MONTEFALCONE'S PREFACE
We have, though late, finally arrived at the Homilies of Chrysostom on the New Testament: where, as is customary, the Homilies on Matthew and on John lead the procession. If they appear in print later than was hoped, it is certainly not through any fault of ours. For we have A assiduously urged the booksellers and typographers, though with little success. Whether they have drawn out the work because of the difficulties of the times, as they themselves claim, or because they measure everything by their own convenience, is for them to decide. Be that as it may, they now promise that in the future they will wipe away the annoyances of past delays with their speed.
The Homilies on Matthew, which, ninety in number, occupy this entire Volume, are filled with every form of moral instruction and present a summary of the whole of the Christian life and practice. In them, all ways of approaching and practicing virtue, and all methods for fleeing vice, are brought forward and explained; nor is anything passed over that could pertain to either a holy or an unholy life, so that the one might be embraced and the other avoided with all one’s strength. No book exists in the Christian world that sets forth so many and such great precepts of Christian ethics; nowhere has Chrysostom employed such invention, eloquence, and sagacity in fashioning morals, rooting out vices, and correctly ordering Christian families. Wherefore, St. Thomas Aquinas rightly said, as Papirio Massone reports in the 6th book *On the Roman Pontiffs*, under Pope John XXI, that he would rather have the use of Chrysostom’s books on Matthew than possess and enjoy the wealth of Paris; and this has been handed down to memory by the jurist Oldradus, who lived under this John at Avignon.
Concerning so illustrious a work, certain things must be inquired into and explained by us here: first, whether Chrysostom adorned and delivered these homilies at Antioch or Constantinople, and at what time; second, what method of interpretation he has followed; third, some miscellaneous observations follow; fourth, concerning the Manuscripts and the Greek editions, the Savile, the Commelin, and the Morel; fifth, concerning the contemporary Latin interpretation of these Chrysostomian works by Anianus; sixth, concerning the interpretation of George of Trebizond from the eighth homily to the end, and how necessary it was to prepare a new interpretation. We must now proceed to each of these in order.
§ 1. Whether Chrysostom delivered these homilies at Antioch or Constantinople, and at about what time.
In the Homilies on the books of the New Testament, it happens at times that part of the homilies on the same book was delivered at Antioch and part at Constantinople. But the Homilies on Matthew were all delivered at Antioch. Chrysostom himself testifies to this in various places, as in Homily VII, col. 159: "You certainly, when the first gathering is in question, contend that you surpass the whole world, since your city first adopted the name of Christians." Which you may refer to that passage of Acts 11:26: *And they taught a great multitude, so that they were called Christians first at Antioch.* Moreover, throughout the entire course of the homilies he commemorates the monks who lived in great numbers in the neighboring mountains and brings them forward as an example. This indicates Antioch, not Constantinople, as is found throughout Chrysostom’s writings, and it could be confirmed by other passages; but there is no need to waste time on an obvious matter.
It is far more difficult to determine in what year he delivered these homilies. Although it is probable that these ninety discourses were not delivered over the course of one year alone: since it seems most certain that other homilies were interspersed on principal feast days, which would interrupt the series of discourses on Matthew. However, we can conjecture the time of these homilies to be in the final years of his presbyterate, as far as I can surmise, namely from the year 390 to 398. For in the preceding years, 386, 387, and 388, he was perpetually chiding and castigating the people of Antioch, who were accustomed to oaths, as you see in the Homilies to the people of Antioch, *On the Incomprehensible*, *Against the Jews*, and in many others. But in these discourses on Matthew, he treats this matter lightly scarcely once or twice; nor does he mention that the habit of swearing prevailed among them any further. Tillemont (a) brings forward another conjecture, while leaving the former intact. He says, in the 72nd (formerly 73rd) Homily, that the evils brought about by the contention over precedence are discussed; namely, the altercation that arose between the followers of Meletius and the adherents of Paulinus, as if it were already in the past and had been dormant for some years: whence it might perhaps be believed that Chrysostom delivered these discourses while his presbyterate was already waning, after the death of Paulinus, which occurred in the year 388 or 389, and even after the death of Evagrius, who occupied the see for about three years.
He was certainly correct, as he was a sagacious man, for he proposed the matter as one highly doubtful, as you will yourself admit if you investigate whence the conjecture is drawn. For after Chrysostom addresses this passage of the Gospel, 23:6, col. 669: *And they love the first places at feasts, and chief seats in the synagogues, etc.*, he infers thus: "These things, although they may seem to be small, are nonetheless the cause of great evils." These and the city
A Churches they overthrew. Nor can I refrain from tears when I hear of the first sittings and salutations, and consider how many evils are born from this for the Churches. Which it is not necessary to recount to you now: for the elders should not be learning this from us. Whether these things ought to be understood regarding the dissension of Meletius with Paulinus and Evagrius, I do not have a sufficiently clear view; let the learned cast their vote. I would prefer to follow my own conjecture, drawn from the silence regarding oaths. For, as I was saying above, in the years 386, 387, and 388, Chrysostom was constantly attacking the Antiochenes regarding the custom of swearing, yet he has almost nothing here concerning oaths in such a great course of homilies. This conjecture is supported by another perhaps greater one. For in the years 386, 387, and 388, Chrysostom had such a number of homilies and discourses—both those which survive to this day and have been published, and those which are mentioned by him and which have perished through the unkindness of time—that in no way could he have been able, in these years, nor perhaps in the following one, to apply himself to explaining Matthew. For besides those twenty-two homilies to the people of Antioch, sixty-seven on Genesis, six or seven on the Incomprehensible, as many against the Jews, nine on the Beginning of the Acts and on the Mutation of Names, he had so many other discourses in these three years that it is hardly understandable how he could have been able to preach so often in this passage of time, let alone be believed to have devoted public effort to explaining Matthew in those very same years. B
§ II.
Concerning the manner in which Chrysostom composed these homilies of interpretation and explanation.
Chrysostom acts not only as a preacher, but also as an interpreter. For wherever the series of the words of the Gospel, which the holy doctor is accustomed to place before his explanation, seems to present some difficulty concerning the time or the occasion of the events, or concerning the variation among the evangelists themselves in recounting the same things, he is accustomed to examine all these things sagaciously. He observes and explores the account of the times, he diligently investigates the occasion of either a sign or miracle performed or of a deed done; he brings forward and examines the opinions of different people regarding matters generally signified obscurely; if they are to be refuted, he carries this out with marvelous dexterity and keenness of intellect. But if any discrepancy appears immediately between the evangelists in narrating, he examines it to the best of his ability, and shows that the dissonance, which seems to exist only in words, is in truth nothing; and that it proceeds from the fact that one evangelist reports what happened according to a different aspect of the matter, as is accustomed to happen when, from different spectators looking at the same thing, one grasps one thing and another another; or because different evangelists narrate different signs and miracles. This is discovered to be highly probable, indeed certain. For all the evangelists, after they have recounted certain signs specifically, are accustomed to add again and again that Jesus performed many other signs; and they add more than once that they are of such a number that they cannot be enumerated. What wonder, then, if in such a forest of signs and miracles one set out to describe one, another another? In this, indeed, Chrysostom contends that the marvelous providence of God is declared in this matter: for if the four evangelists had recounted the same things in the exact same way; if each had related the same identical things which the earlier ones had narrated—without any distinction, without any addition—it would have seemed that this was done by industry and by design. But now, since the evangelists narrate the matters not as already described by others, but as they had either personally seen or received from trustworthy witnesses, they merit every faith. Since there are four truthful witnesses who, if they only reported what had already been said by the earlier ones, ought to be counted as one.
To these things, moreover, he explains the letter of Scripture, if it presents any difficulty, and he does so correctly and appositely: so that if anyone wishes to be rightly skilled in both the letter and the meaning and the moral discipline, he should approach Chrysostom's Homilies on Matthew; and there he will find almost everything that is attested and recorded in the monuments of the ancients. In all the homilies, moral precepts and grave admonitions always occupy the final part of the discourse. There he reviews the vices of the people subject C to him, and sharpens them to the attainment of virtue.
He often chides the rich, who used their wealth too intemperately, and who, surrounded by a throng of parasites, devoted their daily efforts to gluttony and drunkenness. But he chiefly attacks those who prepared wealth from ill-gotten gains and from plunder. He inveighs especially against this class of men, and employs every threat and terror, threatening hell and eternal fire: than which there can be no stronger discipline against vice and lust. By this art he used to break and terrify those addicted to illicit pleasures, so that they gave signs of a contrite heart for the present. But once they had left the doors, he says, they returned to their old ways: for, as he says, fear is not the teacher of lasting duty, and fear is a poor guardian of constancy, unless love and affection intervene. However, he perpetually sings that riches, if justly acquired, are to be stored in a safe place, that is, in heaven, through the hands of the poor. But he rejects gifts made from plunder or from usury as an abominable offering. He hints, moreover, from his frequent admonitions, that many such people were in Antioch then, who increased their wealth by despoiling the poor.
A perpetual censor of pride, vainglory, and arrogance, he agitates against those who built splendid houses, amassed excessive furnishings, adorned carriages with gold and silver, and compared for themselves throngs of following servants. He also frequently inveighs against the luxury of women; he describes the cosmetics and pigments with which they used to stain their cheeks and lips for the sake of beauty, and ridicules such attire as worthy of laughter. And at the same time, he deplores the lasciviousness of the young, illicit loves, and even the vanity, which they ridiculed to the very shape of their shoes. He proscribes quarrels and enmities as diametrically opposed to the Christian institution; and he commends brotherly love as the badge of the servants of Christ.
He constantly chides, condemns, and proscribes theatrical and stage exhibitions, and with good right:
PREFACE OF MONTFAUCON
A for the stage was then most shameless, the actors most obscene, and the most impudent women were employed for stage performances; so that they appeared naked in the sight of all, and swam naked in water-basins prepared for that purpose: what evil could be greater than this pestilence, what more deadly? If any stage whatsoever cannot be approached without danger, what kind of danger was that, when under the eyes of all, such obscene things were presented?
Thus he diligently teaches that all vices are to be eliminated, and that virtue, chastity, brotherly love, the forgetting of injuries, and patience in adversity are to be eagerly embraced. He commends and praises almsgiving not only in these homilies on Matthew, but also everywhere in his other works: and he says that the foolish virgins were excluded from the nuptial chamber for the reason that they had not applied themselves to the work of almsgiving.
And what is highly to be observed is that he celebrates virtue in general, and each virtue in particular, by the name of philosophy: a fact which is also observed in his other works. Thus, col. 83, concerning the blessed Virgin’s spouse Joseph, he says: "Thus Joseph shows great philosophy, for he neither accused her, nor rebuked her, but only thought of sending her away"; and col. 228, on the text, *Blessed are they who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake*: "That is," he says, "for the sake of virtue, for the defense of others, for piety." For he is accustomed always to call the whole philosophy of the soul righteousness: and col. 230, he says that in the New Testament philosophy, or virtue, is greater than in the Old, and col. 273, he says that Christ has introduced us into philosophy; so in hundreds of places he uses "philosophy" instead of "virtue."
B § III.—Miscellaneous observations on the Commentaries on Matthew.
It is to be observed that this book of Homilies is praised by Theodoret in his second Dialogue, which he entitles *Asynkletos*, where he brings forward a passage from it (T. 4, p. 105): "And just as if someone standing in the middle of a space between two people distant from each other, by extending both hands on either side, has joined those he has grasped, so too has He done, joining the Old Testament to the New, and His divine nature to ours." This passage is also cited in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, T. 4, p. 831. But this passage is found in Homily 2, col. 46.
Facundus of Hermiane, in book 3, p. 113 of the edition of Sirmond in the year 1629, brings forward this passage: "But let us also notice what John of Constantinople, the fellow-disciple of the aforementioned Theodore of Mopsuestia, said on this; who, explaining the same passage of the Gospel according to Matthew, says thus: 'He indeed prays more intently, lest the business be seen as mere pretense: and the sweat flows down for the same reason again; and lest heretics say this, that he was pretending agony: therefore the sweat like drops of blood, and the angel appeared comforting him, and a thousand proofs of fear. And lest anyone say that it is a figment of words: for this reason also the prayer. And in saying, *If it be possible, let it pass*, he shows his humanity; but in saying, *Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt*, he shows how we are taught through the study of virtue and patience, and that when nature draws us back, we should follow God.'" This passage is in Homily 83, otherwise 84.
Chrysostom says in Homily 17, col. 256, writing about those who imagine sexual intercourse in their minds, whom Christ has already pronounced adulterers: "What then would they say, who have virgins living with them? For according to this law, they would have committed six hundred acts of fornication, daily looking upon them with lust." Now in the first Volume there are two works, of which the first is *Against men who have virgins living with them*, col. 543; but the second, col. 561, has this title: *That canonical or "regular" virgins ought not to live with men*. By "canonical," as I think, he understands virgins (for it is about virgins here) who publicly professed virginity, and who held the state and order of virgins in the Church. Now he published these two works at Constantinople, according to Palladius, who lived with Chrysostom and wrote his life. Furthermore, from this passage in Homily 17, we learn that this was also the custom in Antioch; for Chrysostom would not have brought it up unless the stain of this evil had also invaded Antioch.
Chrysostom brings up a completely singular matter in Homily 66, col. 630, although in his calculation he is not very accurate. He complains further that the Antiochenes are too sparing in the giving of alms. "For let us examine, if you please, why we sow sparingly: whether, in truth, there are more poor than rich in the city, and who they are that are neither poor nor rich, but hold a middle place. A tenth part of the citizens are rich, a tenth part are poor, who have nothing; the rest are placed in the middle. Let us divide the whole multitude of the city by the number of the needy, and you will see what a disgrace it is. For the very rich are few; those who follow them are very many; again, the poor are far fewer than these. And yet, though there are so many who could feed the hungry, there are many who go to bed hungry: not because the wealthy cannot easily supply them with the necessities; but because they are very hard-hearted and inhuman. For if the rich, and those who have moderate means, were to divide among themselves those who are in need of bread and clothing, scarcely one poor person would be found to be fed by fifty or a hundred men. Yet in such an abundance of those who are able to provide the necessities, the poor daily lament their poverty. And that you may learn their inhumanity: the Church has the income of one very rich man and one of moderate fortune: and consider, I pray you, how many widows, how many virgins it feeds daily: their catalog certainly reaches three thousand. In addition to these, it maintains daily those in prison, the sick in the hospice, others who are healthy, those with mutilated limbs, those sitting by the altar for the sake of food and clothing, and others who come by chance: nor have its resources been diminished. Therefore, if only ten men were willing to supply equivalent amounts, no one would be poor." Certainly, the resources of the Antiochene Church must have been immense, which, besides the daily expenses of the Church and its ministers, could provide for so many widows and virgins, who numbered up to three thousand.
they would baptize, and furthermore to supply food and clothing to so many men who were sick, maimed, beggars, and travelers. And what may seem even more astonishing, those very rich men who constituted the tenth part of the city flowed so much with wealth that if to each one of them was joined one of the men of modest fortune, both could sustain the burden as much as the Church itself. A truly opulent city, and one to which an equal can scarcely be found: where one tenth of the citizens could each, with a man of moderate means joined to him, provide daily food and clothing for about four thousand needy people.
Chrysostom often attacks and harries the impiety of the Anomoeans throughout his homilies on Matthew, especially in those places of the Gospel which the Anomoeans usurped to defend their heresy. But, what perhaps someone might wonder at, he more often inveighs against the Manichaeans, who said that there were two principles of things, and two gods, one good and the other evil; and they repudiated the Old Testament as if it were published by that evil god. For although this heresy did not cause such great disturbances as the Anomoeans had not long before, yet they existed in a great number, and the evil was creeping more widely day by day, so that that plague was gradually spreading everywhere, and a few centuries later brought the Constantinopolitan empire into danger. Along with the Manichaeans, he sometimes also attacks the Marcionites, who championed a similar impiety regarding the two principles; he also attacks the Valentinians, but more rarely. Likewise, he does not once attack others who thought that all things were carried by chance and some fate, whom he also attacks repeatedly in his other works.
IV. On the Manuscripts and on the Savilian, Commelinian, and Morellian Editions.
Very many manuscript Codices of the homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew exist in the libraries of Gaul, Italy, and other parts of Europe, of which, if we had wished to review all the various readings and all the errors of the scribes, it is wonderful how much we would have increased the notes placed at the bottom of the page; but to no fruit, nay, even with the waste of the undertaken work. Therefore, we have used readings with discretion. And we have repaired many places in previously printed editions that were corrupted and mangled. We have also used previously printed editions, namely the Edition of Savile, and that which appeared a few years later from the workshop of Commelinus, and finally the Morellian, which was arranged according to the authority of the Commelinian. Concerning those editions, certain things must be premised and treated by us.
The Edition of Savile, issued in the year 1612, comprises only the Greek without a Latin translation, and it is most accurately arranged; it exhibits pure and unblemished Greek, so that very few errors occur in it, and it contributed not a little to the accuracy of the Latin translation. Indeed, besides the notes which Savile exhibits in the margin, he adds other notes as well at the end of the eighth volume, both his own and those of Bois and others. Among those notes, however, as we have already remarked elsewhere, the Savilian are more sagacious than the others.
In the year 1617 another Greek-Latin Edition of the homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew and on John appeared from the Commelinian workshop at Heidelberg. But those who took care to publish that edition, seem not even to have known the Savilian edition issued five years earlier; they certainly did not use it, nor did they mention it anywhere; they elicited the Greek from Palatine Mss., as is to be believed: for they did not warn from where they had taken them. In the Greek series many faults are detected. They placed the Latin translation alongside the Greeks, which had long since been placed in the Latin editions of Chrysostom; namely, for the first eight homilies the version of Anianus, an ancient interpreter of equal standing with Chrysostom, and for all the rest the Latin translation of George of Trebizond, which had already been used, as I said, in the earlier Latin editions. Moreover, this Parisian edition of Morel is held to be somewhat more corrected, and with good reason; for the Morellian edition, at least as far as concerns the Greek, was arranged according to its authority, as will be said by and by.
The Parisian edition of Claude Morel, given in the year 1636, is inferior to the Savilian and Commelinian, even though the printer himself highly commends it in his Notice. The copies, he says, which we used in the present edition were: that authentic one of the Anglican edition, never sufficiently praised, to which we have religiously adhered in correcting the Greek text, having first noted the errors in their own place, which are accurately and faithfully held at the foot of the same edition; the other was the latest Parisian edition in Latin only, reviewed by the Rev. Father Fronton du Duc, Theologian of the Society of Jesus, and reviewed, supplemented, and corrected according to the same exemplar of the Anglican edition; except that in the Homilies on the Epistles of Paul, but especially in the latest ones to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, and the one which is to the Hebrews, very many things were missing in the Latin version in almost countless places, which we have supplemented from the authority of the same Greek exemplar. Yet as to what he says, that he adhered religiously to the Anglican exemplar, or Savilian, it is wonderful how much he wanders from the truth: for he so often disagrees with it, especially in certain places and indeed quite frequently, that it is evident that he abstained from the labor of comparing these two exemplars, either altogether or at least for the most part. Moreover, the Greek of Morel accords altogether with the Commelinian Greeks, so that even all the words which are included in brackets in the Commelinian edition, which occurs commonly throughout, are similarly included in brackets in the Morellian. Furthermore, the 19th Homily is divided into two parts in the Morellian edition, so that the second part of the same constitutes the twentieth against
the faith of all the Greek codices, which have only one oration here, as the series itself also requires. Morellus, however, in this matter follows the Commelinian edition, not the Savilian, which does not have two homilies here, but only one, as both the series itself and all the codices demand. From this I could easily believe that Morellus’s printing works edited the Greek of Chrysostom upon the faith of the Commelinian edition. And yet, there is no mention of the Commelinian edition in Morellus’s Note. Regarding the Latin versions, the situation is otherwise: for in reality, for the first eight homilies, they placed the Latin interpretation of Anianus from the Latin edition of Fronto Ducæus, and for the remainder that of George of Trebizond, as they stood in that edition. For Fronto Ducæus had changed those interpretations in six hundred places so that they would better conform to the Greek series. Moreover, in this Morellian edition, certain errors were admitted by the printers, but not in such a number as will be obvious to one comparing it with the Commelinian edition.
§ V.—On Anianus’s Latin interpretation.
This same Anianus is undoubtedly the person who translated into Latin the seven homilies of Chrysostom on the praises of the Apostle Paul, which interpretation we published in Vol. 2, col. 473 et seqq. Nor do we doubt that this Anianus is that Pelagian deacon of Celeda who was present at the synod of Diospolis and wrote books to assert the Pelagian heresy, as John Garnerius proved in the Dissertation after Marius Mercator, Ch. 7, VII. Indeed, it is clear from his statements that he struggled strenuously to defend the freedom of man and attacked Augustine and the Catholics, whom he calls Manichaeans and Traducians in his letter to Evangelus, which we have prefixed to the homilies on the praises of the Apostle Paul. The letter, however, which we shall shortly present, is directed to Orontius, a bishop addicted to the Pelagian error and for that reason expelled from his see. It is a prologue to the homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew, translated into Latin by him, where he inveighs vehemently against the Manichaeans (whom he calls the orthodox). For, he says, what does he (John) more inculcate to men than the coming nobility of their nature, which, against the madness of the Manichaeans, is praised by the consensus and concert of all wise men? And it is praised either for the glory of the admirable Creator, or for the rousing of the zeal of virtue, or for the chastising of the vices of pleasure. What, I ask, does he commend more pressingly than the dignity of the liberty innate to us from God, the confession of which is the principal dividing line between us and the Gentiles? Those who, contrary to the truth, think man, created in the image of God, is so unhappily bound by the violence of fate and the necessity of sinning that he is even forced to envy the beasts. What does he insinuate more against those same masters than that God's commandments are possible, and that man is capable of virtue in everything that is either commanded or urged by God? Indeed, by this alone, iniquity is repelled from the one commanding, and guilt is affixed to the transgressor. Now, this ornament of the learned, when he discusses the grace of God, with what richness, with what caution he celebrates it! For he is not incautious or excessive in either [direction], but moderate in both. He so shows the free wills of men that he nevertheless confesses everywhere the necessary aid of divine grace for the doing of God's commandments: he so commends the continuous aid of divine grace that he does not destroy the efforts of the will. In this way, he ascribes a damnable doctrine to the Catholics whom he was attacking, while he falsely claims that they deny liberty and introduce the violence of fate into human acts and the necessity of sinning; and at the same time he covers his own Pelagian opinion so that nothing appears to be attributable to error in the things he finally hands down about liberty and grace, which we also observe in his Letter to Evangelus.
It is certain, therefore, with Anianus confessing it, that he himself translated into Latin both the homilies on the praises of the Apostle Paul and these homilies on Matthew, so that he might oppose such a teacher, speaking in Latin, to the Latin Catholics. And indeed, he would rightly and deservedly have called Chrysostom into this arena if his adversaries had advanced such an opinion; if they had said that sin necessarily arises from an evil god or an evil principle: since Chrysostom often refutes and defeats the Manichaeans in these sermons as they blather such things; and if they had thought that this necessity of sinning arises from a certain violent fate, which our Chrysostom likewise refutes. But he attached this opinion to the orthodox either out of a wrongly perceived notion of the Catholics or in order to arouse envy against them by feigning such a discipline. And what should be noted is that Anianus, while he has as his one goal to repel that fatal necessity of sinning by the authority of Chrysostom—which is indeed very easy—nowhere twists the words of Chrysostom into another meaning to favor the Pelagian heresy, a fact we have already noted in the homilies on the praises of the Apostle Paul in Vol. 2, col. 472.
It is further asked whether Anianus translated all of Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew into Latin, or only the eight that appear in the published editions, or more, but not all. I confess that I once doubted whether Anianus had translated all those homilies or only a part of them. But having pondered the matter more accurately, I have discovered, if I am not mistaken, that he translated absolutely all of Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew into Latin. Indeed, in the letter to Orontius, which is soon to be edited, he quite clearly implies that he had rendered the entire book of Homilies on Matthew into Latin. For after having said at the beginning: "For you command, most blessed one, that the Commentary of the holy John, bishop of Constantinople, which he unfolded in ninety-one books on the evangelist Matthew, I should pour into the Latin tongue in such language as I can. Which I wish could be done by us as conveniently as it is ordered by you opportunely and usefully,"—and so, I say, having begun by declaring that he was ordered to translate all ninety-one homilies, he signifies at the end of the letter that he had completed the whole thing with these words: "If I have made myself appear sufficiently inferior in Latin, not so much to me, venerable Lord, than..."
to the empire of your authority and the enticement of your charity, it is because I preferred to lose some, indeed the greater part, of the honor of my style, rather than to commit a crime by refusing you any longer. Indeed, for this my work of whatever quality, I ask in return the most ample gift of your prayers, etc." What else did he say at the beginning, other than that he had been ordered to translate ninety-one homilies of Chrysostom into Latin? What else does he say at the end, than that he had fulfilled what was ordered? Certainly, if he had translated only a part of the homilies, would he not have said that at the end? Or would he have said that he had translated that book?
Nor are there lacking other arguments by which it is proven that the entire Commentary of Chrysostom on Matthew had been in Latin libraries for many centuries, and without doubt from the interpretation of Anianus. In the Catalog of the Pomposian Library, which was drawn up about the middle of the eleventh century, and which I reported in its entirety in the *Diario Italico*, this commentary was present in Latin, and is expressed in the Catalog on p. 84 thus: "On Matthew by John Chrysostom." But holy Thomas Aquinas, who celebrated this Commentary with such magnificent praise as we recalled at the beginning of this Preface, where could he have read this Commentary, if not in the version of Anianus, which alone was circulated at that time? Furthermore, in the notes of manuscript libraries which I brought back from Italy, in the Catalog of manuscript Codices of the Library of St. Mark in Florence, the following note is read: "In the cupboard, on the right no. 76. St. John Chrysostom on Matthew with the preface of Anianus to Bishop Orontius on paper, Homily 25: first part." By which note it is indicated that there was also a second part, and perhaps a third and fourth. In his *Itinerarium Italicum*, our Mabillon, on p. 164, speaking of the Library of the Holy Cross, which belongs to the Conventual Friars Minor, holds this: "Another Codex of Saint John Chrysostom on Matthew contains twenty-six homilies, with Anianus as interpreter, followed by the Latin translation by George of Trebizond."
I do not doubt, therefore, that Anianus translated the whole book of Homilies on Matthew into Latin. And perhaps if the manuscript Codices of all libraries were searched, the entire version of Anianus could be unearthed today. But to what end should we undertake such labor, when we have the whole book of Homilies whole and intact, just as it proceeded from the author? What would that new addition be, except to enlarge this Volume of works, already sufficiently ample, beyond measure, and that for no reward of effort? But if you should say that some knowledge is brought to us from this regarding the manner in which those ancients translated Greek into Latin, behold, you can now fish it out from those things which are brought into the public sphere. You have seven Homilies of Chrysostom on the praises of the Apostle Paul with the interpretation of Anianus, and the first eight Homilies of the same on the Gospel of Matthew.
Anianus, however, even if for that age he ought not to be considered an unskilled interpreter of the Greeks—for he translated the seven Homilies on the praises of Paul quite happily, as we said in Vol. 2, col. 470; yet in the Latin interpretation of the Homilies on Matthew he did not proceed with equal success: for he often multiplies words in vain, and using circumlocution, states in many words things which could have been set forth more briefly and conveniently; as anyone can see. For we have placed the interpretation of the first eight homilies by Anianus at the bottom of the page (a). There is, however, one thing of which it will not be tedious to warn the reader. In Homily 5, col. 113, these things are narrated concerning James, the brother of the Lord: "They narrate that he led such an austere life that all his limbs were as if dead, and from the assiduity of prayer, while he lay continually on the pavement, his forehead had become so calloused that it almost reached the hardness of a camel's knees, so frequently had he applied it to the ground." But Anianus converted this passage thus: "They say that his knees had become calloused, and that there was such neglect of the flesh in him that all his limbs were almost dead while he was still alive: and by the assiduity of prayer, and the constant prostration of his body to the pavement, his forehead was likewise covered with a callus, so that it hardly differed from a camel's knees, if you look at the hardness." Here you see that Anianus added these things, "his knees had become calloused," a thing which is not mentioned as having been read anywhere in any Greek copies of Chrysostom. Truly, Anianus seems to have borrowed that from Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., Book 2, ch. 23: for there only this is read: "So that his knees became hardened like a camel's." In the lections which are recited on the feast of St. James the Less, this is had, as it seems, deduced from Hegesippus: "To whom also the assiduity of praying had so covered his knees with a callus that it imitated the skin of a camel in its hardness": but nothing of the hardness of the forehead, of which Chrysostom speaks here alone.
In this Epistle to Orontius, moreover, which acts as a prologue, Anianus counts ninety-one Homilies on Matthew, just as almost all the earlier editors do, in which the nineteenth homily is divided into two, and the second part, in which the Lord's Prayer, Our Father, etc., is explained, makes the twentieth homily, against the reliability of all Greek Codices, where one single oration 19 contains the whole, as the series altogether requires. When this homily 19 had been divided into two, its second part was inscribed as Homily 20, and the following, which was the twentieth, was designated the twenty-first; and thus all that followed increased in number, so that those which were ninety in number later made ninety-one. Whether this change was introduced by Anianus himself is uncertain. For even if in the Epistle to Orontius, which will follow shortly, XCI homilies are counted, someone could have, after the death of Anianus, made such a change and added one to the XC number, because he saw that ninety-one homilies were carried in the Latin copies. It is certainly sure that the 19th Homily was divided by the Latins; for in the Greek copies such a division nowhere exists. I would, however, more willingly believe that that division was introduced after the times of Anianus, and since in his Epistle to Orontius only ninety homilies were previously mentioned, by someone unknown later,