PREFACE TO THE FOURTH VOLUME
We have now reached the Commentaries or Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Holy Scripture, which can rightly be called either commentaries or sermons, for in them he performs the office of interpreter and doctor of Christian discipline at once. A First among these are the Homilies on Genesis, which, sixty-seven in number, complete the whole book. Subjoined to these are nine Sermons on Genesis, which appear to have been published some years before he interpreted the entire book. Following these are the five Homilies on Anna, the mother of Samuel, which were once six in number, but one of them has perished. The procession is closed by three Homilies on David and Saul. In all these things, however, certain points are to be observed here.
I. On the number of the Homilies on Genesis, and whether they were delivered at Antioch or Constantinople.
Photius discusses these homilies at some length—matters which will be published in the final volume along with other excerpts from the same writer; B in the interim, however, these things must be noted: namely, that Photius testifies to having seen sixty-one homilies on Genesis. Lest we think there is an error in the number, he adds that he possessed them comprised in three volumes, one of which had twenty homilies, the second sixteen, and the third twenty-five; whence it necessarily follows that either those homilies which we have numbered 67 today were formerly divided into fewer parts, or Photius’s copy did not comprise all the homilies on Genesis. I would more readily believe the latter; for all the sixty-seven homilies we have today enjoy their own beginning and end, bearing the mark of starting and finishing. From these, however, Photius says twenty-seven were delivered in Lent; C though, in all modern copies, thirty-two are cited as having been delivered in Lent; and therefore it is certain that five homilies were missing from the first two volumes of Photius’s copy, unless that resulted from a difference in division, which I should be loath to admit.
The same Photius seems to hesitate as to whether these homilies were delivered at Antioch or at Constantinople. Savile, however, using the authority of Photius, thus sets forth his own opinion: "Regarding the place and time, I agree with Photius’s conjectures that they were delivered at Constantinople, which the very phrasing indicates—sinking, as he says, into a lower style, just as most of his Constantinopolitan writings are less accurate than the Antiochene; D and the author of the *Life of Chrysostom*, ch. 36, places this book on Genesis among those recorded by scribes in the second and fourth years of his episcopate, that is, the years of Christ 399 and 401."
But a judgment of this kind, taken from the idea that what Chrysostom published at Antioch is more accurate than what he published at Constantinople, is quite fallacious, as even Savile himself confesses in his notes on page 227. In truth, we maintain this to be completely false: for these homilies on Genesis, which are written in a style less accurate than his others on both Testaments, were most certainly delivered at Antioch. A clear argument for this matter is provided by Chrysostom at the beginning of Homily 33 on Genesis. For, disclosing the reason why he had interrupted the course of his Homilies on Genesis after the thirty-second, he says this: "For the advent of the holy festival interrupted our series. For it was not fitting that, while we celebrated the cross of the Lord, we should bring you a discourse on other matters; rather, the table had to be set before you at its proper times. And therefore, when the day of tradition arrived, the continuous series of doctrine was broken, and, adapting ourselves to the present circumstances that pressed upon us, we let loose our tongue regarding the traitor; then we brought forward something on the cross. Later, with the day of the Resurrection dawning, it was necessary for us to teach your charity about the Resurrection of the Lord; and in the following days, the demonstration of the resurrection had to be presented again through those miracles which were performed at that time; when we also began to explain the Acts of the Apostles, thence setting before you continuous feasts, and by frequent and daily admonitions, exhorting those who had recently received the grace of baptism."
A Therefore, he interrupted the course of the Homilies on Genesis, which he had been delivering during Lent, so that he might treat of Judas and the Cross during Holy Week, and subsequently in a continuous manner of the Resurrection, and shortly after of the Acts of the Apostles, with interspersed admonitions to those who had recently received the grace of baptism. The second Homily on the traitor Judas, in Volume II, begins with these words: "I wished to speak again of the patriarch," that is, of Abraham, of whom he had spoken in the thirty-second Homily on Genesis; after which Homily, as he himself relates, he abstained for a while from that subject, in order to deliver the aforementioned sermons. Whether we possess the Homily on the Cross, which he mentions above, is uncertain; for we do not know if it is one of those which we have published in the second Volume. However, the Homily on the Resurrection which we published in the second Volume, which has this title: *Against the Drunkards and on the Resurrection*; that Homily, I say, is the very one which is mentioned above in that passage, from the excerpt of the thirty-third Homily on Genesis, which is proven clearly in this way. In this Homily on the Resurrection, where he discourses much on drunkenness, he says this in section 1: "Let us abstain from drunkenness: I do not say, let us abstain from wine, but let us abstain from drunkenness; it is not wine that produces drunkenness, for it is a creature of God; furthermore, the creature of God effects nothing evil, but a wicked will produces drunkenness." These words, moreover, marvelously harmonize with those of the first Sermon on the beginning of the Acts, in the third Volume, section 2: "Riches are not an evil, therefore, but the illegitimate use of them is an evil. And just as, when I was speaking B of drunkenness recently, I did not accuse wine, since every creature of God is good, which is received with thanksgiving, but [I accused] the evil use, etc." This sermon, therefore, as the word "recently" indicates, was delivered a few days after that *Against the Drunkards and on the Resurrection*, a fact which marvelously harmonizes with that passage cited above from Homily 33 on Genesis: "Afterwards, as the day of the Resurrection dawned, it was necessary that we should instruct your charity concerning the Resurrection of the Lord; and in the following days, through those miracles which were then performed, the proof of the Resurrection had to be brought forward again: when we also began to explain the Acts of the Apostles, thence setting before you continuous feasts, and by frequent and daily admonitions, exhorting those who had recently received the grace of baptism." From this, certain things must necessarily be inferred: namely, that the Homily against the drunkards and on the Resurrection was delivered in the same year as the Homily on the traitor Judas, and three days after it; and that other sermons on the Resurrection were delivered on the following days, which no longer exist; and in the same series the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, or on the beginning of the Acts, which began to be delivered a few days after the Resurrection. From this it is also clear that the Homilies on Acts are not that work on the entire Acts of the Apostles which will be edited in volume 9, and which must be referred to the Constantinopolitan sermons; for those sermons occupied almost an entire year; but these, ten in number, were delivered in the time intervening between Easter and the Ascension. Otherwise, Chrysostom himself clearly testifies to this in the same first Homily on the beginning of the Acts, section 3, where we read: "In previous days we discoursed among you on the apostolic words, and on the evangelical, when we spoke of C Judas: we also discoursed on the prophetic; today we wish to speak on the Acts of the Apostles, etc." I would also like you to note that in the first and third Homily on the beginning of the Acts, there is an admonition to those who had recently received the grace of baptism, as is said in the passage cited above from the thirty-third homily on Genesis. It is therefore evident that the Homilies on Genesis, on the traitor Judas, and on the Acts or the beginning of the Acts were delivered in one series and in the same year. Moreover, there were ten of these Homilies on the Acts, namely five on the beginning of the Acts, of which the greater part of the second has perished. Four Homilies on the change of names must also be placed in this series, because the subject matter, as can be seen, is taken from the book of Acts; for although in the fourth he explains that passage of the first to the Corinthians, "Paul called," etc., he continues to pursue the argument of the previous sermons throughout. To these homilies must be added that ninth Sermon on Genesis, namely the last of those sermons which are placed after the 67 preceding homilies, and which can, therefore, be seen to pertain to the series of homilies on Acts, as you can see in the Monitum to the same. We can therefore say that ten Homilies on the Acts were delivered at that time.
It is therefore established, as we have said, that those homilies were delivered in the same year as those on Genesis, and in the same city. Whether they were delivered at Antioch, and not at Constantinople, is not a matter we need to investigate; since in the beginning of the second Homily on the beginning of the Acts, it is stated just as it is in the title, that it was delivered in the Palaea, or in the old church: which was the famous Antiochene church, as no one is unaware. This is also proven from the beginning of the twelfth Homily on Genesis, where he says that he interrupted the course of the homilies on this book of Scripture, to admonish those who were absent from the sheepfold of Christ, and were following the Jews, that is, were fasting the fast of the Jews; for these sermons were delivered during Lent and the time of fasting. Now, certain of the Antiochenes were suffering from such a disease, against whom Chrysostom also delivered a sermon in the year 386, which has the title: *Against those who fast the fast of the Jews*. Wherefore, since nothing of this kind is written anywhere concerning the Constantinopolitans, it follows from this that these sermons were delivered at Antioch, which has already been clearly proven from the aforementioned. D
§ II. In what year the Homilies on Genesis were delivered.
It remains for us to inquire about the year in which these Homilies on Genesis were delivered. In this matter we admit that we are altogether at a loss. The most sagacious man, and by far the most accurate of all, Tillemont, discourses at length on this question, whose words, translated into Latin, we do not regret to record here.
"As regards the year in which these Homilies were delivered, we can express it only by conjecture. Chrysostom began delivering them on the Sunday preceding the fast, so that through Lent
he would treat the same subject, as is likely. For the second homily was delivered on the following day, that is to say, on Monday, the first day of the fast; the third, on Tuesday; the fourth, on the day following. And thus it is to be believed that the rest were delivered continuously on each individual day, although Chrysostom does not explicitly state this, unless perhaps another subject happened to arise that needed to be addressed. For it is certain that the people gathered in church every day, and that Chrysostom preached daily. He continued with this same topic on Genesis on Saturday and Sunday, even though there was no fasting on those days; for the eleventh homily was delivered on one or the other of these days. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth homilies were delivered continuously on their own respective days. Nor could you say that they pertain to the five days of fasting in the second week; for the tenth was delivered on a day of fasting, "and in the week there were only five days of fasting," and the eleventh was pronounced on the Saturday of that second week. If, therefore, the homilies on Genesis were delivered in a single series for each day—a fact that is entirely likely regarding at least the first six—then the sixth would certainly have been pronounced on the Friday of the first week of Lent.
In the sixth homily, Chrysostom complains that the Antiochenes, having no regard for the daily exhortations nor for the Lenten penance, had attended the circus games. These were, without doubt, circus games that had been celebrated on that very same day; for during Lent, sermons were delivered in the evening: from which it seems to follow that this year is either 395 or 396. For the Roman Calendar assigns no games to the beginning of the month of March. Indeed, the Gothic games, which were held from the fourth of February to the ninth, are not referred to here by Chrysostom. However, games are still assigned to the eleventh of February, which in the year 395 coincides with the Friday of the first week of Lent, because Easter of that year fell on the twenty-seventh of March. Games are also noted for the end of February, which could pertain to the year 396, in which, since Easter fell on the thirteenth of April, the twenty-ninth of February coincided with the Friday of the first week of Lent. Of these two years, we think the year 395 should be preferred, because we believe that Chrysostom delivered his Homilies on Penance in the year 396.
With these points thus established, those circus games about which Chrysostom complains in homily 41, which was delivered three weeks after Pentecost (that is, perhaps on Saturday, June 4th, if it really is the year 395), will perhaps be those that are marked for the first day of that month. But we do not offer these as a settled and certain matter: since we are entirely ignorant of whether this Calendar was in use at Antioch at that time, nor do we know whether all games featured circus races. The games could also have been celebrated in an unusual order. Indeed, games are even noted for the twelfth day of February just as much as for the eleventh; so that when Chrysostom deters those who had been to the circus, in order that they might not fall into a similar error, he would seem to have needed to warn them, as it would be determined on the following day whether they had complied with his admonitions. But those games that were celebrated on the twelfth day were perhaps not circus games: for the Calendar does not there present the mark cm. XXIIII. (that is, the juncture XXIV), which seems to me to be the mark for circus games. That same mark cm. XXIIII. and cm. XII. occurs on the ninth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-seventh of February: but these days do not fall on the Friday of the first week of Lent during any part of the time that Chrysostom was a presbyter. That mark cm. is not placed at the end of February, by which the year 396 is also excluded.
"We are led by another argument also not to believe that the markers of the year 395, which we assign, are certain: namely, that it is not absolutely certain that the sixth homily was delivered on a Friday. For since the eleventh was undoubtedly delivered on the Saturday of the second week, out of the thirteen preceding days, beginning from the Sunday before Lent, on which the first homily was held, three days most certainly were either devoid of a sermon, or had sermons pertaining to a different subject, or, if they were of the same subject, they are certainly lost by now. Yet those three days cannot be placed anywhere except before the fifth, or the tenth, or the eleventh, because all the others follow continuously and were delivered in a single series of days. Furthermore, out of these three, at least one must be placed between the tenth and the eleventh: for those who had been present at the tenth after eating had not chosen the Friday, as is supposed, in order to break their fast."
So far Tillemont, where you may observe with what labor and study, as is his habit, he has pursued those markers of time; and with what prudence he abstains from making an absolute judgment. Against that opinion, which he embraces with hesitation and doubt, others—and perhaps greater—scruples can be brought forward. For that Roman Calendar, published in the year 325 of Constantine the Great, as stated in the title, and published by Petavius in the Uranologion on page 112, is uncertain as to whether it remained the same until the end of the fourth century; indeed, it seems certain that it was changed in many parts at least, for it was entirely organized according to the pagan rites of the many gods; which impious rites were finally abolished under Theodosius the Great. In addition to these points, it seems certain that those prominent cities of the world, such as Antioch was, had their own rites, or at least some peculiar to themselves, regarding games and other matters commonly inscribed in calendars: once this is posited, what can we determine from the Roman Calendar concerning the rites of the Antiochenes? As for what is said, that the complaint of Chrysostom at the beginning of the sixth homily does not refer to the Gothic games, that is certainly said by way of divination; for who knows whether in the Gothic games, at least in some of them, horse racing was utilized? But Chrysostom is entirely concerned with this kind of racing in the sixth homily. Finally, we have proven in the Monitum to the Homilies against the Jews, Vol. 1, that the Paschal tables, on which all these conjectures rely, are sometimes fallacious. Nor do we know so clearly whether the Antiochenes observed the Alexandrian rite regarding the celebration of Easter. Having weighed all these things, therefore, we must confess that the year in which these sermons on Genesis were delivered at Antioch is completely uncertain.
This one thing we say without doubt: a great part of them were delivered in Lent; and that Lent was not the year 386, in which he had eight sermons different from these; nor the year 387, which he spent almost entirely in lamenting the calamity of the Antiochenes over the overturned statues.
§ III. On the style of Chrysostom in these Homilies on Genesis.
Photius, chapter 172, speaking of the style of Chrysostom in these Homilies, says that his diction is of such a sort that one observes in them the clarity, purity, splendor, and abundance of speech customary to Chrysostom, and a frequency of thoughts, and an abundance of very apt similes, but that they are written in a looser and humbler style of speaking; and they are as much inferior in style to the Homilies or Commentaries on Acts as those Commentaries on Acts are inferior to the Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul and on the Psalter. And indeed these homilies, although they display great richness and also the usual felicity of invention of Chrysostom, yet do not seem to have been prepared with equal care and accuracy. Here you may often notice very long periods in the text, which exhibit parentheses introduced one upon another so frequently that the orator, forgetting the beginning, leaves the sentence incomplete, and sometimes omits a word necessary for the syntax. But do not consider this a wonder, if you weigh the fact that those periods are sometimes so extended that they can scarcely be completed on one page: on a page, I say, of our own prints, which are very long and wide. Hence you may infer that our orator, while preaching these, was not always so prepared and premeditated for his sermon, but said many things extemporaneously, as they offered themselves to his mind.
But if you should ask the reason, I would like you to weigh the fact that during this Lent, up to the middle of Holy Week, he had not only delivered those first thirty-two homilies on Genesis, but also others mentioned repeatedly, which, with some occasion of time urging, interrupted the course of the Homilies on Genesis; and perhaps he also had others not mentioned by himself: so that he preached almost daily and, indeed, at great length. But we must admit that this, from a man who performed almost an equal office of preaching throughout the whole year, could not be accomplished without extemporaneous declamation, at least repeatedly. Moreover, in extemporaneous declamation, where a talent powerful in such invention always supplies new things to a man speaking, what wonder is it if sometimes he sins against grammatical rules, and if syntax is less strictly observed? I do not think it will be disagreeable to the reader if I write down here the order of those homilies on Genesis delivered during Lent, and the span of time after which one followed another; which is what Tillemont also did.
The first homily was therefore spoken on the Sunday before the Lenten fast was begun: the second on the following day, when the fast was begun; the third and fourth on Tuesday and Wednesday: these were spoken continuously on individual days. It is uncertain, however, whether any day intervened between the fourth and the fifth, either devoid of a sermon, or assigned to another subject of preaching; be that as it may, the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth homilies were spoken on the individual days succeeding one another, partly in the first, partly in the second week of Lent; the tenth also in the second week, either on the fifth or sixth feria; the eleventh on the Sabbath of the second week. The twelfth was delivered after another or others which looked to a subject different from Genesis. Between the twelfth and the thirteenth, also, one or more days intervened. The fourteenth was held on the day following the thirteenth; the fifteenth likewise on the following day; the sixteenth on the item following day; the seventeenth one or more days after the sixteenth. The eighteenth followed the seventeenth, with no day interposed. Whether the nineteenth was held continuously is unknown, and likewise the twentieth, which were followed on the subsequent days, with no day interposed, by the twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and with a short interval interposed, on continuous days, by the twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth. Whether the twenty-ninth was held after the twenty-eighth, with no day interposed, is unknown. The thirtieth, when he had reached Holy Week, as Chrysostom himself says; the thirty-first and thirty-second, on those days of Holy Week which precede the fifth feria of the Lord's Supper.
§ IV. On the edition of the LXX Interpreters which Chrysostom used, which is sometimes different from the common one.
Jerome, a contemporary of Chrysostom, relates that there were different editions of the LXX in the age of Chrysostom, and that the same ones were not used in different Churches. "Alexandria," he says in his preface to the books of Chronicles, "and Egypt in their LXX praise Hesychius as author; Constantinople up to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr; the provinces between these read the Palestinian Codices, which Eusebius and Pamphilus circulated, edited by Origen: and the whole world struggles in this contradictory variety among itself." And in his Epistle to Augustine, which is in the latest Edition 74, speaking ironically he says: "Do you wish to be a true lover of the LXX Interpreters? Do not read those things which are under the asterisks: rather, scrape them from the volumes, that you may prove yourself a supporter of the ancients. But if you do this, you will be compelled to condemn the libraries of all the Churches. For scarcely one or another book may be found which does not have these things." From these passages it is gathered that the editions of the LXX Interpreters were far different among themselves, and that this diversity should be sought from the various places of the Interpreters, namely Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and others, which places Origen had inserted into the text of the LXX, with asterisks indicating it. Which particles of other versions remained in many copies, in some more, in others fewer. Besides
that diversity, there were no doubt other causes, as is usual in books so often copied and so often emended. And hence it is that we not infrequently see A by Greek writers, and sometimes by the Fathers—especially by the scribes who copied the Septuagintal exemplars—the Edition of the Seventy Interpreters mentioned and compared with their own text, which text is nonetheless also the LXX, but with many varieties mixed in. You may observe this also in Chrysostom, especially in his Commentaries on the Psalms, where, after he has brought forward the reading of his own exemplar, he sometimes brings forward another as it were from the Seventy Interpreters; so that at first glance the exemplar Chrysostom used might seem to be another, even though that exemplar contained nothing other than the Edition of the Seventy Interpreters, but for the reasons mentioned above it was in many ways different from that which had been placed by Origen in the Hexaplar Edition. If you desire more on these matters, consult our Preliminaries to the Hexapla of Origen.
To come to the point, Chrysostom’s exemplar of Genesis differs in not a few places from the common Edition of the Seventy Interpreters, which circulates in everyone’s hands and which we call the Roman Edition; although we do not observe as much diversity here as in the Homilies on the Psalms. It is worth presenting here some examples of these varieties: if we were to present the minute differences, we would weave a very long preface and would undertake a superfluous labor with no profit, for those lighter differences either originated from that Antiochene Edition of the Seventy Interpreters, or many others were introduced through the fault of scribes since Chrysostom’s time; and not a few also arose from the speaker himself, either speaking from memory or adjusting the sequence of Scripture to suit his own style. It will be sufficient for us, therefore, to present some of the principal varieties merely as an example and specimen. In Gen. ch. 4, v. 6, the LXX have: *And Cain was very sorrowful, and his countenance fell.* Where Chrysostom has in the active voice: *And sadness affected Cain greatly; and his countenance fell.* Sadness affected, supply, God, who was speaking a moment before. Other Interpreters, however, for *T* translated it "he was angry." In ch. 5, v. 2, those words, *and he blessed them*, which are had in the LXX and expressed from the Hebrew, were not present in Chrysostom’s exemplar; nor can it be said that they were omitted either by the scribes or by Chrysostom while praying, for they are repeated four or five times, and Chrysostom, who explains these things minutely, would not have omitted that blessing if it had been present in his exemplar. Other various readings occur repeatedly, but for the most part they are slight. A different kind of variety is not infrequently found, however: namely, a difference in punctuation, which, candid reader, you will observe yourself as you read.
There are also other passages in which Chrysostom adjusted the text of Scripture to his own sequence, as is the custom for preachers. For example, at col. 366, this passage, ch. 17, v. 12: *An infant of eight days shall be circumcised among you, both the home-born and the purchased: and all in sum, so to speak, who are among you, shall receive this sign. And whoever is not circumcised on the appointed day, shall be destroyed.* Here Chrysostom certainly changed many things and reduced the sequence of Scripture to a briefer form, and it is not to be thought that it was written thus in his exemplar. A significant passage is at col. 522, from chapter 35, verse 16, where B the LXX have: *And it came to pass, when he drew near to Chabratha, where one goes into Ephratha.* Chrysostom, however, has it thus: *When he drew near to enter into Ephratha,* omitting the word *Chabratha*, which has tormented learned men until now. I, for my part, would not dare to say it was not in St. Chrysostom’s exemplar; for it is probable that he omitted it because it was not understood. See what we have said about this word in our Hexapla. We leave the rest to be observed by those who treat Biblical varieties professionally.
§ V. What is the *centesima* mentioned by Chrysostom.
Homily 3 on Genesis, col. 38, speaking of Christ, Chrysostom says: *For neither, like this one, does he promise only the centesima, but gives a hundredfold more.* The *centesima* was understood in various ways: the *centesima* was, to be sure, the hundredth part of things sold at auction, which went to the public treasury or the fisc: the *centesima* was also a tax on things for sale: and likewise the *centesima* was a type of tribute. Finally, the *centesima* was a type of usury, *ἑκατοστή* in Greek, by which those who were receiving money on interest would pay the hundredth part every month, so that in a hundred months they equaled the principal. Chrysostom, however, understands this last type of *centesima* here, as Savile conjectured most excellently. For here the issue is the *centesima* that is promised, which can be understood of this alone, and not of the aforementioned: but that one was frequent among the Greeks. Regarding this matter, see Johannes Fredericus Gronovius, *De pecunia veteri*, bk. 3, ch. 13.
§ VI. Of the Great Week, of the Lord’s day, which is the Sunday of Pascha, and of the unequal hours.
What we call the holy and great week, which is the final week of Lent, the Antiochenes and others called the great week: regarding which matter we bring forward this remarkable passage of Chrysostom, col. 273: *In the same way it behooves us also to act, since we have arrived by the grace of God at this great week; now especially must the course of our fast be intensified, and more fervent prayers poured forth, and a diligent and pure confession of sins made, and sedulity in good works exhibited, generous almsgiving, equity, meekness, and other virtues, so that, adorned with such virtues, when we arrive at the Lord’s day, we may enjoy the Lord’s liberality.* But why do we call the week great? Not because the hours in it are longer: for there are others which have much longer hours; nor because it has more days: for the number is the same in this as in all others. Why then do we call it great? Because in it great and ineffable goods occurred for us. Here Chrysostom calls the Lord’s day the holy day of Pascha, which they also called the Lord's... C
A day, and great Lord's day: otherwise than the ancient Interpreter thought, who mistranslated these Greek words, τήν κυρίαν ἡμέραν, which ought to be translated "the Lord's day," as "the day of judgment." For besides the fact that this very passage, and another where this word is used in the same way, persuade us that it treats of the day of Pascha, this also militates for our opinion, that in the manuscript life of St. Theodosius the Cenobiarch, the same Greek word, κυρία, is used to designate Pascha: "the first and mistress of feasts, I mean Pascha itself": and in the manuscript life of St. Daniel the Stylite: "It was indeed the mistress of days," that is, undoubtedly, Pascha.
The ancients necessarily admitted major and minor hours, for they had divided the day and the night into twelve parts, or hours, each: whence it followed that in winter the hours were shorter, but in summer longer; whence Martial, lib. 12, epigr. 1, thus commemorates the summer hour, "Nor is the hour summer’s, nor does it wholly perish for you." And Virgil, "Already night had finished twice five winter hours." From which it is clear how uncertain and how unstable was the use of water-clocks, since the same water-clock could hardly indicate the length of an hour for a few days. Therefore, Chrysostom is to be understood in this way when he says, speaking of the Great Week, that there were days which had longer hours than those in which he was then preaching, which was the same as if he had said that at the beginning of spring, the hours of the day are shorter than in summer.
Concerning those nine sermons on Genesis, which according to the sixty-seven homilies are placed in this Tome, we have spoken sufficiently in the Notice placed before those sermons, and likewise in the Notice which is placed before the ninth sermon.
§ VII. Concerning the time when the Sermons on Anna and others preceding these were delivered.
B It has been discovered by use and experience that from long study, some knowledge often accrues, and things which were not perceived at first sight, upon being subjected to more frequent investigation, at length become clear. This happened to us while we were treating the Sermons on Anna more accurately: for in them certain notes of time occur, which are opportune for establishing the order not only of those sermons themselves, but also of others which had preceded them. We discoursed on these somewhat in the Notice to the Sermons on Anna, and we have attempted to amend some things which, in the Preface to the second Tome, we had posited otherwise along with Tillemont. But the matter is of greater moment than can be declared in a few words. Indeed, the authority of Tillemont, whom we followed at that time, is so great with us that we ought not to depart from his opinion—and likewise from our own previous one—except after the most accurate searching of the facts. That passage of Chrysostom from which the true order of both the times and the sermons is discovered, is in the first Sermon on Anna, where, shortly after the beginning, he speaks thus: "For you perhaps have forgotten them, because we have delivered many sermons in the meantime, and on other subjects. For upon our father returning from a long journey, it was necessary to recount all the things that had happened in his retinue: C and then to dispute with the Gentiles, so that we might confirm with all our might those who, having been recalled by the force of calamity to a better way of life, and having abandoned the error of the Gentiles, had betaken themselves to us, and might teach them from what darkness they had been liberated, and to what great light of truth they had hastened. After that, we were again occupied for many days with the festival of the martyrs, nor would it have been fitting for the time for those who were dwelling at the sepulchers of the martyrs to depart bereft of the praises that are owed to the martyrs. There followed these an exhortation to abstain from oaths. For when we saw the whole nation of rustics having entered the city, we thought best to dismiss them having been instructed by us with this viaticum."
All these things must be diligently attended to: for with a few words Chrysostom weaves a rather long series of sermons, and speaks in such a way that it is easy to stray from the true path unless great caution is employed. "For you perhaps have forgotten them," he says, namely, those [sermons] which had been delivered during Lent: for he is dealing with them in the whole opening of the first sermon on Anna; and you would believe Lent had passed so recently, if you were to take his words as they seem meant to be understood at first sight, so that you would think he was speaking about yesterday, even though a long interval of time had passed, namely five weeks since Pascha, as will soon appear. D Chrysostom continues: "For upon our father returning from that long journey, it was necessary to recount all the things that had happened in his retinue." Here he refers most certainly to Homily XXI to the people of Antioch, Tom. 2, which consists entirely of the return of Flavian, and of the reconciliation of the Emperor Theodosius with the Antiochenes. We think, along with Tillemont, that this was delivered on the very day of the Lord's Resurrection in the year 387. For Chrysostom signifies this at the beginning when he says, "Blessed be God, who has deigned that we should celebrate this holy solemnity with you today with great joy and gladness." Chrysostom continues: "And then to dispute with the Gentiles [it was necessary, so that we might confirm with all our might those who, having been recalled by the force of calamity to a better way of life, and having abandoned the error of the Gentiles, had betaken themselves to us, and might teach them from what darkness they had been liberated, and to what great light of truth they had hastened]." Indeed, in the days following the Paschal solemnity, he endeavored to confirm those Gentiles who, from the calamity brought upon the Antiochenes—both Gentiles and Christians alike—on account of the overturned statues, had been recalled to a better way of life and had approached the Christian faith; whether he did this in one or more sermons is uncertain. But whether in one or in many, we have lost them all. Truly, Chrysostom compensates for this loss in some way, for he repeats what he had said to the Gentiles in this homily, and not in a brief sermon; Chrysostom adds afterward: "After that, we were again occupied for many days with the festival of the martyrs, nor would it have been fitting for the time…"
A that those who were spending their days at the graves of the martyrs should depart without participating in the praises that are owed to the martyrs. To these succeeded an exhortation to abstain from oaths. For seeing the whole nation of rustics having entered the city, we judged that they should be dismissed, instructed by us with this provision." Compare these words, if you please, with the nineteenth Homily to the people of Antioch, Tom. 2, the title of which is: *The Lord's Day [or Dominica] of the Saved*, to men who cultivate the fields, and concerning the avoiding of swearing; and you will acknowledge that this very homily was delivered to the rustics who are mentioned above. Against this, I, siding with Tillemont, had maintained in the Preface to the second volume—where I testified, along with so great a man, that I leaned toward the opinion that the *Dominica Passionis* mentioned in that title was the one calling itself *Servata* (Saved). But that it is not the *Dominica Passionis*, but another occurring many days after Pascha, now seems certain and indubitable; and so this homily is no longer to be classed among the Lenten ones. Everything here squares: for the homily to the rustics in the first sermon on Anna mentioned above was celebrated after the feasts of the martyrs, and it was against oaths; this nineteenth homily also was delivered to the rustics, after the feasts of the martyrs, and against oaths. B That Tillemont believed there were two homilies arises from the fact that he thought those rustics, who are mentioned in the sermon on Anna, were from the lowest populace, while those who were in the nineteenth homily were bishops or presbyters coming from a distant region. I could certainly hardly believe they were bishops, but that at least some of them were presbyters can hardly be denied: for these words seem to indicate this absolutely: *You could see each one of them now indeed yoking the ox for plowing, dragging the plow, and cutting a deep furrow; now, however, ascending the sacred pulpit, and plowing the souls of his subjects; now indeed cutting the thorns of the field with a sickle; now, however, with a sermon wiping away sins from souls.* And below he says: *Among these there are no luxurious women, nor adornment of garments, nor colors and paints, but every such corruption of morals is driven away: whence they also more easily lead the people subject to them into modesty.* C Having certainly weighed these things, it must be admitted that at least the greater part of them were presbyters; for I could hardly believe that bishops were then laborers and rustics. But even if they were presbyters, and even if they were even bishops, these men were nevertheless entirely rustics, plowing, tending herds, weeding the earth with a hoe, and performing other most menial labors of the field, using vile garments; and those in great number, as can be seen throughout the beginning of the nineteenth homily. But who are these other than those of whom he speaks in the sermon on Anna, *For when we saw that whole nation of rustics or farmers having entered the city?* From this it is now certainly manifest to me, at least, that the same homily is being referred to in both places, which was delivered to the farmers, which was in the year 387, which was after the long celebration of many martyrs, which was about oaths, and which was also spoken many days after Pascha: for this must also be necessarily added, as will be seen shortly. It is indeed true that it might perhaps be objected that in the nineteenth homily Chrysostom says that he lay ill while the feast days of the martyrs were being celebrated; but in the first homily on Anna there is no mention of illness, D and indeed Chrysostom seems at that time to have either delivered sermons about the martyrs, or at least to have been able to, from which it is inferred that he was not then suffering from an illness; and that the explanation of the difficulty may be fuller, the words of both homilies must be cited. Thus, in the nineteenth homily to the Antiochenes he begins: *You have been entertained by the feasts of the holy martyrs these past days, filled with spiritual celebration, you have exulted with honorable exultations; you saw open sides, and flanks cut open, blood flowing from every side, infinite species of torments; you saw human nature exhibiting supernatural things, and crowns woven with blood; you danced a beautiful dance, while this noble leader led you about in every part of the city. But sickness forced us, even against our will, to remain at home. Yet although we were not present at the solemnity, we participated in the pleasure; and although we did not receive the fruit of the sermon, we nevertheless had common joy with you... for this reason, even sitting at home, I rejoiced with you, and not yet freed from my ailment I arose, and ran to you, so that I might look upon your desirable faces*; then indeed he discourses at length about the arrival of the farmers, for whose sake he delivered this sermon against oaths; but the first homily on Anna has this: *Afterward, again, for many days we have enjoyed the festival of the saints, nor would it have been fitting for the time that those who were spending their days at the graves of the martyrs should depart without participating in the praises that are owed to the martyrs. To these succeeded an exhortation to abstain from oaths. For seeing the whole crowd of rustics having entered the city, we judged that they should be dismissed, instructed by us with this provision.* Here, at first glance, it seems that there is a question of a double series of martyr festivals, at the first of which Chrysostom was not present because he was suffering from illness; but at the latter, he was either present and preached, or, even if he did not preach, illness was certainly not the cause why he did not preach; otherwise, he would have brought up the excuse of illness, and would have given this reason why he had deferred the material of the sermon which he had prepared for such a length of time. But if anyone properly holds to Chrysostom's custom, he will not wonder that he does not touch upon his illness here and is silent about that cause, partly because he did not even think to commemorate a matter most recent and known to everyone; and partly because in the preceding sermon which was to the rustics or farmers, and which preceded the first on Anna, he had already commemorated his illness, nor did he want to repeat it in this sermon. He is certainly not addressing us, who live so many centuries after that sermon, so as to reveal to those ignorant of everything in minute detail, but the Antiochenes, who had very recently seen these things happen and had no need of further information. Otherwise, indeed, these feasts of the martyrs, which were celebrated in different parts of the city, would always have been a hindrance to him so that he could not speak about this matter, which he says he had prepared in his first oration on Anna.
A Hence, because of these two obstacles, he was silent about his illness here, and brought the memory of the martyrs into the middle of his discourse. But why do we linger longer on these things, when it is certain from other sources that the nineteenth homily to the Antiochenes could not have been delivered on Passion Sunday, as I had previously thought with Tillemont? For if it had been delivered on that day, those feasts of the martyrs, which were celebrated in a long series through every part of the city, would have fallen in that year into the week or weeks preceding Passion Sunday: yet in this homily he mentions that event as already fully passed. Those martyr feasts, therefore, must have been celebrated in the midst of Lent, with that illustrious leader, namely Bishop Flavian, leading the Antiochenes at that time. But it is most certain that Bishop Flavian was in Constantinople at that time, and did not return until one or two days before Easter of that same year: who, then, could have led the Antiochenes to the martyr feasts celebrated then in various parts of the city? Now, if anyone, contrary to all likelihood, were to deny that this illustrious leader was Bishop Flavian, he certainly would not deny that at that time, when the martyr feasts were being celebrated throughout the city, John Chrysostom was remaining ill at home: for he himself says this at the beginning of the homily. But how could he have remained ill at home in the middle of that Lent, he who comforted the Antiochenes throughout the whole of Lent as they suffered on account of the overturned statues of the Emperors and awaited graver things, and addressed the same matter in continuous homilies, such that even one of the last homilies, as is reported there, was spoken ten days before Easter?
B When all these things are weighed, it seems certain and indubitable that the homily which is cited as the nineteenth to the Antiochenes was delivered after Easter of the year 387. Martyrs' festivities preceded it, after the completion of which he held this homily concerning oaths for the rustic people or farmers who had arrived in the city. Similarly, in the first homily on Anna, after the completion of many martyrs' festivities, he held a homily concerning oaths for the rustics. Who does not see that the same homily on oaths held for the rustics is being commemorated in both places? Who would bear with us further if, after all these things have been so accurately examined, we were to establish the same series of events during Lent, and the same also after Easter—the many continuous festival days of the martyrs, the arrival of the rustics, and the homily on oaths held for them? Does not that repetition of the same things, occurring so close together, present something inconsistent and alienated from likelihood? That order, therefore, is to be held which is announced in the first homily on Anna: that the homily on the return of Flavian, which was delivered on holy Easter Day, should lead the procession; then should follow the homily, or homilies, if indeed several were held, to the Gentiles who, brought to a better state of mind by the force of the Antiochene calamity, had given their name to the Christian faith; after these, the feasts of the Martyrs were celebrated for many days in every part of the city, with Chrysostom remaining at home due to the cause of his illness; finally, on the Sunday of the Saved [i.e., the Savior's Day], that homily to the rustics concerning oaths was spoken, which lies among the Lenten homilies and is numbered the nineteenth: and which is persuaded it should be moved from its place by the aforementioned proofs.
C Now it remains to be asked what that "Sunday of the Saved" is, which is mentioned in the title of the nineteenth homily to the Antiochenes: for from that investigation perhaps a new argument regarding the same things that need to be proved will emerge. I had said in the Preface to the second volume, and indeed after Tillemont, that it seemed to me that this Sunday of the Saved was Passion Sunday, which is celebrated fifteen days before Easter. I said this, moved by no other reason than that this homily always held a place among the Lenten ones, both in the manuscripts and in the printed editions; and since an ancient inscription testifies it was delivered on a Sunday, I thought no other Sunday could square with this homily than Passion Sunday: and for the same reason I think Tillemont supposed it was delivered on that very Sunday. Savilius, however, indicated that that Sunday is the one they call "in Albis" [White Sunday]: and although he does not stray as far from the truth as I strayed, he is to be thought to have said this only from a preconceived opinion. Leo Allatius, indeed, in *De Dominicis et hebdomadibus Græcorum*, p. 1460, has this: "The Ascension of the Lord was also called *Episozomene* among the Cappadocians." It was noted in a manuscript Codex of Gregory of Nyssa: "In the vernacular usage of the Cappadocians, the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ is called *Episozomene*." And the homily of Chrysostom is read among the *Andriantes*, or Statues, for the Sunday of *Episozomene* (a). To the Latins, this Sunday is the fifth after Easter." Thus far Leo Allatius, who, not having entered at all into the question we are debating, could not speak from a preconceived opinion. If, however, we place the homily on oaths for the rustics as having been delivered on this Sunday, and establish that the Sunday of the Saved, as the title itself suggests, is the fifth Sunday after Easter, everything will square. For after the homily on the return of Flavian held on Easter Day, Chrysostom had held one or more homilies to the Gentiles, then fell into illness and remained at home ill, while the feasts of the martyrs were being celebrated for many days and in every part of the city; and finally, when his health was restored as much as possible, and the remnants of the illness had not yet been dissolved, he held this homily for the rustics or farmers on the fifth Sunday after Easter, which precedes the Ascension, and afterward spoke his Sermons on Anna continuously in that order which we stated in the Note to them.
(a) *Episozomene*, in the genitive *Episozomenēs*, is a Greek word which translates as "the Saved" or "the Savior's."