Irenaeus seems rather to imply that Marcus is of the school of Valentinus ( Adversus haereses 1.13.1); he clearly does not associate him with the school of Basilides (described in 1.24.3-7). Parallels that might have led Jerome to make this connection include Irenaeus' description of the licentious habits of the followers of Basilides and of their use of magic (1.24.5), practices likewise attributed to Mark (1.13). There are a number of other inaccuracies in Jerome's account of Irenaeus. Babut and his followers have viewed this as support for the theory that the Irenaean allusion derives from Ithacius, the implication being that so careful a scholar as Jerome would never have made such errors, while Ithacius is easily believed to have done so (e.g., Babut, Priscillien , p. 33 n. 1, and Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 22). It would not, however, have been entirely out of character for Jerome to have introduced either careless inaccuracies or willful misinterpretations into his citation of a source.

11. Whether Irenaeus in fact means that Mark was himself active in the Rhône district is irrelevant; Jerome clearly understands Adversus haereses 1.13.7 to imply a Gallic sphere of activity for the gnostic Mark.

12. The question that drives such speculations is: Are there two Marks or one in the tradition surrounding Priscillian? Babut judges it highly improbable that there could be more than one and likewise suggests that this one Mark is identical with the gnostic Mark described by Irenaeus; his connection with Priscillian is thus purely fictional ( Priscillien , pp. 33-56). Babut's solution requires attributing the Irenaean connection to Ithacius and making both Jerome and Sulpicius Severus dependent on Ithacius. Puech, although originally supporting a theory of two Marks (" Priscilliani quod superest , ed. G. Schepss, 1889," Journal des savants [1891]: 112), later concedes that one fictional, Irenaean-based Mark is, if by no means certain, at least the simplest solution ("Les Origines du priscillianisme," p. 163), and most scholarship in this century has followed Babut's theory of one Mark. However, given the tenuous nature of the evidence, it is necessary to acknowledge the possibility that two different Marks may in fact have made their way into the tradition surrounding Priscillian, and also to keep in mind that only Jerome's Mark is explicitly identified with the Irenaean tradition. V. C. de Clercq argues for the existence of a fourth-century Manichaean Mark who was active in Cordoba in the years 325-40 ("Ossius of Cordova and the Origins of Priscillianism," Studia Patristica 1 [1957]: 601-6).

13. Jerome, Ep. 75.3.

14. Ibid.

15. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 29.13-15 and 11.18-19.

16. Jerome probably derived the fifth name from Irenaeus, who attributes the title "Abraxas" to the chief of the Basilidean heavens ( Adversus haereses 1.24.7). As to the role of Lucinus as a source for Jerome, note that Babut suggests that Lucinus may have derived his knowledge of Priscillian from Ithacius' Apology , and thus may have served as the transmitter of the Ithacian tradition to Jerome ( Priscillien , p. 37 n. 1). I consider it likely that Lucinus had sources more reliable and closer to home than Ithacius' Apology , which was probably published in Gaul: Lucinus was, according to the address of Jerome's Ep. 71, a native of Baetica, likewise the home of Hyginus, first an accuser and later a supporter of Priscillian (Severus, Chron. 2.46), and of Tiberianus, also among Priscillian's supporters (Jerome, De viris inlustribus 123).

17. Jerome, Ep. 75.3.

18. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.13.7.

19. Severus' account suggests that Euchrotia's estate was in the vicinity of Bordeaux, situated at the mouth of the Garonne River ( Chron. 2.48).

20. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.13.1-7.

21. Irenaeus may already allude to this passage when he states that Mark's disciples deceived and defiled many "little women" ( Adversus haereses 1.13.6); however, unlike Jerome, he does not exploit the full implications of 2 Tim. 3.6-7, nor does he show any interest in creating a close association of women and heresy elsewhere in his work. See my "Hierarchalization and Genderization of Leadership in the Writings of Irenaeus," Studia Patristica 21 (1989): 42-48.

22. Jerome, Praefatio in Pentateuchum (398) and Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5 (408-9).

23. Jerome, Praefatio in Pentateuchum and Ep. 120.10 (407).

24. Jerome, Commentarius in Amos 1.3 (406).

25. Jerome, Ep. 120.10.

26. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 6 (406); Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5.

27. For Jerome's restriction of the canon, see Praefatio in libros Samuel et Malachim; Praefatio in libros Salomonis ; and J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), pp. 160-61.

28. Jerome, Praefatio in Pentateuchum : "Maximeque quae evangelistarum et apostolorum auctoritas promulgavit [Origenes]: in quibus multa de veteri Testamento legimus, quae in nostris codicibus non habentur; ut est illud." (There follow five examples of New Testament citations of authoritative words: Matt. 2.15 and 23; John 19.37 and 7.38; and 1 Cor. 2.9.) "Interrogemus ergo eos, ubi haec scripta sint: et cum dicere non potuerint, de libris Hebraicis proferamus." (There follow the Hebrew sources for the New Testament citations: Hos. 11.1; Isa. 11.1, Zech. 12.10; Prov. 18.4; Isa. 64.4.) "Quod multi ignorantes, apocryphorum deliramenta sectantur; et Iberas naenias libris authenticis praeferunt."

29. Priscillian actually uses one of the New Testament examples cited by Jerome--Matt. 2.15--as proof that not all prophecy is contained in the canonical scriptures ( Tract. 3, 48.3-7).

30. A work with which Priscillian was familiar ( Tract. 3, 47.18-20).

31. Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5. 1 Cor. 2.9 was also one of the texts cited by Jerome in the Praefatio in Pentateuchum .

32. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 6.

33. Priscillian, Tract. 3, 52.10-24.

34. Jerome, Ep. 120.10.

35. In a letter addressed to Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage, and his wife Anapsychia, Jerome responds to a question about the origin of the soul, repeating his opposition to the teachings of Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen, on the one hand, and the Stoics, Manichaeus, and "the Spanish heresy of Priscillian," on the other, and specifying that the common heresy of the Stoics, Manichaeus, and Priscillian consists in the teaching that human souls are a part of the substance of God ( Ep. 126 [411]). Jerome gives no indication of the source of his knowledge of Priscillian's doctrine. He may have simply inferred it based on a stereotype of gnosticism. However, the transcript of the anti-Priscillianist professions from the Council of Toledo (400) accuse Priscillian's "follower" Dictinius of teaching that the soul was part of God ( Exemplar , ll. 15-16), and it is possible that Jerome already knew of this charge by the time he wrote Epp. 120 (407) and 126 (411). In 414, Jerome was to meet the Galician Orosius, who must have informed him at that point of Priscillian's supposed heretical teachings concerning the soul (cf. Orosius, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum 2).

36. Jerome clearly knew of Euchrotia's connection with Priscillian as early as 392, when he lists Felicissimus, Julianus, and Euchrotia as those executed alongside Priscillian at Trier ( De viris inlustribus 122). He does not, however, identify Euchrotia as the wife of Delphidius.

37. Jerome, Ep. 120, preface.

38. Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5.

39. Jerome had first inserted this "name" into the catalogue a few years earlier ( Contra Vigilantium 6 [406]). He had also grouped Priscillian's doctrine of the soul with the Manichaean doctrine ( Ep. 120.10 [407]).

40. In the Letter to Theodora , the link between Priscillian and Mark is secured by the placement of the story of Mark in the context of the praise of Lucinus' zeal in fighting the Spanish heresy in his own time. In the Commentaries on Isaiah , it is the reference to Lusitania that clearly points to a connection between Mark and Priscillian. Priscillian's episcopal see of Avila may have been considered part of Lusitania, and his disputes with the Lusitanian bishops Hydatius and Ithacius were familiar to Jerome ( De viris inlustribus 121).

41. Jerome, Ep. 120.10.

42. Severus, Chron. 2.46.

43. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.5.

44. Jacques Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," pp. 359-61.

45. "Hoc autem scito, quod in novissimis diebus instabunt tempora periculosa" (2 Tim. 3.1 [Vulgate]). G. K. van Andel points out this scriptural reference and provides a careful discussion of Severus' eschatology in The Christian Concept of History in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1976), pp. 99, 117-38.

46. Severus, Chron. 2.46.

47. Ibid. As noted, Babut was an early proponent of the theory that Ithacius' Apology was Severus' major source on Priscillian ( Priscillien , pp. 33-44).

48. Severus, Chron. 2.47.

49. Most scholars reject the highly speculative suggestions of Babut that Elpidius and Agape are the Christian names of Delphidius and Euchrotia, or, alternatively, that they are names derived from Irenaeus' description of the gnostic aeons ( Priscillien , pp. 49-52); see, e.g., the response of Puech, "Les Origines du Priscillianisme," pp. 89-95.

50. A number of scholars have commented on the parallels between Severus' portrait of Priscillian and Sallust's portrait of Catiline; see, e.g., the recent interpretations of Fontaine ("L'Affair Priscillien," pp. 362-65), and van Andel ( Sulpicius Severus , pp. 72-74).

51. Severus, Chron. 2.46.

52. Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," p. 362.

53. Cf. Sallust: "L. Catilina, nobili genere natus, fuit magna vi et animi et corporis sed ingenio malo pravoque" ( Cat. 5.1).

54. Cf. Sallust: "Corpus patiens iediae, algoris, vigiliae supra quam credibile est" ( Cat. 5.3).

55. Cf. Sallust: "Alieni appentens, sui profusus, ardens in cupiditatibus. . . . Vastus animus immoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat. . . . Lubido maxuma invaserat rei publicae capiendae" ( Cat. 5.4-6). See also Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," p. 364.

56. Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," pp. 368-71.

57. Severus describes Priscillian as "habendi minime cupidus" but "plus justo inflatior profanarum rerum scientia"; his female followers are "novarum rerum cupidae . . . et ad omnia curioso ingenio" ( Chron. 2.46). The contrast then, is between the desire or greed for possessions, on the one hand, and curiosity, or the desire or greed for knowledge, on the other. Priscillian and his followers are guilty of the latter.

58. 2 Tim. 3.2-4 (Vulgate): "et erunt homines se ipsos amantes, cupidi, elati, superbi, blasphemi, parentibus inoboedientes, ingrati, scelesti, sine affectione, sine pace, criminatores, incontinentes, inmites, sine benignitate, proditores, protervi, tumidi, voluptatium amatores magis quam Dei."

59. Chron. 2.46: "quippe humilitatis speciem ore et habitu praetendens." Cf. 2 Tim. 3.5 (Vulgate): "habentes speciem quidem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes."

60. Severus, Chron. 2.46.

61. Cf. Sallust: "satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum" ( Cat. 5.5).

62. Fontaine, "L'Affair Priscillien," p. 365, and van Andel, Sulpicius Severus , p. 74.

63. Sallust, Cat. 15.

64. Ibid. 24.3: "Ea tempestate plurimos cuiusque generis homines adscivisse sibi dicitur, mulieres etiam aliquot."

65. Ibid. 24.3-4, 25.

66. E.g., Sallust, Cat. 28.4; Jug. 19.1; Cat. 48.1; Jug. 66.2; Cat. 57.1; Cat. 37.1; Jug. 46.3; Jug. 66.2. Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," p. 367.

67. 2 Tim. 3.6-7 (Vulgate): "Ex his enim sunt qui penetrant domos et captivas ducunt mulierculas oneratas peccatis quae ducuntur variis desideriis semper discentes et numquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes."

68. I have been unable to detect specific allusions to Irenaeus or any other nonscriptural heresiological text; but whatever the specific sources of influence may be, it seems clear that Severus was familiar with the terms of what had become standard Christian heresiological discourse.

69. Le Boulluec demonstrates that irenaeus modifies Justin's heresiological scheme in such a way as to accentuate the "heresiological paradox" of otherness and identity ( La Notion d'hérésie , 1: 157-86).

70. Severus, Chron. 2.48, 50.

71. 2 Tim. 3.12-13 (Vulgate): "Et omnes qui volunt pie vivere in Christo Jesu persecutionem patientur, mali autem homines et seductores proficient in peius, errantes et in errorem mittentes."

72. Severus, Chron. 2.50, 51.

73. Augustine's Ep. 166, addressed to Jerome in 414 or 415, functions in part as a letter of introduction for Orosius. Orosius' depiction of Priscillian and his movement is contained in his Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum , addressed to Augustine shortly before this date.

74. The exception is Ep. 126, where Jerome appears to be quoting his correspondent when he names Priscillian.

75. Virgil, Georgics 2.325-27.

76. Jerome, Ep. 133.3.

77. Note that Jerome with this phrase clearly "corrects" his first reference to Priscillian, in which he states that only some people thought him heretical ( De viris inlustribus 121).

78. Orosius, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum 2.

79. Ibid.

80. Jerome, Ep. 133.4.

81. Cf. the following reference to 2 Tim. 3.6-7: "Nulla enim heresis nisi propter gulam ventremque construitur, ut seducat mulierculas oneratas peccatis semper discentes et numquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes." (Jerome, Commentarius in Hieremiam 1.57 [415-20]).

82. Jerome Ep. 133.4.

83. Severus' Mark is Priscillian's "grandparent" in false teaching, whereas Jerome's Mark is a figure of the distant past, living either two or three hundred years before Priscillian.

84. I follow D'Alès in taking Agape as the subject of "habuit" (Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne , p. 177).

85. There has been much discussion of the identity of "Galla," revolving around the interpretation of the phrase non gente sed nomine ; see D'Alès, Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne , pp. 174-88, and Ferdinand Cavallera, "Galla non gente sed nomine," Bulletin de littérature ecclesiastique 38 (1937): 186-90. Most recent scholarship has followed Cavallera, interpreting the phrase in relation to "Galla," which seems to imply that Galla is the name of a person and not the designation of native country and therefore precludes an identification with Euchrotia or Procula; see, e.g., Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 38. The grammatical sense of the text is, however, ambiguous. Given the fact that Jerome knew of Euchrotia and her execution alongside Priscillian, and now also seems to know Severus' narrative, I think it is far more likely that the reference is in fact to Euchrotia or Procula or the other women of Priscillian's Gallic entourage, and I would therefore interpret the phrase non gente sed nomine to modify not "Galla" but germanem , and to signify either that she was named Galla, but was not Gallic, or that she was Euchrotia's or Procula's sister in some metaphorical sense.

86. D'Alès, Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne , pp. 177-82. Note that this identification of the empress Galla as an Arian is controversial. Daughter of the notorious Arian Justina, Galla may have renounced her Arian loyalties in the course of the negotiations of her marriage to the fervently orthodox Theodosius in 387, as Steward I. Oost suggests ( Galla Placidia Augusta [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968], p. 48). Whether such a hypothetical conversion to orthodoxy would have precluded her continuing association with Arianism in the mind of a writer like Jerome is another question.

87. Jerome, Dialogus contra Pelagianos , prol. 1.

88. According to Paulinus, Severus was in his prime as a rhetorician: "Tu, frater dilectissime, ad Dominum miraculo maiore conversus es, quia aetate florentior, laudibus abundantior, oneribus patrimonii levior, substantia facultatum non egentior et in ipso adhuc mundi theatro id est fori celebriate diversans et facundi nominis palmam tenens, repentino inpetu discussisti servile peccati iugum et letalia carnis et sanguinis vincula rupisti" ( Ep. 5.5).

89. Severus' friendship with Paulinus predated Paulinus' and Therasia's conversions circa 393 (Paulinus, Ep. 11.5), and both Severus and the broader Aquitanian public associated Severus' slightly later conversion with that of Paulinus (Paulinus, Ep. 1.4). Severus began to visit Martin in 393 or 394, perhaps at the urging of Paulinus, whose cataracts Martin had healed (Severus, Vita 19; see also Vita 25). Severus later honored both Martin and Paulinus with portraits and inscriptions in the baptistry erected at Primuliacum (Paulinus, Ep. 32.2-4). A third major influence on Severus was Bassula, who may have converted to asceticism at around the same time as her son-in-law. Paulinus refers to Bassula as Severus' spiritual parent ( Ep. 5.6,19; cf. the designation of Bassula as parens venerabilis in the adscription to Severus' Ep. 3).

90. Severus seems to have given up both his paternal inheritance and the property acquired through his prestigious marriage into a consular family; on Severus' rejection of his patrimony, see Paulinus, Epp. 1.1 and 5.6, and on his marriage, Ep. 5.5.

91. On the location of Primuliacum, see Claire Stancliffe, St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 30 n. 3.

92. See ibid., pp. 80-81, on the dating of the Chronicle and Dialogues .

93. Even Severus' property at Primuliacum was transferred to the legal ownership of the church: "te contra adhuc infelicem et in luto faecis infernae adhaerentem ingemiscas, quod vel unum, ut scripsisti, praediolum non vendidisse videaris, cum ipsum quoque aeque ut venditum a tuo iure praesenti alienaveris" (Paulinus, Ep. 24.1).

94. Paulinus, Epp. 24.3 and 27.3.

95. Paulinus, Ep. 23.3-10.

96. Paulinus, Epp. 24.3 and 27.3; cf. Carm. 24.715.

97. Severus indicates that the company gathered at Primuliacum on one occasion included a Gallic disciple of Martin, the traveller Postumianus, the presbyter Refrigerius, the presbyter Evagrius, Aper, Sabbatius, Agricola, the presbyter Aetherius, the deacon Calupio, the subdeacon Amator, and the presbyter Aurelius; all are identified loosely as "monks" ( Dial. 1.1, 1.14 and 2.1). Paulinus also mentions a Postumianus ( Epp. 16.1 and 27.1-2), and he addresses Epp. 38, 39, and 44 to Aper; these may be identical with the Postumianus and Aper mentioned in the Dialogues .

98. Gennadius, De viris inlustribus 19.

99. Severus implies that Bassula's sojourn at Trier at the time of Martin's death in 397 was anomalous; she is "far from her native country," and her absence is causing her "son" in Toulouse (or in Primuliacum in the area around Toulouse?) much grief: "Ego enim Tolosae positus, tu Treveris constituta et tam longe a patria filio inquietante divulsa" ( Ep. 3.3). See Sulpice Sévère: Vie de Saint Martin , ed. Jacques Fontaine, vol. 3 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969), pp. 1279-81.

100. Severus, Ep. 3.2. Cf. Paulinus' reference to Bassula's generosity:"socrum sanctam omni liberaliorem parente" ( Ep. 5.6). Fontaine suggests that this generosity may have gone well beyond providing Severus with stenographers: "Qui sait même si ce n'est pas à sa 'générosité' que Sulpice a dû non seulement les tachygraphes d'élite qu'elle a mis à sa disposition, mais encore les ressources qui lui ont permis de faire vivre la communauté ascétique de Primuliacum?" ( Sulpice Sévère: Vie de Saint Martin , 3: 1267-68).

101. Bassula seems to have promoted Severus' Martinian writings vigorously. Severus was perhaps only half joking when he charged his mother-in-law with sending spies to steal his private or unfinished manuscripts ( Ep. 3.2-3).

102. Therasia sent Bassula a piece of the cross brought back from Palestine by Melania circa 403; Paulinus explains that the gift--to be enshrined in the new basilica at Primuliacum--is intended for both Severus and Bassula, who share a common religious calling and--evidently--a common interest in the building project at Primuliacum ( Ep. 31.1).

103. Paulinus passes on greetings to Severus from his own partner Therasia and begs Severus to greet his "holy mother" in Paulinus' name ( Ep. 5.19).

104. Paulinus, Epp. 31.1 and 32.1.

105. Paulinus criticizes Severus' courier on the basis of his worldly clothing, ruddy complexion, and unshaven head, accusing him of being no real monk ( Epp. 17.1 and 22.1). In contrast, he praises the monk-courier Victor and takes the opportunity of giving Severus a long discourse on the advantages of simple diet and a shaven head ( Ep. 23); one has the impression he suspects Severus of not taking these disciplines seriously enough. Cf. Paulinus' response to Severus' claim that his own austerities fall short of Paulinus' and his ironic expression of concern that Paulinus has made himself so poor that he cannot afford to entertain visitors ( Ep. 11.12-13). Regarding Paulinus' dietary recommendations, Peter Dreyer notes that "vegetarians in antiquity might have had fava beans (although the Pythagoreans banned them), lentils, chickpeas, of course, and various field peas, but beans as we now commonly know them-- Phaseolus vulgaris in its many varieties--are New World plants and could not have been available. Conceivably, western Manichaeans and early Christian ascetics also had Mung and Urd beans to eat if these plants had by then reached the Near East and Europe from India. But absent Phaseolus vulgaris and other New World species (no potatoes, tomatoes, or sweet peppers), the diets of Severus and his ilk must have been austere indeed; malnutrition may have been widespread among them, one imagines--perhaps in part the cause of the pallor of the Manichaeans" (personal communication).

106. Paulinus outraged the traditional Gallo-Roman aristocracy (Ausonius, Epp. 27, 28, and 29, and Paulinus, Ep. 1.4-7) and provoked the envy of the clergy of Rome (Paulinus, Ep. 5.13). Martin was threatened with the label of Manichaeism because of his support for Priscillian and the Spanish ascetics (Severus, Chron . 2.50; Dial . 3.11-13). Afterwards, Martin determined to have no further dealings with other bishops ( Dial. 3.13). Nevertheless, he continued to meet with opposition even within his own monastery and episcopal see. The monk and presbyter Brictio, who succeeded Martin as bishop of Tours, accused him of impurity on the basis of his years as a solider, and he further denied the legitimacy of the miracles and visions that constituted the basis of Martin's unusual authority ( Dial. 3.15). As was perhaps also the case with the aristocratic Paulinus in Rome, the ill-defined and uncontrolled source of Martin's authority as ascetic and miracle-worker seems to have been perceived as a challenge to the more clearly defined official authority of his fellow bishops and clergy.

107. Severus, Ep. 1, Dial. 1.26.

108. See Van Andel, Sulpicius Severus , pp. 139-42.

109. Severus, Vita 27.

110. Severus, Chron. 2.51.

111. Severus, Dial. 1.26.

112. Ibid. 1.2.

113. Ibid. 1.12.

114. Ibid. 3.16, 18.

115. Jerome, Ep. 58.11; Ep. 61; Ep. 109; Contra Vigilantium .

116. Paulinus, Ep. 5.11.

117. This somewhat controversial position has been most recently and carefully argued by Stancliffe, St. Martin , pp. 297-311. Elizabeth Clark, who accepts Stancliffe's argument, suggests that Rufinus may have played a crucial role in turning Vigilantius against the ascetic position represented by men like Jerome, Paulinus, and Sulpicius Severus ( Origenist Controversy , p. 36). Stefan Rebenich, who rejects the identification of the two Vigilantii ( Hieronymus und sein Kreis , pp. 249-51), nevertheless addresses the question of the "conversion" of the Vigilantius who began as the client of the ascetic Paulinus and ended as the anti-ascetic controversialist opposed by Jerome, suggesting the importance not of the eastern Origenist controversy but rather of the local Gallic situation (pp. 247-49, 258).

118. The exact location of the church in which Vigilantius served as presbyter is unknown, but it must have been in the vicinity of St. Bertrand-de-Comminges (in which diocese Vigilantius' native Calugirris was located) and Toulouse (home of the deacon Sisinnius, who delivered the letter of the presbyters Riparius and Desiderius along with the works of Vigilantius) ( Contra Vigilantium 1, 3). Gennadius reports that the Gallic Vigilantius was head of the church of Barcelona ( De viris illustribus 36); if Gennadius is right, he probably refers to a later period of Vigilantius' life, since Jerome clearly describes controversies taking place not in Spain but in Gaul.

119. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 1.

120. Paulinus, Ep. 31.1.

121. Jerome, Ep. 109, Contra Vigilantium 4-9. It is tempting to see in the reference to the heavenly altar of Apoc. 6.9-11, embedded in a passage that also contains the striking image of the throne of God, an allusion to the episcopal cathedral and altar as earthly reflections of the heavenly archetype.

122. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 10.

123. E.g., Paulinus, Epp. 1.1, 5.6, and 24.1-4.

124. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 14.

125. Ibid. 15.

126. Ibid. 2.

127. Severus, Vita , pref.

128. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 3.

129. Severus, Dial. 1.9.

130. Ibid. 2.8.

131. Ibid. 2.6-2.8.

132. Ibid. 2.12.

133. Ibid.

134. Stancliffe suggests that Jerome provides an indirect link between Severus' discussion of gender and his debate with Vigilantius. Severus attempts to placate an unfriendly Jerome through his explicit affirmation of Jerome's controversial criticism of free relations between male and female ascetics or male clergy and female ascetics; the context for Jerome's presumed coolness toward Severus is primarily the dispute over Origen between Jerome and Rufinus (the latter a friend of Paulinus)--and now also between Jerome and Vigilantius--and secondarily Jerome's reservations about the purity of a Gallic asceticism exemplified by a former solider ( St. Martin , pp. 297-312). Stancliffe also points out that the laxer "traditional ascetics," or continentes , are the more immediate target of Severus' criticism of male-female relations ( St. Martin , pp. 272-73, 311). I am here proposing still another audience for Severus' remarks regarding the separation of male and female ascetics: Vigilantius and his episcopal supporters. Severus' anti-ascetic opposition may well have constituted his primary intended audience for the discussion of gender.

135. It is not clear whether Vigilantius also used gender to symbolize the disordered state of the ascetic community. In Contra Vigilantium 9, the argument against vigils on the basis of sexual promiscuity seems more likely to have been introduced by Jerome.

136. Severus, Dial. 2.12.

137. Van Andel, Sulpicius Severus , pp. 55-116.

138. Stridon was apparently located near the western border of Dalmatia, within easy striking distance of Aquileia (Kelly, Jerome , pp. 3-5).

139. Jerome, Ep. 7, Chron. an. 374; Rufinus, Apologia contra Hieronymum 1.4; and Kelly, Jerome , pp. 31-33.

140. These include the deacon Julian, the subdeacon Niceas, the monk Chrysogonus, the elderly scholar Paul of Concordia, a group of virgins in Emona, the monk Antony of Emona, and the presbyter Heliodorus, to whom Jerome's Epp. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are addressed respectively.

141. Kelly, Jerome , p. 33.

142. Ibid., pp. 38-79.

143. Jerome, Liber contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum 41. If Jerome's rhetoric can be trusted, he accepted ordination grudgingly, probably as a sign of support for Bishop Paulinus in his struggle against other Antiochene factions; see Kelly, Jerome , p. 58.

144. See now Stefan Rebenich's careful account of Jerome's Roman ''network'' ( Hieronymus und Sein Kreis , pp. 141-80).

145. Note that by highlighting the significance of these early conflicts at Rome for Jerome's shift in attitude not only toward Priscillian but also toward broader issues of community, authority, and gender, I diverge somewhat from traditions of scholarship that would place more emphasis on the later Origenist controversy in explaining changes in Jerome's positions. Willy Schatz, focusing specifically on Jerome's depictions of Priscillian, locates the crucial moment of transition from a spiritual or charismatic model of authority to an institutional model of authority in Jerome's decision to support Theophilus rather than the "Origenist" monks of Egypt ( Studien , pp. 224-28). Peter Brown, surveying Jerome's views of bodies and sexuality, links Jerome's changes in attitudes toward gender with his abandonment of Origen's highly spiritualized anthropology, which seems to have entailed equality of mature, well-educated minds, whether male or female ( Body and Society , pp. 368-83).

146. That the writings attributed to "Ambrosiaster" reflect the viewpoint of the Roman clergy who opposed Jerome's teachings is persuasively argued by David G. Hunter in " On the Sin of Adam and Eve : A Little-Known Defense of Marriage and Childbearing by Ambrosiaster," Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989): 283-99; and "The Paradise of Patriarchy: Ambrosiaster on Woman as (Not) God's Image," Journal of Theological Studies , n.s., 43 (1992): 447-69.

147. In a letter to his friend Asella, Jerome highlights accusations of sexual immorality regarding his relations with Paula and likewise refers to rumors that he deceives by means of "Satanic arts" ( Ep. 45.2). In the same letter, he goes on to report that he has been called maleficus and identifies himself defiantly as the servant of Christ, who was labeled magus , and the follower of the apostle who was called seductor ( Ep. 45.5). Cf. Jerome, Apologia 3.21, and Kelly, Jerome , pp. 111-15. While Jerome does not explicitly acknowledge charges of Manichaeism, it is not unlikely that he would have been threatened with such a label at this point. In his Letter to Eustochium , he notes that many Roman Christians equate fasting and a pale and mournful demeanor with Manichaeism ( Ep. 22.13); cf. his comment that some have attacked him on the basis of his appearance and manner ( Ep. 45.2). Some years later, Jovinian in Rome accused Jerome of upholding Manichaean positions (Jerome, Ep. 48.2-3 and Adv. Jov. 1.3 and 5, and David Hunter, "Resistance to the Virginal Ideal," p. 50).

148. This letter was known to Severus, who refers to it approvingly in Dial . 1.8-9.

149. Jerome, Ep. 22.23.

150. Ibid. 17. Cf. Jerome's condoning of Asella's visits to the martyrs' shrines on the grounds that she maintained her privacy to such an extent that even when she appeared in public she was unnoticed ( Ep. 24.4).

151. Jerome, Ep. 22.16-17, 23, 25-29.

152. Ibid. 5-6, 13-14; cf. ibid. 26, 27, and 29.

153. Ibid. 28.

154. Ibid. 38.

155. Ibid. 16.

156. Elizabeth Clark points out several instances of Jerome's use of familial language to describe relationships between ascetics: "He accepts Marcella's mother Albina as his own [ Ep. 32.2]; he calls himself Blaesilla's 'father in the spirit, her guardian in affection' [ Ep. 39.2]; all Christians are his children [ Ep. 79.1]; and he urges Christian ascetics to view each other as foster-fathers, brothers, and so forth, depending on their age in relation to each other [ Ep. 117.11]" ( Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends: Essays and Translations [New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1979], pp. 54-55). Clark rightly highlights the radicality of language that establishes a "new" Christian family based on the dissolution of traditional family relationships. However, I am suggesting that such language can also be seen as less radical and more simply reflective of the private-sphere orientation of the Christian community within which Jerome operated in Rome. Aristocratic women's patronage of learned men as mentors or teachers was not an utter novelty (see, e.g., Peter Brown, ''Pelagius and His Supporters," p. 97). The relationships between ascetic women and their male teachers appeared radical and shocking primarily when viewed through the lens of a publicly defined church.

157. Jerome, Ep. 45.2.

158. Cf. Jerome's negative contrast of the hustle and bustle of worldly Rome with the peace of the countryside, which is so conducive to the ascetic life; he recognizes one exception to this general rule in the senatus matronarum , or the private gatherings of ascetic Christian women in Rome ( Ep. 43.3). But again, there is no place for male ascetics in the city.

159. Jerome, Ep. 22.34-36.

160. Kelly, Jerome , pp. 129-40.

161. Jerome, Ep. 108.20.

162. Kelly, Jerome , pp. 195-209.

163. See Jerome's translation of Epiphanius' letter to John ( Ep. (51.1-2). On the other hand, Jerome took the side of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria in his quarrel with the monks of Egypt.

164. Jerome, Ep. 130.17.

165. Here and elsewhere, Jerome conflates this text with Ephesians 4.4.

166. Jerome, Ep. 130.17.

167. Elizabeth Clark has not only highlighted the importance of the moral or ascetic hierarchy for Jerome but also demonstrated the remarkable persistence of Jerome's concern with this issue from his debate with Jovinian through his participation in the Origenist and Pelagian debates ( Origenist Controversy , pp. 121-51, 221-27).

168. Jerome, Ep. 75.3.

169. Jerome, Ep. 120.10.

170. Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5.

171. While Clark has persuasively demonstrated the continuity in Jerome's construction of the Origenist and Pelagian debates ( Origenist Controversy , pp. 221-27), "Origenism" was in the late fourth century a heresy less easily personified than "Priscillianism." Origenism's eponymous "founder'' was historically remother, and the continued popularity of his exegetical works made his "heretical" identity more ambiguous; Evagrius Ponticus, also mentioned in Jerome's initial lineup of Pelagian forerunners in the letter to Ctesiphon ( Ep. 133.3), might have been a convenient stand-in, and indeed he does stand at the center of Clark's own construction of ''Origenism" (see pp. 50-84), but she points out that it was only very late in the Origenist controversy that Jerome seems to have "discovered" Evagrius (pp. 122, 146-47). In addition, Priscillian's western origins may have made him an appealing figure for the role of immediate "perfectionist" forerunner in a heretical Pelagian succession.

172. Jerome, Ep. 133.4.

173. Cf. Alberto Ferreiro's argument in "Sexual Depravity, Doctrinal Error, and Character Assassination in the Fourth Century: Jerome against the Priscillianists," Studia Patristica 28 (1993) 29-38, that the list is intended "to hurl a devastating blow against the Priscillianist sect" (p. 33) or "to develop a typological critique of Priscillian" (p. 37).

174. Jerome, Ep. 130.19.

175. Jerome, Ep. 52.

176. Jerome, e.g., Ep. 14.8.

177. As noted above, Willy Schatz argues that Jerome's decision to support Bishop Theophilus in the Egyptian disputes is closely linked with the shift in his attitude toward Priscillian as representative of a charismatic ascetic spirituality ( Studien , pp. 224-28).

178. Jerome, Ep. 51.1-2.

179. Severus, Dial. 1.27.

180. Severus, Vita 25; Dial. 2.4 and 3.13.

181. Severus, Dial. 1.7.

182. Jerome's deep friendships with women have been widely celebrated in recent scholarship; see, e.g., Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends , pp. 35-106, and Rosemary Rader, Breaking Boundaries: Male/Female Friendship in Early Christian Communities (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), pp. 99-110.

183. Jerome, Ep. 22.13.

184. Jerome, Ep. 48.2-3; Adversus Jovinianum 1.3 and 5.