This study is devoted to a small extract of the famous florilegium of the monastery of Cava (Cava, Biblioteca della Badia, Ms. 3, ff. 259-259v, XI th c.). The florilege is also contained in the ms. of Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional 19, (XII th c.) and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale Lat. 7418 (XIV th c). The extract tells us that a certain Vigilantius, bishop of Lugdunum, wrote a letter to Jerome to
... [Show full abstract] blame him for reading the books of Origen the heretic. A literal quotation of Vigilantius's letter is then given. The extract deals with the right way of using Origen's writings which supposes that the reader is able to distinguish his errors from his orthodox assertions. It then says that Jerome answered him, and presents his answer which consists of short rewritten passages of his Aduersus Vigilantium, his letters 61 and 43, and a true quotation of his letter 62. The present study analyses many aspects of the extract with special attention to the fragment attributed to Vigilantius and to the objections which may be raised to its authenticity. Though the composition of the extract can not be dated or localized on the ground of a convincing demonstration (perhaps southern Italy in the early Middle Ages), we found some clues showing that the fragment attributed to Vigilantius could likely be authentic and a part of a letter to which Jerome answered with his own letter 61 (ad Vigilantium): 1. The name Lugdunum (for Lugdunum Conuenarum, Saint-Bertrand-deComminges) is never mentioned by Jerome, who uses like Sidonius Apollinaris and Gregory of Tours the designation urbs Conuenarum. Therefore the information concerning Lugdunum has to come from another source. 2. We suggest that the excerptor did not quote the texts from memory, but made a compilation of Jerome's letters in which he also uses various other sources, rewriting Jerome's text on this way. Most of its sources are recognizable. 3. The short fragment, which has no rhetorical value, is introduced by an inquit, showing that the excerptor presents it as a literal quotation. This does not prove that it is not a medieval forgery, but if the words of the fragment had been invented by the excerptor, it would have been necessary for him to use Jerome's letter 61 to formulate these words. If he could have done that e.g. for the sake of a theological demonstration grounded on written quotations, how can we explain that Vigilantius is introduced as bishop of Lugdunum, whereas Jerome, his main source, never says that he was a bishop? This indicates that he has at least an other source, which is different from Jerome and in which he may have copied the fragment. However, we are not able to exclude completely the idea that the fragment is a medieval forgery.