MONITION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING EPISTLE TO CYRIACUS THE BISHOP IN EXILE
A Doubts concerning the authenticity of this epistle were raised by two Englishmen in the Savilian edition. For in the notes on page 856, Halesius, cited by Henry Savile, has the following: “This epistle to Cyriacus has always been highly suspect to me as a supposititious work. For, first, I do not see at all the epistolary character that is present in the others. Furthermore, the prologue is almost identical to that of the first epistle to Olympias, and it even contains entire sentences taken from other works of Chrysostom, which seem to smack of a copyist; and otherwise, certainly, unless where Chrysostom is clearly being compiled, the style does not recall Chrysostom. Moreover, there are certain things here alien to the character and turn of mind of our John. For as for his answer to the charge of adultery, ‘strip my body,’ etc., and his mention of the popular voice, ‘it were better that the sun had veiled its rays, that the mouth of John might be silent,’ and the fact that he inveighs against Arsatius more bitterly than is fitting: these things, I say, do not please me at all. For the first has something crude about it, the second something boastful, and the last, a show of temper. And assuredly, I recall that this last point was long ago observed by Photius, who tries to apply a remedy, though not by a very skillful Aesculapius. Finally, regarding what he says ‘from the Cucusians,’ our author never speaks in this number, but always in the singular. So these are, in general, the things I have observed in this epistle, leaving a complete judgment on the whole matter to the learned reader.”
In the same Savilian notes on page 888, John Boisius replies to these points, and with the single exception of the stylistic dissimilarity, he refutes all the other arguments; Tillemont thought this note belonged to Savile, whose authority would certainly be greater, but it is by John Boisius, as you may see in the top margin of the same page: he speaks as follows: B “Of all those reasons which are brought forward against the authority of this epistle, none pleases me more than that which is drawn from the dissimilarity of style. For this note rarely deceives, whereas the others that are added are not of such infallible certainty that on their account that epistle must necessarily be adjudged away from Chrysostom. The beginning of this epistle has many things in common with the first to Olympias. I acknowledge it. Yet it is not on that account immediately to be denied that it is by Chrysostom. For how often does Chrysostom repeat the same things, and that almost word-for-word, both in his epistles and in his homilies? For when things have once been well said, the desire to say them differently, unless some more just cause should impel it, is a sign not so much of an eloquent man as of one who is inquisitive and seeking to show off his abundance. Homer, therefore, is not censured because he borrows quite often from himself and says the same things repeatedly about the same subjects; but among his other virtues this is also numbered, that, having left to posterity a most useful example of frugality, he abstains from necessary variety everywhere by design. As for that affective expression, ‘strip my body,’ etc., it must be considered whether his supreme innocence, joined with incredible grief, and the impudence of his adversaries, who were insulting a miserable and downcast man without restraint, could have wrung such an utterance from him. Perhaps the time itself excuses the mention of the popular acclamation. If the words are viewed by themselves, they might seem to have proceeded from a vain and boastful man; but if we look at the time when they were uttered, there is no one, I think, who is a little more equitable, who would not pardon such behavior in Chrysostom, who was in exile, cast out, exhausted by unspeakable injuries, and oppressed by most unworthy calumnies. C For it is helpful for a spirit prostrate with perpetual grief to raise and lift itself up with such supports as these. But, ‘he treated Arsatius more bitterly than was fitting.’ Let this be a fault of Chrysostom, but not an argument that the epistle is supposititious. Nay, I would rather gather from this that it is indeed a genuine offspring. For who does not know how great the spirit was in Chrysostom; with what freedom of speech, with what frankness he used to treat with everyone, even the Empress Eudoxia. If, therefore, he did not spare Eudoxia, is it probable that he would have wished to spare Arsatius? There remains the last argument drawn from the word ‘Cucusians,’ which, although it seems not to be neglected, nevertheless, unless it is corroborated from elsewhere, has little strength in itself. For it could have happened by the fault of either a copyist or a printer that ‘Cucusians’ was written instead of ‘Cucusus.’ Besides, if I am not mistaken, both ‘Cucusus’ and ‘Cucusa’ are read. But worth all of these is that point about the style and character, which alone carries so much weight with me that I do not hesitate, with your Halesius—an excellent and most learned young man—to pronounce that the author of this epistle was not Chrysostom, but some other person not to be compared with Chrysostom in either talent or eloquence.”
That passage of Photius which Halesius commemorates above runs thus: D “That in the epistle to the bishop Cyriacus, which he sent from his second exile, he attacks Arsatius, calling him a babbler and an adulterer; and he praises those who turn away from his communion, as having been separated from him on account of God and the injustice...”