Preface to Volume Five

Preface TO THE FIFTH VOLUME

The fifth and sixth volumes of the works of Chrysostom have long been awaited: if, however, they appear in public later than was hoped, it truly does not occur through any fault of ours: for we have always had the sheets ready at hand, and our storage containers have never run dry. But the booksellers, not having found a favorable condition of the times, and also sometimes suffering from a shortage of workmen who could skillfully handle Greek type, have been hindered from using the greater speed that was hoped for. However, they intend to break all delays in the following volumes, and to compensate for the slow progress by the diligence applied in editing them. This is as much as concerns the typographical matter, which we cannot moderate as we wish. ^A Now let us come to our business, and to the method of treating these things, to the notes and other matters, in which we acknowledge the keen reader as judge and as one demanding reasons by his own right. Some have complained that our notes, usually placed at the bottom of the page, are both rare and shorter than they are wont to be in certain editions. For some are so delighted by those notes that, having applied their fingers, I think, and having taken a measurement, they determine from this how each edition is to be valued; and they think little of the condition of the work. Here we are treating an author to be preferred to almost all others for the clarity of his language, whose style is fashioned according to the more elegant, and likewise the more common, usage; whom you need no aid of notes to understand. But why seek theological notes at the bottom of the page, when there is a place assigned for them where all things that will look to individual arguments will be treated together and in congruent order, with evidence brought forth from whatever book, from whatever homily, [or from] all those things that will be able to contribute something to the illustration of the matter? For what could I say in a note occupying the bottom of the page, where the subject is some theological matter, and a serious one at that, which it behooves one to explore from various places of the holy Doctor? Furthermore, since there are many places where the same subject is treated, why attach a note to this place rather than another? Is it not better to bring all these theological places together and, once a comparison of these individuals has been made, to examine them? This is what we intend to carry out in the final volume; where there will also be treatment of discipline, whether of morals or of rites, and of the digressions of our author, which digressions offer a great repository of material. In a word, all things were to be treated in their own place. ^B To these things, moreover, as I already said in the Preface to the third volume, we must take the greatest care not to accumulate notes at the bottoms of pages. The subject concerns a writer whose works form almost an entire library, and new things are continually being discovered which increase the bulk; such that the eleven folio volumes we had planned to publish now turn out to at least fill thirteen volumes; indeed, we do not even know whether we shall be able to encompass all the small works in this number of volumes; yet we will strive with all our might that this be done, and be done without expense. Now let us come to the subject matter of this volume.

§ I.—I. The expositions of John Chrysostom on the Psalms, if they survived in their entirety, would be his greatest work in bulk; a work that should be preferred to no other in value. II. Whether he composed them at Antioch or at Constantinople.

I. Expositiones or Commentaries of John Chrysostom on the Psalms—of what bulk they would have been had they reached our age entire and sound, one may conjecture from what survives. For the fifty-eight that survive fill the greatest part of a volume; so that if we enjoyed the full Commentaries on the 150 Psalms, we could hardly contain them in two very large volumes; since the longest of all the Psalms are missing, and along with them the one hundred and eighteenth Psalm, which alone contains the magnitude of twenty-two Psalms; so that if we make a good calculation, scarcely a third part of the work has reached us. There survive, however, the psalms from the third through the twelfth, nine in number: the forty-first with its Exposition does not belong to this series, as is stated there; [those] from the forty-third through the forty-ninth; from the one hundred and eighth through the one hundred and seventeenth; from the one hundred and nineteenth through the end. There are, furthermore, sixty Psalms with their Expositions; but if you take away the third and the forty-first, which although they are found with the others, do not belong to this series, fifty-eight Psalms remain with their Commentaries. No work of such great bulk, therefore, did John Chrysostom publish, if indeed he interpreted all the Psalms in the same way, as we believe and shall prove below. Among his most outstanding works, however, it is considered [as such], as is asserted by the testimonies of many, and is discovered by constant use and reading. ^C II. It is asked whether he issued this substantial and long work at Antioch or at Constantinople. Certainly, if one must stand by the judgment of Photius, who prefers to consider his more elegant works, which were elaborated with greater accuracy, as having been produced at Antioch rather than at Constantinople, where the prelate, occupied with sacred business,

and being accustomed to be weighed down by those very serious matters; if we are to stand, I say, by his judgment, this work was undoubtedly issued at Antioch: for, as we have said, it is counted among the more exquisite ones.

Nor is it proved by this one argument alone that our John adorned this work at Antioch. For we borrow another, more weighty one from the Commentary on the one hundred and tenth Psalm, where these things are read, at number 4: How many (miracles) occurred while Julian, who surpassed all in impiety, was reigning, while the Church was being attacked? How many while Maximinus was reigning? How many before these Emperors? But if you wish for those things also which have happened in our own generation; namely, the crosses suddenly impressed upon garments, the temple of Apollo cast down by lightning, the translation of the blessed martyr Babylas, who was at Daphne, and the open victory over the demon, the sudden and admirable death of the quaestor of the imperial treasury; the slaughter of the Emperor himself, I say, of Julian, who had surpassed all in impiety, and the destruction of his uncle, the swarms of worms. Here he recounts to the Antiochenes those things of which most were still living witnesses; and shortly after he speaks about the restoration of the Jerusalem temple undertaken by Julian; a thing which is also not rarely observed in those Homilies which he delivered at Antioch. Moreover, all those things are narrated in minute detail in that longer Oration on Saint Babylas, which was printed above in the second Volume.

Another argument seems to prove that these Expositions of the entire Psalter were adorned at Antioch, and not at Constantinople. For Chrysostom never issued a work requiring such leisure; a work, I say, put together with great labor, which could scarcely be contained in two ample volumes, if indeed it had come down to our age complete. But how could he have obtained such leisure at Constantinople, where, besides the usual duty of preaching, never neglected by that incomparable doctor, besides those episcopal cares in that chief and most populous diocese of the whole Orient, for the governing of which the holy prelate kept vigil with assiduous and indefatigable zeal, he was almost overwhelmed by other and those most serious matters happening crosswise? And how could he, in the space of six years, amidst so many tumults and cares, have adorned these such ample commentaries, having also explored the interpretations of the ancients?

Another indication we extract from the fact that he mentions monks, either as an example or for some other use. For that was customary at Antioch, in the vicinity of which monks had their dwellings on the mountains, and were celebrated for their holiness of life; it was not so at Constantinople. Here, however, he mentions monks more than once; as in the Exposition of Psalm 6, col. 71 and elsewhere.

§ II.— I. Concerning the method of interpretation of Chrysostom in these Expositions. II. Whether he spoke them in the presence of the people and by preaching.

I. Chrysostom, having been engaged throughout his whole life in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, here continues in his accustomed duty; he follows the letter in such a way that he does not place his chief study in that matter; but yet he often brings into the midst the readings of different Interpreters, always silently omitting the name of each. Furthermore, he does not linger much on these, but quickly passes over to the precepts of ethics and to the discipline of morals, in which matter you may admire his acrimony, invention, and eloquence: for these commentaries shine among the most excellent works of the incomparable preacher.

II. But a question is moved, whether Chrysostom spoke these Expositions in an assembly of the people, in the manner of one preaching, or whether he privately adorned them for his own use, or for his friends, or finally for readers who might wish to unroll books of this kind. In which matter I confess that there is no little difficulty, which, if it may be possible, we shall presently strive to solve and remove from the midst. But first, Tillemont is to be heard on that matter, to whose accuracy and diligence hardly anything can be added; what he said in the vulgar French idiom, we have translated thus into Latin:

« The Expositions of the Psalms which we have in the third Volume of Chrysostom are from the third to the twelfth; hence follows the Exposition of the forty-first; then from the forty-third to the forty-ninth; after that, from the one hundred and eighth to the one hundred and seventeenth; finally from the one hundred and nineteenth to the end. Moreover, all these are counted among those which are truly of Chrysostom. One must except, however, the Homily on the third Psalm, which by its style seems to differ much from the true works of Chrysostom, even if it has been mentioned by John of Damascus as if it were of John Chrysostom. But it is not found in an ancient collection which contains fifty-nine others, as can be seen in the table of the same Volume.

« Others seem to be commentaries rather than homilies, which latter, however (namely, the homilies), enjoy the inscription; sometimes, however, they approach the form of homilies. Chrysostom often brings forward the readings of the Hebrew exemplar and of other interpreters, which sometimes he explains, (but) more often he is content merely to have reported them. In many places he seems to be speaking in the church itself, and yet he attaches the explanations of the Psalms one to another, as if he were preparing those explanations in a single series. He seems to be speaking to men, not to hearers, but to those who were to read his writings. The Explanation of the one hundred and sixteenth Psalm is certainly too brief to be able to constitute a single sermon: a thing which may also be said of the one hundred and twenty-eighth, and of certain others; just as, on the contrary, some are longer than could be said at one time. When he explains the one hundred and twenty-first, he seems to mention something which he had said when, concerning the one hundred and

nineteenth, he was dealing. His explanation of the one hundred and fortieth Psalm sends us to the explanation of the sixty-second, which we do not possess: and it is truly believed that Chrysostom interpreted the whole Psalter with the same rite and manner. »

^A Thus far Tillemont, who has examined these Commentaries with his customary accuracy. He is of the opinion, therefore, that John Chrysostom did not speak these things while preaching in an assembly of the people, but only wrote them: although, as he is cautious in passing judgment, he brings these matters forward as if doubtful. And indeed, for one inclining toward that opinion, there remains great ground for doubting and for suspecting the contrary. For before we come to the examples, we have thought it right to premise this: Who would believe that a preacher, almost daily, who for eighteen years fulfilled such an office in the two principal churches of the East, would have left such a wealth of material in his shelves, or given it only to friends to read? A wealth, I say, prepared entirely for sermons, as will be plain to any reader, and as great as you would hardly see anywhere else, arranged in the highest degree for the discipline of morals, of a kind you would scarcely find elsewhere even in Chrysostom himself; and which, had it come to us intact, could hardly be contained in two volumes, as we have already said.

^B But let us now proceed to the examples, which certainly seem to refer entirely to one preaching. In the Exposition of the fourth Psalm, col. 41, he has these words: "But we do not rightly know what the profit of prayer is, because we do not apply our mind to it with zeal, nor do we use it according to the laws of God. But when we are about to speak to certain men who are our superiors, when we have composed our dress, gait, attire, and everything, we speak as is fitting: but when we approach God, we yawn, we scratch ourselves, and we turn hither and thither; we are negligent and slothful." And the rest which he continues there. Are these not the words of one addressing an assembly? And in the following column these seem intended to be spoken in a sermon and in an assembly of the people altogether: I refrain from citing the Greek for the sake of brevity: "Let us also meditate on how we may approach God as suppliants: let us learn how that supplication is to be made. There is no need to go to a museum, money is not to be spent, nor are teachers, rhetoricians, and sophists to be hired, nor is much time to be spent, so that you may learn this art of speaking, but to have willed it alone is enough, and the art has become perfect. Nor will you be able to speak in that judgment for yourself alone, but also for many others. And what is the aim, what is the design of this forensic art? The manner of prayer. With a sober mind, with a contrite soul, to approach him with fountains of tears, to seek nothing which pertains to this life, to covet future things, to pray for spiritual gifts, not to pray ill of enemies, not to hold in memory an injury received, to expel all perturbations from the soul, to approach him thus, crushing the heart; to be cast down in spirit, to exercise great meekness, and to turn the tongue to speaking well, to engage in no evil work, to have nothing in common with the common enemy of the world, with the devil, I say"; and the rest which he proceeds to relate at greater length.

^C Indeed, he begins the exposition of the seventh Psalm in such a way that it is manifest, if I am not mistaken, that he is speaking to an assembly of hearers. "It would be necessary, indeed," he says, "to have so accurate a knowledge of the Scriptures and histories, that we might not need a longer discourse for the doctrine of them; but since some, indeed, are occupied in secular affairs, and others abandon themselves to sloth, they have not heard them, it is necessary to use a somewhat longer discourse, but attend diligently... But so also are the things which have been said obscure; because you are ignorant of the history. But since it is not necessary only to rebuke, but to teach, it is worth the effort to undertake the narrative." Here, certainly, Chrysostom is addressing and reproving some assembly.

He also addresses the people on the forty-third Psalm, col. 170, with these words: "Hear, as many of you as are slow to give alms. Hear, you who diminish your wealth by saving it. Hear, you who are affected no better than those who are rich in dreams. For what is present is no better than a dream," and after some interventions: "How long will you deceive yourselves? How long will you not discern the truth of things; but pant after dreams, when the judgment is near and at the doors?"

^D He addresses the people much more clearly when he begins the explanation of the forty-fourth Psalm in this fashion: "I would wish now that all Jews and Gentiles were present, and that, having received this book from the Jews, they might read the Psalm thus. For you are not ignorant that in judgments, and everywhere, testimony regarding things is then most free from suspicion when it is brought forward by enemies. That this, therefore, may happen today also, let us bring forward testimony from the Old Testament, so that Jews and Gentiles may be put to shame; the Jews, indeed, reading and not understanding: but the Gentiles seeing the books brought forward to us by those who are enemies. For they will not be able to say that these things were fabricated by us, since not we, but those who crucified Christ, provide the books for us, which speak of his power. But whether they are present or not, let us perform our duty, and let us undertake the interpretation." Who could deny that Chrysostom is speaking here to some assembly?

He is argued to be speaking to an assembly no less clearly from what he brings forward in the forty-ninth Psalm, col. 245: "But the Jews will be judged, both those who were then, and those who afterward in the New Testament acted wickedly: they having both nature and the Law as an accuser: but these, besides those, also the things which Christ did for their sake. For what will they be able to say, or what reason to bring forward why they did not believe? But I beseech you, attend to what is said, so that you may be able to obstruct the mouths of those who contradict. For it is better that they be conquered by us now and corrected, than that, thinking they are winning, they depart to that place and be condemned by the common Judge of the world."

He arouses the hearers more and more when he begins the explanation of the one hundred and ninth Psalm thus: "Let us arise, I beseech you, and let us sharpen our mind: for the Psalm deals with very sublime things, resisting not any one heresy alone, but various and diverse ones. For against the Jews, against Paul of Samosata, against the Arians, against the Marcionites, against the Manichaeans, and against all who do not believe in the resurrection, he constructs his battle line. Since, there

therefore, the line of battle is drawn against so many adversaries, we too have need of many eyes, so that we may be able to consider exactly what the manner of fighting is. For in external contests, even if some manner of fighting has not been observed, the spectator is in no way harmed; for that theater is brought together for the sake of delight, not for doctrine. But here, unless you have exactly understood from where the adversary draws up his battle line, and from where we should strike him, you will receive no light injury. That this, therefore, may not happen to you, rouse your mind; may your ears be attentive. We attack the Jews first, etc.

And in Psalm 111: "Did you see him who builds upon the rock?" For what can he fear who is both naked and girded, and gives no handle to anyone? What can he fear who has God compassionate and propitious, so that he is safe on both sides, both from the help from above, and from the ease with which he acts here below, and nothing will be able to shake him, neither loss of money, nor reproaches, nor calumnies? ^B For he has nothing in which he can be harmed who has departed from here into heaven, into a region to which no approach is open to wickedness and snares. For, as you well know, all snares are prepared either for money or for the sake of money, and all the endeavor of men is placed in this.

And in Psalm 117, "Confess to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy is for the age" (col. 328), he says this at the beginning: The saying of the Psalm which the people are accustomed to sing in response, that is: "This is the day which the Lord has made, let us exult and rejoice in it"; which both rouses many, and it is this especially that the people are accustomed to sing in response during that spiritual and heavenly festival. But we, if you wish, let us go through the whole Psalm from the head and from the beginning, not initiating the exposition from the verse which is sung in response, but from the very commencement. For our fathers ordained that the people should sing the verse in response because it was sonorous and contained some sublime dogma; since they were ignorant of the whole Psalm, so that they might receive perfect doctrine even from this point. But it is necessary for us to go through it in its entirety.

Does he not truly address the people in the Exposition on Psalm 119 when he says this: "So also we ought to be affected, and although we may have lived here for few years, to think them many on account of the longing for future things?" I say this not accusing the present life, far from it: for it is the work of God; but rousing and inciting you to the love of future things, and so that you may not willingly linger in present things, nor be attached to the body, nor be affected in such a way as some of the common people of abject mind; who even though they may have lived for many years, say that they are few. To which what could be more alien to reason?

And in Psalm 137 on these words, "I will confess to you, O Lord, with my whole heart," it has this: "Regarding this, I have often discoursed before you." Since, that being passed over, we shall come to that which is next. Can these things be said with no assembly present?

And on Psalm 140, col. 426, he begins thus: "Indeed, almost everyone knows the words of this Psalm, and they sing them perpetually throughout their whole life; but what the sense of these things that are said is, they do not know. ^C Which indeed is worthy of no small reproach, that those who sing daily, and bring forth the words with their mouth, do not seek the power of the sentences which are placed in these words. But if anyone sees pure and clear water, he does not restrain himself from approaching it, touching it, and drinking it; and whoever enters a meadow assiduously, does not sustain leaving at all unless he has first gathered some flowers: but you, who from early age to extreme old age meditate on this Psalm, keep nothing other than the words perpetually, you sit by a hidden treasure, you carry around a sealed purse, and not even stimulated by curiosity has anyone sought to learn what it is that is said: he has not sought, he has not searched..... Although, however, there are so many obscure things, like some song, many pass over them lightly. But lest the discourse become troublesome while we dwell too much on reproach, come, let us come to examine the things that have been said. For who would deny that these things are said to the assembly of the people? Which is to be seen also throughout the whole course of the Psalm. In a word, in this and in other Psalms, you will find him everywhere haranguing and addressing the people.

I will bring this last example from the Commentary on Psalm 148, col. 492: "If therefore you are a prince, or hold some magistracy, give thanks to kind God, that such an opportunity for care and diligence has been given to you. If a private individual, again give thanks, that you have one who takes care of you, and does not permit the wicked to oppress you, having circumvented you with snares. Whether you have reached old age, or if you are young, give thanks to God, etc." ^D Hence surely it seems to be proven completely that these Expositions were truly sermons spoken in the assembly of the people, and what is to be noted, at the end of each, the customary rite of rendering glory either to God, or to the Trinity, or to Christ is observed.

But Tillemont objects to himself: "He seems to speak to men, not to hearers, but to those who were to read his writings," and he indicates a place in the margin from where he drew such an opinion. But that place is Comm. in Ps. 47, col. 219. Where after Chrysostom had read this place, "In a vehement spirit you shall crush the ships of Tharsis," and had brought in the reading of the Hebrew exemplar, he proceeds saying, when the kings of the earth had been gathered against Sion the holy city of God, God was the leader of the war and crushed them, as a strong wind shatters and crushes a fleet of ships: For these also, when they had prepared a great fleet, and had come from some distant and alien region, perished all, as if by some vehement wind, by the wrath of God. And therefore, signifying also the place whence they came, he added that "Tharsis"; so also the Hebrew signified through the diction, which we have added in your favor in the reading of the context. Chrysostom does not say that he added the reading of the Hebrew or the Hebrew exemplar in favor of those who were to read, but "In your favor," in favor, that is, of those whom he addresses. For

that he is speaking here in this Homily or Exposition to a gathered crowd of people is evident from the moral epilogue of this Homily, which stands thus, col. 221: "Wherefore let us also, ^A always and continuously considering this, turn our minds toward our city Jerusalem, and keep its beauty constantly before our eyes—the metropolis of the King of the ages, in which are the spirits of the just, the choirs of the patriarchs, apostles, and all the saints, where all things are stable and do not pass away, where the beauties are immortal and do not fall under the gaze; which it is granted to those alone to attain as an inheritance, who have entirely forgotten the fleeting and flowing cares of this age, that is, of riches and delights and the ruinous pleasures of the devil; but who increase day by day in brotherly love, hospitality toward the poor, and charity toward their neighbor, and who forgive from the heart any injuries received, so that, having spent our lives in this manner honestly and as is acceptable to God, we may receive the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and for ever and ever. Amen." No one will deny that these are the words of a preacher addressing an assembly of people and that they are an epilogue. ^B But why does he say that, for the sake of his audience, he added the term from the Hebrew exemplar in the reading—which term is "Tharsis," and in Hebrew is written [תַּרְשִׁישׁ]—and what the reason for this addition was, it is not easy to guess. This much only I offer here, which I can arrive at by conjecture: It is certain that there was a large multitude of Jews in Antioch; ^C that there were also synagogues there is a proven and undoubted fact. Moreover, many Christians were joined with the Jews in some association, so that some frequented the synagogues, a matter about which Chrysostom complains in his books against the Jews; and these people, without a doubt, heard the Jews reading in Hebrew in the synagogues and understood Hebrew, as is to be believed. Now, some of these desired to hear the Hebrew readings, for which reason not once, but several times, in the Exposition of this Psalm he brings forward readings from the Hebrew exemplar, and on one occasion he testifies that he is bringing forward the Hebrew reading for the sake of some who desired it. However the matter stands, whether he did it for this or another reason, it will be no less certain that Chrysostom is here delivering a sermon and addressing an assembly, a fact which no one, I hope, will deny. ^D I should like to warn the reader that here we have changed the reading which Savile and Morel had placed, on the authority of two manuscripts; for they have, as it were, "Thesaber," but the Hebrew is "Thesaber." Where the Hebrew text is in this manner: [תְּשַׁבֵּר אֳנִיּוֹת תַּרְשִׁישׁ], which is read as: *Thesaber Onioth Tharsis*; therefore, Savile and Morel place a certain first word above the text; but in those two excellent manuscripts it is read, ε ὀ Ἑβραῖος ϑαρσείς, where you should undoubtedly read, ὀ Ἑβραῖος ϑαρσείς; for that word, ϑαρσείς, cannot express a Hebrew word, since there is none such here. Chrysostom confirms this reading a little later when he says: "And therefore, signifying also the place whence they came, he added that word, Tharsis." Thus also the Hebrew signified it by the term which we added in your favor in the reading of the context. Where I wish you to observe that Greek exemplars of the Old Testament of old generally had many readings of interpreters in the margins—of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, as well as others—and the Hebrew context, from which perhaps Chrysostom borrowed these notes. Exemplars of this kind have come down even to our own age; we have used several prepared in this form in restoring, as far as possible, the Hexapla of Origen, as anyone can see. Another objection is raised by Tillemont: "The explanation of the 116th Psalm is too short to be able to constitute a single sermon: this which may also be said of the 118th, and of certain others; and on the contrary, some are longer than could be delivered at one time." As regards the 116th Exposition on the Psalm of the same number, it is indeed most certain that it could never have been sufficient for one sermon, as it does not even fill half a page, but what prevented him from joining it with the following one to have a full sermon? For the Book of Psalms does not contain long histories in the same way as Genesis, individual parts of which can be enough for one homily; but the Book of Psalms consists of Psalms of different subject matter, where one passes from one topic to another; and of these some are long, some very short. Chrysostom could indeed have joined those very short ones either with the preceding or the following ones so as to have a full sermon. What Tillemont has concerning the longest Expositions, we refute in one word: you will scarce find one or two among the longest Expositions on the Psalms that equals the fifth homily against the Jews; yet he could have divided those longer ones into two or more parts, a thing which even today's preachers do not rarely. For to conclude in a word, all and singular the Expositions on the Psalms exhibit Chrysostom as a preacher. § III. — At what time Chrysostom edited these Expositions on the Psalms. There is nothing in the entire course of the Expositions from which we might ferret out at what time he adorned them and first issued them. We say this one thing based on a most probable conjecture, unless perhaps someone might prefer to hold it as proven, namely, that Chrysostom published this most extensive work at Antioch; but to know in what year or time, this is the task and this is the labor. It was certainly a work of great leisure and long-lasting labor. But Chrysostom had little leisure from the time when he began to preach, and he preached for twelve years; nor did he ever desist from this office; often also struggling with illnesses: yet that work on the Psalms was the greatest and most extensive of all his works, and, as we have already said more than once, if it were all possessed, it could scarcely be contained in two very large volumes. Wherefore I would more willingly believe that he adorned these commentaries himself before he was ordained presbyter, and began the office of preaching; however, he was ordained presbyter Chrysostom…

when he had already passed his thirty-ninth year, as has been shown more fully in his Life. But from the time he left the school of Libanius until his fortieth year, when he began to preach, he enjoyed much leisure and freedom. Perhaps, therefore, he wrote these Commentaries during this time, namely from the year of Christ 370 to 386, to which, perhaps, he later gave the form of homilies. But these are mere conjectures.

§ IV. — I. The opinion of writers concerning these Expositions of the Psalms. II. In the works of Chrysostom, nothing is more excellent. III. Nothing is more appropriate for the instruction of morals.

I. Photius says the following regarding these Commentaries; where, having spoken of the Homilies on Genesis, he proceeds to compare their style with the style of the Homilies on the Acts and the Expositions on the Psalms: His diction is, as usual, clear and pure, having much splendor and fluency, and furthermore exhibiting a wealth of thoughts and a genuine frequency of examples. Yet, in his style of speaking, it is inferior to the Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles, and he deflects into a humbler form of speech; and likewise, just as the Commentaries on the Acts are surpassed in elegance by the Commentaries on the Psalter, so too are the Commentaries on the Apostle surpassed by these same Commentaries on the Psalter. For everywhere and in all his works, he has used splendor, combined with sagacity and sweetness, with wonderful skill; but in these Commentaries in particular, he shines with such ornaments, with a richness of examples, an abundance of enthymemes, and, where there is need, with gravity: and, to speak in one word, he has excellently adorned these Expositions in diction, construction, method, thoughts, and the rest of the apparatus.

Furthermore, it can be discerned from the Commentaries on the Apostle themselves which of them were elaborated by him at Antioch, because they are adorned more diligently and accurately, and which were composed while he was Archbishop: but when he adorned the Commentaries on the Psalms is difficult to know; unless perhaps someone should say that, admiring the force and excellence of his speech, he published these while living in leisure rather than while occupied in public affairs.

But if any statements were made that required either explanation or deeper speculation, it is no wonder if they were not explained by him with such diligence. For he never omitted those things which were adapted to the grasp of the audience, or which pertained to their salvation and utility. Wherefore, I am struck with wonder at that most blessed man, because he always, and in all his sermons, proposed this goal for himself, namely the utility of his hearers; while he either did not care for the rest, or touched upon them very lightly: and he even contemned, in favor of the utility of his hearers, that which might appear to mark him as ignorant of certain senses, or as having refused to penetrate into deeper matters, or to have passed over other things of that kind. I felt it necessary to record these things, because they bear upon themselves the judgment of the Expositions on the Psalms as accurate: and I confess that, while reading and re-reading these Expositions, I have felt and perceived all those very things which Photius wrote.

Suidas, however, compares John Chrysostom's Commentaries on the Psalms with his most excellent works in these words: It is said that he wrote many things, among which stand out the books on the Priesthood; whether you look at sublimity, or diction, or sweetness, or the beauty of words, the Expositions on the Psalms of David, the interpretation of the Gospel according to John, and the Commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and Luke are to be compared with these. I have never seen John Chrysostom's Commentaries on Mark and Luke, nor have I heard of them being mentioned by anyone else; and indeed, Victor of Antioch notes this in our Coislinian Library: Since many have published commentaries on the Gospels according to Matthew and according to John, the son of thunder, but few on the Gospel of Luke, and none, as I believe, on the Gospel of Mark, I have endeavored to gather those things which had been said by the doctors of the Church on it in fragments and sporadically, and to adorn a brief commentary, lest this one of the New Testament Gospels should seem to have been neglected, either as if it required no exercise for understanding, or as if its mind and meaning could be perceived from the interpretation of other Gospels, etc. Let these things be said in passing, lest anyone from the words of Suidas should think that there were formerly Commentaries of Chrysostom on Mark and Luke which have perished. For if anyone could have known these, it was Victor of Antioch, who was also acquainted with the writings of Chrysostom the Antiochene.

II. To return to the Interpretations on the Psalms, this was the common opinion of all, that these are reckoned among his most excellent works. Furthermore, all who have explored them and read them attentively will reckon the same. For here, with all superfluity cut away, you may find samples of the very invention of this holy doctor. In that matter, he is found to excel all other orators, whether sacred or profane, in that he turns the argument on every side in a certain singular and unexpected way; yet in such an apt, such a genuine, and such a way adapted to the matter at hand, that there is nothing better.

III. These Commentaries are also highly suitable for the discipline of morals; you will find no article of ethics that is not treated here: and with the occasion taken from the arguments of the Psalms, every kind of virtue is commended here, and all vices are attacked. By examples that are always present and frequent and adapted to the matter being treated, he persuades one now that sin must be fled, now that virtue must be embraced.

§ V. — I. Regarding the exemplar of the Septuagint Interpreters, which Chrysostom used in these Expositions. II. Why he brings forward the interpretations of the ancients without naming the Interpreters.

1. John Chrysostom undoubtedly used the Psalter transcript which was in use in the Church of Antioch: from thence, however, the reading of the individual verses at...

he brought. That copy was, furthermore, the edition of the Septuagint Interpreters. But the copies of that edition varied among themselves, and—what will surprise those who are not practiced in these matters—after Chrysostom gave his own reading, he sometimes cites a reading of the Septuagint Interpreters different from his own. Thus, in Psalm 7, v. 11, he gives the reading of his own copy in this manner: *Searching hearts and kidneys [is] God, righteous. My help [is] from God, who saves those upright in heart.* Then, however, after interpolating the readings of the Interpreters, he has it thus: *The Septuagint, however, have said it thus: Searching heart and kidneys [is] God. A righteous help [is] my help from God.* Here Chrysostom seems to provide the reading of the Septuagint Interpreters as it was read in the Hexapla; yet he himself follows another reading of the Septuagint Interpreters. However, this variety in readings is not observed as frequently in the copy that Chrysostom uses as it is in very many other ecclesiastical writers.

Not only in the book of Psalms, but also in other books of Sacred Scripture, varieties of this kind were observed in Chrysostom’s copy. Thus, Isaiah 51:1: *Look to the solid rock from which you were hewn, and to the pit of the cistern from which you were dug.* That reading, taken from Theodotion, was held in Chrysostom’s copy and approaches more closely to the Hebraic truth. Yet, in the common edition of the Septuagint, this sense is found: *from which you were hewn... which you dug.* But the Hebrew text here demands a passive meaning.

^B II. Often, too, he brings forward the reading of other Interpreters, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, not rarely expressing the very reading of the Hebrew copy in Greek letters, just as it was held, for example, in Origen’s Hexapla. He uses those various readings which he provides sparingly and rarely in his *Explanations*, nor does he explore which is more true and sincere, or which is more suited to the context; rather, he leaves that diversity of readings for the reader to consider. It is not difficult to guess the reason for his citing them in this way; for since he himself once testified that he had brought forward the Hebrew reading written in Greek letters to please certain people who desired it, it is left to be suspected that he also brings forward various interpretations to satisfy the wishes and studies of certain others. Although they differ greatly from the version of the Septuagint Interpreters, Chrysostom usually abstains from seeking out the sense, because since he is preaching to reform characters—and this is his almost sole focus—such variety, of whatever kind it may be, does not help much toward that end. But it is truly surprising that he never writes down the names of the Interpreters; for he does not mention Aquila, or Symmachus, or Theodotion even once during the entire course of his very long work; but he always writes: *one says so, another indeed so.* And yet, in Origen’s Hexapla and in the Bibles exhibiting the readings of the Hexapla in the margin—of which there were many good ones—these names were always exhibited, either in full or by their first letter. In a certain manuscript of Chrysostom, however, which Savile used, A. is written in the margin at certain places only, when the reading is Aquila’s; C’. when it is Symmachus’; Θ. when it is Theodotion’s. It is unknown, however, whether Chrysostom himself, or some scribe or learned man, added these.

§ VI. — I. Chrysostom is thought to have issued Commentaries or Homilies on the entire Psalter. II. An unpublished passage of Photius by which this same thing is proved.

The question arises whether he issued them in this way, namely, on many Psalms, with far more omitted, or whether those Psalms which are now lacking along with their *Expositions* were lost through the injury of time. For from the very beginning, three Psalms are missing and it starts from the fourth; for it is certain that the third, which we place after Fronton du Duc with his *Exposition*, does not belong to this series; indeed, it is even doubted whether the *Exposition* is truly Chrysostom’s, and that very *Exposition* is rejected by some as spurious. Therefore, it begins from the *Exposition* of the fourth Psalm and proceeds as far as the twelfth; thus we have the *Expositions* of nine Psalms. From the twelfth to the forty-third, all the *Expositions*, thirty in number, are missing, and they resume from the forty-third; for it is certain that the Homily on the forty-first does not belong to this series, even if it is excellent and truly Chrysostom’s. From the forty-third to the forty-ninth, Chrysostom’s *Expositions* are held, seven in number; from then on, however, follows the greatest hiatus of all, namely, up to the one hundred and eighth Psalm, that is to say, fifty-eight Psalms. From the one hundred and eighth, however, until the end of all the Psalms, we have *Expositions*, with one exception—the one hundred and eighteenth, the longest of them all. In sum, the *Expositions* of fifty-eight Psalms are held; those of ninety-two are missing.

Thus, therefore, the *Expositions* on the Psalms have come down to us in scattered parts; in such a way that individual fragments contain many Psalms. And here it is already conjectured, even if no other argument were present to prove the matter, that the whole Psalter had been illustrated by Chrysostom with *Explanations*: for if he had wanted to explain these by choice and omit others, those series of consecutively placed Psalms would not be held, but he would have chosen one from here and one from there to explain. To these points, Chrysostom himself signifies that he had explained other Psalms belonging to this series when he speaks of the one hundred and fortieth Psalm, col. 428; for after he had said that this Psalm is said in the evening and is called the evening Psalm, he brings up certain points on the occasion of the morning Psalm, which is the sixty-second, and adds this: *But let us not... (Psalm), which is pro*

in our hands, but introduce another out of sequence, having passed the hearer on to those things which have been said about it, let us approach those which are proposed to us.* ^A Here Chrysostom not only indicates that he has already spoken of the sixty-second Psalm, but that he had said [it] in its proper place and in the series of others. That exposition of the sixty-second Psalm, however, has perished along with the others.

II. The patriarch Photius also, in a note to be published shortly—a note which has never appeared before, as I believe—testifies that he had seen a scholium excerpted from Chrysostom’s Commentary on the fifty-ninth Psalm: that locus of Photius is cited in Codex XII of the Coislinian Library, fol. 52, which Codex, of about the thirteenth century, comprises a Catena on the Psalms, though not an integral one. But the interpretations on the seven Psalms, it is noted, belong only to Theodore of Heraclea. The note of Photius, therefore, is as follows: *Up to the forty-second Psalm from the thirteenth, we have not yet found an interpretation by Chrysostom, nor from the fiftieth up to the Psalms of Degrees.* I found, however, in the scholia on the first Catholic Epistle of John, ^B a scholium placed to the side, as if from Chrysostom’s interpretation on Psalm 59, indeed on that saying: *There is a sin unto death, and there is a sin not unto death.* Whence it is permissible to observe that, even though we have not found them, yet that divine man himself had interpreted them. And afterwards it is added: *The patriarch Photius writes these things.*

You may observe, however, that Photius placed this note before the thirteenth Psalm, so that he might signify that in the following Psalms the interpretations of Chrysostom, which are frequently appended in the preceding Psalms in the same Catena, were not available. Whence it also seems to be argued that Photius is the author of this Catena, who testifies that he had brought forward the interpretations of Chrysostom more than those of all others in the preceding [Psalms], but that he did not have those same ones to bring forward in the following Psalms, because, indeed, his Expositions, which he himself indicates, ^C had been lost in quite large numbers. The Fathers, however, from whose interpretations Photius compiled this Catena are these: Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, and Theodore the Heracleote. When, therefore, the interpretations of Chrysostom were lacking for the following Psalms, Photius indicates this, so that no one might be surprised that John Chrysostom, who was just now being used here and there, was no longer appearing. Whence it is certainly argued that the Catena had been adorned by Photius.

Nor do we detect only this one note of Photius in a Catena of this kind; for we have another of his, at the end of Psalm 8, on the words of Chrysostom slightly changed, which note is as follows: *Question. Why, he says, does Christ, while He is equal to the Father, nevertheless say many lowly things? Answer. In order to teach humility, and because He was clothed in flesh, and on account of the stupidity of the Jews, because also the human race must proceed gradually toward knowledge, and also because of the imperfect capacity of the hearers, ^D he certainly speaks many things according to the opinion of the hearers.* Here, toward the end, he directs his words against Paul of Samosata and against the Arians, the occasion being taken from this saying of the Psalm: *For I will see thy heavens, the works of thy fingers.* He has outlined these things diversely in this sermon, as one who speaks in the manner of a homily. The beauty and the splendor of the sermons, and the force of the arguments where there is need for acrimony and contention, is surely greater than what could have a place in a homily. To these is added: *Photius writes.* This Photius says, after he had brought forward the place of Chrysostom, and here he makes mention of his Exposition on the eighth Psalm: where he refutes Paul of Samosata by name, and makes remarks against the Anomoeans and the Arians. Whence also our opinion is confirmed, through which we surmised above that the Catena of the Coislinian Codex XII had been compiled by Photius.

§ VII. Whether all those Expositions of the Psalms of Chrysostom, which we have lost due to the injury of time, had already been lost in the age of Photius.

It is asked whether all those things which are missing in the Expositions of the Psalms were already lacking even in the age of Photius. If indeed we are to stand by the words of Photius, placed in the aforementioned note, the Expositions of the three first Psalms survived in his time, which now are absent: for the Interpretation of the third Psalm, which is placed at the front of the book, is believed not to belong to this series, as has already been said. But the Expositions which are missing are thus noted by Photius: *From the thirteenth Psalm up to the forty-second we have not yet found the Interpretations of Chrysostom.* By which he intimates that nothing is lacking from the beginning up to the thirteenth. But if the Coislinian Codex were not mutilated, we would have seen at once whether those Expositions on the three first Psalms had been used by Photius, who is believed to have adorned this Catena; but that Codex, mutilated at the beginning, starts only from the seventh Psalm. It is not, however, to be inferred from this at once that those Expositions on the three first Psalms survived in Photius’s time. For even if he himself does not mention that one of the three first Expositions in his list of the gaps, he could have passed over it for that reason, because he had already spoken about those missing ones at the beginning of the Catena; but I entirely incline toward this side; for I do not think that those three first Expositions survived in the time of Photius.

*From the thirteenth, however, to the forty-second, all the Expositions are missing,* says Photius; so that you exclude the thirteenth, and the forty-second likewise: for both are missing along with the others. But the forty-first, which is placed here according to the number of the Psalm exposed, was formerly outside the series of these Expositions on the Psalms, and was brought here, and has no affinity with these Expositions, as we have proven in more detail there in the Monitum. That which Photius adds, that from the Exposition of the fiftieth Psalm up to the Psalms of Degrees all the Expositions are missing, could be true, insofar as in his own exemplars the rest were missing: but the Expositions sound, genuine, and integral

we have from the one hundred and seventh Psalm, which is missing, to the end of the Psalms, with the sole exception of the 118th: but in these Psalms are comprehended the fifteen Psalms of degrees, which begin at the 119th.

§ VIII. — Whether the Exposition on the third Psalm, which leads the procession and is placed first, was set here by Chrysostom; and whether it is truly Chrysostom’s.

The Exposition on the third Psalm, which is the first in this work and leads the procession in this Volume, is placed first in certain Manuscripts, but in others it is entirely absent. In the Royal codex number 1962 it is present; in the Colbertine number 10 it does not appear, but there it begins with the Exposition on the fourth Psalm: and similarly it is absent from that Greek Catalogue of Expositions which is found in the Published editions, and which we shall publish at the end of this Preface. Yet in the published edition of Fronto Ducaeus it is read; and therefore we have not dared to remove it from its place, even though it does not seem to belong to this series. For in his Expositions of the Psalms, Chrysostom explains both the titles and the individual verses right to the end: here, however, only the title is discussed: A Psalm of David when he fled from the face of Absalom his son. The author of the first Homily dwells upon this inscription alone, which is also thought to be not entire, nor complete in all its parts: for it ends in such a way that something more seems to be desired. Having weighed all these things, I do not think this Exposition belongs to the series of the others; but that it was rashly introduced here by someone I do not know.

Besides this, another cause for doubt also arises, namely whether this Homily or Exposition is truly Chrysostom’s or not. Certainly, if you examine the contents themselves, if you examine the senses and the manner of prayer, it does not seem foreign to Chrysostom’s style of preaching; but if you weigh the style and the Greek diction, it smells of something foreign; words not customary for Chrysostom, at least in the sense in which they are used here, occur, such as *kondylos* and *kondylizousa*, and perhaps others, which either are not in common use, or when joined to other words induce no small amount of suspicion. Furthermore, although Fronto Ducaeus left it in the series of others—he who nevertheless is accustomed to relegate to another place works that are spurious and quite doubtful—it is certainly suspected by many learned men; but Halesius, in the Notes to Savilius, thinks it is completely spurious. Savilius himself seems at first to hesitate, but afterwards he leans toward the opinion of Halesius. But both should be heard. Thus in the Notes to Savilius p. 932:

"This Exposition of the third Psalm," says Savilius, "sent to me by the most learned Fronto Ducaeus, who said he copied it from the Vatican—which also exists, as Flaminio Nobili testifies in his notes on Chrysostom, in the Library of the Clerics Regular at Rome—was either not seen or was rejected by that lover of God and man of Christ, who was the author of the *synagoge* on the Psalms, which we obtained from Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Damascenus in his third Oration on images cites its beginning, and it is indeed not inelegant or unworthy of Chrysostom. The old Interpreter translated it into Latin, just as we also give it in Greek, truncated at the end. Which things, however, all do not have such force with me that I would not fully acquiesce in the judgment of my Halesius concerning its spuriousness, who judged of that Exposition word for word thus:

"Of the author of this fragment I could not easily decide; but I hold it most certain that it is not Chrysostom’s. For first, the style is entirely foreign to Chrysostom, being more affected and distinguished by frequent little arguments and homoeoteleuta, which occur everywhere to those inspecting the Greek edition, and are such as: *tous drapetas grammatin exeusin, ouk epigrammasi thaumazousin* etc., *hothen he pege tes hamartias, entheun he plege tes timorias* etc., *kreitton tes tou polemou exegeseos he aitia tes tou polemou hypotheseos*, and other similar things to the point of being viciously affected. Secondly, the whole thread of the invention is more juvenile. And hence those pretty little sentiments about Absalom suspended in the oak, and 'he was withheld by the plant who was fighting with the root; branch was chained to branch,' etc. Then those very pretty little arguments as to why Absalom rejected both heaven and earth; and other things of this kind, of which there is an immense number in the doubtful and spurious works. Finally, that prosopopoeia in which it ends, to which, I think, the author added more, but those times have happily hidden them from us. But if what is said here about Absalom be compared with those things which Chrysostom discusses six hundred times on this same topic, they will be found to have nothing at all similar or equal. To these are added locutions rather harsh for the people, 'they pursue the fugitives with written letters' (if the passage is indeed sincere), and 'a bad wife is a blow to a sinner,' and the word *prou* is a Greek word frequently used, which although it may perhaps be sufficiently acceptable, is nevertheless never found in Chrysostom. Then that specific citation of the one hundred and fourth Psalm: this is never a custom with Chrysostom, who is content with words only, and is never anxious to indicate the location. I have discussed these things at length because of Damascenus, lest anyone think that I wish to depart rashly from the authority of so great a man. For it must necessarily be said, either that the judgment of so great a man has swerved from the truth, or that Chrysostom wrote things most unlike himself, or that some more recent person added to the beginning of this Exposition, which I would not contend is very far from Chrysostom, a body and limbs."

These are shrewdly observed, even if they do not quite agree in style. Nor do I deny that if this were truly Chrysostom’s, Chrysostom would have diverged much from his own proper style of writing. But we have placed that homily, as it was set forth by Fronto Ducaeus, among the authentic works; yet in such a way that we confess that, if it is not openly supposititious, it is nevertheless highly suspect.

§ IX. — How many Homilies and Orations on the Psalms ascribed to John Chrysostom were patched together from the commentaries or homilies on the Psalms of other Fathers and ecclesiastical writers.

We certainly offer a new spectacle when we publish at the same time the Spurious works on the Psalms and those falsely ascribed to John Chrysostom. For therein we discover various types of fraud, while others, their own or

others' works, they patch together, prefixing certain exordia, and compile homilies or Expositions on the Psalms from the writings of diverse authors. ^A For such was the fame of the holy doctor, such was the esteem in which he was held by all, that whatever bore his name was readily accepted everywhere as excellent; that is to say, in an age when very few were able to distinguish the precious from the vile. Others, therefore, in order to acquire praise and fame for their own writings, circulated them under the name of John Chrysostom: of this kind are some of the Homilies placed at the beginning of the Spurious works. Others, for the sake of gain and profit, having stitched together various passages from diverse Fathers and fitted them with introductions at their own pleasure, ascribed the name of Chrysostom to such homilies or books, so that they might be sold more easily and for a higher price. Others—not from many, but from a single writer—would sew together selected scraps as best they could, and bring them into the public realm having prefixed the name of Chrysostom. ^B Finally, others—more audacious—would take whole homilies or orations, complete in all their parts and details, even those whose authors were numbered among the leaders and princes of ecclesiastical affairs, and, having removed the title of the true author, would mark them with the name of John Chrysostom. We have exposed a great many frauds of this kind. The writers, however, from whose works such pamphlets have been stitched together and issued under the feigned name of Chrysostom are: Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, and Theodoret. We hope it will be neither ungrateful nor useless to the reader if we indicate what has been taken from each individual, in order that so many Homilies or Expositions might be stitched together under the name of Chrysostom.

§ X. — Ex Homiliis duabus de poenitentia in Psalmum L posterior pene tota ex Theodoreto desumpta est.

He who issued the two Homilies on Psalm L, and falsely passed himself off as Chrysostom, adorned the former homily by his own Mars—that is, by his own efforts—and did not fish it out from elsewhere; or if he did fish it out, we have not yet observed what he took, or from whom. That homily is among the Spurious works in columns 565-566, and in the prefixed Monitum it is demonstrated at greater length what should be thought of each homily. ^C But the pseudonym borrowed the exordium of the second homily from Chrysostom’s 22nd Homily on Genesis, while for the rest of the homily he brought in the entire Commentary of Theodoret on the fiftieth Psalm, and, having added many things of his own which are of a far inferior grade, he wove a very long oration. However, he used an exemplar of Theodoret that was sometimes corrupted, sometimes more corrected than what is found in the published edition of Theodoret, from which even some things could be corrected. For example, a mistake is found in the published edition of Theodoret, interpreted literally thus: "I myself, he says, was the cause of my evils, but your justice shines forth. For if judgment were to be established, etc.," where the interpreter, led by the bad punctuation of the Greek text, referred the phrase "if judgment were to be established" to this clause, when, on the contrary, with better punctuation applied, it ought to have referred the adverb *thus* to these words, "but your justice shines forth." It ought to be read, therefore, as follows: "I myself, he says, was the cause of my evils; but your justice even thus shines forth. For if judgment were to be established, etc." And thus the interpretation agrees with the verse of Scripture which is being explained. Moreover, that Pseudo-Chrysostom, who introduced the whole of Theodoret’s Exposition on this Psalm into his own homily, added much more of his own: ^D although many things brought forward by the Pseudo-Chrysostom which do not exist in Theodoret today might truly be of Theodoret’s: for I suspect that for a long time now the Commentaries of Theodoret, as they exist in the published editions, are not full and entire.

§ XI. — Commentarius Eusebii Caesariensis in Psalmum LI nomine Chrysostomi editus.

Those who have brought many things into the light under the feigned name of Chrysostom have used a different type of fraud, as I have said. The one aforementioned, who had stitched together the latter Homily on Psalm L, in order to cover his fallacy, borrowed the beginning of the homily from other works of Chrysostom and had mixed in many other things from the sayings of Theodoret; but this man, who ascribed the Commentary of Eusebius on Psalm LI to Chrysostom, was content to remove the name of Eusebius and substitute the name of Chrysostom, as you see in column 589 of this Volume. He did not consider that the style of Eusebius differs greatly from the style of John Chrysostom; that the former is parched and perplexed, while the latter surpasses all ecclesiastical writers in clarity, charm, and elegance. No wonder, therefore, if learned men, namely Tillemont, regarded this Commentary on Psalm LI as spurious and supposititious; but no one has yet sniffed out that it is truly the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, because his Commentaries on the Psalms had not yet seen the light, which I finally brought into the public domain in the year 1706: and there this Psalm is held with its own Commentary. And what I wish you to observe: these Commentaries from this Psalm LI, which leads the procession, up to the ninety-fifth, were drawn from the most excellent Coislinian Codex of the tenth century, and they are entire, sound, and without any suspicion of being either brought in from elsewhere or having a truncated series; which will be evident to anyone skilled, if he explores and unfolds that manuscript Codex. Credence is also given to this matter by this person—whoever he may be—who rashly ascribed the Commentary of this Psalm to Chrysostom, and who took the whole as it was. The remaining Commentaries of the Psalms, from the beginning to the fifty-first, and from the ninety-fifth to the one hundred and eighteenth, which terminates the whole book, were drawn from a certain recent Manuscript, which was once the property of Cardinal Perron, and from Catenae; and they are not so entire and sound, but in them many things are missing here and there; and they contain, though rarely, as I indeed believe, additions drawn from other writers.

^A XII. — The expositions on Psalms 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 118, which are ascribed to Chrysostom, proceed mostly from the compiled Commentaries of Theodoret. It is also believed that the commentary on the Psalms by Theodoret, as it is in the editions, is not complete. Those who have falsely attributed to John Chrysostom the expositions which they themselves patched together for seven Psalms, namely 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and also Psalm 118, have taken another path of fraud. For they have employed the interpretations of many Fathers, namely Theodoret (from whom many excerpts have been taken), and furthermore those of Eusebius and Athanasius. However, from this commentary thus stitched together, we receive this benefit: that it is easily proven from the places of Theodoret that his commentary, as it is held today in the editions, is not complete—a fact which we have already sensed and demonstrated here with repeated examples.

We begin from the start of the 101st Psalm; for he who feigned Chrysostom usurped that beginning. Thus, therefore, the exposition on the 101st Psalm begins in the Pseudo-Chrysostom just as in Theodoret: "The Psalm contains a prediction of the calamity of the Jewish people in Babylon, and their return from it; at the same time it also foretells the calling and salvation of the nations: it is likewise fitting for anyone among them who struggles against calamity and implores the aid of divine help. For he calls him 'poor' who is in need of divine providence, comparing him with him who is pronounced blessed, according to the saying: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit.'" However, the last words, "with him who is blessed, etc.," which seem to pertain entirely to the sequence, are missing in the editions of Theodoret.

^B But much clearer signs of a truncated sequence are held in the following 102nd Psalm, at these words of verse 5: "Thy youth shall be renewed as the eagle's." This renewal, in turn, the Lord gave us through the most holy Baptism, and having rubbed away the oldness of sin, He made us young out of old men. Consonant with this, God says through Isaiah: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall change their strength, they shall put forth feathers as eagles." For since we received divine and royal characters in our creation, and then obscured and corrupted them with all-encompassing pursuits of sin, the prophetic discourse promises us the recovery of the kingdom. For it is a royal bird, to which the kingdom of winged things is entrusted. It also teaches us the method of divine study, so that the man himself may be renewed, the old one being laid aside, and a new and renewed one having been received for the knowledge of the Creator. Thus, he says, "Thy youth shall be renewed," so that it may persist always in making itself new in an incorrupt life.

However, in the edited version of Theodoret, everything that follows after "it also teaches us the method of divine study" is missing—things which, nevertheless, pertain entirely to the sequence, as will be evident from the appended Latin interpretation. It also teaches us the method of divine study, so that it [the youth] may be renewed, the old man being laid aside, and a new and renewed one having been received for the knowledge of the Creator. Thus, he says, "Thy youth shall be renewed," so that it may persist always in making itself new in an incorrupt life. But the edition of Theodoret ends at these words, "it also teaches us the method of divine study," but who would not see that the things which follow pertain so much to the sequence that if they are removed, the sentence is not perfect, nor is it known what that method is?

^C In the following verses, too, where everything lies fully preserved in the Pseudo-Chrysostom, the editions of Theodoret state the matter briefly, so that they may have the form of a summary prepared on purpose and intentionally, whereas the sequence of Pseudo-Chrysostom is held to be fuller. For which reason I believe that many of the things read in the latter pertain to the ancient, non-mutilated Theodoret. Furthermore, I believe Theodoret was redacted into an epitome in such a way that sometimes, because of an inconvenient brevity, the sequence appears vitiated. Thus, at the end of this Psalm, at these words, "Bless the Lord, all his works, in every place of his dominion," this explanation of the verse is added: "Nor does this fit the Jews. For when they had been ordered by those who had dragged them into slavery to sing some song of Zion, they said, acting according to the law, 'How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?'" Where the phrase, "Nor does this fit the Jews," supposes that something else was said beforehand which would not fit the Jews; and yet nothing is said about the Jews before, nor is anything in the entire exposition of this Psalm: whence it is argued that it [the original text], as Theodoret had edited it, does not survive any further. It must be noted, however, that this passage is held almost word-for-word in Eusebius on the same Psalm: regarding which matter a place has been assigned to us to speak below.

There is also a place where the text of Theodoret seems to be correctable from the Pseudo-Chrysostom. Thus at the first verse of the 107th Psalm, "My heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready," it is read in Theodoret: "I say this to Thee, O Lord, that I have a broad heart, and one ready for receiving Thy divine grace"; where the Pseudo-Chrysostom holds, "that I have a firm heart," ^D which reading, if I am not mistaken, is both better and more congruent to the sequence.

Thus, therefore, they stitched together their expositions, both he who interpreted those seven Psalms, and that other man who prepared the commentary on the 118th Psalm; he poured almost entire expositions of Theodoret into his own commentaries, added many things of his own, and not a few he also borrowed from the commentaries of Eusebius and Athanasius, regarding which matter [see] in the following paragraph.

§ XIII. — The Pseudo-Chrysostom who adorned these expositions [drew] not only from Theodoret, but also not a few from Eusebius. Among these three writers, the same expositions are not rarely found word-for-word. We often encounter in these commentaries of the Pseudo-Chrysostom the interpretations not only of Theodoret, but also of Eusebius and Athanasius. For this deceiver, whoever he may be, scraped together interpretations from many places and added a few from his own. Therefore, you may find the interpretations of Eusebius here everywhere, and sometimes also those of Athanasius. But, that which perhaps...

you may wonder at is that those interpretations which are found to be by Theodoret are also not rarely found in Eusebius; and indeed, sometimes the very same words are found in Athanasius, Eusebius, and Theodoret. Of the first sort, those which are clearly by Eusebius and Theodoret, not a few are found, as I said. Thus, in Psalm CI, on these words: *Because I did eat ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping, because of thine indignation and thy wrath.* This interpretation, which you read in Pseudo-Chrysostom—regarding these, he said in the seventy-ninth Psalm: *Thou shalt feed us with the bread of tears, and wilt give us tears to drink in measure*; but by these he signifies an excess of pain. For if the time of eating was full of pain, barely would another time be empty of pain. "By these," he says, "am I overwhelmed with evils: for, O Lord, thou hast stirred up thy wrath against me." These you will find in the very same words in Theodoret and Eusebius. And similarly, in verse 14 of the same Psalm, you have the same interpretation by Pseudo-Chrysostom, Eusebius, and Theodoret; and this verse is: *Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to do her favour, yea, the time, is come.* Where Pseudo-Chrysostom says: "Grant," he says, "a change better than calamity; for time requires mercy." By these, however, he indicates the end of the seventy years appointed for punishment. Thus also that admirable Daniel, counting the time of captivity, sends forth supplication. Eusebius and Theodoret have these very things.

There is also a case where Pseudo-Chrysostom, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Theodoret bring forth the same interpretation, which we discover in this very Psalm at the ninth verse: *"All the day long have mine enemies reproached me: and they that praised me are sworn against me."* I seemed ridiculous to my enemies, and I who once was exposed to envy and was conspicuous, now have become a cause of an oath to those who marveled at me; for they swear against my calamities, lest I suffer those things which some have suffered. These same things are read on this verse among those four writers. What, moreover, may be the cause of such great consensus, it is not so easy to guess. But that it could not have happened by chance, and that these passages were deliberately transferred from one to another, no one will deny. But another cause must be sought; and perhaps several causes have contributed something to the same affair. For that those who, after Eusebius of Caesarea, applied themselves to the same work—namely, explaining the Psalter—borrowed some things from him, there is hardly any reason to doubt; since we see even Jerome, in his Commentary on Isaiah, having borrowed many things almost word-for-word from the Commentary of Eusebius of Caesarea on the same prophet, as I noted in the Preface to that same Commentary, which I formerly published in the second Volume of the new Collection of holy Fathers.

Yet, I do not believe this to be the primary cause of such consent, but that it happened through the more frequent use of the Catenae, so that with the names changed, things belonging to some were ascribed to others, and from the frequent copying of the Catenae, it came about that the very same things were attributed to various writers. As regards Eusebius, his Commentaries from Psalm LI to XCV have nothing foreign, but as they were written by the author, so have they come down to us, and we owe this to a certain very ancient Coislinian Manuscript. All who read and examine these things, putting aside any prejudiced opinion, will certainly admit this. In the remaining parts of the Commentary, however, the same sincerity is not found; but we must admit that not a few things were scraped together from elsewhere and brought here. And from that comes the fact that in that mentioned part of the Commentary, to wit from Psalm LI to XCV, you will scarcely find anything that you might also read in Theodoret; while in the rest, you sometimes find the very same explanation of both. We have already said that the Expositions of Theodoret do not seem to us to be everywhere complete and perfect, but in many places mutilated; which perhaps some will investigate more accurately.

As for the Commentary of Athanasius, we find in it many things from Eusebius throughout, and not a few from Theodoret, so that we cannot often distinguish easily what is Athanasius's and what is theirs. It would be a great task to track down these things which pertain to the ancient Interpreters of the Psalms. Whence also, perhaps, not so great a fruit would emerge. For such are the interpretations, for the most part, that it is not of great importance to know whether they are Eusebius's, or Athanasius's, or Theodoret's.

In the Orations on the Psalms of Basil, likewise, certain fragments are found copied word-for-word from Eusebius, as was noted by our D. Julian Garner, who is diligently working on the editing of Basil’s Works; he, however, thinks this should be ascribed to the scribes, who rashly annexed these to the Basilian works. That certainly has much probability. Yet there was not only one cause for these thefts; but by many, very many methods of interpolation were introduced, which it would be laborious to investigate; but they can be detected and explained by nothing but guessing. And besides, I do not see what fruit we could gain from this. For what does it matter, in these matters which are mostly allegorical, anagogical, and moral, to know who said it first, or who excerpted what from whom? Since we cannot achieve the matter even with great labor, let us not take it hard if we remain ignorant of it without loss.

Let it not be a bother to note that in the Vatican Codex no. 581, fol. 142, the Homily of Basil on Psalm VII, which in Greek begins thus: *Δοκεῖ πως ἐναντίως ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν ἐν τοῖς βασιλείαις ἱστορίαν*, is attributed to John Chrysostom; which fact I think resulted from either the rashness or the ignorance of the scribes: for nothing in the style here is akin to Chrysostom, and, moreover, in all other Manuscripts, even the most ancient, it appears under the name of Basil.

§ XIV. — Concerning the thirty-one Homilies extracted from the English Codex: where they had been deposited for many centuries in the series of the Expositions of St. John Chrysostom, though they had already been lost, and are openly supposititious.

When it was first reported to me, by order of that most distinguished and learned man John Potter, Bishop of Oxford, that there was a manuscript Codex at Oxford which contained the Expositions of John Chrysostom—both those that had already been published and, in the same series, thirty-one Expositions not yet published, beginning with the 77th Psalm and ending with the 107th, in such a way that after that 107th explained Psalm the exposition of the 108th immediately followed in the same series, as it is presented in the earlier editions, and so on up to the end of the Psalter; so that even the exposition of the 118th Psalm, which was missing in the editions, appeared there—I earnestly requested that they be sent, hoping that those Expositions placed in the series of John Chrysostom would truly be Chrysostom’s. That most excellent man sent them accurately transcribed; and when I had read them, I discovered them to be supposititious, and placed in that series in such an order as to facilitate the deception more easily.

Now, the Codex which brought these goods to us bears a note of the year and also a note of the place where it was transcribed, and it contains what is, as it were, half of the Psalter explained—and it would truly be half of the Psalter explained by John Chrysostom if all the Expositions were by the same holy doctor. Furthermore, the note says this: *This book of Psalms was written in the celebrated monastery of Galesios, at the exhortation of our most holy father the hieromonk Lord Galaction the blind, in the year 6793 (that is, 1285 of Christ), in the 13th indiction. It is, moreover, an interpretation of half of the book of Psalms by our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople.*

Behold, half of the Psalter from the 77th to the 150th Psalm—that is, the seventy-four latter Psalms, of which forty-two are explained by Chrysostom; but the other thirty-two were added, counting the 118th, by some idle man who, having feigned the name of Chrysostom, edited them with his own Expositions. But now it is asked whether he who thus completed the latter half of the Psalter had in like manner finished the first half. Certainly, since he filled in what was missing in the latter half through his own efforts, I think it quite probable that the latter half was not the only part completed and finished by that same person. For why would he, who saw that there were so many gaps from the beginning to almost the very end, have thought only of patching up the latter part? Would he have left the former gap empty, in which only three Psalms were missing—namely, the first, the second, and the third? For the third Psalm, which is now explained and leads the series, not only does not belong to this series, as we have said, but it is also uncertain whether it is truly Chrysostom’s. I ask, then, would he have passed over this gap to hasten to patch up the latter part? That is certainly not likely. Yet I would not dare to put forward the matter as something asserted and indubitable; but this is certain: if he did indeed complete the former part and his supplements were lost, they did not perish at any great expense.

The style differs incredibly from Chrysostom’s style: for that writer is entirely meager, using words that are neither refined nor of common use. He uses the readings of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and for that reason it has been edited by us among the Spurious works; for otherwise we would have left them in darkness. For although his Expositions may seem somewhat tolerable, we have such an abundance of allegorical, anagogical, and moral interpretations of this kind that one can hardly hope for anything new in matters of this sort. We have omitted the Expositions of the latter Psalms from the 99th to the end, as well as the 118th Psalm, because we had already provided spurious, but better, Expositions of these same Psalms.

§ XV. — Concerning the collector of the Expositions of Chrysostom on the Psalms such as we now have them.

When the Expositions of Chrysostom on the Psalms, which had once been dispersed, had already mostly perished, a certain religious man who loved Christ collected them from all sides; his name is kept silent in the review to be published shortly, where we learn these things and have a catalog of the Psalms whose Expositions were found. He was undoubtedly a sagacious man, very diligent and of keen discernment; he used such investigation that after him we have not been able to obtain even a single Exposition of a Psalm that is truly Chrysostom’s; so much judgment did he apply in exploring them that he did not admit into his collection even one Exposition that is not truly Chrysostom’s. Yet he placed here the Homily on the 41st Psalm, which, although it is truly Chrysostom’s and excellent, is shown not to belong to this series. But, as is to be believed, since he had found it outside its proper series, he thought there was no more fitting place for it than to be replaced in the order of the Expositions on the Psalms; where we, too, have left it for the same reason. As for the Exposition of the third Psalm, which not only does not belong to the series of the others, but is also doubted as to whether it is truly Chrysostom’s, he himself did not place it among the others, but passed it over; even though it is mentioned by ancient writers under the name of Chrysostom. We have, however, left it in this place, such as Fronto Ducaeus gave it; because we had no other more fitting place. And since it is placed earlier, it certainly cannot disturb the series of the others. We have already brought forward the causes for doubting its authenticity above. We shall append that catalog of which we spoke above, below.

§ XVI. — Concerning the Latin editions of Chrysostom on the Psalms, which appeared in the sixteenth century.

It is not my intention here to examine all those editions of Chrysostom on the Psalms which, from the rise of typography, were prepared in various places and in great numbers.

the dawn of printing were produced in many places and in great numbers: that would be a task requiring more leisure and of no equal profit. ^A Now we are dealing with the Homilies or Commentaries on the Psalms which, before the Greek-Latin edition of the Works of Chrysostom was prepared, were represented in Latin editions or in collections of his works; such as the one which appeared in the Parisian edition of Sébastien Nivelle in the year 1581, where, with genuine works mixed with spurious ones, they exhibit a far fuller commentary than do the Greek-Latin editors, who selected and presented what was sincere. That collection, however, had emerged partly from ancient Latin versions which were circulating in manuscript in quite large numbers, and partly from smaller works published in a later age. ^B It is necessary for us to present here a review of each individual item contained in such a collection, so that it may be clear to the reader why that larger collection which appears in the older editions is set forth as far smaller in ours.

In that Nivelle edition, therefore, on page 612, Volume 3, the march is led by that preface to the Psalms, the beginning of which is: *Post Mosem et ejus successorem Jesum Nave* ("After Moses and his successor Joshua"). We have provided the Latin version of this preface in column 531 of this present volume, where we stated that the little work is either spurious or at the very least highly suspect. The Greek versions, however, came forth from a certain Ottobonian manuscript. ^C The second preface, on page 613, begins thus: *Omnis Scriptura a Deo inspirata, ut ait beatus apostolus, etc.* ("All Scripture is inspired by God, as the blessed apostle says," etc.). It is found in Greek in a certain Ottobonian codex, by whose authority we publish it; its beginning in Greek is: πᾶσα Γραφὴ θεόπνευστος κατὰ τὸν μακάριον ἀπόστολον, *Omnis Scriptura a Deo inspirata, juxta beatum apostolum* ("All Scripture is inspired by God, according to the blessed apostle"). Where it must be observed that not a few minor works have this beginning. Furthermore, this preface, never published in Greek, we have left in the shadows, lest the spurious works should grow into an excessive heap. ^D

The third preface also follows, the beginning of which is: *Quemadmodum cibo vita hæc sustentatur* ("Just as this life is sustained by food"). The Greek for this I have not yet found. The fragment seems to have been torn away from elsewhere. Where the Homily on the first Psalm originates will be seen below. Whether it should be called a Homily or an Exposition, it is quite brief, and I do not know where it appears in Greek. Its beginning is: *Beatus vir qui non abiit in concilio impiorum. Beatitudo est omnium bonorum basis* ("Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly. Blessedness is the basis of all good things").

On the second Psalm, the Homily begins thus: *Quemadmodum qui in solem jaculatur, et in cælum jacit lapides* ("Just as one who shoots at the sun and throws stones into the sky"). It is a spurious little work, which is found in Greek in a certain Ottobonian codex in Rome, and has this beginning: ὥσπερ ὁ τοξεύων τὸν ἥλιον καὶ λιθάζων. We have a copy of this in our papers, and it is not our intention to publish such a tasteless work.

The Homily on the third Psalm is that which leads the march in the Greek-Latin editions and in our own edition, which we have stated above to be quite suspect.

The Expositions of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth Psalms are the very same as those we have published, which are genuine, free from all suspicion, and excellent. After the ninth Exposition, however, two others are added, which are very brief: the title of the former is: *De eo quod in eumdem Psalmum scriptum est: Narrabo omnia mirabilia tua, Domine* ("Concerning that which is written in the same Psalm: I will declare all thy wondrous works, O Lord"). A homily by an uncertain interpreter. The beginning: *Creatoris et omnium rerum institutoris opera tacenda non sunt* ("The works of the Creator and Institutor of all things must not be passed over in silence"). The inscription of the latter is as follows: *De eo quod scriptum est in eumdem Psalmum: Patientia pauperum non peribit in æternum, etc.* ("Concerning that which is written in the same Psalm: The patience of the poor shall not perish forever," etc.). A homily by an uncertain interpreter. The beginning: *Deus generis nostri, qui non despexit creaturam suam* ("God of our race, who did not despise his own creature"). I have not found the Greek text of either anywhere.

The Expositions of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth Psalms are genuine, and are included among other genuine ones in the Greek-Latin editions. But to avoid being tedious, I will not here extract in a heap everything that is inserted and added in the Nivelle edition. On Psalm 13, an Oratio; on 14, on 16, on 22, on 24, on 25, 26, 29, on 33, 37; but in 38 two Expositions are given, and in 39 similarly. In 40 likewise two. In 41 one. In 42 two Homilies. Seven of the following, however, are genuine, which we have published in the series of the others. But on Psalm 50, two Homilies, which we have relegated among the spurious, and which Savile had placed in the series of the genuine. Thereafter follow Homilies raked together from here and there on the fifty-second Psalm, on 68, on 71, on 84, on 90, 93, 95, 96.

On the hundredth Psalm, however, the Explanation seems to be of a slightly better quality than the others. Its beginning: *Rursum nos, fratres, ad spirituali modo canendum beatus propheta David hortatur* ("Again, brothers, the blessed prophet David urges us to sing in a spiritual manner"). The Latin interpretation is by Jacques Billy. In England, it is found in Greek with this beginning: πάλιν ἡμᾶς, ἀγαπητοὶ, ᾄδειν ὁ μακάριος Δαυὶδ ὁ προφήτης παρακελεύεται. In Savile, one reads: πάλιν ἡμῖν, which is a very slight variation. We have relegated this, by our own judgment and that of the learned, among the spurious, even if it does not appear as inept as the others.

Next follows an Explanation of the 101st Psalm, which does not seem to be Chrysostom’s at all: for the readings of Aquila and Symmachus are brought forward with the very names of the Interpreters, contrary to the constant custom of Chrysostom, who never names the Interpreters, but always says "another says": nor are there lacking other notes and marks of spuriousness. These are followed by the Explanations on 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and also another minor Oratio on this last Psalm. These last seven, furthermore, were patched together from Theodoret and other writers and attributed to John Chrysostom, as we have said below, where we have published them, taken from Savile and translated into Latin, with the exception of that last minor Oratio, which I know not whether it is to be found anywhere in Greek.

Under this, however, from the hundred and eighth to the hundred and fiftieth and last, are the true and genuine Explanations of Chrysostom such as we have provided, with one exception, the Exposition on the hundred and eighteenth, which is openly supposititious and [the work] of a later writer, and which...

in the series of genuine [works] we discover in the Nivelliana edition. And it is the same one which we have published among the spuria, col. 675. After that hundred and eighteenth follows a short Oratiuncula on that [verse]: "Thou hast dealt well with Thy servant, O Lord." I know not from where it was excerpted; I say the same of a similar [passage], which is held after the Exposition of the hundred and third Psalm in these words: "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, O Lord."

After these occurs the Homily on that [text]: "The queen did stand at Thy right hand," which is the second concerning the Eunuch Eutropius, which we published in the third volume. Then the Homily on that [text]: "Surely every man walks in a vain show," which we relegated among the spuria. Afterwards, the Homily on that [text]: "Be not thou afraid when one is made rich," published among the genuine [works].

^B § XVII. — Small works on the Psalms which are circulated in certain manuscripts under the name of Chrysostom, intentionally omitted by us.

What cause there may be that so many and such great small works marked with the name of our John occur in manuscripts, it is not difficult to guess: for the greater the esteem for such a great man, with the greater zeal many sold every [such] small work under the name of Chrysostom; and especially the booksellers, who earned their living by this kind of profit. Yet there appear everywhere in the Psalms, for the most part, Explanations and Homilies, which by their mass and number far surpass the genuine and sincere [works]: for besides that forest of Spuria which we bring forward here, we have encountered not a few others which are doubtlessly supposititious, and which we intentionally omit, lest we further burden the holy doctor, already badly augmented, with new trifles. In the Royal Manuscript 1962, to be sure, there are contained either Homilies or brief Explanations, unworthy of Chrysostom and suspicious even by their very brevity, a list of which we have thought better not to present here.

When I was at Rome twenty-five years ago, I obtained certain sheets where there were copied from the Escorial Library almost the same Homilies as those in the Royal Manuscript.

These and many other spurious works we have rejected, and we are advisors to those who busy themselves with the searching out of ancient writings, that if they encounter them and similar wares, they should not place them into the public domain. For what profit would come to the literary republic from such trifles? Surely Savile rejected many of his own accord, of which he merely presented the beginnings; ^C and he would have acted with intention if he had left in the shadows many other things which he consigned to the press, as he himself at one time confessed. Yet it was a matter of conscience for us to publish all those things which either Savile or Fronto Ducaeus had edited: but from publishing many other small works of no value, even though they bear the name of Chrysostom, we have decided to abstain.

Collection

The divinely inspired Psalms of the blessed and holy David, which our holy father, the great John Chrysostom, expounded and interpreted, but which both time itself and the envy of ignorant men hid or destroyed: but in these latest days, when a certain pious man, a lover of Christ, had searched them out and, as it were, begged for them, he collected those that were formerly scattered—the present ones alone—and bound them into a single volume: which he now sets forth as if on a common table to the lovers of his spiritual and divine discourses, and invites them to take delight in them to their heart's content.

Psalm IV. Psalm V. Ps. VI. Ps. VII. Ps. VIII. Ps. IX. Ps. X. Ps. XI. Ps. XII. Ps. XLI. Ps. XLIII. Ps. XLIV. Ps. XLV. Ps. XLVI. Ps. XLVII. Ps. XLVIII. Ps. XLIX. Ps. CVIII. Ps. CIX. Ps. CX. Ps. CXI. Ps. CXII. Ps. CXIII. Ps. CXIV. Ps. CXV. Ps. CXVI. Ps. CXVII. Ps. CXIX. Ps. CXX. Ps. CXXI. Ps. CXXII. Ps. CXXIII. Ps. CXXIV. Ps. CXXV. Ps. CXXVI. Ps. CXXVII. Ps. CXXVIII. Ps. CXXIX. Ps. CXXX. Ps. CXXXI. Ps. CXXXII. Ps. CXXXIII. Ps. CXXXIV. Ps. CXXXV. Ps. CXXXVI. Ps. CXXXVII. Ps. CXXXVIII. Ps. CXXXIX. Ps. CXL. Ps. CXLI. Ps. CXLII. Ps. CXLIII. Ps. CXLIV. Ps. CXLV. Ps. CXLVI. Ps. CXLVII. Ps. CXLVIII. Ps. CXLIX. Ps. CL.