Select Notes

SELECTA EX NOTIS HENRICI SAVILII ET JOANNIS BOISII IN TOM. IV OPERUM SANCTI JOANNIS CHRYSOSTOMI. His notulas adjicimus alio charactere asterisco prævio.

Col. 28, l. 19. ^A Εἰς τὴν κυρίαν ἡμέραν, Statam et solemnem diem; sic hom. 11, n. 2, τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν interpretatur, τὸν λαμπρὸν τῆς ἁγίας ἡμ. Vide notam nostram b p. 7, ubi male ponitur hom. 11, pro homil. 11.

Col. 35, l. 38. Μίαν ἐμφαίνων ἡμέραν, Unum diem significanter dixit, Interpres. Boisius pro ἐμφαίνων legendum putat ἐμφανίζων.

Col. 35, l. 51. Τοῖς ἐξ ἀνθρωπίνων λογισμῶν κινουμένοις sc. προσλήμμασι, ἐπιχειρήμασιν, Argumentis deductis ex humanis rationibus. Sic alibi utitur τῷ κινήσει, hom. 9: Τῷ τότε κινήματι, δηλ. i.e. Argumentorum quibus usi sumus.

Col. 37, l. 50. Τὰ δὲ εἰρημένα, glossema alicujus scioli ad verbum τυφλοῦντα. Id certe non puto glossema esse, sed explicationem ipsius Chrysostomi.

Col. 39, l. 31. In pluribus mss. est ἐνεγκεῖν δυνασθῇ, ex quo Andreas Dounæus fecit ἐνέγκειν δυνηθῇ, quod ἐνέγκειν non usurpetur fere nisi neutraliter, ut hac eadem homilia supra. Sed nos Constantinopolitanum optimum secuti expunximus δυνηθῇ, atque ita erit ἐνέγκειν activum, quod exemplis non caret. Vide infra hom. 43.

Col. 42, l. 51. Τὰ ἀποτελέσματα, Quidquid in mentem subito temere venerit, eadem significatione, qua ἐκ τοῦ παραστάντος λέγειν. Sic infra hom. 5 eodem sensu, quo τὰ ἐπιόντα λέγειν. Quidquid in buccam venerit; et homil. 13.

Col. 43, l. 9. Doctissimus Casaubonus legit προστάγματα, et quidem hæ duæ voces in mss. sæpe permutantur. Et hæc hic optime quadraret, sed omnes mss. προστάγματα habent, et hac voce non læditur series. L. 25 Οὐκ ἂν παρέλθοιμι μή... διδάξαι, vel pleonasmus est τοῦ... vel Atticcismus. ^B

Col. 46, l. 7. Μέχρι τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς. Sic enim Quadragesimam hodieque, ut opinor, observant Græci. Vide hom. 8, et alibi non raro. — L. 16. ἐπιτιμήσεται. Rectius, et ex grammaticæ ratione, ἦ, uti monuit A. Dounæus. Sed hic sive lapsus, sive usus adeo frequens in ἐπὶ compositis in hoc præsertim auctore, ut non librarii tantum culpa esse videatur.

Col. 53, l. 31. Ὑπ' ἔν, i.e. ᾗπερ, ἐστίν, αἱρεῖ.

Col. 61, l. 17. Lege cum Boisio τὸ καθάρσειον πῦρ. Alqui locus ut est, optime habet.

Col. 63, l. 40. Ταῦτα τὰ εἰρημένα. Vel abundare, vel σάθρα legendum recte et ex usu linguæ notat A. Dounæus. Locus, ni fallor, sine hac emendatione sanus est.

Col. 76, l. 29. Boisius mavult ἐπιβωλύσθαι.

Col. 87, l. 10. Post ἐποίησε recte addit unus cod. καὶ ἰδοὺ καλὰ λίαν, πάντων, etc.

Col. 91, l. 4. [C] ^D Nostri et Reg. unus et alter codex εὐκρασίας, alter Regius εὐκρασίες, tertius, ut nos posuimus. 1

[*The remainder of the page is the start of the preface for the notes on Genesis and is thus translated from the Latin:*]

SELECTA EX NOTIS JOANNIS BOISII In Homilias in Genesin.

Non solum notas tuas, quod unum tamen a me postulavisti, legi et excussi, quantaque potui cura ac diligentia cum contextu Chrysostomi comparavi, sed etiam

τῶν...

corrupting judgment in [my] notes [when] there is nothing there beyond brevity and scarcity. Moreover, with the labor and expense, which you have made, [its] immensity, and not having been able to reach [completion] in the Homilies on Genesis. For in the papers which I received, all are missing from homily [5] to homily 48, except for certain fragments. As for the remaining homilies, you will not expect me to examine them with the same diligence as these on Genesis. For neither [my] strength nor leisure will permit it. It does not well accord with my pastoral care (the burden of which I alone sustain) with these critical labors. Wherefore, one must either abandon them entirely, or admit them so sparingly that they are not an impediment to me, as I am doing other things of necessity.

HOMILY I

HOMILY II

HOMILY III

HOMILY IV

HOMILY V

HOMILY VI

HOMILY VII

^A *that they* [the people] *might glorify your Father who is in heaven*.

VARIOUS NOTES

Col. 69, l. 17. For [G]τὰς κατὰ τὴν πολιτείας *read* rather [/G]ἀλλὰ τῆς, etc. — L. 19. *Of philanthropy*: i. e. *of mercy*.

HOMILY VIII

Col. 71, l. 38. I suggest it should be read: [G]ἀλλὰ τούτῳ τῇ προσοχῇ.

Col. 72, ll. 21, 23. By the same logic as above, some words were changed, so here too they must be changed. So we read. — L. 38. I think [G]τοῦτον should be added after [G]πολλαχῇ. The same line also, for [G]τὸ γὰρ dare I read [G]τῷ γὰρ εἴποντι. — L. 50. See. — L. 51. *i. e. In what sense*.

HOMILY IX

Col. 76, l. 4. in the title. It seems [G]αὐτά should be added after [G]παραχθῆναι. — L. 30. Or for [G]αὐτῇ I read [G]ὥς, or I make it double, one after [G]ταύτης, another after [G]κατά. Then with my learned teacher I feel that some word is desired after [G]κατὰ, namely [G]αὐτήν or [G]αὐτό or something of the sort.

Col. 77, l. 17. [G]Τῶν τότε κινηθέντων. Similar is the use of the verb [G]συγκατάβασις ῥημάτων, supra hom. 4. i. e. — L. 4 from bottom. The expression [G]συνεπαγο μένοις is suspicious to me, though I know not what to restore in its place, unless perhaps: let the reader consider whether [G]συνεπαγομένοις here might be taken for the plural, so to speak. For it does not seem to me that the reading that is often mentioned later has a place here.

Col. 78, l. 18. I suspect something is missing after [G]προνοίᾳ, or [G]ὡς ἀβελτηρίᾳ ἡμᾶς διατριβῇ, or something of that sort. — L. 29. i. e. *rectu faciliores* and *cicures* [tame], like those beasts of burden, which we use daily. For so these words must be understood, so that the opposition between them ^B may be maintained. — L. 31. For [G]τῷ, I would prefer [G]τῷ λόγῳ, sc. *the right word*. — L. 41. I read: [G]καὶ πόσος οὐκ ἂν εἴη. — L. 52. For [G]δυνατῶς, more correctly, as it seems to me, [G]δυνατός. [[alt-version omitted]]

Col. 81, l. 28. [G]ἐναύλους ἔχων, *to have fresh in memory*. Homil. 61 in Matth. p. 391, concerning that cruel servant, who cast his fellow servant into prison: [G]ἔναυλον εἶχεν αὐτός, κτλ.: i. e. *as the memory of the benefit received from his master was still fresh*.

HOMILY X

Col. 82, l. 45. For [G]οὐδὲ χρεία ἡμῖν, perhaps more correctly [G]ἡ χρεία ἡμῖν. For [G]ἔστιν responds better to the preceding words.

Col. 83, l. 48. I read: [G]ἐν ταύτῃ μᾶλλον. So Col. 81, l. 27. [G]ἐν τῇ τάξει κ. τ. λ. σπουδὴν ἐπιδείκνυσθαι. — L. 48. The particle [G]δὲ seems to be missing after [G]τάχα. *See the note there.* — L. 54. What if it were thus, with one particle transposed: [G]ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐγκαλυπτόμεθα καθάπερ οἱ κτἑ. and read: [G]τῷ Θεῷ, that [G]non be added, it must certainly be understood; for [G]αἰσχύνεσθαι and [G]ἐγκαλυπτόμεθα, when we do not dare to come into the sight of men: but [G]ταλανίζειν, when we feel God is angry with us. So much more is it ^C therefore to be feared to offend God than men: to displease God than men.

Col. 85, l. 6. [G]τὴν περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος διατ. Supra col. 77, l. 2 from bottom [G]μέλλοντα δημιουργεῖσθαι. — L. 50. I suggest reading: [G]ἵνα μηδεμίαν καταλίπῃ ἀπολογίας πρόφασιν τοῖς κτἑ. *for the word "analogy" grates on my ears.* — L. 55. I think [G]τοῦτο should be added after [G]πρὸ: *the very thing self-evident*. — L. 21. I think all the words between [G]εἰπὼν and [G]νοτὶς should be included within parentheses, by which, no doubt, through the concurrence of participles, the ears might be less offended. Otherwise. A much more convenient reading would be, if it were conceived here: [G]περὶ κτἑ.

Col. 87, l. 19. Perhaps [G]τὰ πάντα. — L. 5 from bottom. Read [G]τῇ γῇ, because [G]προέρχεται precedes.

Col. 88, l. 6. It is likely that [G]καὶ or [G]τὸ is missing, after [G]ψηφι-ζομένους.

Col. 89, l. 15. Whether one should read [G]τὸ αἰθέριον, I know not: that is, to consecrate one day in the space of the whole week, or to consecrate one whole day in the circuit of a week. — L. from bottom. [G]οἱ ἀπελθόντες: i. e. *the absent*. — L. 28. *svarobis* [obliterated].

Col. 91, l. 16. Perhaps [G]ἐν τῷ μαθήσει. The following [G]ἀνάπαυσις seems to require that this line after [G]διακοπτόμενον be added [G]τὸ ἑαυτῆς. — L. 53. [G]παρασκευάζει: SC. [G]ὁ Θεός, *or* instead of [G]ὁ, let it be read without doubt [G]ἀποστάντος. i. e. *The summer departing*, or, *When summer has now departed*. For autumn does not meet the coming summer, but succeeds the departing one, and this happens by divine providence, so that humans do not suffer any harm by a sudden transition from the most intense heat of summer to the most intense cold of winter. Regarding this very thing, most beautifully, as in all things, Theodoretus *De Providentia* lib. 1: etc. To this point belong the following: [SC. *For spring and autumn are as it were small mysteries of summer and winter*.]

Col. 92, l. 1. *A word to the wise is enough*. Before [G]ἐστιν. — L. 34. [G]κατὰ seems to be deleted before [G]αὐτό. — L. 9 from bottom. For the latter, what if [G]οὕτως quid.

Col. 93, l. 21. I change nothing: but yet at first glance one would think that for [G]ἐπιταίνοντα one should read [G]ἐπιτείνοντα. *We read*.

Col. 94, l. 11. The discourse would be less impeded if these were taken away: — L. 56. Perhaps, *for they seem to differ little or nothing*.

Col. 95, l. 28. For [G]περὶ, I would prefer [G]παρὰ. Furthermore, a little before, for [G]καὶ, it seems one should write [G]vel [G]ἦν. For so the former will cohere better with the latter. — L. 30. Perhaps [G]καὶ οὐκ ἀνεχόμενος. The order of words also seems to require ^D correction: *For there is a mutual respect between*. — L. from bottom. I delete [G]δὲ.

Col. 95, l. 12. I delete [G]παρὰ before [G]μακρίου.

Col. 97, l. 39. None of the more learned would be angry if [G]ἄγαν ἄγαν, *you would lose them*, although the codices are against it. He addresses Savilius. We read [G]θαυμάζειν. *See the note there.*

HOMILY XII

Col. 98, l. 37. [G]Καὶ τὴν τὴν ἑορτὴν τῆς ἁγίας ἑορτῆς ἡμᾶς ἀπεριστρέφοντας. He understands those, if I am not mistaken, who celebrated the feast of Pascha with the Jews on the fourteenth day of the moon, and not with the rest of the Christians, on the Lord's Day, or the day of the Resurrection of Christ. *See Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. v, cap. 26*, etc.

Col. 99, l. 9. Perhaps [G]ἡ δύναμιν τῆς ἡμετέραν ἡμώντων.

Col. 100, l. 18. [G]ὑπηρετήσαι: i. e. *as is often elsewhere*.

Col. 101, l. 24. [G]ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐνέργεια πυρὸς τὸ ὁρώμενον: i. e. *And lest anyone should imagine that what appeared was true fire endowed with the power of burning: this is, a species and, as they commonly say, the appearance rather of fire, than that it was fire. By "what was seen" I understand that which by the species of fire presented itself to the eyes of the bystanders: that it was true fire, Chrysostom affirms here.* — L. from bottom. [G]τὴν οὐσίαν: i. e. *the nature*.

Col. 103, l. 48 sqq. I read, with the sense itself persuading: [G]ἐκεῖνος δέ, etc., or [G]δεξάμενος τὸ ἐμφύσημα καὶ διὰ τοῦ ἐμφυσήματος τὴν πνοὴν τῆς ζωῆς, etc.

Col. 104, l. 2. I read [G]αὐτῷ γέγονεν εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. *For Scripture does not say that it was made into living breath, but into living soul*. I therefore read in both places [G]εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. And in the former place I understand these words as uttered by Chrysostom; in the latter, as cited from Moses. — L. 29. Neither reading pleases me, nor Dounaeus's (who thought [G]πνοὴν should be read), nor the other. This one pleases me more, however, because the Greek Fathers, and among them Chrysostom, are accustomed to speak of the soul as a thing subsisting by itself, and indeed in such a way as if man were a body, but not a man, but *of* a man; whence that, and Basil., etc. *See below in some places.* From this, without doubt,

^A opinion (which smacks of Platonic philosophy) flowed this expression, *però to sywexleisthal*. The soul in itself is lively and agile, but when it has mixed itself with the body, it loses much of its agility, unless it exerts itself keenly. — L. 35. *Ad

ton tôn tes aretēs apromon

HOMILY XIII.

Col. 105, l. 22. *Dapanōsi*, i. e., *esti ousi*. Judith XI, 12, *kai panta diesteilato autois ho Theos en tois nomois autou mē phagein diegnōsan dapanēsai*. II Machab. VI, 51. *Chrēsthai tous Ioudaious tois heautōn dapanēmasi kai nomois, kathā to proteron.* *Tois dapanēmasi*, i. e., *tais trophais*. Hesych. *dapanē, trophē*. This same thing has been observed by our most learned Casaubon (for he is ours now, not only by use, but by connection, and, as I hope, always will be) in his Comment. on Theophrastus’ *Characters*, ch. *peri akairias*. See below col. 30 *epei kai gēponos*. So above at the beginning of homily 9, *hoi philoponoi tōn gēponōn*, etc.

Col. 106, l. 12. I conjecture that it should be read: *ho Makarios Mōusēs diaphoron ton tropon tēs dēmiourgias legōn, hoti Ei en*, etc. These words which follow greatly confirm this reading. By the leave of my most learned teacher (Downes, who thought it should be read *telton*), I would say that the affirmative reading cannot be maintained here in any way. Our reasoning, I confess, does not see how flesh can be made from earth and dust; but this does not prevent it from being made according to nature. For if there were nothing according to nature, except what reason comprehends, it would be circumscribed within very small boundaries indeed. For how many are the secrets of nature, which are completely beyond reason? Basil, in a certain letter to Eunomius, teaches that there are many things in the nature of the minute ant, to which human reason can in no way aspire: *ei de, inquit, tou brachytatou murmēkos oupō perielabes tē gnōsei tēn physin, pōs tēn akatalēpton tou Theou dynamin megalaucheis phantazesthai?* Chrysost. above, this is hom. 12, does not deny that flesh is made from earth according to nature (for God is the author of nature, or rather nature-naturing, as they say, and He gave this nature to man’s flesh, so that it might have its rise and origin from the earth. For this reason, he is very often called by Chrysostom, God the creator of nature, or the master of nature, or the Lord and creator of nature). See the most illustrious passage below col. 370, but he warns not to expend God’s admirable works upon the routine of reason. For reason will reject this as incredible, and will say that it is not *eikos*, or *oikion*, that flesh should be made from earth. But as concerns this passage, lest the mention of *physis* cause any man a scruple, let him hear what follows. Isocrates to Dionysius: *Ouk emoipses meta tēs tychēs tēn physin. Epi ton thylakon echeis dermatinon; outhē gar echei ek chreias tēn phusin.* Theodoret, *Eccl. hist. lib. v, cap. 18*: *kai pantas autous eidei, hos kan tois diarreon, kai ton trygon choun, ex hou gegonamen, kai eis hon aporrheomen, kai mē tō anthei tēs halourgidos apoboukoloumenon aggein tou kaluptomenou sōmatos tēn astheneian; hōmofylon archeis, ō basileu, kai men dē kai humei*… Chrysostom himself, Hom. 9 in Joh.: *hama de kai tou autou dēmiourgēmenos hēmin pēlou tous homodoulous, kai tēs autēs autō kexoinōneukotas physeōs*, etc. Item in this same homily, the following page: *Kai touton auton ton choun ton apo tēs gēs tō oikeiō prostagmati metetēxen*. See below in homil. 17, at the end. The opinion, therefore, of Chrysostom in this place is this: that Moses described so accurately how man was fashioned and formed from the earth, so that he might not lift up his crests, and, forgetting his nature and origin, think more magnificently of himself than was fitting. These things agree plainly with those which he said in homil. 12: *teōs ou mikra hēmin enteuthen tiktetai, ean nēphein boulōmetha, tapeinophrosunēs didaskalia*. I have discussed these things at greater length, on account of the supreme authority of my teacher and his singular judgment in this kind of doctrine, from which, for that reason, it was not right that I should dissent without the most valid arguments.

Col. 107, l. 6. *Kai anaperitainontas*, as they indeed do, who say that the soul is of the substance of God. See Theodoret’s Quæst. 23 in Genes. Otherwise from conjecture, and the collation of Chrysostom with Theodoret, *par’ hēmeōn*, or *melloien, dia to legein tēn Graphēn, enephysēsen eis to prosōpon autou, ek tēs ousias tou Theou phaskein einai tas psychas, anankē kai stoma periptēnai ton Theon, anankē de kai chairas*, etc.

Col. 108, l. 42. *Kai ouai tē phronēsei*, etc. The order: *ou parēsan touto eipein, mē epi tēs gēs einai ton paradeison, paregignōskeis kai polla hetera tōn eirēmenōn, mē, hōs gegraptai, phronein*, instructing that other things from those which are said should not, as it is written, or taken literally, as they say, be understood, *phronein*: i. e., *noein, katalambanein*.

HOMILY XIV.

Col. 111, l. 45. *Hos epeidē tosouton esti monon glykūtera.* Whether *de eo* or *de eo* I read *glykytera*. For thus it will be ^B convenient with the whole, as a little above. But it can be a comparative for a positive. Therefore I change nothing. We follow another reading.

Col. 112, l. 15. For *nescio an* it should perhaps be read *euthymian*, and for *sphodroteran*, *asphalesteron*.

Col. 114, l. 59. *Diattōmenos tē tou paradeisou diagōgē.* I would prefer *tē tou paradeisou hēdonē*, or something of that kind. For *indiastasthai diatypon* seems harsh to me.

Col. 117, l. 15. *Hypomnēsin echōmen kai tēs timēs.* The conjunction *kai*, which here serves for a distribution, ought to precede the verb, as is my opinion, not follow it, and in this way: *houtōs autas ekyrōsen ho Theos, hina kai diēnekē hypomnēsin echōmen tēs timēs*, etc. *kai tēs aphaireseōs autō tēn aitian epigraphōmen.* For two reasons God wished the names imposed by Adam on the other animals to be ratified, i. e., that we might be perpetually reminded of the honor which Adam had at the beginning, and then, that we might attribute to him the cause of the honor that was taken away. The transposition of the particle *kai* ruins this distribution, and consequently the meaning of this passage entirely. — L. 23, *anankaios*. I think nothing should be changed. Who could impose appropriate appellations on each of the animals, and without confusion of order, neither assign the names of tame animals to wild ones, nor of wild ones to tame, but to all those which would be apt and would fit them, how could he not have been filled with all wisdom and intelligence? The later *anankaia*, as the *exapēxamata* following, *aphorisai ei dounai*, all cohere with *ho dynētheis, apo tou chrō*. More clearly sometimes thus: Who could impose on wild beasts appellations which would not fit tame animals, and on tame ones, in turn, those which would not suit wild ones, etc.

HOMILY XV.

Col. 118, l. 15 from the bottom. Perhaps *epi tōn aisthetōn pragmatōn ouk exestin*. It is not permitted to see.

Col. 120, l. 57. *Anagkē de diakeisthai.* I change nothing, nor do I think it should be changed. But the phrase *mellein diakeisthai*, for *mellō diakeisthai*, is to be noted, which is frequented not only by Chrysostom, but by others, both Greek and Latin. Our Chrysostom Hom. 10 in Matth. page of the new Savil. edition, 64, lin. 4: *kai mē monon auton legein, alla kai ton topon en hō diatribein emelle kai ton tou kērygmatos tropon, en didaxai paraginomenos eiche.* *Eiche didaxai*: i. e., *emelle*. Luc. xii, v, 50: *baptisma de echō baptisthēnai*: i. e., I am to be baptized with a baptism, it is going to be that I am baptized: I have to be baptized, as the old interpreter rightly says. So, IV Esdræ iv, 45, *Habet venire*, it seems to be put for *mellō*: 65, *pallei pasesthai* [sic]: *Debora*. And in the Creed of Athanasius the Latin interpreter renders, *Resurgere habent*. Lactantius, a most elegant writer, seems to have been pleased with this kind of speaking. For he often uses it. Institut. lib. iv, chapter 12: Behold, he says, in the clouds of heaven, as the Son of man coming. He did not say, as the Son of God, but Son of man, that he might show that he was to be clothed with flesh on earth, etc., i. e., *de opus*, [sic] he was to be clothed with flesh. The same, in the same book, chapter 30: Before all things it is proper for us to know, that both he and his messengers foretold that very many sects and heresies would exist, which would break the concord of the holy body. *Haberent exsistere*: i. e., would be about to arise. The same in the same chapter 20: But that which was to be given through Christ, would be accomplished. *Dari haberet*: i. e., would be to be given. In the same way here Chrysostom: *hina mē apetheiēs echei diakeisthai*: i. e., *hina mē mellē apetheiēs diakeisthai*, so that he would not be in a hostile state, for *diakeisthai* is thus conjoined with the adverb *apetheiēs*, so that it accepts the signification from the verb of future time or of the potential mood. It is not therefore to be connected with *dē* but with *diakeisthai*. If the Greek language had allowed it, Chrysostom would have used the aorist subjunctive of the verb *diakeimai*, just as he said *ergasētai* and *misēsē*: but because this could not be, he was forced to seek a periphrasis.

Col. 121, l. 48. *To heurein*, before *ou katalambanomen*, seems to be redundant, unless *ou katalambanomen* can be taken for *adynatoumen*.

HOMILY XVI.

Col. 150, l. 1. *Eipetō kai tōn ēdē paraschethentōn.* Here the Greek proverb truly has a place: *hē kamēlos epithymēsasa keratōn, kai ta ōta prosapōlese*. But before I go on, the reader must be warned of something concerning the series and *akolouthia* of the speech, from that, *hothen gar, phēmi*, in the previous page, col. 129, l. 52,

of Moses, regarding act and punishment, as pertaining most to the intent of Chrysostom, to such a degree that, if these were omitted, the rational particular following *on* would be entirely idle? I therefore, in order that this connection of words might appear better, judged it most convenient that after *katanoēsai* the words should be inserted. For what follows continuously are nothing other than a certain paraphrase of the words of Moses. Furthermore, I advised that that whole almost-isthmus, which divides the words of Moses, should be distinguished by parenthetical notes so that the rest of the series of the speech might not be interrupted, and thus there will be nothing, as it seems to me, which would delay or offend anyone. In a word, imagine, with all things deleted that are interspersed between the words of Moses, that it had been written in such a continuous and uninterrupted series: 18.50 *phēsin*, "that the wood was good for eating, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to behold, and fair to contemplate," *elaben apo tou karpou*, etc. L. 14. I think either the *kai* before *horaiou* should be deleted, or the participle *katanoēsai* should be changed into a verb. Furthermore, line 10, some grammarian would expect that instead of *tolmēsai* it should be written *tolmēsai*, because *pos* precedes it. The form of speech is absolutely similar below in Hom. 18. But in the writings of great men, not everything is to be judged too rigidly according to the canons of grammarians.

HOMILY XVII.

Col. 135, l. 6 from the bottom. I read: *sphodron touton katēgoron, to syneidos, epikeimenon, kai mastizonta hēmōn kai pataxainonta tēn peridēnin* etc. (another version: *kai mastizonta hēmon to syneidos, et caetera*). It is possible also for *to syneidos* to be omitted without any damage to the sense; that the common reading is vicious, however, may be clearly seen even from this, that *to syneidos* precedes *ou prattesthai*, unless perhaps it pleases someone to take *to syneidos* here in a double sense, namely, both active and passive: active, for the torturer; passive, for that which is tortured and tormented. But since in all other places besides, it is taken actively, I do not think it should be taken passively in this place. Juvenal:

* Cur tamen hos tu Evasisse putes, quos diri conscia facti Mens habet attonitos, et surdo verbere cædit, Occultum quatienté animo tortore flagellum?

Another version: *sphodron touton katēgoron, to syneidos legō epikeimenon*, etc. Let this line be compared with the following column, and the matter will be clear that *to syneidos* here must either be expunged, as having been transferred from there, or at least be taken actively. Col. 139, l. 5. *tē phēmi*, etc. Regarding the sense of this passage, I cannot satisfy myself unless something is added by which it might be shown that these words were not truly, i.e., worthy of compassion, but only *dēxēi*, and in opinion. For, as follows below, they seemed indeed *apologia ta elētin*, but in reality they were unworthy of receiving any pardon or favor. I therefore read thus: *tina, i dokei, ta rhēmata*, etc. See below hom. 19. The sense, however, can be this: that Adam responded foolishly, and so foolishly that because of his stupidity he seemed worthy of compassion.

HOMILY XVIII.

Col. 118, l. 46. Perhaps *klausai te kai kopsai*, unless it be said thus, *hosoutō te kai kosoutō* in Greek, just as in Latin *quot et quantis*. Col. 149, l. 32. For *kosmē* I would prefer *keimēn*, imperfect. For he is speaking of the ornaments of children, among which the houses themselves have no place. Furthermore, there follows immediately *ta tēs gymnōseōs*. Col. 152, l. 17. After *tou* for *soi* I think what follows continuously in the context of Moses should be added: *heōs tou apostrepsei se apo tēs gēs*. For unless these are added, the reader might rightly ask what *tēs gēs* might be, which conforms with the words *tēs gēs* (for it is certain that the place is cited for their sake), and then, why it is said immediately: *to auto touto kai nyn legei*. L. 31. Perhaps another word might better suit this place, such as *logion, martyron*, etc., but I decide nothing. Another version: *philanthrōpias ēn*, or *philanthrōpias autou ēn*, with the word *hypothesis* deleted. I think the word is to be retained, and it is most familiar to Chrysostom and *sophōtaton*. H. Savile.

Col. 155, l. 9. *tēn eupatheian, spor*. Basil, *Pros Neous*, ch. 1, p. 250: *kai tou Pythagorou memnēsthai, hos tōn synontōn tina katamathōn gymnásiois te kai sitiois heauton ei mala katasarkounta, houtos, ephē, ou stysei chalepōteron seautō kataskeuazōn to desmōtērion? Dio dē kai Platon phasi tēn en sōmatos blabēn proidomenon, to ksedes chōrion tēs Attikēs tēn Akadēmian katalabein exepitēdes, hina tēn agan eupatheian tou sōmatos, hoion empodon tēn eis ta peritta phoran, perikopte*. *Eupatheian* therefore is *euexian*, if of the *eukathesteron*, of those more settling. See Hesychius *eukathestō*, meaning *supportō*. Psalm XCI: *kai eukathestountes ison*. To which place the Greek Scholia (as is noted in the Roman Bibles) *eukathestountes, toutesti sphyridi kai autos*. Basil, Hom. *eis to Proseche seautō*, p. 139: *sōmatos men gar eupathountos, kai poly-sarkia barynoménou*. L. 20. I conjecture that it should be read: *hō hora moi, agapēte. ho elachistos echōn aphormas*, etc.: for the word *elachiston* especially agrees with those things which follow: *oute gar ekeinos tina esche ton* —— ^A didaskonta, *oute houtos*, etc. Another version: *all' hora moi, agapēte, ho tosaūta elaphia gethēeis, kai enteuthen echōn aphormas*, etc.

HOMILY XX.

Col. 173, l. 8. I delete *kai* before *kat' indiktian*. He exhorts, namely, that they should examine themselves daily, and see what they have brought back of profit from this or that sermon. Wherefore, or to what end? *dēste karpousthai ti pleon ek tōn par' autou legomenōn*. So that in this way from those things which are said, they might perceive more fruit and utility. For of the auditors, those who profit most are those who accurately demand from themselves how much they have progressed. The order therefore is: *Boulomai ekeino tēn hymeteran agapēn parakalesai, diereunasthai kat' hekastēn hēmeran heautous*, etc., *karposasthai*, etc. This place can also be so ordered, even if *kai* is retained. I therefore change nothing. *Kai diereunasthai, kai mē monon dixesthai, alla kai ikanopoiēsasthai*: I wish your charity that you might take greater fruit from our sayings, and daily examine, or explore yourselves, etc., and not only, etc.

HOMILY XXI.

Col. 176, l. 27. Perhaps *archēn nean tina, ē deutéran tina*, and soon, *phēmi tautē*. But if these do not please, imagine they were not written. L. 36. I do not know whether for *hōs* it should be read *hos*. For *ei*, it responds better to *tois autois*, than *hōs*, and the copyist could have been deceived by the *hos* following immediately. Col. 178, l. 4. I conjecture it should be read: *ouden touton eipontos tou, all' anōthen promēnyōn autou tēn epi tēn kakian hormēn, tē sō periaptō*. Col. 180, l. 55. Perhaps *tacheias exaitēsis tēn paramythias, kai pararamythias axioumenous pleiona t. s. f.*, etc. For it seems something is missing. And yet I do not deny that I might have been able to spare my labor in this and similar places without blame. Col. 181, l. 7. *parenthēkei, dē mos*. Theodor. *Quaest. 45 in Genesim*, regarding the translation also of Enoch: *ei dei syneinai ta sesigēmena; stergein de prosēkei ta gegrammena*. T. 23. *kai exēse Lamich ete, hekaton ogdoēkonta*. In this numbering Chrysostom dissents both from the Hebrew context and from the Greek Bibles printed at Rome. For the Hebrew context adds two years to one hundred and eighty; the Greek Bibles, however, eight.

HOMILY XXII.

Col. 188, l. 40. Perhaps *ou tēn autēn tēs ousias (pōs gar hē tēn asōmaton ousian idein;) alla metaschēmatistheisan tēn energeian, mikrou dein*, etc. *Metaschēmatistheisan tēn energeian* he calls (or at least it seems to me to call him) the act of the angel appearing in a visible species. If these things are true, as I certainly believe them to be true, this passage labors greatly from its punctuation. Col. 189, l. 80. I prefer to join *tais hēniais* with *ekdousa*, rather than with *endous*. Another version: *tas hēniais ...* from conjecture. As a charioteer, who does not know how to restrain his ferocious horses with the reins, by yielding, both destroys the horses pulling the chariot and himself, and precipitates. SC. *tois ataktois skirtēmasi tēn in furori et ferocia equorum*, not actually *tais hēniais*, reins. Thus in the apodosis: *tais ataktois epithymiais ekdousa*: for *ataktoi* are *epithymiai*, as *atakta skirtēmata*, and *hē proairesis*, as *ai hēniai*.

HOMILY XXIII.

Col. 195, l. 1 from the bottom. I suspect it should be read: *kai kairō cheimōnos, to de*. And though tossed by marine waves as if sitting in a harbor, thus steering the rudder of virtue, etc. Col. 198, l. 31. The reading would be much fuller if it were conceived thus: *didaskei hēmas kai tēs aretēs tēn ischyn, kai ton en tosoutō plēthei dynēthenta tēn aretēn akerain diasōsai thaumazei*. I add *thaumazei*, because the things which follow closely presuppose such a reading and depend upon it as if from it. Otherwise *daphērtē*, or some verb not dissimilar, could be added. L. 38. I read: *hē theia Graphē phēsi; pōs de eure charin enantion Kyriou tou Theou. Thaumaston gar dei metaxi en tosoutōn tōn dia tēn kakian mellontōn tēs aganakteōs (vel kindynou) peirasthai, houtos monos dia tēn aretēn tou klydōniou diasōtheis einai. Notē tēs, etc.* Col. 201, l. 31. *Oikonomōn*, etc. Thus Horat. *Satyr. 9, lib. 1*: *totus in illis*, Hesiod. lib. 1: *mē ginou tēs orgēs holos*, and lib. 11: *houtōs ara holos tōn phrontismatōn ēn*. Col. 202, l. 2 from the bottom. By small change I undoubtedly emend the vicious reading thus: *hōs phēmi kai ex archēs idōn ta hyp' autou cheirourgyēta*: sc. which he had created before. For at that time he did not see man, as being not yet created.

HOMILY XXIV.

Col. 207, l. 47. For *tōn* I think it should be read *epichairōn, ethribalontes, certabant superare*. For thus he spoke above, and it is false that *neous nenikēkenai tous probebēkotas*, because, as follows continuously, *hoi gerontes tōn neōn ouk elatton, ephanēsan*. Col. 209, l. 14. I think the particle *hē* should be deleted. For it does not sound well: *edidaxe, hoti onomast'* rectius igitur *malli tina tōn idion, etc., kai neous, etc.*

VARIOUS NOTES

Col. 209, l. 5. I emend the reading of this line by conjecture: *to megethos, zōagraphiais, toutesti, pasan sarka*. The sense itself, and the words which follow in the next line, demand this amendment. Shortly after, at 5 lines from the bottom, it seems that *ta logika* is missing, between *proselthon* and *ta prospheromena*, or after *proselthon*.

Col. 215, l. 23. *Meta de tautēs kai ho logismos hypēgoreusen*. I could with difficulty be persuaded by anyone that this passage is not mutilated and corrupt. For reason does not dictate that an ass is unclean and a cow clean, since the cow and the ass use almost the same food, but rather it suggests the contrary. Why is it then, says Chrysostom, that some things are seen as clean, others as unclean? From a certain secret instinct of nature, by which it happens that we turn away from some things and take pleasure in others. I think this was the mind of Chrysostom, although I do not approve of his sentiment and opinion. What then if we read thus: *ouchi de apo tēs ton zoon, pantes kathara hē graphē edidaxe, pros de tēn ton*, etc.? The following words support this reading: *eph' heautoi, kai houk onta, alla noiazomena*, and those things which are said concerning the diverse use of different places, and finally the question which is proposed concerning the uncleanness of the ass.

Col. 214, l. 17. *tēn autēn aitian mathoi te*. Theodoret provides the same reason for the number seven in Ques. 50 on Genesis: *tas men treis syzygias eis tēn auxēsin tou genous; to de hen to perito-* L. 37. For *a...* perhaps read *katastellonton*, i.e., by the conjectures of those who corrupt Scripture.

Col. 216, l. 15. I think the words should be arranged thus: *echousi, kai mē boulomenois mēte tō ophthalmō apoteichizein tēn epiblabē thean, mēte katharan tēn glōttan diathērein apo loidoriōn, kai mē anechomenois mēte orgēn arri-* and toward the neighbor, then I add: *mēte hotan adikēthōsi gennaiōs pherein, tou theou skotou kai oiou hēmon*, etc. For unless something is added, and the words are also otherwise arranged, it will not happen that the members of the sentence cohere among themselves, but one thing will be proposed, another will be proved, and the command of Christ concerning the patient bearing of injuries will be brought against those who do not restrain their eyes from looking lasciviously at beautiful women. But how these *diaporoesomenai*? L. 1 from the bottom. *ta proskaira, ta mellonton*. Or instead of *proskaira*, I think one should read *paronta*, or instead of *mellonton*, *mellon-*.

Col. 217, l. 50. I read: *pheresthō, ennoeitō tēn geennan, kai tou enteuthen ekpēdōntos pyros tēn te phoberotēta kai tēn kaustikēn dynamin, analogizesthō tēs phriktēs tautēs trapezēs tēn apolausin*, etc. You see that I have no hesitation to add, to take away, to change squares into rounds, provided a smooth and consistent sense is produced. Not everyone would dare to do so: *amathia men thrasos, logismos de apnoian pherei*.

HOMILY XXV

Col. 218, l. 56. *All', etc.* A long hyperbaton. For the sentence depends from this place until these words: *dia to pros ton Noē kai tous*, or at least until *kai to eis ton*. Ibid. There seems to be a hiatus between *graphē* and *ethē*, which I attempt to fill for the time being thus: *epi poson chronon diēreisin autois para...* Then I proceed, *proagōn, ekthesai*, having deleted the particle *e*. For it is not in the text of Moses, nor does anything here have a function. Otherwise and as more briefly, and with less change, thus I think more correctly: *ta hex autou*, here I add only *estin*, and for *e* I write *eti* without great difficulty. For it seems absolutely necessary to me, that some accusative, or something in the place of the accusative, should follow the verb *edidaxe*.

Col. 221, l. 47. *pōs diaphorōs methodouei*: i.e., how variously in art he handles, with what art he approaches. Thus *intra...*, see what art he approached their sickness, he has handled it. The word *methodouein* in Chrysostom has various uses worthy of observation, as in this place and often later.

Col. 229, l. 6. The form *stephanountas* is suspicious to me, for which I would have suggested substituting *katarthountas*, in this mode: *all' e kai tēs physōs tēn niken, dia tou Despotou dynai touto katorthoun-*, etc. Thus above col. 95, l. 1, *kai hoper ho theios pases physōs hēmon hypeikeitai. touto hē phonikia tēs proair-*.

HOMILY XXVI

Col. 229, l. 9 from the bottom. For *lege* I suspect one should read *enim* of the same, but that words of diverse and thus contrary notion are to be placed here is declared by *ta tauta, kakeina*, which follow in the next line.

Col. 231, l. 18. *tōn proton*. Perhaps *tōn prōtōn*. This fits better with *hēmeron*.

Col. 232, l. 43. I delete *to* before *asthenein*. Et eorum quae dicuntur crassitiei nostrae naturae imbecillitati imputentur. Thus above several times. Below hom. 27: *tēs ton rhēmatōn synkatabasē logisamenos*.

Col. 231, l. 12. I delete *cunia* before *tous*. For it is undoubtedly redundant. L. 30. *hē hydatōn ryas*. I read, *hē hylōn to phan*, i.e., *ho phan*...

^A 721 HOMILY XXIX. NOTES OF VARIOUS AUTHORS. Col. 263, l. 26. *Kai hoti ouk haplōs eure tēn oinosian*. I read *kai hoti ouk akratōs epetēdeuse*, etc. By the fault of the copyist, it was twice erred. First, *akrasias* was changed into *haplōs*, and then some words were added. This is my conjecture: and without conjectures, what outcome will we find from the mazes of this kind? Otherwise (for it is not enough to have conjectured once): *kai hoti ouk akratōs epetēdeuse tēn oinoposian, akou*, etc. With *epetēdeuse* one can also connect *haplōs*. Read our note there. Col. 266, l. 45. *Enos monou ginontai*. Laertius on Thales: *meta de ta politika tēs physikēs egeneto theōrias*: i.e., *peri tēn physikēn theōrian ekinēse*. For in no way do I agree with the most learned man H. Stephanus, who advises that *en* should be written there instead of *ge*. Moreover, as I have noted above in a similar place, *toutou* seems to be missing here: *enos monou ginontai toutou*. Col. 267, l. 9 from bottom. *Hē methē authairetos esti daimon*. Basil, *Against those who are drunk*, pag. 196: "He who is possessed by a demon is pitiable; but he who is drunk, suffering the same things, is not even worthy of pity, having surrendered to a self-chosen demon." ^B Col. 268, l. 51. *Hou*. I would prefer *eph' heautē*, without *hou*, or *to eph' heautou*. Without *to*. Infra Hom. 47: *kai ho ēchon eis auton hiereus tou paidos egeneto*. Hom. 64, at the end: *peri tous anelontas auton, to ge eis autous hēkon*. Col. 271, l. 14. I prefer *dia tous anthrōpous*, or *dia tōn anthrōpōn tinas*, because afterward follows *di' hous autos eulogeitai*, and a little later *di' hēmas*. Note besides *euchareisteitai* or *eulogeitai* when it is *hotan*. Col. 272, l. 34. *Heteron douleias rheuma tropon*. It is doubtful whether Chrysostom means that there is a certain kind of servitude in reigning, or in being under a reign. However, I think these things are to be understood of subjects rather than of the king himself, even if it was once not unskillfully said by King Antigonus, as Aelianus testifies, that *basileia, endoxon einai douleian*.

HOMILY XXX. Col. 273, l. 9. For *nescio an scribendum potius sit holkadōn*, because it follows immediately *kai tōn phortiōn eis hypsos engkeimenōn*, etc., i.e., *tē holkadi*, or similar. Yet I do not reject the other reading entirely, because, as Eustathius teaches in *Iliad A*. Froben. edit. pag. 98, lin. 6: *Eis men ton limena plēsis- ^C tios katabainousin hoi pleontes, eis de ton hermin eretmois kathistōsi tēn nēa*: *plēsistioi*, i.e., *peplērōmenōn tōn istiōn*. I therefore retain the received reading here. Moreover, instead of *ty* or *ei synkeimenōn*, i.e., *nenēmenōn, sōreuomenōn*, could it be read? I write these things only for the sake of trying and exploring, not because I greatly trust these conjectures, or deem them worthy of anyone lingering on them. Col. 274, l. 39. I read *parathomen, kai ek tōn prōtōn para tou makariou Mouseōs histiōmen hymōn tēn agapēn, auta ta prosphaton anegnōsmena*, etc. For it is not said rightly *hymōn para*, etc., and from the collation of similar places in previous homilies, it will appear more clearly that these things were not noted by me in vain. Col. 276, l. 9. First, the term *pallēsthai* is suspect to me, which rather suits *tais blasphēmiais* or *kategoriais*, and then after *meta tēn tēs zōēs metastasin*, it is probable that something is missing, such as *parrēsian echein*: for *pallēsthai*, what if *eulēphesthai*? Col. 278, l. 13. By the sense suading, I read thus: *Ei brachy ti homonoias toiautēs apolaüontes*, or *ei ep' oligon chronon homou*, etc. Col. 280, l. 28. I read *graphōn Ephesiois elegen. Proseuchomenoi en panti kairō en pneumati*. Not *tē glōssē monon, phēsin, alla kai met' agrypnias diēne- ^D kous, alla kai en autē tē psychē*, etc. For he who prays *met' agrypnias diēnekous*, cannot be said to pray with the tongue alone.

HOMILY XXXI. Col. 282, l. 1 in the title. *Kai ton Nachōr tous huious autou*. These things are not had among the LXX Interpreters, just as they are not in the Hebrew context. Col. 287, l. 6. I would prefer *pros to tou epitattontos megethos*, it refers. Besides, the magnitude of the commanded thing could have availed more to deter him than to incite him. Alt. *pros to tou epitattontos megethos, pros ton, etc.* For I think *to megethos* is in the text, where it is idle, and to be transferred hither. — *Luc. XII*, 13: *hopōs apelthōn peristeilēs ton nekron*, that you may lay out the dead, and care for his funeral. For this is *peristeilai* in Greek, as in Latin with Horace, *componere*. Col. 291, l. 50. *Proballometha*. He says something who wishes for *prokaloumetha*, on account of *epideiknytai*, which precedes: but he who says *proballometha* wishes for more, on account of *ōpheleitai* and *epideiknymetha*, which follow in the same period. For the full distinction between *allois* and *aei* is to be deleted, and a sub-distinction is to be placed in its stead. 723 chrysostom to have been able to lapse, especially in an extemporaneous sermon, such as I think this for the most part to have been: but I rather believe, and if I am mistaken, I am honestly mistaken, that this was not a lapse of Chrysostom, but rather of the copyists, who have omitted or changed something. It could have been omitted after *aliquid*, which responds to the Latin verb "to postpone": namely *graphē tina*, or something of that kind. Again, it could have happened that by the carelessness of the copyists *tōn dynamenōn* was written for *ta dynamena*, and for *ta aphiptamena*, *tōn amph-*. However it may be, we know what Chrysostom wished to say, and this is enough for the reader who is not difficult.

HOMILY XXXII. Col. 295, l. 50. *k-*: i.e., *. But this place does not seem to be wanting. Wherefore I would have thought it should be read thus, *oude hopou katachthē*, or *katachthē, echonta*, or *oude katagōgion, hopou katachthēnai dynētheiē, echonta*. Col. 297, l. 28. *T...*. It is said very elegantly that *elegchetai* happens, when someone is conquered and succumbs, and is not allowed to proceed in his own manner. The verb *elegchetai* has a similar use in these locutions, which I shall subjoin: *Sap. 1, 5*: "For the Holy Spirit of discipline avoids deceit, and will remove Himself from thoughts that are without understanding, and will be rebuked (*elegchthēsetai*) when iniquity comes:" i.e., and upon the coming of iniquity, it will depart as if conquered, or will go away, will not remain longer. That this is to be accepted in this place, is clear from the preceding words. Chrysostom, *Hom. 1 to the people of Antioch*: *Kai tēn philosophian tēs psychēs ouk ēlegxen hē tou sōmatos appōstia*: i.e., it did not conquer nor did it overcome. The same, *Hom. 51 in Matth.*: *Toiouton hē anthrōpinē physis; pollakis ta megala katorthousa, en tois elattonin elengetai*: i.e., it is conquered. Item, *Hom. 59 in Matth.*: *K'an polemos katalabē, k'an limos, kan heteron hotioun, panta elengetai tēs eugeneias physēmata*: *elengetai*, i.e., *oichētai*. It seems to have been taken from the fact that *oi theōmenoi* after they have been conquered and convicted are accustomed to depart and to withdraw themselves from the sight *tou kleantou*. Infra, *Hom. 40*, *ne vin-*. Chrysostom in *Psal. ...*, edit. Savil. pag. 609, lin. 25, 26: *oute to mēkos, oute hē dyskolia tēn hymeteran ēlegen prothymian*. Col. 299, l. 52. *ergon mou poiēsē*: i.e., *parergon, paranad-*, as Theodore Prodromus often speaks in his Tetrastichs, *Tetrasticho in Nadab et Abiud*: *Theou pyros parergon, strid poi, phthinō*: i.e., Tell me, seeing them consumed by heavenly fire. The same in his tetrastich *...*: i.e., by Jael in a miserable manner was killed. Item, *Tetrasticho...*: *Hoi miaroi patros hierōtatou, ophne ponēre, Phinees; kakergata, anth' hōn stōlāte tōn thusiōn ta krea, ergon mias genesthai pikrās hēmeras*: i.e., one bitter day destroyed both of you, or finished you. Note, however, here *to ergon* is taken in the same way as *parergon* before.

HOMILY XXXIII. Col. 306, l. 17. In this place the matter itself cries out that some things are missing, both before *hoper* and before *pros tēn hypodochēn*. Therefore I think the whole place should be interpolated thus, from *hypodechomenois* to *touto gar*: *Hypodechomenois. Hōste mēte hēmas oknērous einai prosēnē pros tēn apodosin; hoper kai parēnesen ho makarios Paulos, legōn, Mēdeni mēden, opheilete, ei mē to allēlous agapan; deiknys epi tēs agapēs hoti touto to chreos men kataballesthai legetai, mēdepote de pauetai; mēte hymas amelein dein all' erchesthai pros tēn hypodochēn paraskeuazomenous. Touto gar*, etc. If I have gained nothing else by this conjecture, at least I have extricated myself from a sufficiently difficult place. Col. 308, l. 6 from bottom. After *diathēkēn* something must be added, which agrees not less with the following than with the preceding. Therefore what the interpreter added does not satisfy me, because although the former part of the sentence is consulted, yet the latter part of it is made no more amended or complete thereby. But if we read it thus, as I shall presently lead, there will be no lacuna, no *anaplia*, but the preceding will combine very well with the subsequent ones. Thus therefore: *diathēkēsesthai, dia tous autois diapherontas, ou monon legei; Ana meson emou kai sou, alla kai, Ana meson tōn poimenōn mou kai ana meson tōn poimenōn sou tēs gar kteseōs, phēsi, diolēsein*, etc.: v. 10, 11, generally he had proposed the words of Abraham to Lot, *mē ēn pairthē*, etc. But since those things consist of two members, of which the former is about the masters themselves, the second about the servants: separately hereafter, as is his custom, he executes each member: the first v. 12, and the second, because it is desired (but that the sequence of the oration shows it to be desired), I have added. Col. 314, l. 26. HOMILY XXXIV. I try to heal it thus: *Kai meta pollou tou pothou kai zeusēs tēs prothymias proseisi*: *accedet; ta tēs aitēseōs philotimeisthai*, etc.: i.e., he concedes more largely and amply. For no one will ever persuade me that these words, *ta tēs aitēseōs philotimeisthai*, are to be referred to the petitioner. What *ta tēs aitēseōs philotimeisthai* is, Chrysostom himself explains a little later, namely: *meta pollēs tēs dapsileias dōreisthai*. In this way Chrysostom is consistent with himself, nor is the same formula of speaking to be...

rejected, but it is to be preferred to the rest.

HOMILY XXXIX

HOMILY XL

HOMILY XLI

HOMILY XLII

HOMILY XLIII

individuals whosoever they may be, such as those whom Christ at that time was addressing. HOMILY XLIII Col. 393, l. 1 from the bottom. It seems the participle *bainon* is missing. 725 ^A VARIORUM NOTÆ. 726

and *kai autos*. Furthermore, I think the particle *gar* should be inserted between *kai* and *par’ emou*, and a full stop should be placed after *ananke*.

Col. 399, l. 2 from the bottom. *ēdynto*. I do not know if *ēdynato tolman* is said correctly and according to the usage of the Greek language. Therefore, I should like to consider whether *ēdynanto* and *ēschynonto* ought to be swapped, so that *ēschynonto* is placed in the first position and *ēdynanto* in the second, with *biaian* after *ton dikaion* (col. 400, l. 1).

HOMILY XLIV.

Col. 406, l. 22. Between *philanthropias* and *odēgoumenos* I think *to tou Pneumatos chariti* is missing, or something of that sort: or *tō Pneumati*. For he says a little lower down, *ta para tou Pneumatos di’ hēmōn hymin periphethonta logia*.

Col. 412, l. 14. *hōsperper tou pēmo-salantou, kathaper*, etc. These and similar things prove that Chrysostom poured forth many things in his homilies extemporaneously, and if anyone wishes to correct them, he will take vain and useless labor upon himself, and will deserve veryill of Chrysostom. For who would not prefer to look upon his natural face,

^A nor contend with the desire to persecute them. They were formidable for a threefold reason: both because their number was huge, and because they were rushing to war with full force, and because they were unanimous. If any one of these three things were removed, the cause for fear would be less. For

[Remainder of Latin column 727:] neither is a multitude to be feared if it is languid and indolent, nor can a few, if there is dissenting fervor among them, accomplish anything excellent.

HOMILY LXI

Col. 527, l. 8. Since the construction as it is above is subjoined (l. 19), I think that perhaps another participle should be added in as well, such as: ὅτι δὴ κομιδῇ νέος, l. 8: ὅτι δὴ ἀρετῆς / τὸν τρόπον etc. They are not able, being otherwise unsuited, to explain the matter, but to me, the exemplar I have is sufficient. Furthermore, the fuller speech, l. 36, αὐτὸς is preferred.

Col. 528, l. 27. If I am not mistaken, this lacuna should perhaps be filled with: ἀλλὰ πρὸ σχολῆς εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν ἀναλαβόντας τὴν φύσιν / αὐτὴν ἀλήθειαν, and so on, etc.

HOMILY LXII

Col. 539, l. 41. I read ἠγνόησαν, and after such great bravery, ἀφίκεσθε εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον καὶ σιγῇ πάντη ὑπέμεινα, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ μεγάλων / ἀπολαύει τῶν ἀμοιβῶν. For they know, etc.

HOMILY LXIII

Col. 547, l. 11. I do not know if the text is χωρῶν, or what is meant by πράγματα.

HOMILY LXIV

Col. 552, l. 12. For μέχρι γὰρ ὅτι I think should be read μέχρι γὰρ / ὅπου et μέχρι ὅτου.

Col. 558, l. 13. By oversight, it seems ὂν should be between ὧν and καταφαν / εῖσθαι. ὁ νοῦς: If he were present with Joseph, he could not have restrained himself from rebuking his brothers, and it is much more likely now, with Joseph absent, that he would not have restrained his anger. Besides, one must see where και is to be deleted from ἑαυτάς, and the word ἴσως should be placed there.

HOMILY LXV

HOMILY LXVI

HOMILY LXVII

NOTES OF SAVILIUS

Col. 581, in title. We are correcting this oration as written from the manuscript of the Paris Royal Library, from the best-rated Augustan. It is extant in the present, as is apparent at the end, *Episcopo Flaviano.* And it has the other orations *In the Beginning of Genesis* with many matters, which are common with the Homilies of the same Father *On Genesis.* And so that we do not wander far, most of the things contained in this first oration are found almost entirely written in the second *Homily on Genesis*. The third oration of this same work agrees with the new *In Genesis*: and so it stands in the others. The oration exists in Latin Vol. I, col. 459, Edit. Paris. 1588: it is found in Greek, which follows, in the order in which we have arranged them, in the edition of Caesarea, no. 26. — L. 44. *Episcopus.* From the usage: *Omnia exemplaria προεδρίαι habent.*

Col. 586, in title. We correct this oration and the three following, of better rating and in Greek: all of which we have accurately amended from the Augustan Library and Caesarea library.

Col. 590, in title. This oration, just as we said above, contains the same meaning as the 9th *In Genesis.*

Col. 604, in title. We have castigated the code from the Bavarian Library with that of Morellius: this oration also exists in the Caesarean Library. The same argument is treated in Homily 16 *In Genesis*, and similar to this, so that I think it is remembered that there is a German conclusion elsewhere. That it is ῥηταὶ there is no doubt: but whether it was written by the author himself, or whether it was stitched together by some diligent person from several others into one body, it *is* true, that the great difficulty in discerning the works of this German author remains.

Col. 607, in title. This is from the royal library of Paris. We do not think, as we have done before, that we must warn again that many of these things are found almost the same in the *Homilies on Genesis*. Moreover, all the notes of Savilius concerning some places of the English Edition have no relevance to us, which we have already restored or amended in the Paris Edition since it appeared by our faith.

Col. 616, in title. We have corrected this oration from the Royal Library manuscript.

Col. 619, in title. This oration, purely genuine, and from the Augustan Catalogue, no. 5, we have castigated from the manuscript in the Bavarian library, as we did previously with the Basle one.

Col. 621, l. 55. *Διαμαρτύρομαι.* Others have *διαμαρτύρομαι* in the Roman edition. *Τὸν ὁ*, *διαμαρτύρομαι*.

NOTES OF SAVILIUS

Col. 531, in title. This homily, as far as I know, is not known to the Latin-vulgate, it is known to the Augustan Catalogue, no. 5. We have provided it from the manuscript in the Oxford College library, amended and illustrated with various readings from the manuscript as known to the learned. I consider it communicated to our library some years ago in Paris. The title in the ducal manuscript: *On the birth of Anna, discourse 1, and on prayer and providence*. We have retained this name, which is mentioned in the Oxford one, not ignorant that the license of the scribes plays with the title in the orations. It exists in Antioch, as is the oration of the Father, that is, I believe, mention of Flavian, where other things dictated *on Anna* are usually believed to be.

Col. 642, l. 17. The *τὸ γὰρ μάλιστα τὸ πάθος ἐκείνοις ἐνοχλεῖ τοῖς δικαίοις* part is missing. It is manifest what the *ἐστὶν ἐνοχλεῖν* could be. We have restored this part of the argument with a similar place in the following oration *in this manner*, *σεμνότητος*. And *πάθος*: *ταῖς δικαίαις ἑκάστων τοὺς νόους, μάλιστα δὲ ἀδιέξοδος. ἴδιον γάρ*, etc. I believe it is better to be *ἀποσπάσειν*, and as Chrysostom himself immediately says *after* this, to act against the vice.

Col. 643, in title. The Augustan Catalogue, number 6, also recognizes this homily. Erasmus translated it from a manuscript, of which we have provided the best from the college [manuscript...].

hrysostom had memorized it, he is immediately opposed to doing it. Col. 643, in the title. That [homily] 6 is also known by the Catalogue of Augusta. *Vertit Erasmus in codice mu-* ^A tilato in medio. We provide it from the best manuscript in the New College, Oxford, emended from another manuscript belonging to Gabriel, Archbishop of Philadelphia, who now lives in Venice, and who communicated it to us with a most generous spirit, although it is slightly truncated.

Col. 652, in the title. The Augsburg Catalogue, no. 7, also acknowledges this oration. Erasmus translated it. See Vol. I, col. 484, of the Paris Edition of 1588. We provide it from a manuscript in the library of the New College, Oxford, and we had no other copy available to us besides that. However, there is another in the Vatican Library, shelf 8, codex 26, as the books were once arranged.

Col. 650, in the title. It is apparent from Chrysostom’s words, both in this oration and in the one immediately following, that another oration was delivered by him previously on the first words of the Canticle, *ἐπακούσομαι τῆς φωνῆς μου ἐν Κυρίῳ*, which I nowhere find. Moreover, the Vatican codex, which we mentioned above, and the Augsburg Catalogue, acknowledge no more than five [homilies] on Anna, which are entirely the same as ours, and arranged in the same order. Florilegus mentions this fifth one, and we have mentioned this fifth one. Because it was clear from our John that another had been delivered before this, as I said, on the first words of the Canticle. Furthermore, the Augsburg Catalogue, 8 and 9, acknowledges this oration as well as the following one. A unique copy of this came to us from the library of the New College, Oxford.

NOTES OF HENRY SAVILE

On the Homilies on David and Saul.

Col. 675, in the title. We have been unable to find this oration in the Latin translation made by Erasmus, along with the others of the same subject, here in these parts of Europe. It was copied from a manuscript at Pera in Constantinople by the late Samuel Sladius, ^B and emended from another manuscript found on the island of Chalcis, [in the sea] of Chalcedon. It is found in the Augsburg Catalogue, no. 11.

Col. 687, in the title. This second oration on David and Saul was copied from the manuscript of Gabriel, Archbishop of Philadelphia, in Venice, which is excellent and most emended, and it is the only one we have used. The translation by Erasmus exists in Vol. I, col. 503, of the Paris edition of 1588. The Augsburg Catalogue, no. 12 and 13, acknowledges this oration and the following one. After this oration was printed, another copy transcribed by Samuel Sladius at Pera in Constantinople arrived. — L. 1 from the bottom. Note *τῶν ἐχθρῶν*. What if it were *πολλοὶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς*? The translator Erasmus seems to acknowledge neither.

Col. 696, in the title. We provide this oration from a unique manuscript from the library of the New College, Oxford, which we have shown, however, to be so accurately written that there is hardly any need for another copy—truly a rare stroke of luck for librarians.

NOTE OF JOHN BOIS

On the Sermons on Genesis.

Col. 581, l. 25. *ἀπὸ λιμένος εἰς λιμένα παραπέμποντες τῶν ὑμετέρων ἀκοῶν τὴν ἡμερότητα*. Basil, *Homil. in illud, Attende tibi*: "When our thought lays hold of a significant word, like a ferry-boat carried by the discourse, crossing the air, it moves from the speaker to the hearer; and if it finds deep calm and silence, as in a safe and stormless harbor, ^C the word settles into the ears of those who are learning. But if some rough storm, such as the noise from the hearers, blows in opposition, it is dissipated in the midst of the air and is shipwrecked." See, therefore, whether it should be read here: *ἀπὸ λιμένος εἰς λιμένα παραπέμποντες, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου στόματος εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τῶν ἀκουόντων*, etc. For as a ship is carried from port to port, so the oration [is carried] from the mouth of the speaker to the ears of the hearers. The rest of John Bois' notes, though few, are either extremely slight or concern passages already restored. ^D